RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,162396,00.html

First these peacenicks dont know the law. The Governor can't not refuse to send his Guardsmen.
Second the 70% figure is from people who want our troops out of Iraq, hell I'm a 100% for getting them out.... After we have won. The real numbers about pulling the troops imediatley are much much lower.

A petition will do nothing but make the protesters feel good. OK, everybody needs to feel good sometimes. Otherwise, this is a non-story.

Not going to work, shows these idiots have no idea where the Guard gets it's funding,and that the Governor has no say if the troops are Federalized


Just Ask Orville Faubus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orville_Faubus#Little_Rock_integration_crisis

Although I don't agree, they have a right to protest whatever they want. But I have a question for Gordon_Eatley, what's your idea of "winning" the war? And I take issue with your little pic LineDoggie. I'm a liberal and I don't want defeat, yet you have to have a sense of reality also. When a country and it's citizens say they want to rule themselves and want us out, then we leave, how is that defeat?

quote:

Originally posted by AchillesRB:
Although I don't agree, they have a right to protest whatever they want. But I have a question for Gordon_Eatley, what's your idea of "winning" the war? And I take issue with your little pic LineDoggie. I'm a liberal and I don't want defeat, yet you have to have a sense of reality also. When a country and it's citizens say they want to rule themselves and want us out, then we leave, how is that defeat?

I think LineDoggie's picture is appropriate. When Dem leadership is stating "The war is lost" and other such drivel I think they should wear the defeatist mantle for a while. That statement gave aid and comfort just like Jane Fonda did. Take issue with the Dem leadership who says that crap and things like our troops "terrorizing women and children in the night".

quote:

Originally posted by Marou:

quote:

Originally posted by AchillesRB:
Although I don't agree, they have a right to protest whatever they want. But I have a question for Gordon_Eatley, what's your idea of "winning" the war? And I take issue with your little pic LineDoggie. I'm a liberal and I don't want defeat, yet you have to have a sense of reality also. When a country and it's citizens say they want to rule themselves and want us out, then we leave, how is that defeat?

I think LineDoggie's picture is appropriate. When Dem leadership is stating "The war is lost" and other such drivel I think they should wear the defeatist mantle for a while. That statement gave aid and comfort just like Jane Fonda did. Take issue with the Dem leadership who says that crap and things like our troops "terrorizing women and children in the night".

YEP! The U.S. did not lose in Vietnam either, we simply left too early and did not give South Vietnam an opportunity to stabilize.

The South Vietnam Army initially fought diligently to stop the North's invasion, but with such a massive force the South had no chance.

If the liberal elite have their way, we will have another Vietnam in Iraq; it's a self- fullfilling prophecy for them; they have done everything possible to undermine the U.S. war effort short of protesting the troops (although initially attempted) thankfully the citizenry wouldn't tolerate such tactics again.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucky_Lieutenant:

quote:

Originally posted by Marou:

quote:

Originally posted by AchillesRB:
Although I don't agree, they have a right to protest whatever they want. But I have a question for Gordon_Eatley, what's your idea of "winning" the war? And I take issue with your little pic LineDoggie. I'm a liberal and I don't want defeat, yet you have to have a sense of reality also. When a country and it's citizens say they want to rule themselves and want us out, then we leave, how is that defeat?

I think LineDoggie's picture is appropriate. When Dem leadership is stating "The war is lost" and other such drivel I think they should wear the defeatist mantle for a while. That statement gave aid and comfort just like Jane Fonda did. Take issue with the Dem leadership who says that crap and things like our troops "terrorizing women and children in the night".

YEP! The U.S. did not lose in Vietnam either, we simply left too early and did not give South Vietnam an opportunity to stabilize.

The South Vietnam Army initially fought diligently to stop the North's invasion, but with such a massive force the South had no chance.

If the liberal elite have their way, we will have another Vietnam in Iraq; it's a self- fullfilling prophecy for them; they have done everything possible to undermine the U.S. war effort short of protesting the troops (although initially attempted) thankfully the citizenry wouldn't tolerate such tactics again.

Did you read that somewhere? In 1968, the SecDOD and the CinC came to the conclussion that the US could not win the war using the tactics that were being used (suggest you listen to the White House Tapes (1968). The tactics didn't change with the exception of periods of increased or decreased bombing. Our troops did their job, just like now. The problem was with the civilian planners. I don't presume to know the answers as to why Vietnam turned out the way it did except to say, when you don't have a plan to win, there's only one other alternative.

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:

quote:

Originally posted by Lucky_Lieutenant:

quote:

Originally posted by Marou:

quote:

Originally posted by AchillesRB:
Although I don't agree, they have a right to protest whatever they want. But I have a question for Gordon_Eatley, what's your idea of "winning" the war? And I take issue with your little pic LineDoggie. I'm a liberal and I don't want defeat, yet you have to have a sense of reality also. When a country and it's citizens say they want to rule themselves and want us out, then we leave, how is that defeat?

I think LineDoggie's picture is appropriate. When Dem leadership is stating "The war is lost" and other such drivel I think they should wear the defeatist mantle for a while. That statement gave aid and comfort just like Jane Fonda did. Take issue with the Dem leadership who says that crap and things like our troops "terrorizing women and children in the night".

YEP! The U.S. did not lose in Vietnam either, we simply left too early and did not give South Vietnam an opportunity to stabilize.

The South Vietnam Army initially fought diligently to stop the North's invasion, but with such a massive force the South had no chance.

If the liberal elite have their way, we will have another Vietnam in Iraq; it's a self- fullfilling prophecy for them; they have done everything possible to undermine the U.S. war effort short of protesting the troops (although initially attempted) thankfully the citizenry wouldn't tolerate such tactics again.

Did you read that somewhere? In 1968, the SecDOD and the CinC came to the conclussion that the US could not win the war using the tactics that were being used (suggest you listen to the White House Tapes (1968). The tactics didn't change with the exception of periods of increased or decreased bombing. Our troops did their job, just like now. The problem was with the civilian planners. I don't presume to know the answers as to why Vietnam turned out the way it did except to say, when you don't have a plan to win, there's only one other alternative.

No doubt; if you are losing and can't win no matter what you try, then withdrawal is the only answer.

HOWEVER, that was not the case in Vietnam and it is certainly not the case in Iraq.

Vietnam was the first war where politicians were in charge of the strategy and the war was generally micro-managed much in the way the Congress wishes to do now.

A simple assessment of the restrictions put on our campaigns in Vietnam illustrates we were hamstrung from the beginning.

A limited "humanitarian war" simply does not work. The U.S. desire for diplomatic solutions to war started in Korea and has gotten our soldiers killed and wounded unnecessarily ever since.

If we had unleashed on Vietnam our conventional bombing campaign like we did in the closing of the war, Vietnam would have negotiated peace much sooner and I estimate 30,000 or more U.S. soldiers would be alive today had we gone to Vietnam to win.

First off, I think we did lose the Vietnam War.

Now:

"Now is no time to send one-half of the New Jersey National Guard to Iraq," said Terri Suess of Newark, a member of New Jersey Peace Action.

"Now is the time to enter international, round-the-clock negotiations, draw down the troops, and bring peace to Iraq."

This is the crux of the problem with withdrawing troops from Iraq. If people would just be honest and say, "Iraq is going down the toilet no matter what we do so lets just cut our losses and leave", I could take them seriously.

But this "negotions will bring peace to Iraq" is just code for the same thing. No one seriously believes that negotions that are not backed up by military force are going to work here.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucky_Lieutenant:

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:

quote:

Originally posted by Lucky_Lieutenant:

quote:

Originally posted by Marou:

quote:

Originally posted by AchillesRB:
Although I don't agree, they have a right to protest whatever they want. But I have a question for Gordon_Eatley, what's your idea of "winning" the war? And I take issue with your little pic LineDoggie. I'm a liberal and I don't want defeat, yet you have to have a sense of reality also. When a country and it's citizens say they want to rule themselves and want us out, then we leave, how is that defeat?

I think LineDoggie's picture is appropriate. When Dem leadership is stating "The war is lost" and other such drivel I think they should wear the defeatist mantle for a while. That statement gave aid and comfort just like Jane Fonda did. Take issue with the Dem leadership who says that crap and things like our troops "terrorizing women and children in the night".

YEP! The U.S. did not lose in Vietnam either, we simply left too early and did not give South Vietnam an opportunity to stabilize.

The South Vietnam Army initially fought diligently to stop the North's invasion, but with such a massive force the South had no chance.

If the liberal elite have their way, we will have another Vietnam in Iraq; it's a self- fullfilling prophecy for them; they have done everything possible to undermine the U.S. war effort short of protesting the troops (although initially attempted) thankfully the citizenry wouldn't tolerate such tactics again.

Did you read that somewhere? In 1968, the SecDOD and the CinC came to the conclussion that the US could not win the war using the tactics that were being used (suggest you listen to the White House Tapes (1968). The tactics didn't change with the exception of periods of increased or decreased bombing. Our troops did their job, just like now. The problem was with the civilian planners. I don't presume to know the answers as to why Vietnam turned out the way it did except to say, when you don't have a plan to win, there's only one other alternative.

No doubt; if you are losing and can't win no matter what you try, then withdrawal is the only answer.

HOWEVER, that was not the case in Vietnam and it is certainly not the case in Iraq.

Vietnam was the first war where politicians were in charge of the strategy and the war was generally micro-managed much in the way the Congress wishes to do now.

A simple assessment of the restrictions put on our campaigns in Vietnam illustrates we were hamstrung from the beginning.

A limited "humanitarian war" simply does not work. The U.S. desire for diplomatic solutions to war started in Korea and has gotten our soldiers killed and wounded unnecessarily ever since.

If we had unleashed on Vietnam our conventional bombing campaign like we did in the closing of the war, Vietnam would have negotiated peace much sooner and I estimate 30,000 or more U.S. soldiers would be alive today had we gone to Vietnam to win.

That's exactly my point LT. Gen. Shinseki was fired retired because he didn't agree with Rumsfeld on troop requirements. It's still being run by politicians! When political consideration trump tactical requirements, you get what you get.

quote:

Originally posted by foxred03:
First off, I think we did lose the Vietnam War.

Now:

"Now is no time to send one-half of the New Jersey National Guard to Iraq," said Terri Suess of Newark, a member of New Jersey Peace Action.

"Now is the time to enter international, round-the-clock negotiations, draw down the troops, and bring peace to Iraq."

This is the crux of the problem with withdrawing troops from Iraq. If people would just be honest and say, "Iraq is going down the toilet no matter what we do so lets just cut our losses and leave", I could take them seriously.

But this "negotions will bring peace to Iraq" is just code for the same thing. No one seriously believes that negotions that are not backed up by military force are going to work here.

I think history indicates we did not lose in vietnam; we simply withdrew too early. If we lost, why did North Vietnam agree to a peace settlment that left South Vietnam intact?

What is ironic and ignorant is that our current Congress wish to do the same thing in Iraq.

Irresponsible comments like "all troops out by 2009" indicate to terrorists the very thing it indicated to Communists in Vietnam. Wait until they are gone, then take over. THAT IS HOW WE LOSE.

"Now is no time to send one-half of the New Jersey National Guard to Iraq," said Terri Suess of Newark, a member of New Jersey Peace Action."Now is the time to enter international, round-the-clock negotiations, draw down the troops, and bring peace to Iraq."

Well I'll be... she's a friggin' genius! We should of just done that from the start!... puhlease, negotiations are ongoing as we type, and peace has to come BEFORE we draw down the troops, otherwise, there wouldn't be peace would there? and They never mention how well things are going right now...

And what was that crap about "overuse" of the National Guard. I mean I agree that our Guardsmen have been well more involved in this war than they should have to be, but they're soldiers just like our other boys. They get no more special treatment than the regular reservists.
It's a ridiculous notion that the Governor could "stop the deployment" when our NG is also committed to the CinC as well as the Governor of their respective state. All in all, the Pres. has more say than the Governor does in the matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:
That's exactly my point LT. Gen. Shinseki was fired retired because he didn't agree with Rumsfeld on troop requirements. It's still being run by politicians! When political consideration trump tactical requirements, you get what you get.

It's a bit different than Vietnam. In Vietnam "politicians" aka Congress were micro-managing through appropriations.

Civilian control over the military is purposeful and if there is a disagreement, right or wrong the civilian leadership trumps the military.

Clearly there have been mistakes and the troop strength was initially too low to capture tactical gains. However, I submit the limited amount of troops was the result of a politico machine that would not allow a "full scale" effort.

quote:

Originally posted by armywifefigueroa:
"Now is no time to send one-half of the New Jersey National Guard to Iraq," said Terri Suess of Newark, a member of New Jersey Peace Action."Now is the time to enter international, round-the-clock negotiations, draw down the troops, and bring peace to Iraq."

Well I'll be... she's a friggin' genius! We should of just done that from the start!... puhlease, negotiations are ongoing as we type, and peace has to come BEFORE we draw down the troops, otherwise, there wouldn't be peace would there? and They never mention how well things are going right now...

And what was that crap about "overuse" of the National Guard. I mean I agree that our Guardsmen have been well more involved in this war than they should have to be, but they're soldiers just like our other boys. They get no more special treatment than the regular reservists.
It's a ridiculous notion that the Governor could "stop the deployment" when our NG is also committed to the CinC as well as the Governor of their respective state. All in all, the Pres. has more say than the Governor does in the matter.

Exactly... I suppose Ms. Suess thinks the Guard is her private military?

The National Guard and other reserve components in my opinion are in better shape now than ever before as a strategic force.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucky_Lieutenant:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by armywifefigueroa:
QUOTE]Exactly... I suppose Ms. Suess thinks the Guard is her private military?

The National Guard and other reserve components in my opinion are in better shape now than ever before as a strategic force.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, our boys are VOLUNTEERS. They know what they're getting into and most are EAGER to go to Iraq and help out their brothers in arms. Civilians make too much of deployments like this.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucky_Lieutenant:

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:
That's exactly my point LT. Gen. Shinseki was fired retired because he didn't agree with Rumsfeld on troop requirements. It's still being run by politicians! When political consideration trump tactical requirements, you get what you get.

It's a bit different than Vietnam. In Vietnam "politicians" aka Congress were micro-managing through appropriations.

Civilian control over the military is purposeful and if there is a disagreement, right or wrong the civilian leadership trumps the military.

Clearly there have been mistakes and the troop strength was initially too low to capture tactical gains. However, I submit the limited amount of troops was the result of a politico machine that would not allow a "full scale" effort.

Keep telling yourself that LT. Works almost as well as "there's no place like home...there's no place like home...there's no place like home..."
Of course it was a politico machine...but who's? And, why would it not allow a "full-scale" effort? Because a full-scale effort:
1. does not fit the agenda
2. costs more.
3. attracts attention.
4. does not go well with "let me worry about it, you go shopping".

A "full scale effort" wasn't allowed because Congressmen wanted to be re-elected and alot opposed our involvement with Vietnam. Problem is that they kept that mentality even after we were in Vietnam and our troops (including my father) didn't get the support that was needed to do their job.

PLUS Southern Vietnamese didn't have the drive to fight for what they wanted, they wanted someone to fight for them, hence thousands and thousands of "refugees/immigrants" to other countries. Rather than stand up and fight, these people would enslave themselves on barges just to be taken out of the country. When no effort was made on their part and we realized that we couldn't fight the fight for them, we left. I don't see it as we lost, rather we bit off more than we could chew at the time and went in blindly. it was a poor strategic decision and one that does not stand alone.

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:
Keep telling yourself that LT. Works almost as well as "there's no place like home...there's no place like home...there's no place like home..."
Of course it was a politico machine...but who's? And, why would it not allow a "full-scale" effort? Because a full-scale effort:
1. does not fit the agenda
2. costs more.
3. attracts attention.
4. does not go well with "let me worry about it, you go shopping".

Since my objectivity isn't obscured by an agenda I will tell you who's politico machine it is/was.

It was (since Korea) and is the politco machine of the liberal elite who erroneously believe that the United States can use diplomacy with individuals and states that wish to destroy us.

Thomas Jefferson said it best when referring to the pirates of the Barbary; "the only thing these people understand is shot and powder."

It was true then as it is now. Sometimes military power and the credible threat that goes along with it is all that keeps the world peaceful.

Unfortunately, there are historical revisionists who see things through pastel colored glasses and decide that warfare is RARELY IF EVER the solution and if it is, then it must be restricted to the point of being unsuccessful and or to the point where many more service members are hurt or killed as a result of a prolonged effort.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucky_Lieutenant:

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:
Keep telling yourself that LT. Works almost as well as "there's no place like home...there's no place like home...there's no place like home..."
Of course it was a politico machine...but who's? And, why would it not allow a "full-scale" effort? Because a full-scale effort:
1. does not fit the agenda
2. costs more.
3. attracts attention.
4. does not go well with "let me worry about it, you go shopping".

Since my objectivity isn't obscured by an agenda I will tell you who's politico machine it is/was.

It was (since Korea) and is the politco machine of the liberal elite who erroneously believe that the United States can use diplomacy with individuals and states that wish to destroy us.

Thomas Jefferson said it best when referring to the pirates of the Barbary; "the only thing these people understand is shot and powder."

It was true then as it is now. Sometimes military power and the credible threat that goes along with it is all that keeps the world peaceful.

Unfortunately, there are historical revisionists who see things through pastel colored glasses and decide that warfare is RARELY IF EVER the solution and if it is, then it must be restricted to the point of being unsuccessful and or to the point where many more service members are hurt or killed as a result of a prolonged effort.

Again I agree and disagree. I agree that there are times when the application of military force is not only effective but essential. My concern does not regard the application of military force but the political manipulation that occurs in the war planning and conduct. It’s interesting that you believe the politics involved is some kind of liberal conspiracy. One of the most outspoken Americans regarding the dangers of the political/corporate/military trend (military/industrial complex) was Dwight D. Eisenhower. While Eisenhower was a republican president, he recognized the growing threat to the security of the nation as a result of the industrial influence on the military. The influence spread rapidly through lobbyists’ money to every aspect of the political structure. By the way, it was a democrat (FDR) that cracked down on fraud and war profiteering during WWII. What I am saying is that the greatest single influence on politicians, regarding military affairs is not from some liberal ivy league college professor, it’s from the defense industry. And if you don’t believe they have a vested interested prolonging conflict, bare in mind, the bottom line of business is the bottom line. If Rumsfeld hadn’t over ruled the Generals, had not gone to war on the cheap, it might already be resolved. Think of all the lost profits.

civilians NEED to stay OUT of military affairs.