FINALLY!!!!..........

[aplusmnt]

Actually if you look at WWII there were benchmarks, time tables and goals galore...It was decided early by the allies that Europe took precedent- that the western front invasion must occur by 1944- and after Europes defeat it was decided that Japan had to be defeated by 1946 or the US Congress and Administration feared they would lose the US publics support of the war ...

This was part of the reason it was decided they needed to invade Japan- rather than just bomb them for a couple more years (at a huge civilian loss)...That and the fact to end the war quicker before Russia could occupy too much territory in Korea, Manchuria, and China...

The original plan was to invade Kyushu to set up a base of operations for invading the main islands and Tokyo- but the huge death loss on Okinawa indicated they could lose millions of soldiers in the invasion- which upon development of the nuclear bomb made Trumans decision much easier....

Even back then the officials knew that they had to do things quick and decisively and show positive results or they would lose the publics support...

There is a big difference in setting goals, and etching them in stone rather victory or defeat happens. I doubt anyone during WWII said that if Japan is not defeated by 1946 we will pull out and let Japan have China and we quit.

Big difference in having Goals of victory than having surrender plans set in place before you begin the fight :roll:

The biggest thing you Libs can not get through your head is that we beat Iraq, we defeated Saddam's army, Iraq surrendered. The Iraq war is over. What is going on now is two things happening simotaneously. 1.
The policing and rebuilding process. 2. We are searching out, fighting and Killing terrorist, is that not what we should be doing?

We have a war on Terror going on and you guys want to cut and run when we find them and they put up a fight. We are no longer fighting the Iraq army we are fighting Terrorist! Why would we leave? Are we suppose to retreat and have them chase us back home to fight?

If we want to fight terrorism and keep America safe why would we run and hide once we find some of them that want to fight? :roll: In WWII did we run and hide from Japan or did we take the fight to them and were their people were?

People can be so stupid! We are in a battle against terrorist, we know they are in Iraq, but you want to run and hide from them. Allowing them to claim victory. You think they have grown in numbers because of the Iraq war, well let them win and then see how many join the fight, when they see they can beat us. [/b]

 

[aplusmnt]

We needed an exit strategy before we started.

Who in their right mind has a Surrender strategy before going to war? What should the President have said? Should he have addressed the nation and said "Ok we are going to war in Iraq, I am going to give it 2 years if we do not win then we will surrender and come home, come on guys join me in this half assed effort to fight for our freedom"

That would have been a heck of a speech for a Leader to give! :roll:

 

[loomixguy]

Benchmarks? Benchmarks? Benchmarks!

Oh, yeah, the same thing we used to get out of Korea, Kosovo, GITMO, Japan, and any other country we have troops in!

Oh, Koo Koo, check out the IP on this post of mine. I'm at a friend's place in Wisconsin vacationing for a couple of days.

 

[Anonymous]

Actually if you look at WWII there were benchmarks, time tables and goals galore...It was decided early by the allies that Europe took precedent- that the western front invasion must occur by 1944- and after Europes defeat it was decided that Japan had to be defeated by 1946 or the US Congress and Administration feared they would lose the US publics support of the war ...

This was part of the reason it was decided they needed to invade Japan- rather than just bomb them for a couple more years (at a huge civilian loss)...That and the fact to end the war quicker before Russia could occupy too much territory in Korea, Manchuria, and China...

The original plan was to invade Kyushu to set up a base of operations for invading the main islands and Tokyo- but the huge death loss on Okinawa indicated they could lose millions of soldiers in the invasion- which upon development of the nuclear bomb made Trumans decision much easier....

Even back then the officials knew that they had to do things quick and decisively and show positive results or they would lose the publics support...

There is a big difference in setting goals, and etching them in stone rather victory or defeat happens. I doubt anyone during WWII said that if Japan is not defeated by 1946 we will pull out and let Japan have China and we quit.

Big difference in having Goals of victory than having surrender plans set in place before you begin the fight :roll:

Actually that is exactly what the Roosevelt/Truman administration feared...It wasn't anything that had become that vocal yet in either the Congress or the press- but historians going back over the records found evidence that the Administration/Generals felt that if they hadn't brought Japan to its knees during 1946- and death losses were as heavy as they feared in invading Kyushu (especially after they saw how heavy a battle they put up defending Okinawa) - along with the mounting Japanese civilian death loss, that the public and the Congress would be unwilling to hold out for an "unconditional surrender" and they would be pressured to take the Japanese offered end of the war- which included Japan keeping its form of Government, military, some of their captured Asian lands, and their own military/courts handling investigations of any war crimes allegations brought against them :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

We have a war on Terror going on and you guys want to cut and run when we find them and they put up a fight. We are no longer fighting the Iraq army we are fighting Terrorist! Why would we leave? Are we suppose to retreat and have them chase us back home to fight?

If we want to fight terrorism and keep America safe why would we run and hide once we find some of them that want to fight? In WWII did we run and hide from Japan or did we take the fight to them and were their people were?

You know A+, it gets tougher every day to buy this "we're keeping America safe by fighting terrorists" argument, when the President/Administration is doing so little (even Post 9-11) to protect our Borders from the thousands of criminals and people of unknown background entering illegally daily or protect the homefolks by hunting down the millions of illegals (many that could easily be terrorists like the Fort Dix crew) that have already entered the country....

Actually the US Constitution gives the President more authority/duty to utilize troops and call up militia to protect our own borders and the citizens within, than it does to fight wars in foreign countries....

And so far on this issue all we've seen is avoid enforcing the current laws and more smokescreen..... :roll:

No wonder many are losing faith in GW's credibility....

 

[Txwalt]

Casualties

Vietnam = 58,193
Korea = 36,940
WWII = 407,300
Iraq = 3,422

On a side note I'm not a big fan of Bush's domestic policy either.

 

[memanpa]

Excellent question Walt.

It seems that the sainted Dubya is the only one in history that seems to do wars ' his way...the way of the Decider in Chief! And the reason wars have not been fought the way we're doing it now is that the wars WOULD be lost...thus why no one ever did it that way!!!

The ' idiot' in question goes by the name of PRESIDENT of the USA!![/quote]

no kaka you are the idiot!!!!!!! your pure hatred for bush has your clouded your mind so badly you cannot see straight!!!!!!!

go back and read history!!! you will see there are several wars where the crying heart liberals have blamed a president for doing things/wars his way!!!! you have no idea what it takes to be in such a position that must make the decisions that are made in a minute to minute combat situation, much less a long term engagement, if you are so freeking perfect that you have all the answers to make the world a better place why in the he!! aren't you running the whole world??? or is it that you think you are so much better than anyone else you have only to condemn everyone and everything that you see beneath you? you are totlally clueless because you live in that perfect little world that your rich and famous parents built for you!
YOU might want to look up and i mean up because what you will see is only the belly of yourself if that is the way you think!!


no no i have lost track what number is this when it comes to unprovoked attacks

 

[aplusmnt]

Actually if you look at WWII there were benchmarks, time tables and goals galore...It was decided early by the allies that Europe took precedent- that the western front invasion must occur by 1944- and after Europes defeat it was decided that Japan had to be defeated by 1946 or the US Congress and Administration feared they would lose the US publics support of the war ...

This was part of the reason it was decided they needed to invade Japan- rather than just bomb them for a couple more years (at a huge civilian loss)...That and the fact to end the war quicker before Russia could occupy too much territory in Korea, Manchuria, and China...

The original plan was to invade Kyushu to set up a base of operations for invading the main islands and Tokyo- but the huge death loss on Okinawa indicated they could lose millions of soldiers in the invasion- which upon development of the nuclear bomb made Trumans decision much easier....

Even back then the officials knew that they had to do things quick and decisively and show positive results or they would lose the publics support...

There is a big difference in setting goals, and etching them in stone rather victory or defeat happens. I doubt anyone during WWII said that if Japan is not defeated by 1946 we will pull out and let Japan have China and we quit.

Big difference in having Goals of victory than having surrender plans set in place before you begin the fight :roll:

Actually that is exactly what the Roosevelt/Truman administration feared...It wasn't anything that had become that vocal yet in either the Congress or the press- but historians going back over the records found evidence that the Administration/Generals felt that if they hadn't brought Japan to its knees during 1946- and death losses were as heavy as they feared in invading Kyushu (especially after they saw how heavy a battle they put up defending Okinawa) - along with the mounting Japanese civilian death loss, that the public and the Congress would be unwilling to hold out for an "unconditional surrender" and they would be pressured to take the Japanese offered end of the war- which included Japan keeping its form of Government, military, some of their captured Asian lands, and their own military/courts handling investigations of any war crimes allegations brought against them :roll:

These thoughts came after 100 of thousands of lives lost. I doubt the day after the bombing of Pearl Harbour Washington was developing an exit strategy! And if they were, then they were wrong in doing so.

But if you look at the end result they did not surrender and cut and run. They found a way to win the war. Liberals today will not allow us to win the war.

Over 70 Million people died as as a result of WWII (70,000,000). 400,000 of them being American soldiers.

Comparing you Libs cut and run agenda to the strategies of the people who fought for us during WWII is an INSULT!

I am sure they would be ashamed of the spineless wusses today that want to bury their heads in the sand. If we had leaders like you guys back then, we would be speaking Japanese or German now. And if you guys have your way will be speaking Arabic in the future!

There is only one way to win a war, and that is to kill so many of them that they say Uncle! To push and push and devastate the enemy to the point that they loose their will to fight! In doing so there will be Casualties on both sides, but only the strong will win! Those looking for Surrender from day one are an embarrassment to this Country!

 

[katrina]

My dad is a WWII vet..... 82 years young.... I will ask him the next time I see him what he has to say on the war.....

 

[aplusmnt]

We have a war on Terror going on and you guys want to cut and run when we find them and they put up a fight. We are no longer fighting the Iraq army we are fighting Terrorist! Why would we leave? Are we suppose to retreat and have them chase us back home to fight?

If we want to fight terrorism and keep America safe why would we run and hide once we find some of them that want to fight? In WWII did we run and hide from Japan or did we take the fight to them and were their people were?

You know A+, it gets tougher every day to buy this "we're keeping America safe by fighting terrorists" argument, when the President/Administration is doing so little (even Post 9-11) to protect our Borders from the thousands of criminals and people of unknown background entering illegally daily or protect the homefolks by hunting down the millions of illegals (many that could easily be terrorists like the Fort Dix crew) that have already entered the country....

Actually the US Constitution gives the President more authority/duty to utilize troops and call up militia to protect our own borders and the citizens within, than it does to fight wars in foreign countries....

And so far on this issue all we've seen is avoid enforcing the current laws and more smokescreen..... :roll:

No wonder many are losing faith in GW's credibility....

Having a problem with Illegal immigrants has nothing to do with rather we should keep pushing forward to find and kill terrorist world wide. They are two separate issues. Illegal immigration has been going on for decades, no more now than before. I am not happy with it, but my opinions on it have nothing to do with my opinions on Terrorism.

Illegal immigration has been a problem for decades and many presidents, and it will continue to be a problem for those to come. If you want to be mad be mad at the Libs, they control congress. Tell them to send legislation to the president that says, All business owners who hire illegals will do a mandatory 10 years in prison. Problem solved, if Bush Veto's it then we can all talk about how bad he is.

The libs do not want to solve the illegal immigration problem and the Conservatives have to pussyfoot around every issue because the Liberal media will hang them out to dry and the stupid Americans who vote with out any idea what they are voting for will not vote for them.

But it has nothing to do with killing Terrorist, the the best you guys can do is say WHAT IF a terrorist came across the border. Well I say screw What ifs, we know were some terrorist are lets go kill them!!!!!!!!! And guess what they are in Iraq!

 

[kolanuraven]

Oh yeah....sure you're in WI Lmix/MM&P... Sure you are!!

You just be where ever you want to be.

I'm not like you...I don't go around cking other people IP addresses....cause for one reason.

I don't give a ratz arse!!!

Oh wait...NEWS FLASH....you got a friend????? Guess there's hope for everyone then!

 

[Anonymous]

BullPuckey A+-- Cuss your libs all you want-- but it is the fact that a new immigration law/amnesty was passed in 1986 and never enforced- neither by Clinton nor by either of the Bush's- not even when the Republicans controlled the Administration and the Congress... They all refused to do anything...

Thats the reason so many now doubt the double talk coming out of D.C. from both parties.....

Nope you can't blame that on any one party...Its Administration/Congress's bought out by Big Corporate Business and the elites of the world...
If asking your government/Administration to enforce the laws passed by Congress makes you a Liberal than I guess I fit into the "you guys" blanket coverage you spout....Where does that put all the conservatives then :???: I always thought that I was a conservative/libertarian because I believe so strongly in our Constitution and our rule of law.....

As far as these Iraqui terrorists-- which side is the terrorist, the Shiites or the Sunnis-- or maybe the Kurds since they've set up their own country?

 

[aplusmnt]

BullPuckey A+-- Cuss your libs all you want-- but it is the fact that a new immigration law/amnesty was passed in 1986 and never enforced- neither by Clinton nor by either of the Bush's- not even when the Republicans controlled the Administration and the Congress... They all refused to do anything...

Thats the reason so many now doubt the double talk coming out of D.C. from both parties.....

Nope you can't blame that on any one party...Its Administration/Congress's bought out by Big Corporate Business and the elites of the world...
If asking your government/Administration to enforce the laws passed by Congress makes you a Liberal than I guess I fit into the "you guys" blanket coverage you spout....Where does that put all the conservatives then :???: I always thought that I was a conservative/libertarian because I believe so strongly in our Constitution and our rule of law.....

As far as these Iraqui terrorists-- which side is the terrorist, the Shiites or the Sunnis-- or maybe the Kurds since they've set up their own country?

Your hate for illegal immigration is clouding your views on the topic at hand, fighting and killing terrorist. We have other thread for that conversation, and I would agree with you on many issues of it. Bush could do more, but so could congress! NONE of them want to do anything. It is not a new Bush problems, 90% of illegals here were most likely here before Bush. None of them Dem's or Republicans will do anything about it. All they will do is offer token legislation so the simple minded will think they are doing something, and then they will not enforce it as they never have in the past.

Terrorism is the most pressing problem we have now, immigration is the second. I will not turn my back on the President in fighting terrorism just because I do not agree with how he is securing the borders.

 

[Anonymous]

A+-- If you get a chance- Watch FOXnews O'Reilly Factor tonite with Michelle Malkin-- and the report they have about the number of Muslims/mideasterners illegally coming across the border into Texas-California-- many from terror sponsoring Syria...Arriving in South America on visas issued by Syria, Jordan, Cuba or even Quatemala- that don't care who they are as long as they get paid their fee :roll: -- Illegals who then pay Coyotes to haul them thru Mexico and across our leaky southern border....

That is a terrorist problem that we should be addressing before we have several Suitcase Nukes or Dirty Bombs going off on our own home soil....

To me we should be worrying more about these guys killing our own people on our own soil than we should be about them killing Iraquis in a country that has fought tribal warfare for hundreds of years...Call me selfish- but I think as much or more effort should be put into protecting the homefolks than is being spent acting as the protector of every tribe in the world in our attempt to makeover every country in our image....

 

[memanpa]

no kaka i am in ARIZONA have been since my last trip to OKLA> last september!

NEWS FLASH fo KAKA. your accusation falls flat if you can offer no proof at all!
you are just as bad as your buddy NONO when it comes to making false accusations, as asked before if you can't at least make an attemp of proving what you say is true then it might be best if you remain silent!!'


poor little kaka and her rats arse lol lol lol lol lol lol
look aout folks she is apt to make up another anna to jump to her defense :roll: lol lol lol

 

[Texan]

Funny how many of us were for the war when it first started. Now when things aren't going well, we are opposed to it.

Good point, rider. Our enemies must laugh at the lack of will and resolve demonstrated by impatient Americans and our wishy-washy politicians.

 

[Anonymous]

There have been opponents or folks that spoke out against all of the wars- from all parties...Many Montanan's, several of which were US citizens of German descent spent several years in US prisons because they openly made comments about the suffering of the German citizens/relatives- or tryed to make contact (exchange mail) with German relatives... and were charged under the Sedition Act....Only a couple years ago did they get a broad pardon.....

A+--- maybe we need a law like that-- could you imagine what would have happened if we had this law during Vietnam :???: -- Hanoi Jane and about 50 million pot smoking hippies in jail :wink: :lol: --but then we/our country wouldn't be any different than Iraq was prior to Saddams removal....

The Sedition Act of 1918 was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who was concerned any widespread dissent in time of war constituted a real threat to an American victory. This was an era when "subversive activity" in Russia resulted in the overthrow of the Russian Czar in 1917, and contributed to the Easter Rising in Ireland in 1916. "Subversive activity" in Great Britain was less successful.

The Sedition Act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime.

The Sedition Act was an attempt by the United States government to limit freedom of speech during a time of war. This is in conflict with the US Constitution's First Amendment, which states, in part: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or the press". Note that there is no "war" exception (or any exceptions whatsoever) to this freedom stated in the text of the amendment.

Although the Sedition Act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States it was repealed in 1921. Some legal experts view the Sedition Act as being antithetical to the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

 

[aplusmnt]

A+-- If you get a chance- Watch FOXnews O'Reilly Factor tonite with Michelle Malkin-- and the report they have about the number of Muslims/mideasterners illegally coming across the border into Texas-California-- many from terror sponsoring Syria...Arriving in South America on visas issued by Syria, Jordan, Cuba or even Quatemala- that don't care who they are as long as they get paid their fee :roll: -- Illegals who then pay Coyotes to haul them thru Mexico and across our leaky southern border....

That is a terrorist problem that we should be addressing before we have several Suitcase Nukes or Dirty Bombs going off on our own home soil....

To me we should be worrying more about these guys killing our own people on our own soil than we should be about them killing Iraquis in a country that has fought tribal warfare for hundreds of years...Call me selfish- but I think as much or more effort should be put into protecting the homefolks than is being spent acting as the protector of every tribe in the world in our attempt to makeover every country in our image....

Why not fight both issues on both fronts instead of either or? I share the same concerns with illegals as you do. But I also believe as long as we are out there killing terrorist, Al Qaeda and their leaders the odds decrease rather suitcase bombs come into the U.S.

I believe information obtained when capturing Terrorist leaders in Iraq and elsewhere through their computers and paperwork lead to a safer U.S.

I believe in both, securing our borders and searching and killing terrorist around the world. I believe info from the ones captured across the world have did more to secure America than any info found in the from our own soil.

I like to go pheasant hunting on occasion, but we do not have any wild pheasants in my area. I have to go to where the pheasants are if I wish to kill any. Going where the terrorist live, breed and scheme seems pretty smart to me!

 

[Anonymous]

A+-- I have no problem with us going after the terrorists- wherever they are... But the argument that this is a main reason for being there gets awfully hazy when you sit back and watch the same folks that use it for our reason to be fighting overseas- refusing to do anything to protect our own borders and protect our own homelands/citizens....

Gives a person a good reason to question their credibility and what their true goals are.....

 

[Caustic Burno]

Funny how many of us were for the war when it first started. Now when things aren't going well, we are opposed to it.

Good point, rider. Our enemies must laugh at the lack of will and resolve demonstrated by impatient Americans and our wishy-washy politicians.

Lets see a sneak attack on American soil killing men women and children.
I say we need the scroched earth policy of WWII we used on Japan and Germany fire bomb them to hell killing everthing from a Shanghi rooster to a Durham cow.
Freedom isn't free comes with a high cost. Funny we haven't been attack with mothers and babies having to jump to their deaths versus burning alive, since we went to their backyard.