<p>"What you describe are ways to make America quit fighting "</p>
<p>WHY? </p>
<p>because we’re inconvienced? We’re asked to give something up? This is what I don’t buy. Is this to be a war of convience? Did we quit at other times in history when we did these things?</p>
<p>Opie,</p>
<p>I take great exception to this statement:
"The war on terror will last as long as “we” want it to. "</p>
<p>This implies that if we stop fighting it, terrorism will just go away. Is this really what you mean? If so, you should take this up with the 9/11 commission and Bob Kerrey in particular who was quite adamant about the fact that one of the contributing factors leading up to 9/11 was that al Qaeda had declared war on us in the 90’s and we did effectively nothing to respond to this declaration of war. I agree with DRJ4 - the war will be over when the terrorists stop waging it.</p>
<p>Opie,</p>
<p>I would be happy to make more sacrifices to help America win the war. I would support a draft, rationing, and taxes if needed. (By the way, my substantial taxes already support the war.) Our government doesn’t think we need a draft or rationing but we do know that our military needs public support. I’m glad to offer that. </p>
<p>Perhaps your goal is to end this war but mine is to win it. Normally those options work in tandem but sometimes they don’t. Staging a million troops in Iraq won’t convince Iran we mean business unless we make it clear we will use them and all the weapons our military has in its arsenal.</p>
<p>ff,</p>
<p>Why don’t you read the rest? Huh? Where did I say we should stop? point it out! please. </p>
<p>I said just the bloody oposite. Again, you seem to only defend this administration, no matter what it costs. MY point was simply treat this war like other wars we’ve won. Draft, tax and ration. Kick their asses, stop playing games with the troops. THIS is exactly where it is like nam. </p>
<p>If we’re gonna do it, let’s do it. Let’s not use this as an re-election tool. Let’s make the case, start the draft and start building up the troop levels and actually pay for the war with this generation and limit oil consumption to reduce the middle eastern oil money financing our ememies. </p>
<p>This isn’t to stop the war, it’s to end it. Or doesn’t that appeal?</p>
<p>“Perhaps your goal is to end this war but mine is to win it. Normally those options work in tandem but sometimes they don’t. Staging a million troops in Iraq won’t convince Iran we mean business unless we make it clear we will use them and all the weapons our military has in its arsenal”</p>
<p>Actually mine is to win it as well. How are we accomplishing that piecemeal, recycling troops into 5-6 tours, ill equiped. I’m asking if we actually mean business, then let’s mean it. Half assed is no way to use our troops. </p>
<p>I think Iran knows our troop capabilities better than we do. It’s easy to talk tough when the otherside can’t respond with full force. Look at the last 27 years, how noisey has Iran been when we could commit full force? </p>
<p>It’s not a peace movement to say what I am saying, some have read the old “he’s saying this because he really wants this” physco babble crap. Back in day one 9-12, we should have begun the process to pay back those responsible. We had the worlds support and enough anger at home to make it happen on a united front. Instead, it’s been squandered as the french troops were in WW1 by minds not suited for military command.</p>
<p>I’m with Opie. If this is a war, act like it’s a war. Take all steps necessary to prevail. A million Americans in the middle east would probably do the job. Yes, we’d have to raise taxes to pay for it. Yes, we’d have to institute a draft to man it. But all the “tough” talk about how we just need to torture a few more arabs, tap the phones of a few million more Americans, and the desire of disenfranchised muslims to lash out at Israel and America will just disappear? Dumb, dumb, dumb. </p>
<p>The problem is that the Bush Administration didn’t make a case for real war. They made a case for a surgical strike to take out Saddam Hussein and his imaginary WMD’s. Turns out, that wasn’t even close to being the actual battleground. And the cost of fighting a real war is more than Americans believe is worth the victory.</p>
<p>In war time, you have to make everyone suffer. We all have to feel the sacrifice, if this war is worth winning, not just the poor boys’ families.</p>
<p>I want to protect my own kid from the draft more than anything. On the other hand, we have to be willing to feel the pain of collective sacrifice. Quit handing out tax bonuses to rich guys while running up an $11Million tab per hour of wartime. Quit sending poor kids, with no other options, back for a third tour.</p>
<p>In other wars, everyone collectively helped and suffered. If the Bush administration is serious about this war, they ought to make it an American people’s war.</p>
<p>Maybe this is just a pent up reaction to listening for the last 5 years how much danger I am in. What “color” is it today? orange? yellow? How if I don’t vote a certain way, I will place the country in danger. How could a country already in “danger” be in “more dangerer” based on my vote? I’m sick and tired of being told how much danger I am in, the country is in, yet what is actually being done that is significant enough to do more than re-elect those who tell me how much danger I am in?</p>
<p>Opie, et al.</p>
<p>If you mean what you say, are you also willing to go nuclear?</p>
<p>If you can assure me that the nuclear option would not cause the future’s kids to have three eyes and extra arms, and the soil can be planted and produce crops. Or would you prefer the roman’s answer to hanibal? </p>
<p>DR? are you trying to one up whose tougher on terror? 
Or to see how big my b all s are?</p>
<p>It seems like the logical conclusion of all-out war.</p>
<p>I like how everyone against the war wants their to be higher taxes, drafts, rationing etc in order to change public opinion against it even thought none of those are needed.</p>
<p>Why raise taxes now that the government is bringing in more revenue that it was before the tax cuts. Just a few days ago the government raked in the highest quarter tax revenue in American history. If you just raise taxes that would mean LESS money to spend on the war in Iraq so I dont see why there would be any usefull purpose to do that.</p>
<p>Rationing. Why should we ration? The market will take care of the price and supply of goods. Who are you to call for a ration and inconvenience the whole country becuase YOU want people to be against the war.</p>
<p>Draft. Again there is no purpose for a draft. 100k soldierswill do the same job more effeciently than a million soldiers. I can understand the desire to have maybe 200k or 300k, but we have enough soldiers in our regular standing army and reserves to support that so why should their be a draft? This is not a war against a regular army this is a war against terrorists who do not wear uniforms, do not belong to the government of any country, do not follow any of the regulations of war so what good will 1 million do. They will just get in the way and become standing targets. 100k forces is much more effective. So again YOU want a draft so that people will be against the war in Iraq. YOU want people to die, and be in harms way, and ultimately have the American cause suffer because YOU dont like this war. </p>
<p>I think its pretty shameful to call for a draft, rationing, higher taxes when they are not even needed. Its pretty shameful to try to burden other people because YOU do not like this war.</p>
<p>Right now we have a volunteer army and thankfully recruitment is up in the Navy, Air Force, and Marinesl. These men are volunteering to fight and sacrificing their time and lives so that we do not have to sacrifice ours. If you want to personally make a sacrifice for the war thats great, go and do it, but dont be digging into other peoples pockets for ur purposes.</p>
<p>I am 17 and I personally would support 1 yr military service for 18 yr old, not as a way to win the war in Iraq but as a way to strengthen the nation.</p>
<p>Golani, do your reading. There are not enough soldiers, and this is according to the generals as well. There weren’t enough at the beginning of the invasion, and there aren’t enough now. Why you think 100K soldiers can do the work better than 2-300K makes no sense. We might have had a chance to win this misbegotten war had the army been properly equipped with men and such right from the get go.</p>
<p>Also, the war has cost the country about $400B, and continues to cost about $11M a day. I am glad you are so cheery about the economics of the country, but we are running on credit, and you must know something about the problems with debt. Since China holds the majority of our debt, when they come calling, we will be in a bit of a financial pickle. </p>
<p>And you, your children, and their children will all be paying the debt off for the next three generations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rumsfeld? Is that you posing as a 17-year old? Clearly you have failed to read just about anything regarding force levels in Iraq. The vast majority of military planners prior to the invasion wanted higher troop levels, Rumsfeld overruled all of them (ostensibly with the support of the Whitehouse) and as such we find ourselves in the current predicament we do today. Given the sort of insurgency we face, boots on the ground is the only means by which to combat it. A slimmer, hi-tech force, while capable of focusing massive amounts of firepower upon its enemy, is not the best suited for occupation and counter-insurgency work.</p>
<p>I’m not going to touch the subject of the draft, but I will point out that there are certain situations where 100,000 troops very clearly CANNOT do the job of 1,000,000.</p>
<p>Goland, </p>
<p>Please review some history for a second or two. Everything you’re pointing out is exactly why we haven’t won, as everything’s too convienent to bother with. If we can do it with 100,000 troops on the ground, why haven’t we? This war has lasted longer than WW2. </p>
<p>“Why raise taxes now that the government is bringing in more revenue that it was before the tax cuts. Just a few days ago the government raked in the highest quarter tax revenue in American history. If you just raise taxes that would mean LESS money to spend on the war in Iraq so I dont see why there would be any usefull purpose to do that”</p>
<p>Did I miss this, is the deficiet gone? Have we paid off China? One quarter or one year for that matter isn’t making things rosey. I feel for you, wait to you go to buy a home. What interest rate will you pay? </p>
<p>“Rationing. Why should we ration? The market will take care of the price and supply of goods. Who are you to call for a ration and inconvenience the whole country becuase YOU want people to be against the war.”</p>
<p>You don’t understand, in WW2 we as a country rationed use of materials to help provide at a lower cost to the military an ample supply of goods. Depressing the oil market REDUCES the strength of our ememies. Those who take the dollars we pay for fuel and pass those profits on to those who hate us. Would you be willing to drive less, if it meant one less package of c-4 could be bought to become a roadside bomb? </p>
<p>draft? When troops are doing years of tours over and over again, we are using the national guard in ways they weren’t intended to be used, that’s not working. We are at our breaking point. AWOLs are up, what are/were good troops don’t want to go back for a 3rd or 4th time and would rather face military prison? </p>
<p>"I think its pretty shameful to call for a draft, rationing, higher taxes when they are not even needed. "</p>
<p>Son, you throw the word shameful around quite alot. I pass it off on your youth. There’s absolutely no such thing as a convienent war. Read this sentence you wrote, apply it to SUCCESSFUL military campians through history. Does it fit anywhere? </p>
<p>“These men are volunteering to fight and sacrificing their time and lives so that we do not have to sacrifice ours”</p>
<p>So which is more “shameful”, letting these guys go over and become targets so you don’t have to give up any money or things? </p>
<p>“but dont be digging into other peoples pockets for ur purposes”</p>
<p>sigh.</p>
<p>I always love when people get all bent out of shape about “thanking those in the military for their sacrifice”, but these are the same people who do not want to sacrifice themselves.</p>
<p>I am 100% opposed to this war, and I still believe there ought to be collective sacrifice. This should not be a poor man’s war, paid for by borrowed money from China, while people still drive around in Suburbans and Escalades. Shameful is right.</p>
<p>“It seems like the logical conclusion of all-out war.”</p>
<p>No, I don’t think so. While these people are able to get other people to blow themselves up, usually those with minimal education, they themselves tend to want to live a long time. Ossama still around, he didn’t strap one on himself did he? </p>
<p>Iran’s been in an all out war before and really, really was bloodied by it. If they saw that we had Iraq under control through the boots on the ground, with a surplus of men, equipment and materials, they’d be alittle more co-operative. There the little dog behind the fenced yard, they’ll bark as you go by, but when you step into the yard they’ll run into the house. </p>
<p>I actually have respect for Iran’s leader, he’s smart enough to tweak the American’s nose just enough to gain popular support home and abroad. He is trying to raise Iran up as the new political power in the middle east by taking on the big dog. He’s playing their version of politics. He’s playing to his crowd. He says alot of stuff, but he doesn’t want to die either. I’d be more worried if he gave no speeches. If he’s talking, even the way he is, he’s hoping to avoid a confrontation. </p>
<p>So no, nukes would be the absolute outcome. Would I use one? No, I’d probably use our stockpile of chemical weapons to preserve the economic return on the land. While I am a domestic liberal, if you have to fight a war, you let the other guy die for his cause.</p>
<p>I dont understand what your pt on taxes is- If the govt raises taxes it will be running on even more debt because the revnue it brings in will go down. Its not luck that ever since the tax cuts the government is generating more revneue than it was before tax cuts and is generating more revenue than predicted. This isnt my opinion, but its the opinions of economists</p>
<p>Again, having 1 million soldiers in iraq is not going to help. I challenge you to find any person in a position to make such assesments say that 1 million troops is what we need. And btw if u read my posts i do mention that its understandable to raise troop levels too 200 k or 300k. 1 million soldiers is good in many situations, but not this one</p>
<p>Irans pres does deserve a certain type of respect, because unlike Bush he says what he feels to be rite. No matter how ridiculous it is. Bush did it once when he called iran axis of evil but i would like to see Bush pass more moral judgements on the muslim terrorists and their supporters. What reagan did to the soviet union in terms of rhetoric was amazing and I wish Bush had his speaking ability bc he certaintly has the same idea of what these terrorists are.</p>
<p>The iranian pres or chavez, i forgot who, was rite when they said that the UN should get out of NY. Hopefully it will happen</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What? If anyone can make sense of this poorly written jumble of words, please let me know.</p>
<p>As far as comparing Bush to Reagan in terms of speaking/rhetorical ability, I fail to see your point. You claim Bush has a clear idea of “what these terrorists are,” what does that even mean? If anything, the Bush administration has completely failed to lay out any coherent idea of who or what we are fighting then “terror.” Under that definition we’re fighting against snakes (snakes scare the cr@p out of me). And how would you know what “Reagan did to the soviet union?” You weren’t alive when the USSR existed as a political entity. I fail to see the comparison between an easily defined politically monolithic state like the USSR and some ethereal idea like “terror.”</p>
<p>"If the govt raises taxes it will be running on even more debt because the revnue it brings in will go "</p>
<p>Because you don’t borrow to go to war. Have you had econ yet? Have you heard the term “guns or butter”? It is not good economic policy to borrow and create debt when the ability to generate revenues is there. </p>
<p>Study your Regan era, he didn’t cut taxes alone, did he? What else did he do? :)It starts with a “D” consider it a homework problem. Those of us who were paying taxes then realized we weren’t getting the breaks we thought we were. </p>
<p>The excess troops on the ground would “help” our neighbors over there figure out what kind of friend or foe they want to be. It’s maybe too suttle for you to figure out, but think about what a surplus of troops could do?</p>