Reply
Thu 7 Oct, 2004 10:35 am
I've asked this before......it's all very patriotic and peppy to talk about being at war for "as long as it takes" but put a figure on that for me.....are you willing to be involved in this same war in fifty years? One hundred years? Three hundred years?
Are you willing to have your descendants shoulder the costs in lives, quality of life, money, resources for us to be fighting the war on terror, without one period of peace, in the year 2304?
Please spare the "It won't last that long" response...I'm asking if you're willing to go that distance or put that on your descendants if necessary again, without one day of peace?
Re: How Long Are You /willing To Be At War?
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:I've asked this before......it's all very patriotic and peppy to talk about being at war for "as long as it takes" but put a figure on that for me.....are you willing to be involved in this same war in fifty years? One hundred years? Three hundred years?
Are you willing to have your descendants shoulder the costs in lives, quality of life, money, resources for us to be fighting the war on terror, without one period of peace, in the year 2304?
Please spare the "It won't last that long" response...I'm asking if you're willing to go that distance or put that on your descendants if necessary again, without one day of peace?
As long as it takes.
In Iraq for them to establish a freely elected government and fend for themselves.
In the broader War on Terror...until the terrorists are defeated.
Re: How Long Are You /willing To Be At War?
Larry434 wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:I've asked this before......it's all very patriotic and peppy to talk about being at war for "as long as it takes" but put a figure on that for me.....are you willing to be involved in this same war in fifty years? One hundred years? Three hundred years?
Are you willing to have your descendants shoulder the costs in lives, quality of life, money, resources for us to be fighting the war on terror, without one period of peace, in the year 2304?
Please spare the "It won't last that long" response...I'm asking if you're willing to go that distance or put that on your descendants if necessary again, without one day of peace?
As long as it takes.
In Iraq for them to establish a freely elected government and fend for themselves.
In the broader War on Terror...until the terrorists are defeated.
I asked for a specific number.......
I cannot, nor can anyone else give you a specific number, unless it is just to give up and retreat to within our borders. We can do that as soon as we can deploy sufficient aircraft to bring all our troops home.
Say by the end of the month.
Okay then, let me repeat my original question...
Are you Larry 434, in the name of the war on terror willing to commit this country...it's resources, and your descendants to this war without one day of peace through the year 2304?
Then why won't you give me a number? Are you willing to commit yourself and your descendants to the war on terror without one day of slack until 2304? Yes or No?
Not to put words in his mouth BPB, but I think he is saying yes, even until 2304. In fact, I think he is saying yes, even if it takes until 2525, if man is still alive.
Believe it or not, if we haven't ended this war in another four years (by that I mean the entire war on terror) then I will no longer have faith in our leadership and i will demand better. If in four years we, the most advanced military in the world, can not finish off this enemy than we have no business being involved. We have the might, we just are not using it correctly.
There is the problem McG. This war is cultural and battalions and bullets are not going to win it. We need other strategies.
McGentrix wrote:Believe it or not, if we haven't ended this war in another four years (by that I mean the entire war on terror) then I will no longer have faith in our leadership and i will demand better. If in four years we, the most advanced military in the world, can not finish off this enemy than we have no business being involved. We have the might, we just are not using it correctly.
then why give bush four more years to not use it correctly?
Because I believe he will follow the course of action I would if I were president. I do not feel Kerry will.
McGentrix wrote:Because I believe he will follow the course of action I would if I were president. I do not feel Kerry will.
So you like bush because you feel he is the president you would be?
Talk about your excessive posturing.....Holy ****!!!
Larry434 wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Then why won't you give me a number?
I cannot, nor can anyone else give you a specific number, unless it is just to give up and retreat to within our borders. We can do that as soon as we can deploy sufficient aircraft to bring all our troops home.
Say by the end of the month.
Are you willing to commit yourself and your descendants to the war on terror without one day of slack until 2304? Yes or No?
No. I am not willing to commit to any find of stupid arbitrary deadline. But Kerry might.
Cowardice often comes disguised as pragmatism in my opnion.....
Iraq and the so called war on terror are obviously 2 different issues.
In Iraq, we should leave THE DAY AFTER FREE ELECTIONS are held in January. If no election is held in January, we should get out of there January 1st, and let them fend for themselves.
The so called "WAR ON TERROR" is not a war that you can see and absolute end. Our efforts in this regard must be to protect our boarders from terrorist attacks to the best of our ability and constitutionally. I do not see how we can send a military force scurring around the globe chasing so called "bad guys".
Korea, would not be a "war on terror" battle (if it comes to that) nor would Iran. If our leaders determine we need to eliminate a threat, then we go to war and use EVERYTHING IN OUR ARSENAL to remove the threat. We have not done that in Iraq.
"Cowardice often comes disguised as pragmatism in my opnion..... "
LOL.
If refusing to establish a stupid arbitrary deadline for defeating an enemy is cowardly, I am proud to be viewed as such by you, bear. :wink:
A very interesting question considering the fact that WWII occupations were so much more different than they are in Iraq. Although Saddam was captured, the insurgency gets worse every day with more of our soldiers getting killed and maimed, whilte this president continues the rhetoric that there is progress in Iraq. The latest estimates seems to imply that it will be ten years minimum before things settle down in Iraq. I'm just happy our sons are not in the military today. Things will get worse before they get better, and we're not sure how much worse things will get in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Larry434 wrote:"Cowardice often comes disguised as pragmatism in my opnion..... "
LOL.
If refusing to establish a stupid arbitrary deadline for defeating an enemy is cowardly, I am proud to be viewed as such by you, bear. :wink:
harder to commit when it's not just a vague slogan huh Larry? Easy to call it stupid and back off however...keeps ones hands nice, soft and clean......