VK Thank you for your return response. I pose the question of who were our leaders in those last three efforts? Democrats. Bush's efforts were succeeding in both of our recent theatres. It was not until the Democrats assumed power that things really went down hill. Why is that so. It is so because if you really want to win then you need a full commitment from Congress and the President and you need to get out of the way of Generals

How can you say that you are effectively fighting a war to win when you announce to the enemy your day of withdrawal. Its plain insanity. If I were a solider on the line I might be saying to myself about now "Why the heck should I expose myself to death or injury if we are wrapping this thing up in a few months"....and then walk away from the battle. Who could fault any solider from doing so?

Secondly as much as it displeases many people we really need to go back to a draft. Paid mercenaries contributed greatly to the fall of Rome. The draft while not perfect will fall pretty equally among the soci-economic spectrum

We have young people that are so apathetic about foreign policy that they don't even know where most of these countries are located. They are so detached that they can't recognize the importance of defending our democracy. I have engaged conversation with young people and when it comes to the issue of defense their response is "its not my problem"
Why do they say that because they have noskin in the game and because there are kids responsible enough or in need of an opportunity that will enlist. However there are not enough of them and they continually get recycled until they are dead or spent

There is another reality and its is raising its ugly head as I knew it would and that is the costs associated with an all volunteer Army. It is becoming cost prohibitive to maintain such a military. Frankly I am half serious about the fact that I am surprised that a union hasn't recruited memebers of the Armed Forces.

Just my opinon...others to decide

History??
 

Oh c'mon, you're not really blaming our inability to contain and control the insurgencies still going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan on Obama, are you?

It was Obama who authorized an increase in troop strength in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It was the Congress who never flinched once on funding whatever the military wanted, whether it was a Democratic or Republican majority. (In fact, Congress added to the Pentagon budget request with facilities and weapons systems that they wanted, that the generals never even asked for!) And wasn't it the Iraqi people who in a fair, democratic election voted for the U.S. to get the hell out of their country by the end of 2011? Maybe Obama should have deemed their election unfair and thrown out the result, huh?

As far as Bush's contribution to the whole Iraq-Afghanistan affair, who was POTUS when the decision was made that there was nothing more to be accomplished in Afghanistan and pulled the troops out to be available to invade Iraq? And whose administration was it that not only refused to listen to the generals who told the Secretary of Defense and the President that we would need 500,000 tropps to properly invade and occupy Iraq? Donald Rumsfeld fired that guy. It was Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others who convinced George Bush that we'd never need to occupy Iraq, that we'd be welcomed with rose petals in the street and that the dictatorship would become a full-fledged democracy with no help from our military. How many young kids did that kill with roadside bombs and trying to attack and re-occupy insurgent strongholds like Anbar province, Fallujah and even Sadr City? How much did that decsion prolong the war and further break the U.S. treasury?

If you're really going to try to politicize the wars we started and can't seem to finish in the Middle East, blaming it on Obama and the liberals and lionizing the conservatives who would have won both wars if not for Obama, I guess all I can say is that history doesn't quite bear out the allegation.

By the way, you may get what you wish for. If Mitt Romney is elected, he may well invade both Syria and Iran. He hasn't been quite that specific, he seldom is. His favorite topic has been Iran and he often promises that only he can stop Tehran getting a nuclear bomb--but he never says exactly how. As Syria has sunk towards civil war, Mr Romney has turned the crisis into a general election issue. In one of his few comments on the conflict, he blamed the Obama administration for the continued carnage in Syria. But he's never said what he would do as POTUS.

I'll vote for Romney, but I don't beleive for an instant that he has much better ideas than Obama does on the problems in the Middle East. If fact, if he listens to that loose cannon John Bolton, who some say he will appoint as Secretary of State, we could wind up with an even bigger problem in that region.

Newest rumor...Russia has warships enroute to Syria to "protect" their citizens !!!

on the good side of this, it is being reported that Obama and Putin had some agreement today !

Why do you believe that John Bolton will be selected by Mitt Romney to be Secretary of State? I can think of few appointments that would create as much controversy and get him off to a bad start. Romney is too intelligent and practical to do that. Here is Romney's Foreign Policy team. No John Bolton.

Mitt Romney Announces Foreign Policy And National Security Advisory Team

y it is one thing

ijustluvit: I missed your post earlier. I'll make a wager that you were one of those people who attended the great outdoor event at Woodstock. I am not being critical here but did point out in my first post that the doves will come out of the woodwork

You call my belief "infantile" and yet all aroud the world brave people fight to the death to free themselves...In fact they are called "freedom fighters"
Again I say that Americans have taken for grant their "freedoms";albeit the government seems to be limiting them day by day. Contrast that with European nations and look what has happened to their status .

An all volunteer Army is not enough and in another post here I explain briefly why. You have many of the younger generation with no skin in the game and that is very dangerous.

Finally let me say which is worse being infantile and ready or naive? I prefer my reality because history is on my side.

Personal Best Regards:

You're Right...Good Catch
 

i had read several articles which placed Bolton in a more important advisory position than he actually has. While I can find references to his January, 2012 appointment to the Romney foreign affairs team, I can't find an actual announcement of that.

I know that Colin Powell has been pretty vocal on the Romney foreign affairs team being uniformly too far to the right. But as far as Bolton is concerned, let's just say I ddn't do complete homework.

How about calling back Colin Powell, or even Jon Huntsman? In my mind those would be great choices. Not for me to say though.

Keeps getting better by the day....

"Iran, Syria, Russia and China are planning the “biggest-ever wargames in the Middle East,” according to an unconfirmed report on the semi-official Iranian news site Fars News. A Syrian official denied the claims.

According to the article, the four countries are preparing 90,000 troops, 400 aircraft and 1,000 tanks for the massive joint maneuvers, which are to take place along the Syrian coast within a month."

Syria, Iran, Russia and China plan joint war games, Iranian news agency says | The Times of Israel

And then which I liked...by the way this is a "leak"....isnt it amazing how all these leaks all of a sudden in an election year and NONE carry anything negative about...oh, well.......just funny it seems but this I sort of like...

"The United States and Israel jointly developed a sophisticated computer virus nicknamed Flame that collected critical intelligence in preparation for cyber-sabotage attacks aimed at slowing Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, according to Western officials with knowledge of the effort.

The massive piece of malware was designed to secretly map Iran’s computer networks and monitor the computers of Iranian officials, sending back a steady stream of intelligence used to enable an ongoing cyberwarfare campaign, according to the officials.

The effort, involving the National Security Agency, the CIA and Israel’s military, has included the use of destructive software such as the so-called Stuxnet virus to cause malfunctions in Iran’s nuclear enrichment equipment.

The emerging details about Flame provide new clues about what is believed to be the first sustained campaign of cyber-sabotage against an adversary of the United States.

“This is about preparing the battlefield for another type of covert action,” said one former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official, who added that Flame and Stuxnet were elements of a broader assault that continues today. “Cyber collection against the Iranian program is way further down the road than this.”

U.S., Israel developed Flame computer virus to slow Iranian nuclear efforts, officials say - The Washington Post

Hard To Debate
 

Yeah, and one of the reports I saw regarding the meetings between Putin and Obama related Putin's position regarding removing Assad from power in Syria. Reportedly he told Obama, "...so if you remove him from power, who takes his place? You've already seen what happens in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Egypt. Why would you want to create another unstable and dangerous state on top of all those?"

Kind of a hard argument to debate.

Where did you hear that report ? I thought I had read a number of recaps and never got that....interesting. Link, source or something ? Just to add, I did hear him comment on Libya but not Iraq, or the others !!!! VERY interesting

""It's important to arrive at such a situation" through negotiations among groups in Syria, Putin said Tuesday. "The security and interests of all parties should be agreed upon, not like some countries in North Africa, where violence still continues, despite a regime change"


Will just wait for you source and go there because that is some kind of fascinating news

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...a48ca6f0ff1857

On TV
 

I saw it on TV sometime this afternoon, probably on an interview with someone "in the know" on CNN. That's the channel I have on most often. But I haven't followed the Putin-Obama meetings very closely.

A better thing to watch in the very short term is the annoiuncement of the election results in Egypt. The CNN on-the-ground guy reporting from Tahrir Square says that if the interim military government announces that the former Mubarak loyalist and army backer is announced as the winner over the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, there would be major riots across the country.

The entire middle east thing is explosive at best....there are ways that all of this can work out well, and lots of ways it can be sooooooo very destructive.

I was curious about the comment on Iraq, etc because that would really be a nasty reply to Obama for sure, but perhaps your guy in the know at CNN paraphrased for his purpose as they tend to do at times on all networks.

But the mideast is where folks should be looking now...not at the circus over here !