Graham: Military leaders ‘need to be fired’ if they don’t support my plan for war in Iraq

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Amazing how history just keeps on repeating, isn't it??

Every single generation keeps having to learn the same lesson, over and over...and over...and over again.

Historically many problems arise when you let politicians run wars. Politicians may start them, but once started, they should steer clear and let the professionals do the job they are tasked with.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I agree, but only to a point.

Generals should always know that there is someone watching over their shoulders. Case in point...? Douglas MacArthur in Korea. Stepped over his line, and got fired.

Too much autonomy, and you get generals who think they might be Caesar. Hard to do in this day and age, but one might try...

Curtis LeMay comes quickly to mind...for some odd reason.

a reply to: seagull

Korean and Vietnam war imo both saw far higher US casualties because the US handcuffed it's soldiers. If I am sending my neighbor to die, I am giving him every tool possible to live.

a reply to: damwel

Last time I checked the USA was not north korea.
Hillary andbother democrats had a choice to vote no, there was no gun to there backs.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: seagull

Korean and Vietnam war imo both saw far higher US casualties because the US handcuffed it's soldiers. If I am sending my neighbor to die, I am giving him every tool possible to live.

Or better yet dont semd them off to fight and die to begin with!

Not unless the country is under direct threat.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: seagull

Korean and Vietnam war imo both saw far higher US casualties because the US handcuffed it's soldiers. If I am sending my neighbor to die, I am giving him every tool possible to live.

Or better yet dont semd them off to fight and die to begin with!

Not unless the country is under direct threat.

My post covers that too. But if you DO send them, give them the tools they need to come back safely.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh, absolutely. Believe me, I agree. If you're going to go to war, fight it to win. Not break even.

But, have to make sure that in the process, you don't go too far. That's what the civilian oversight is for.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

NOT this administration, THEY are micrmanaginfg with screwed up ROEs and restrained deployment of troops.

We should have enough troops there to hold Baghdad. I do not want to fight the Sunni vs Shiite war, which is what it is in Iraq now. A soon as the last US troops left, which should never have happened, the Sunni vice-president was booted out, and Sunnis were forced out of government and the army. So now this, and we should not fight the same people for Ramallah and Faluga all over again.
a reply to: olaru12

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: olaru12

I've already accepted that if we end up with a Republican in office, it is likely that we are going back to war in the Middle East. I have also seen that statistically, when a 2 term President leaves office, the opposite party almost always wins. In other words, expect a war in about 2 or 3 years from now.

But the current president is sending troops back in, right now and using air power.

Yea Yea I know... I don't approve of Obama's pseudo-war either... I've said over and over on these forums that I wish we'd just leave the Middle East alone completely. I'm not going to defend Obama bombing them if that is what you are trying to suggest here or anything. But at least we aren't balls to the wall in full war mode, like I think we will be with a Republican President.

While I am never in favor of war...I have to disagree with the idea that doing "some war" is better than a full war. If there is something that needs to be changed and war is the only way (which I rarely agree with), I would say it is better to go all out than waste time, money and lives on something we know won't work. Obama in the pseudo-war is like a kid punching a wall. He isn't going to win anything, will only hurt us and will look like a frustrated baby because things didn't go his way.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Do you not understand my point? I don't WANT to be in the middle east at all. Real war or no. I'm not going to debate the merits of a full scale war versus a bombing war. Both have their drawbacks and problems and both have their pluses. But the fact of the matter is that I don't want to be there at ALL. So I'm not going to defend Obama's war or Bush's war or the next President's war. We need to leave the middle east alone!

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Do you not understand my point? I don't WANT to be in the middle east at all. Real war or no. I'm not going to debate the merits of a full scale war versus a bombing war. Both have their drawbacks and problems and both have their pluses. But the fact of the matter is that I don't want to be there at ALL. So I'm not going to defend Obama's war or Bush's war or the next President's war. We need to leave the middle east alone!