But the subtext of my remark still stands. Don't you think it's better to argue the merits of someone's point of view with facts and opinions of your own and give everyone credit for being an independant, free thinking individual rather than attempting to dismiss them by association? It's the American way after all. Kbman
But your belief is driven by political affiliation, had this been a Democratic pres, you would have backed him 100%, because the Democrats in this country are similiar to your socialist countries beliefs. Admit it and be gone with you. Ripsnort
Wow, the pot's really calling the kettle black there Rip. You broadly paint anyone who has quastions about why we are fighting this war as a leftist, yet you gloss over people like:
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52450-2003Jan27¬Found=trueThe general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq.
or Gen . Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East, who has worked recently as the State Department's envoy to the region with a mission to encourage talks between Palestinians and Israelis. Zinni, a Purple Heart recipient who served in Vietnam and helped command forces in the Gulf War and in Somalia.
He also took issue with hawks in and around the administration who downplay the importance of Arab sentiment in the region. "I'm not sure which planet they live on," Zinni said, "because it isn't the one that I travel." And he challenged their suggestion that installing a new Iraqi government will not be especially difficult. "God help us," he said, "if we think this transition will occur easily."
Or former NATO commander Gen. Clark:
"If we go in unilaterally, or without the full weight of international organizations behind us, if we go in with a very sparse number of allies, if we go in without an effective information operation ... we're liable to supercharge recruiting for al-Qaida," Clark said.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni/or David Hackworth. The greatest living warrior, in my opinion and that of a few others.
Will Colin Powell stand tall?
© 2003 David H. Hackworth
While a bellicose North Korea belts out nuclear material for an assembly line of bombs, and al-Qaida keeps blowing up people, places and things from Afghanistan to Yemen, tens of thousands of American fighters and their supporters are pouring into the Persian Gulf region to take out Saddam. And from every quarter of Pax America, our commanders, not unlike their ancient Roman counterparts, say they need more toys and boys to cinch the accomplishment of their missions around a war-weary world where more than a million of our best and brightest are playing Supercop.
For example, our admiral running the Pacific wisely wants more forces to deal with the paranoids from Pyongyang in case they put steel and fire behind their words of war, while our general out in the Persian Gulf – counting the weeks before he clobbers Iraq – isn't happy that combat units have been cut from his order of battle. Meanwhile, his counterpart in Afghanistan wants more troops for peacemaking that gets hotter, messier and bloodier with the passage of each day. And the skippers responsible for homeland defense are rightfully complaining that the USA is being left high and dry without the men and material to handle the job.
A month ago, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld boldly said he could do it all. But it was no big surprise when Gen. Peter Pace, his Pentagon assistant, quietly refuted this assertion a few weeks later. Between the reserves and active-duty forces, the Pentagon can field only about 2.5 million effective fighters and supporters, which means we just don't have enough troops for all the missions currently on the Pentagon's military menu.
Despite the heavy activation of reservists and even the call-up of retired folks, many units today are badly stretched, and other units – especially reserve outfits – are far from good-to-go. Morale, the most essential factor in war, is not exactly over-the-top. Cooked books and ghost soldiers, along with failed social experiments, have left many units severely undermanned. A staggering number of soldiers, sailors and airmen have been unable to deploy overseas for reasons such as disability, discipline and dope problems, pregnancy and child-care issues.
The exact number is one of the Pentagon's most-guarded secrets. Perhaps Congress should ask?
We started down this mine-laden path more than a decade ago when the Pentagon's Paul Wolfowitz first advocated – to Bush-the-Elder and then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney – that the USA become the sole superpower and dominate the world. You know, steal a few lines from 1930s Germany with a good-guy "enlightened" democratic spin on the proposed New World Order. But Bush I turned his back on Wolfowitz's Greater Middle East Marshall-like plans, the Cold War ended, and our military muscle was ruthlessly whacked in half.
Then President Clinton delivered the body blow of political-correctness-run-amok that just about brought down what was left of a once-magnificent Desert Storm military force.
When Bush II got in the saddle, he bought into the NWO gospel according to Wolfowitz and a coterie of like-minded, draft-dodging superhawks – including Washington insider William Kristol – that containment, the strategy that brought the Soviets down, should be replaced by the NWO big stick, beginning with the democratization of Iraq.
But since none of these warmongers – who were of dying age for Vietnam but chose to escape-and-evade – has walked the walk, Colin Powell needs to draw on his been-there wisdom and authority and summon up the grit to tell Mr. Bush to slow down on Iraq, at least until we rebuild our military into a force capable of chewing what we've already bitten off. Or for sure the NWO doctrine will do unto Bush II what Vietnam did unto LBJ as our country sallies forth to rule the world.
Kristol told the New York Times that he lies awake at night worrying that something could go wrong with the war with Iraq. "Chemical weapons could be used against American troops," he says. "A biological weapon could be set off in America." I'm sure many of us lie awake at night, too, with the same terrible thoughts – including Robert McNamara, another unrestrained defense intellectual who never served in the trenches and whose similar abstract thinking fueled the Vietnam disaster.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30856If these "liberals" "democratic lap dogs" "leftistist" and "hippies" question what's going on with this war then I am proud to stand in their company.
Charon
