Wonder if he could have ever made the right decision if faced with making an immediate decision like JFK had to in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
He can't even trust "HIS" generals opinions, but he asks the nation to trust him on the radical changes he is making to the country?
This would probably be a no-brainer for Lincoln or JFK considering the ones they had to make.
$**** or get off of the pot sir.
The parents of the dead are probably getting tired of apologizes.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: The parents of the dead are probably getting tired of apologizes.

I doubt they're getting ANY apologies.
At least not from anyone in charge.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I doubt they're getting ANY apologies. At least not from anyone in charge.

good point.

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: a win is kicking the living crap out of them, and from then on keeping terror activity suppressed. There will not be a win in the traditional sense. This is a war on ideology, Wahabi Islam vs the West. This is like the "war on crime" or the "war on disease". It is a philosophical war that will continue. Radical Islam through the means of technology has reached a place in history where distance, oceans, and communication are no longer safe barriers. They are trying to spread their will through violence, and technology is a force multiplier. Because of this, we will have to fight this as a common place problem. The same as cops fight crime in the street. I don't go on patrol expecting to win and eradicate crime for good. It only suppresses it. People are looking at the terror issue wrong. We now have world criminals who wish to do harm to all that do not conform to their ideology. They wish the world to operate under Sharia law. If the world does not wake up, we will only see more mass killings from terror attacks. Allies must come together to combat terror as a world criminal element. And fight it at all cost. Much like the British did to eradicate piracy on the open seas in the past. As soon as people realize this is never going to be over, the sooner we can get back to the mission at hand. Killing terrorists and suppressing their power. If we don't fight them, we will only have more 9/11's. So....its fight back, or terror attacks will come unchallenged. I know the liberal never have the stomach for a fight, but this is the world we live in. Without protection of the warrior, the pacifist would be extinct.

yes, job security, eh?
funny how that works....

My thoughts is the general in charge should make military decisions, not some peabrain in office that cant even run a kool aid stand. Hes prob out back playing basketball with his congressmen again and cant be bothered with stuff like this.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: can you describe what would actually constitute "winning" this war? is it even a war?

Pyrthian,
You always ask leading questions yet rarely respond with answers. Many or most that get into these threads take postions, you don't. You seem to love to engage in dialoge but, rarely offer up a solid position, you challenge but never commit. Maybe you don't have one, I don't know but............. Well, it's still a free country, kind of. Do what you do best.

We may have different definations of winning but, having lived the life I've lived versus what many others purportedly have, my idea of winning is probably somewhat more definitive and decisive that many here would espouse to. It's not up to me to decide what winning is. I have a military frame of mind, I don't set foreigh policy.

I sincerely believe in speaking softly and carrying a big stick. That stick should be used wisely but, sometimes it needs to be used. In this case, I'd be using a very big stick.

Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-02-2009).]

+ for that Shananigans, .