The issue seems so easy to win in a debate. Every single time I chat with someone on the issue, they end up agreeing with me.
Has anyone wondered why information about the enemy body count is non existent? I know from a good source that we are decimating the enemy like roaches going to their deaths in a roach trap. Soon, the availability of "roaches" will have reached its end. Soon the word will be out that if you go to Iraq, you will not check out. Then, you will have crushed the desire for new martyrs to sacrifice themselves for worthless ideologs and a worthless cause.
The reason the knowledge of our success is not being talked about is that this is part of the war tactic. You never tell the enemy about your successes. You never let them know how well you are doing. The tactic is to make them underestimate your ability. Then you draw them in like a trap to their destruction.
Now repeat these words everyone: We are winning the war in Iraq."
Whether it IS a war or not is beside the point.
..you mean like "yellow cake"?
Iraq isn't some isolated sterile volcanic island with virtually zip population..
this is nonsense. no war is a cakewalk.
I know what you are saying, but to use the term "Cake Walk" is a mistake.
I think it is clearly true to say that the duration, letahlity,intensity and ferocity of combat action in other major wars is a "generally" greater in many cases, but...that doesn't mean combat in Iraq is a "Cake Walk".
I think the warfare in Fallujah is proof of that.
I don't think many would argue that your basic premise is false, but your rhetoric is flawed. My advice is to cut your losses to make your point, change the phrase to reflect it. Whatever it is in the Middle East, for everyone, "Cake Walk" it ain't...loaded for bear with complete body armor in 120 degrees, even to the point of wearing gloves, patrolling down a street of concrete and rammed earth dwellings that might erupt any second can't be a "Cake Walk" even to the troops who served in Bougainville, The Hurtgen Forest, Iwo Jima or Bastogne, even if those guys would have traded places in an instant if they could.
Poor choice for a title. It's titles like this that give conservatives chikenhawk and arm chair general.
Yes and it ticks me off too. These people need to GET OVER Vietnam and get on with the real world. It drives me crazy.
I doubt many Iraqi soldiers who are risking their lives every day agree that they are engaging in a "cake walk."
In a real war you have hundreds of thousands of troops killed on both sides. Civilians, too, get slaughtered if they are on the wrong side. There are shortages, rationing, wage and price controls, blackouts, high taxes, censorship, all kinds of sacrifices required of the populace.
And a military draft.
Now, how many on this site would like to have a real war? Are you ready for all it would entail?
I haven't read through the entire thread but I read enough to know that the title you chose caused more comments to be negative than the body of your post. If the title had read, "The Iraq War is a Cake-Walk COMPARED TO...", you probably wouldn't have gotten so many negative responses.
I looked past the title and read the body of what you posted. After reading the body, I knew what you meant in your title, and that you were not saying that our military men and women in Iraq were on a "calk walk". Just that it's a "cake-walk" compared to past wars. And that sir, is historically true. I'm confident that in the context of what your point is, our son, who served in Iraq, would agree with you. His great-uncle was killed in WWII on Iwo Jima. Time, history and perspective are assets.
On the other hand, Paris Hilton.
Firstly, we lost about 58,000 in Nam, while killing 2,000,000. It wasn't a cake walk. We had over a 30-1 kill ratio. That is not what wins guerilla wars. Nobody serious doubts that our military can kick the snot out of tanks, airplanes, vehicles, armies dug into position. The question is if fighting against people dressed in civilian clothing, working at a fruit stand during the day, hiding IED's at night is as winnable.
Our Government has the duty to protect us under the Constitution. If they fail to do so, we as citizens have the right and duty to protect ourselves through militias and changing our Government, by force if necessary. This was done once already.
GWs strategy of taking the fight to the enemy is correct. Logically, the terrorists will have the advantage of fighting on their turf. We have never been decived during the Congressional debates regarding the need to go to war. Any polititian who voted for this war and then changed their mind needs to be replaced. If we redeploy before the job is done (cut and run) the following will happen with almost certainty:
1. The mooslems will take full advantage of our Southern open border and infiltrate in large numbers. Since our leaders have failed to close the borders, there is no way of knowing how many OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) have entered the USA illegally. My guess is between 50,000 and 100,000 over the last 5 years. It isn't that difficult to get across.
2. We will be fighting on our turf. When this happens, you can kiss our economy goodbye. We, common citizens, will have to arm ourselves and start militias to do the job our Government has failed. I just got through re-reading the Constitution. If you think the detention camps for the Japanese was a task, just wait until we start rounding up mooslems.
3. When our economy comes to a halt, the world economy will follow. Without the tax base and already 9Tr Government debt, it will be difficult to fund the current programs (Soc. Sec, Medicare, etc.). At this point, the middle class will cease to exist since jobs will be scarce.
4. 2,500 in KIA will be nothing compared to the civil strife here in the USA. I try not to be a defeatist, but if you show your backside to mooslems, they will kick it mightly. History does repeat itself. Too bad our Government leaders don't have the IQ as our US Troops.
Go to war? OK Fine no arguments from me. But first lets state the objectives as solely related to the national security of the United States and not some UN Resolution laden writ toilet paper. WW2's congressional declaration took two paragraphs stating our national interest. State the objectives of war before congress which should be the unconditional surrender of the enemy or their unconditional elimination as a future threat. If this means bombing every standing structure so be it that is war. War is hell that must be understood by all planning it. If you don't have the stomach as a nation for it then stay home.
If the POTUS and congress are not willing to do this as it appears will be necessary then they are wrong and I don't care who's party they belong to.
Stop dragging it out and put some meaningful dead lines on the so called leadership of Iraq to either straighten up or face a destroyed nation. Six months from today should suffice. Keep the State Department home and use the Pentagon to convey this and any future messages.
If that fails then take out the bridges, power plants, communications, and any building or item that could ever possibly be used as a weapon or tool of war. Why was this not done early on? Because George W Bush and congress had every intention of nation building in Iraq and knew the American citizens wouldn't go for it? It sure looks like it to me. It was obvious after the second night of bombing where we were headed when they Wouldn't even secure Iraqi TV. {Remember Baghdad Bob?}
Do it and do it with prejudice and be done about it. Do not start into or turn Iraq an insane nation building program. {oops too late} Do not give the terrorist supporting thug dictator whom the war was all about over the the corrupt people who ALLOWED him to come to power to start with for a kangaroo trail in a make believe government court that has the stability of jello. {oops too late}
There are many reasons to ask questions about our policy in Iraq and that doesn't make one a DEM or Liberal or even anti-war for doing so. I call it holding congress accountable including John Kerry and Bill Frist for allowing the war in Iraq to become anything but just that the war in Iraq. Shame on you congress. You forget the lessons bought in blood of Korea and Nam and make the same policy mistakes.
I think our current heading is wrong and a waste of time. I think Iraq will be in a Civil War very soon and will never stand as free nation until the three factions fight it out amongst themselves. It is not our duty or responsibility to be their baby sitter nor re-builder of their nation. I am 100% against such doings but I am not against war and some need in the Whitehouse and Congress to learn the differences between those two.
Fight the war and let soldiers do their vocation. Support them and honor them. Stop making the War in Iraq some moronic experiment in NWO nation building and get it over with over there and out troops back home for well deserved victory celebrations and rest. Keep the United States State Department out of our wars and out of dictating our national defense policies.
We have at least two other nations on the back burner to possibly contend with and can anyone tell me why Rummy, Bush, nor congress, is not acting to increase out End Troop Strengths for active duty military? We are at Bill Clintons 1996 manpower level. Where is the outrage? Our military needs help and not some dolts who promise down the next few decades things will get better because of some far off yet to be built defense programs. We need a Reagan and a Cap in charge. Even in our Korea policy I feel like I'm watching LBJ part 2. /rant off
Cake walk? Unbelievably stupid choice of words on your part.
Losing a single soldier/marine/airman/seaman is a tragic loss, but a sacrifice we all agreed to make when we signed up for the service, should it be necessary in the defense of our fellow countrymen.