Wow - my own post - I'm gonna make it after all!

I'll go through your mistakes later.

jp2, don't bother. You pretty much eliminated yourself as a rational contender by opening with a reference to the "chickenhawk" crap.

Speaking as someone who served, we didn't then and don't now need all those who support us in the military.

And Jay Tea nails it (and you) with his last point.

I believe it was George Orwell who said, "The fastest way to end a war is to lose it."

I read jp2's post last week and, in all seriousness, I was pleased that he chose to take up the challenge to commit his alternatives for our perusal. I appreciate that and the type of reply that JT writes above. I learn a lot from this type of discussion - it beats the name calling (from both sides, I guess).

The left thinks the choice is between war, and no war.

The right know the choice is between now, or later, there, or here.

The terrorists wont stop after we leave the mideast, just like they havent stopped after Israel pulled out of Gaza.

I'd love to know what libs will do if we leave the Mideast as they propose, and terrorists start attacking us HERE in the US, as they attack in the Mideast, markets, busses, etc etc. What will libs do then??

Now that NBC has official called the situation in Iraq a civil war, the President can now pull our forces out.

The Sunnis will align with Syria/Saud and the Shittiest (sic) will align with Iran. That will keep both sides busy for the next decade or millennium. We can than focus on a negotiated peace settlement with Israel, Palestine and Lebanon.

Let those bastards drain their treasuries for a change.

Wow - my own post - I'm gonna make it after all!

Enjoy your infamy, jp2! LOL

(But I applaud you for at least making suggestions and approaches, albeit poor ones.)

BTW, did anyone catch General Abazaid on "60 Minutes" last night? While I haven't been able to find the text of the interview to quote him directly, the General doesn't think we need more troops at this time. And he gave a nice smackdown to Lara Logan who kept using the word "defeat"/"lose" (I can't remember precisely which one), retorting to Logan, "that's your word, not mine".

NBC reported the other night that when Sadr City had checkpoints leading into and out of the city, violence decreased. Since early November when Maliki took away the checkpoints, an increase in violence. I think it's high time to do put the checkpoints back in place, arm them with IA with American back up and get control of Sadr City once again. That, and do soemthing drastic to disarm about the damn Shiite militias...

Based upon past posts I think Barney and I sit on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but I concede he has a point that has never been adequately rationalized for me. It seems clear that most governments in the Middle East would loathe a republic with a freely elected government in their midst. That the civil war in Iraq between Shiites and Sunnis in the Baghdad area is being supported by outside governments would indicate that. So, if the US were to pullout? This leaves the civil war in Iraq as perhaps a battleground for dominance between Saudi Arabia and Iran. What is the lesser of the two evils here. Or perhaps the Iranians would prefer the US gone because of the Shiite majority in Iraq but the Saudis (and the Kurds) would like a US presence because the Sunnis are in the minority there.

The whole "chicken hawk" argument is such pitiful crap - the fact that it is even discussed shows the state of the liberal mind in this country.

So, its put or shut up, take your lumps time is it?

Is that in relation to Iraq or Afghanistan? Most liberal whiners will talk all day about how they support the mission in Afghanistan. Slap on the green punk!

Maybe its put or shut up for Bosnia? When exactly does Chelsea Clintons tour of duty start? I have to admit it would be one hell of a photo-op to see the Bush girls splittin a sixer with Chelsea down at the enlisted club. I guess put up or shut up doesnt count for Democratic wars?

How does JP2 feel about the humanitarean effort provided by the US military in New Orleans? I guess hes against it since he isnt running around in a uniform.

So there you go, one way or the other- JP2 is a chickenhawk.

Iraq is in the beginning of a full out civil war, jihadists are returning to Afghanistan in increasing numbers, Lebanon is ready to explode into chaos and Iran is sending help into Iraq.

I don't think the neo-con plan that Bush signed up for of spreading Democracy throughout the Middle East is going as foreseen. That is what happens when you only have yes men sitting at the planning table

For one, I propose strenghting the military just out of general principle. That means all war supporters enlist, even bloggers

Using this same logic then, let's assume that those that are currently serving were given the option to pick and choose what theaters of operations they want to deploy to or to not deploy at all until there is a war they feel they can support.

My guess is you would still have pretty much the same force you have there now.

On that same note, all non-serving or never served civilians that do not support the actions which "all" are volunteering for should reframe from emboldening those that would attack the volunteers.

So basically you would have the status quo military organization fighting but the lefties would just have to STFU.

Sounds fair to me. When can you lefties start?

I'd like jp2 to articulate the logic behind the idea that one cannot support sending soliders to war without being one of them. Are you saying that one who has not or will not serve in the military lacks the moral authority to advocating committing others to fight?

Does it have to be wartime? Do you have to serve on the ground, in a theater, or will KP at a stateside base do?

What if I attempt to enlist but am rejected due to, say, my degenerative disk disease? What if I am rejected just because I'm a fat-ass couch potato? Will serving as a mall security guard suffice? Bouncer at an inner-city nighclub?

What if I've already served and am retired? Do I have to re-up if I want to support a new war?

Jay, you gave jp2 (just pathetic?) too much credit.

What he presented was a conglomeration of multiple talking points. Nothing that even represents a thoughtful response to your request.

Even what he presented in the talking points is so high level as to be open to interpretation, with the exception of the cut and run part that is.

And here's civil behavior... showing how liberals understand international complexities.

The howl of non-support for combating jihadists and promises to leave the middle east obviously have *nothing* to do with increases in violent activities and set-backs to our goals? It's not as though anyone but "yes men" have been proposing ways to gain ground in those conflicts... "yes men" being defined by not howling defeat and submission? WHEN has any Democrat, any "loyal opposition", made clear they want us to succeed over there? Oh, yeah, Leiberman.

"Iraq is in the beginning of a full out civil war,"

Civil war is not the same as civil disorder, though there are certainly power plays being made. One example is Sadr, who would make Saddam look somewhat boy-scoutish. Potential war-lords and replacement dictators are looking for any way to consolodate their power. This would also happen if we left, only with greater hope for success and likely far more bloodshed.

"jihadists are returning to Afghanistan in increasing numbers,"

The Taliban is also making inroads into Somalia, bringing their notion of civil order to that country abandoned by the US.

"Lebanon is ready to explode into chaos"

And this is our fault?

"...and Iran is sending help into Iraq."

Iran's one and only motivation is not "help". Their sole purpose is to contribute to the destabilization of Iraq, to keep peace at home.

Iraq is a threat in many quarters. Someone mentioned Turkey. There's a reason that we want/need Kurds to remain part of Iraq proper. Do you know what that is? Could you discuss it with me? Explain the issues to show you understand, even if you disagree, why Turkey might see a truely independant Kurdistan as a serious threat to their own domestic stability.

Otherwise admit that the cons and neo-cons know far more about the world than you do.

"I don't think the neo-con plan that Bush signed up for of spreading Democracy throughout the Middle East is going as foreseen."

What do you think was "foreseen?" Wave a magic wand and four years later people completely forget what it was like to fear political participation, trust their legal systems, learn a new way to manage public and military service to provide protection that doesn't depend on one's ethnic and religious identity?

Are the *neo-cons* wallowing in an angst of shattered illusions, or is it just you?

What about what has happened, and is happening, including Sadr, is not within the likely and "foreseeable" pains of building a new government and building one that doesn't rely on a tradition of ruling by fear?

"That is what happens when you only have yes men sitting at the planning table."

And again... the definition of "yes men" is "anyone who thinks this is important and worth doing and believes we should win."

How about some mental effort/analysis re winning this thing, rather than looking for a way to find defeat, to prove your position "correct" on Iraq, jp2?

I agree with Jay; we only lose if we give up.

A typically stupid Lefty reaction to a war: they're surprised when the enemy shoots back and/or tries to make our job difficult. It doesn't take acquiring a doctorate to see that the enemy's most potent weapon is to try and make us think our effort is futile, to get us bickering among ourselves about the worthiness of finishing a job. Idiots on the Left fall right in line with this--an astonishing lack of thoughtfulness and completely useful idiots for the enemy. Way to go, dumb asses.

Wow, such vile comments, full of name childish name calling. Typical. Anyways, my response to JT.

Ahem.

First off, let me ask why any one would listen to or respect your opinion? You have been wrong and so many aspects of this conflict from day one: "The insurgents won't keep this up" and "Democracy will flourish like a dam breaking open..." You've been wrong - always. Why does your opinion matter? I don't talk to DeLay about ethics or Clinton about how to keep a marriage strong. Why should I listen to your opinions on war? You should be ashamed.

Again, let me emphasize that there are zero solutions for this conflict. Certainly your ideas have been wrong, and mine might be as well. Either way, we are screwed. And so are the Iraqis. (The ones who haven't been able to flee) I do wish your ideas were right, JT. It would be nice. But it's not reality.

"Our problems are NOT from a lack of manpower -- and if it is, we could start by repositioning other forces around the world."

It's also important to note that your claim of "meeting our recruiting goals" is slightly dishonest, as we both know that we have lowered the standards quite far. That's how we end up with people like Barker, who raped and murdered a 14 year old girl. What I am worried about is a developing conflict where are troops are needed. I would also like to raise our recruiting standards so we don't end up with the low lying (Barker) fruit. And if we follow St. McCain's plan (which is a bluff) where do we pull 20,000 troops?

"Here's a bit more insight. Serving in the military means "taking your lumps." It's punishment."

For you, it would be punishment. Imagine, actually having to take the action of your convictions! The horror!

You are not surprisingly missing the point about asking war supporters to enlist. (Jeez, when you type that out, it seems to be such a simple request) It's more or less rhetorical and I certainly didn't expect people to take it at face value. It's a larger point. Anyways, I agree with Rangel and his draft proposal. When people are so disconnected from the reality of war - when their only experience is doing "independent studies" - then that needs to change because it's far too easy to send kids into combat. And not to single you out Jay Tea - it's the entire neo-con movement. Led and supported by people are simply disconnected.

"The phrase "self-fulfilling prophesy" comes to mind."

Ahhh yes. The lost war was caused by Michael Moore's email. And the terrorists couldn't stop talking about OH-12. This is another great example of what I meant earlier by "disconnected" although it takes a new form here. The war was lost by people who don't support the war. (Which, by the way, is now a majority of the country) It wasn't lost by the horrible decisions made, or the fact that it was a terrible idea in the first place. Nope. Dean and Michael Moore.

I invite everyone to read this speech by Dean. As you we'll see, he's been spot on.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

"And we left Saudi Arabia when the Saudis asked us to."

And yet we still had troop presence on the peninsula... Odd that your "independent studies" didn't go over that.

"Diplomacy is fine and good, but there really isn't much to talk about when the two sides have diametrically opposing goals."

Actually, I think that's what diplomacy is. Maybe this is why you and the neo-cons have had such a tough time with it?

"But there is one sure way to guarantee defeat, and that's to follow the suggestions jp2 outlined above."

Perhaps my ideas won't work. (Cheney is trying one of them right now, so we'll see) Either way, my track record is 100% better than yours. I'm okay with that.

I must admit..as a disabled vet..I have at times lowered myself to the level of join up or shut up..this is simply wrong...and I admit my guilt.

I will ask simply..who is the enemy in Iraq today?
Whom must we defeat to win?

Easy nogo. The Democrats. As a vet--and one who has done tours in Iraq--I feel as if those in the Democrat Party have stabbed me in the back. From day one the left has done everything in its power to see if this effort can fail all in the hopes of embarrassing Bush just to get back into power.

I am not alone in that feeling amongst those serving. Frankly, most that I've talked with feel the Democrats have sold them up the river is an attempt to regain power. You are relagating us to fighting another war just a few years down the road only with less funding, less preparedness and God help us if you get a draft going to completly decimate the abilities of our forces.

As we find out today most of the reports of what has and hasn't happened in Oraq as reported by the Ap and Reuters has been due mostly to terrorists propagandists and not true reporters. All an elaborate lie.

jp2, sorry, but if you side with Rangel and his concept of the draft you are so far out of touch with today's military, it's capabilities, and what a true, total and complete disaster a draft would do to the services the rest of your post isn't worth reading. I am simply astounded by the sheer level of ignorance at such a concept.

This line of thinking just convinces me that the Left would rather see this country destroyed if it meant they could be in power. Careful what you wish for or you just might find yourself in charge of a smoking nuclear hole from a terrorist bomb. You can gaze upon it as you bow to Mecca for your prayers of surrendar.

I'm sorry isn't jp2 being a chickenhawk asking others to enlist to support his desired increase in the military ?

I'm a 50 year old ex-Navy veteran ... so I've served, just not in Iraq ... Does that make me a chickehawk if I support the war on terror ?

jp2: If I directed you to a speech by Karl Rove, would you read it?

We both know you would not. You regard Rove as a partisan hack, with little knowledge of anything beyond his own party's talking points. For the same reason, I will not read anything, let alone a speech, by Howard Dean (since when is the head of a politcal fundraising arm an expert on international terrorism? I woudn't direct you to a speech by Ken Mehlman or Mel Martinez). Partisanship trumps knowledge with Dean, and I've no desire to swim through the sewage that is the DNC Chair's public persona. Come up with a less insulting choice of "authority" and I will gladly read it.

Until then, I remain unconvinced of the soundness of your reasoning.

Actually Jeff, we're all not terribly sure if that qualifies you or not, it's all very confusing. I think you may need to re-up to be granted the holy moral right to support the war.

That's why I stopped watching baseball a while back, incidentally. I'm not good enough to play the game, so I was stripped of my right to support the players.

In that vein, those who criticize the war cannot do so unless they're Iraqis.

"Whom must we defeat to win?"

Time.

The people who say "we can not win militarily" are right... even if they say it to support a belief that is wrong.

Crushing an enemy is easy... yet the military, like all other tools of foreign policy and diplomacy, is actually a tool to change people's minds. Simplistically in war, to make them decide to stop fighting.

Our presence, now, is to change their minds about opposing civil order and the new government. This may (hopefully) involve taking out Sadr. There are reasons for not having too many of our soldiers on the ground there, but perhaps the benefits outweigh the drawbacks of a larger force... where we have a strong presence there is less violence. Maybe the troops would prefer not to do policing, but that's what we need them to do. If they should not, then who should? Do we have an international "police force?" Should Iraqis do it all?

We really need a long term presence because a major and very important part of the "mind changing" that needs to be done is Iraqi expectations of justice and leadership. Justice is a pretty new concept all around and leadership examples seem to be on the order of rule-by-fear.

Seeing our officers and *especially* our NCO's as they instruct and as they do their jobs... even just the way our officers *treat* their NCO's... is vital.

It might not be as satisfying as dropping bombs... we all like big explosions, don't we? But we need *someone* there to provide examples and training... and for quite a while. Long enough to combat the "institutional memory" of business as usual.

So who?

I've said for a while now that those complaining about Bush's so-called lack of plan to win the peace as well as the anti-war, anti-military sorts, have an opportunity, a HUGE opportunity to suggest plans for building the country of Iraq, helping people understand the underlaying concepts of living in a liberal democracy, and showing their support for those people.

There is no reason at all that other efforts can't be in place concurrently with our military presence... in fact, our military presence may be the only thing providing enough security so that other efforts even have a chance.

All the criticism but no plans to support a liberal democracy in Iraq. All the doom-saying but no rolling up sleeves and expressed willingness to get the job done.

What we have to defeat is time.

And maybe attrition.

"Perhaps my ideas won't work. (Cheney is trying one of them right now, so we'll see) Either way, my track record is 100% better than yours. I'm okay with that."

Your track record ? j2p ? Can I assume you never once called Afganistan a quamire ? Or claimed the arab street would boil over ? Doubt it ... How about claiming Bush lied ? Not once ? again I doubt it ... (yes you were wrong)

Your ideas are nothing more than cynical liberal nonsense meant to make you feel good when writing it ... (just like this post)

Answer one question j2p ...

Are we at war with radical islam ?

Yes or No ...

jp2 lives in a dream world with a few thousand leftie's who will surely die at the hands of some enemy like it or not.
I don't believe the 3,000 who died on 9-11 were all serving in the military.

I would sign up for the military tomorrow if not for two things, I've already served 22 years and I'm over 65. If allowed to sign up my discharge date would have to be in the first quarter of 09. If the dim's take the president's office then every soldier that has died fighting for freedom will have died for nothing, and any soldier that dies after that will die because the cowards won't support him/her. They'll get you in a fight and then cut and run, 50 years of history proves that.

I think the nogo got it right, "I will ask simply..who is the enemy in Iraq today?"

At some point early on it may have been about insurgents or terrorists attacking the west (UN, Red Cross, US forces) but now it is all about revenge killings, and our presence or lack of presence will not change that fact.

If we leave now, we can accomplish our goals:
-Let Iran inherit this wreck. They will be too busy fighting a proxy war to build a nuke, and maybe it will lead to the overthrow of the Mullahs (we kicked-out the GOP).

-We can build a nice new shinny base in Kurdistan. The Kurds will be happy to sell us all their oil in exchange for clout with Turkey.

-The Sunni governments will do anything to prevent the Shiites from growing into a dominate power in the ME. Maybe even broker a peace accord with Israel?

How much more disingenuous can you possibly be jp2?

You provide the example of a single person in the military who has broken the law, and use that to condemn the entire group?

With such narrow conclusions like that, is it any wonder you are so far off on your other proposals?

I agree with JP2 on all those who support the war, join the military. And since it is the military that has provided us the freedoms we enjoy today, in the Revolutionary War, WW1 & WW2 and others, then only those in the military can dictate the freedoms we have. It only makes sense, since they are the ones who have given it to us. Those who haven't joined, then, have no right to enjoin in those freedoms, so they can become slaves to those who gave them their freedom.

Not eloquently written, but you get the general gist.

Apply this to volunteer fire departments. If you don't (or haven't) serve(d) on the volunteer fire department, you have no right to ask them to risk their lives putting out your house fire.

More wisdom from JT:

"Iran is not interested in a stable, secular Iraq."

"TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would do whatever it could to help provide security to Iraq amid warnings the country was on the brink of civil war."

jp2:

Let Iran inherit this wreck.

And what about the Iraqi people? As long as the blood is on their hands it's ok?

Please, you quote Ahmadinejad saying he wanted to help as proof that he has interest in a stable and secular Iraq?
Just how will he help security in Iraq...stop the steady stream of funding to the insurgency? Will he perhaps help Iraq the same way he has helped Lebanon with Hezbollah?

You've burnt a fuse somewhere if you trust this man.

Jay Tea - we shouldn't just withdraw US troops from the Balkans, but from all of Europe. I think 61 years of occupation are enough. The troops and support forces that go along with them could be better used elsewhere.

A typically stupid Lefty reaction to a war: they're surprised when the enemy shoots back and/o