Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: reasonisfaith

Quotes identical to leftists. My son is definitely not a lefty. More of a liberterian. He entered JROTC at age 15, got himself up early for drill, went into the military upon graduation, served in Gulf War I, and now in Afghanistan.

As to his strategic vision, I gave him a copy of Machiavelli's "The Prince" when he was 14. He has been reading ever since. I send all his emails to a WWII vet family friend. He was very impressed by the comments. Asked if son has read Sun Szu's "The Art of War". I said yes. Before we attacked Iraq in 2003, I asked him how many troops he thought we needed to do the job right. He said 450,000. This after Shinsecki had batted out for saying 350,000. Now we have Brimmer saying we should have had 500,000. So much for son's lack of vision. Pace has to back up the boss, same as Brimmer when he was there. Who knows what he really thinks. Of course Bush had to start the war when he did, for political strategy. Summer was coming and too hot to fight. Fall of 2003 would have been to close to the election, so he went in only half prepared.


43 posted on 03/12/2006 9:16:56 PM PST by gleeaikin (Question Authority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: gleeaikin

Your son sounds like a great soldier. Bremmer, on the other hand, was an idiot and caused the problems we now have in Iraq, so I don't trust anything he has to say.


45 posted on 03/12/2006 9:20:35 PM PST by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: gleeaikin

The assertion that more troops could have made any significant difference is not established fact. That is an irrefutable statement.

What is certain is that domestic politics would have been much less antagonistic toward the war if the traitors in the mainstream press had been publicly identified and unable to put out biased and even fraudulent reports.

I see no evidence for any worthwhile “vision” in the comments of this post; they could have been uttered by anyone who has been listening to Cindy Sheehan or Howard Dean.

Bush waited forever to take out Saddam. The problem with giving Saddam a year and a half, after Bush's proclamation that we would come after all terrorists or state sponsors of terrorism--meaning Saddam, was that Saddam had time to hide the WMD and to seed Iraq with more terrorists.

Any unpreparedness on the part of our military in March 2003 was Clinton's fault for intentionally gutting the military as much as possible during those 8 tragic years.


86 posted on 03/15/2006 5:23:01 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Liberals will never stand up like men and fight for their true beliefs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: gleeaikin
>>>Of course Bush had to start the war when he did, for political strategy.<<

That comment of yours tells me all I need to know about where you are comming from.

88 posted on 04/07/2006 11:57:08 AM PDT by HardStarboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson