100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: So Much for the Surge | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I don't think an immediate pullout is a good idea. But there should be some kind of a plan for eventually pulling out some troops and I just don't see any good ideas being proposed by our politicians. an immediate pullout would never work. There are always contingency plans but to expose them gives the enemy a heads up and as far as plans the only one that has any kind of plan is McCain. The other two have no discernible plan for Iraq... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
actually that doesn't show the declines in violence that have taken place and the areas of those declines... Do you have any information on where the declines in violence are? If so, please post them. Inquiring minds would like to know. It wouldn't surprise me if violence is declining in some areas, but that doesn't necessarily signify the surge is working. It could be that the insurgents are laying low, waiting for instructions or another chance to resume their attacks. Or they could be shifting to other areas. It's like a shell game. Baghdad has had a decline for one, according to my friends.... mmmmkay.....i won't say anymore. Just this, i don't get my facts from any news source or anything touched by any politician. My sources are just form people that are in the thick of things... so maybe i should read more newspapers and watch more tv? If you want anymore real information or real explinations from real people read my first comment... Ok, let's say the surge is working, at least in some areas. In that case, why don't we bring the troops home? Because, it might be reasoned, if we do the insurgents will start killing more people again. So, therefore, that means we have to stay in Iraq forever since this will always be a possibility. Do you want the U.S. to stay in Iraq forever? no, just long enough to get the Iraqis on their feet with their own government. I know it seems hopeless but they are building up and getting stronger. We also can't pull out on a large scale. We have to phase ourselves out when they seem a bit more ready to take on responsibilities. It is a slow process especially with all this talk about us leaving encouraging our enemy to fight harder. And like i say, many people in Iraq don't need to be there. I wouldn't be against the people running these random stores pulling out. There are a lot of people that work to support the troops that practically live outside the wire, and there are the troops outside the wire. Then there are the troops hired to run certain people hired to make life better for those high ranking officers that do nothing but stay inside the wire. Those are the guys you can let go home. But be careful, because the violence will pick up if they get the impression that we as a country are pulling out all together. It is a delicate matter, the pulling out should be a phase process. Unfortunately there are no definate answers to this problem. And no simple solutions. Just be careful when preaching "we just need to pull out". Especially since i don't see our borders being secured in the next couple years... I don't think an immediate pullout is a good idea. But there should be some kind of a plan for eventually pulling out some troops and I just don't see any good ideas being proposed by our politicians. You are right, i agree. There needs to be a plan. I have an issue with a politician coming up with this plan though. I think this is more of a military issue. Besides, you have to admit, it's been a while since any politician came up with a good plan on anything 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do people here feel justified in an illegally obtained war and mass murder of us and them? going off on the deep end again huh... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God, if there is one, bless the troops for doing what they are told to do for our country. I have absolutely no issues with them at all they cannot help that they were sent on an impossible mission that is not their fault. The issues in Iraq cannot be resolved by an outside force. We should not be there. We cannot help them in the long run because the civil dispute will always be there until THEY resolve it. Just like our civil war here, had a third party came in and attempted to resolve our issues, we would still be fighting tha war today. Until they stepped out of our way and let us resolve our differences. Or maybe they would have had to annex us as part of their country and maintain control to this day, who knows. I do know that Americans would not have appreciated it one way or the other. Why are they not equal to us? Why are they not respected as a sovereign country that does not deserve to be invaded and occupied when we get a hair up our asses about it? Why do people here feel justified in an illegally obtained war and mass murder of us and them? Yes, but we've 'owned' the war from the start. It's what Colin Powell referred to as the "Pottery Barn rule" of foreign policy, "you break it, you own it." 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God, if there is one, bless the troops for doing what they are told to do for our country. I have absolutely no issues with them at all they cannot help that they were sent on an impossible mission that is not their fault. The issues in Iraq cannot be resolved by an outside force. We should not be there. We cannot help them in the long run because the civil dispute will always be there until THEY resolve it. Just like our civil war here, had a third party came in and attempted to resolve our issues, we would still be fighting tha war today. Until they stepped out of our way and let us resolve our differences. Or maybe they would have had to annex us as part of their country and maintain control to this day, who knows. I do know that Americans would not have appreciated it one way or the other. Why are they not equal to us? Why are they not respected as a sovereign country that does not deserve to be invaded and occupied when we get a hair up our asses about it? Why do people here feel justified in an illegally obtained war and mass murder of us and them? the mission is not impossible. we are not trying to fight their civil war.  This is what i am trying to say. I know it seems impossible. It just takes a little while. We aren't a bunch of warmongers (for the most part) and again we aren't a bunch of blind pawns(for the most part). You are forgetting, i do have a pretty broad professinal background on this subject. I'm merely trying to inform. When i look at the situation i see vietnam. They lied by telling everyone we were losing. The troops were winning. When you wage war politicains have know business telling you how to fight it. Just wether or not you should. When they send the troops out the mission should be in the hands of the troops. Not of anyone back in the states. Politicians, and most civilians know nothing about military tactics and strategies. Once again, we were winning vietnam until our troops made us pull out. I have a relative in vietnam that died taking a hill for the 4th time. This was because politicians decide we should pull back everytime a ceasefire was called (just in case the NVA meant it). Anyhow, my cousin's blood is now on the hands of the people sitting in an office back here trying to tell them how to fight. The same stuff is happening. I'm just thankful they gave us the surge even though so many people said it wouldn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like Drivin's points, and agree with them to some extent. It should come down to a General's decision, however many General's have said we should pull out. I don't agree with putting one on stage (TV) to say we need to stay there, that will only create "conspiracy this, conspiracy that" type of criticism. We should listen to the troops more than politicians or TV, which I don't really watch much unless I want a good chuckle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we will not win the hearts and minds of a majority of the Iraqi's, there in lays the problem, as in Nam we will not lose militarily but we will lose due to the morality. We have allready sunken ourselves to slightly better than the nazi's, the country is going bankrupt and gas prices are insane, realy someone needs to be held accountable for this disaster
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we will not win the hearts and minds of a majority of the Iraqi's, there in lays the problem, as in Nam we will not lose militarily but we will lose due to the morality. We have allready sunken ourselves to slightly better than the nazi's, the country is going bankrupt and gas prices are insane, realy someone needs to be held accountable for this disaster lets say there was no evidence of WMDs, and that this is one big conspiracy created by people with their own agends. most of congress would have to be tried as well as the executive branch. And the governments of like 40 other countries. It wasn't the president's decision. Congress voted to go. Anyhow, that being said, I have never been against a fair investigation. I think government officials should be investigated from time to time. Cuts back on corruption. But i emphasize FAIR investigations/trials. And yes, we have won the hearts of many, i would go as far as to say most, of the iraqis. It's mostly the corrupt ones from Saddams regime, and the ones that just want to take over that are against our presence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree some should be tried for negligence and others for willfuly decieveing the american public, it will never happen as to many hands are in the cookie jar. keep your head down driven your a good guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God, if there is one, bless the troops for doing what they are told to do for our country. I have absolutely no issues with them at all they cannot help that they were sent on an impossible mission that is not their fault. The issues in Iraq cannot be resolved by an outside force. We should not be there. We cannot help them in the long run because the civil dispute will always be there until THEY resolve it. Just like our civil war here, had a third party came in and attempted to resolve our issues, we would still be fighting tha war today. Until they stepped out of our way and let us resolve our differences. Or maybe they would have had to annex us as part of their country and maintain control to this day, who knows. I do know that Americans would not have appreciated it one way or the other. Why are they not equal to us? Why are they not respected as a sovereign country that does not deserve to be invaded and occupied when we get a hair up our asses about it? Why do people here feel justified in an illegally obtained war and mass murder of us and them? Yes, but we've 'owned' the war from the start. It's what Colin Powell referred to as the "Pottery Barn rule" of foreign policy, "you break it, you own it." We sure as hell did break it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The surge is working????
 BAGHDAD (AP) - Three U.S. soldiers were killed in a rocket attack in southern Iraq on Wednesday, bringing to 12 the number of Americans who have been killed in Iraq over the past three days. With the overall U.S. military death toll in Iraq nearing 4,000, the latest killings mark a significant rise in deadly attacks against Americans. At least 3,987 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an AP count. The figure includes eight military civilians. Navy Lt. Patrick Evans, a military spokesman, told The Associated Press that three soldiers were killed Wednesday in a rocket attack on Combat Outpost Adder near Nasiriyah, about 200 miles southeast of Baghdad. Two other soldiers were wounded. The attack came a day after an American soldier died when a roadside bomb hit his patrol near Diwaniyah, 80 miles south of Baghdad. Eight soldiers were killed in a pair of bomb attacks on Monday, the heaviest single day of U.S. casualties since September. Three of those soldiers died in a roadside bombing in Diyala, a violent province where al-Qaida in Iraq has been active. The five others were killed while on foot patrol in central Baghdad. A suicide bomber approached them and detonated his explosives vest. The Islamic State of Iraq, a Sunni militant group, issued a statement Wednesday claiming responsibility for the soldiers' deaths. Three Americans and an Iraqi interpreter were wounded. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Wed 03/12/08 07:12 PM
|
|
yes, according to soldiers on the ground violence has decreased over all since the surge was implimented...and i seriously believe that any very recent rise in death tolls is as much the result of all this talk about pulling troops out is it is lack of iraqi support (which we have more than you think). I know i keep bringing up vietnam... supposedly the NVA were getting ready to surrender until they started seeing all our protests back home. it encouraged them to continue and start using propoganda to support the protesters. This is a real tactic guys. Terrorists and probably any enemy we fight in the futer will use this against us. Just FYI, something to keep in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or,
Was it just a lull?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anyway....a decrease in violence unfortunately doesn't always mean zero casualties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We either stay there forever or we let them civil war themselves into self resolution, there is no other choice. Regardless to the hype of some. we are there for ever..... still in germany still in korea we never leave...unless we loose |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pulling out means zero casualties. Also means they would have to solve their own countries problems as should have been from get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pulling out means zero casualties. Also means they would have to solve their own countries problems as should have been from get. Unfortunately it keeps us from trying to clean up our mess. Not to mention the moral shot the soldiers that serve the country would have to go through. And we would end up having to go right back over at some point. Although your concern for the soldiers' safety is commendable...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mnhiker
on
Wed 03/12/08 09:06 PM
|
|
Pulling out means zero casualties. Also means they would have to solve their own countries problems as should have been from get. Unfortunately it keeps us from trying to clean up our mess. Not to mention the moral shot the soldiers that serve the country would have to go through. And we would end up having to go right back over at some point. Although your concern for the soldiers' safety is commendable... According to new statistics from the GAO reported by the New York Times, 'the frequency of insurgent attacks in Iraq suggest that...the conflict has drifted into a stalemate, with levels of violence remaining stubbornly constant from November 2007 through early 2008.' The link can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/world/middleeast/12iraq.html?ref=world |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pulling out means zero casualties. Also means they would have to solve their own countries problems as should have been from get. The problem is pulling out does not mean zero casualties it means thousands if not tens of thousands of casualties. These casualties on the other hand will be civilan, not military. If we pull out now then one terrorist leader or another will hit not only targets in iraq but america as well and as said before we will be right back over there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have allready sunken ourselves to slightly better than the nazi's Yeah right. What a ridiculous comment!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
