Quotes on War

#1
CSpindizzy

CSpindizzy

Five Star Recruit
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
11,352
Likes
542
#1
Quotes:

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

Trent Lott 1999 regarding Bosnia

"There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today."

Tom DeLay 1999 on Bosnia

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

Sean Hannity on Bosnia

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

Tony Snow 1999

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long (U.S. troops) will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

Texas Governor George W. Bush to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on June 5, 1999

"Victory means exit strategy and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

George W. Bush Houston Chronicle on April 9, 1999
 
#2
#2
"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long (U.S. troops) will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

Texas Governor George W. Bush to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on June 5, 1999

"Victory means exit strategy and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

George W. Bush Houston Chronicle on April 9, 1999
Click to expand...

What a worm..
 
#3
#3
OWB said:
What a worm..
Click to expand...

More Worms...?



JOHN KERRY

Kerry backed U.S. intervention in two bloody struggles in the Balkans: first in Bosnia, then in Kosovo. "History has taught us that we can't sit idly by while people commit these incredible evil acts against humanity,". "There are basic interests at stake," he added.

HOWARD DEAN
"After long and careful thought, and after several years of watching the gross atrocities committed by the Bosnian Serbs, I have reluctantly concluded that the efforts of the United Nations and NATO in Bosnia are a complete failure," the letter, written on Dean's official stationary, begins.

While agreeing with Clinton's policies towards Bosnia up to that point, Dean said in his July 19, 1995 letter, "It is evident, however, that the cost in human lives in allowing this policy to continue is too great." Therefore, he continued, "I have reluctantly concluded that we must take unilateral action in Bosnia to stop some of the worst genocide since World War II.

Dean, who said the U.N. and NATO were not capable of acting effectively, pushed for U.S. military intervention on moral grounds.

"In addition, and perhaps more importantly for the United States, we are now in a position of ignoring, as many did in the 1940s, one of the worst crimes committed in history. If we ignore these behaviors, no matter where they occur, our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened," he wrote.

Dean said, one of the four steps he recommended Clinton take was to unilaterally "commit American air power to support the Bosnian government until the situation is stabilized and the civilian murders and atrocities by the Bosnian Serbs have been stopped."

BILL CLINTON
Twice President Clinton set deadlines for the removal of U.S. troops, but last week he reversed course and announced his commitment to keep the still unspecified number of U.S. troops in Bosnia indefinitely, along with contingents from other nations.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: If we pull out before the job is done, Bosnia almost certainly will fall back into violence, chaos, and ultimately war every bit as bloody as the one that was stopped.

JOE BIDEN
Speaking for the United States, U.S. Senator Joseph Biden said that "the international mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina is ambitious and necessary -- although often frustrating -- but an eminently doable requirement. Extending the zone of stability throughout the Balkans is of vital importance not only to the entire European Continent but also to the continued credibility of this organization."
"For SFOR or the United Nations to disengage before our goals are accomplished would only guarantee renewed violence and a much more costly re-entry in the future. We must stay the course and prevail regardless of how long it takes," the senator said.

TOM DASCHLE
During a 1999 interview Jim Lehrer asked Senator Daschle, “(A)re you convinced that the American people understand the need to put U.S. troops on the ground in Kosovo?”
Daschle replied, “We have to be able to convince the American people that this is in our interest. I don't think you need much of an imagination, though, to know what happens if all of this gets out of hand.…I think we can avoid that with a little preventative medicine. That's what this is all about. It's preventative, and I think it will work.”


PAT LEAHY

When the first American soldier was killed in Bosnia in February 1996, Democrat Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont said, “the American people were going to have accept more casualties.”
Click to expand...
 
#6
#6
The point in all of those quotes that seems to be missed is "exit strategy" and "withdrawal deadlines". It seems the ones who are so adamantly against giving those for Iraq were so outspoken on having them in other hotspots. I wonder if it was a conversion and seeing the light or they just found it politically convenient for them at the time. Are they really against deadlines and exit strategies or are they afraid for political reasons saying so would come back to bite them in the rear.
 
#7
#7
CSpindizzy said:
The point in all of those quotes that seems to be missed is "exit strategy" and "withdrawal deadlines". It seems the ones who are so adamantly against giving those for Iraq were so outspoken on having them in other hotspots. I wonder if it was a conversion and seeing the light or they just found it politically convenient for them at the time. Are they really against deadlines and exit strategies or are they afraid for political reasons saying so would come back to bite them in the rear.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that anyone is against "exit strategies." Rather, they are against deadlines and timelines. I do not understand why they were so adamently in favor of timelines during the Bosnia-Kosovo Operation, other than the fact that the UN and NATO were conducting stability operations without first trying to disarm and dismantle the militaries in the region...
 
#10
#10
CSpindizzy said:
The point in all of those quotes that seems to be missed is "exit strategy" and "withdrawal deadlines". It seems the ones who are so adamantly against giving those for Iraq were so outspoken on having them in other hotspots. I wonder if it was a conversion and seeing the light or they just found it politically convenient for them at the time. Are they really against deadlines and exit strategies or are they afraid for political reasons saying so would come back to bite them in the rear.
Click to expand...

The "conversion" was not party dependent. Many of those now so adamantly calling for an exit strategy in Iraq were saying "stay the course" and "as long as it takes" and "if we leave now..." when it comes to Bosnia/Kosovo

Goose and gander.
 
#11
#11
I thought we were still having issues on rules of engagement.

My point was that we did not disarm the militias just like in Bosnia.
 
#12
#12
CSpindizzy said:
I thought we were still having issues on rules of engagement.

My point was that we did not disarm the militias just like in Bosnia.
Click to expand...
While I voice my concerns over our ROE in Iraq, we are still engaging the enemy. We are still conducting combat patrols outside of the green zones. In Bosnia, we conducted presence patrols inside secured areas. Our troops rarely set foot in unsecured territory, rarely conducted raids, rarely conducted attacks and held enemy territory. These last 3 sentences are not debatable.

If our troops in Iraq were not conducting combat patrols, I would be asking for a timeline, as it should send a signal to all involved that we are done. I believe Wesley Clark did a great job in following what the politicians wanted in Bosnia-do not allow an escalation of violence in the area. However, there was no call from any leaders to root out the cause of the conflict and to wholly destroy the enemy. Therefore, the troops in Bosnia did not seek and destroy the enemy. They did not close with deadly force. It was purely a stability operation, the same stability operation that is still going on in Bosnia. The same operation in which NATO still has 33,000 troops committed to.

People love to talk about how we have been in Iraq for over 3 years now and it is time to get out, yet, we first deployed troops to the region formerly known as Yugoslavia in 1992. So, 3 years in Iraq is too long, however, 14 in Bosnia is perfectly fine.
 
#13
#13
Again, we have not disarmed the militias who are now a great deal responsible for the violence that has been going on. We have allowed these local militias to control their areas and maintain their own security. Now you have private armies waging war on neighboring groups creating security gaps where we are pulled in to break up rather than focusing on greater security issues. Simply put, we allowed a few kids the toys to argue and fight about while the real bullies are running rampant.
 
#14
#14
CSpindizzy said:
Again, we have not disarmed the militias who are now a great deal responsible for the violence that has been going on. We have allowed these local militias to control their areas and maintain their own security. Now you have private armies waging war on neighboring groups creating security gaps where we are pulled in to break up rather than focusing on greater security issues. Simply put, we allowed a few kids the toys to argue and fight about while the real bullies are running rampant.
Click to expand...
We have never, in any war the U.S. has fought, disarmed the armies who have surrendered or who have not engaged our troops. Why people believe it was a big mistake to allow Iraqi troops and militias to keep their weapons is beyond me? The Nazi's kept their weapons, as did the Italians, Japanese, and PDF. Why would that policy change with no military precedent?
 
#15
#15
How can we have no policy in place to disarm the enemy, not disarm the enemy, and at the same time gripe about Lebanon's inability to disarm Hizbollah? Double standards?
 
#17
#17
Well, I was just saying that the US (and others) criticize Lebanese officials for not disarming Hizbolloh prior to the militia group entering into Lebanese politics. Even now, Lebanon, sans any real military power is expected to disarm Hizbollah. As a country who you say has never disarmed any enemy, how can we expect Lebanon to disarm Hizbolla? This runs counter-current to our own policies in this regard.
 
#18
#18
J.Quest said:
Well, I was just saying that the US (and others) criticize Lebanese officials for not disarming Hizbolloh prior to the militia group entering into Lebanese politics. Even now, Lebanon, sans any real military power is expected to disarm Hizbollah. As a country who you say has never disarmed any enemy, how can we expect Lebanon to disarm Hizbolla? This runs counter-current to our own policies in this regard.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked, Hizbollah has never surrendered...
 
#19
#19
So surrendering is a prerequisite? If they are armed before surrender and armed after surrender, then there should be no pressure applied on anyone to disarm--ever.
 
#20
#20
J.Quest said:
So surrendering is a prerequisite? If they are armed before surrender and armed after surrender, then there should be no pressure applied on anyone to disarm--ever.
Click to expand...
First, when I am speaking of disarmement of soldiers and militias, I am speaking of individual weapons systems, to exclude RPGs. I am not talking about missiles, crew served weapons (although many soldiers on losing sides have kept machine guns), air craft, etc.

Second, in the annals of military history, pressure to disarm is rarely applied to the individual soldier. This is because although most soldiers believe in the cause they fight for, an overwhelming majority will abandon that cause once the upper echelons of their command structure have surrendered.
 
#21
#21
A few other thoughts on the Hizbo's.

They are a militia operating within a country - the pressure is on the government of the country to disarm the militia within the country. In the examples from Real, they are cases where we are fighting an enemy and militias in other countries. I guess the equivalent would be us pressuring the Iraqi government to disarm the militias in Iraq.

Second, the UN is pressuring Lebanon to control the militia operating within their own country because that militia is attacking other countries (Israel) and committing terrorist acts outside of Lebanon.

Taken together, the UN may be saying "it's your country and therefore your responsibility to control these militias that are attacking other member states". Similar pressure is leveled at the Palestinian govt. since militia in their "country" are attacking other member states.

Just some possible reasons based on some differences in the situations being discussed.
 
#22
#22
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure. If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'"

Abraham Lincoln-​
Click to expand...


​
 
#23
#23
Adding a couple

Vietnam was the first war ever fought without any censorship. Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.
- General William Westmorland


Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
-Hermann Goering
Click to expand...
 
#24
#24
I never knew precedent on disarming militants determines our foreign and military policy. I guess precedent for reasons to go to war weren't followed so there goes that notion.

I find it ludicrous that knowing localized militias were going around killing each other and kidnapping and beheading people would be completely ignored. If our policy is to allow people to gather the arms they can find and create localized militias to cause havoc and terror and then do nothing about it, we've completely lost the situation in Iraq. If we cannot stop these groups who essentially operate outside of the law, military control, and the new constitution of Iraq, we're through. This is the most defeatist approach of allowing rogue extremist elements to exist and flourish and even go unimpeded through their areas killing soldiers, politicians, etc. and waging a war on terror. We might as well just dump arms all over the place and do the same in Afghanistan to make sure we keep 'precedent' and not actually help our own cause.
 
#25
#25
CSpindizzy said:
I never knew precedent on disarming militants determines our foreign and military policy. I guess precedent for reasons to go to war weren't followed so there goes that notion.

I find it ludicrous that knowing localized militias were going around killing each other and kidnapping and beheading people would be completely ignored. If our policy is to allow people to gather the arms they can find and create localized militias to cause havoc and terror and then do nothing about it, we've completely lost the situation in Iraq. If we cannot stop these groups who essentially operate outside of the law, military control, and the new constitution of Iraq, we're through. This is the most defeatist approach of allowing rogue extremist elements to exist and flourish and even go unimpeded through their areas killing soldiers, politicians, etc. and waging a war on terror. We might as well just dump arms all over the place and do the same in Afghanistan to make sure we keep 'precedent' and not actually help our own cause.
Click to expand...

Way to inflate the situation. Just because the media states that Iraq is on the verge of civil war, does not mean that it is. The sectarian violence is scarce in the country. It is pretty much confined to certain sectors of Baghdad. And our troops are dealing with it.

And yes, precedent and historical analysis from a military viewpoint is used overwhelmingly in waging war, as it should. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, as there is also no use in disarming those people who are not threatening. If they threaten later, the army engages them and effectlively eliminates the threat. Of course, you know much more about military history and tactics concerning combat operations than the brass that are conducting the Operation in Iraq...right?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top