Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I was making proposals. McCain is saying we should put in more soldiers. So did some Democrat that is going to chair some committee. Are they speaking out of their derriere because we can't commit more troops or because are we are fully committed right now? We should commit as many troops as we can.
|
OK -- but it can't be half a million, and we have to have troop rotation.
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Another difference between me and other people on this board is I understand it is really important we succeed and that we should do what is necessary to succeed.
|
I agree with that point. I think that if the situation in Iraq deteriorates further, and/or remains at this level of mess for the next few years, we'll probably be worse off than if we had never invaded.
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times. What has the Iraq study group come up with that if done earlier would have made any difference? The only thing that I can see that may have helped earlier is sending more troops. But who knows it may have worked.
|
Like I said, I don't think that was their point or purpose. Still, I'd also point to their reccomendations on increased resources for the training of Iraqi units.
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
So if things are not working now as well as we would like. This may be unfixable, they may be fixable. They make work out on their own, or it may be necessary for us to do something to fix it.
|
You're hedging too much. They aren't working now, period. I don't make absolutist statements, but I'll also say that they won't work out on their own.
How we handle the politics and diplomacy is as important as the military aspect (or more so), becasue the consensus on the military and (even in the administration) is that we can't "win" by strictly military means.
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
But how come these same people were concerned with the lack of WMDs? If winning this war is so important that then why did it matter that there were no WMDs? It is these same people that were so concerned about the lack of WMDs, that say we can't win, Bush screwed it up (discounting that the situation may have been beyond Bush's control), if more troops may have worked it is too late to send them in now etc.
|
I'm not sure where this point came from, but the reason the presence of WMDs mattered to a lot of people, including the adminstration, was that they were the major justification for starting the war. That matters, because there was a risk that a situation like this would develop.
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
What is irrational or crazy at this point in time is to decide that we can't win. We should realize that it is really important that we succeed, and if we want to win we should do everything we can to win and stop the crying over spilt milk or second guessing previous decisions?
|
Fair enough, but it is also fair to allow the opposition a few minutes to spit on the performance to date before trying to help fix the problem.
S_A_M
