|
Note: You must be logged-in order to post a reply.
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| webmaster |
Posted - January 12 2007 : 14:08:19
So will additional troops eventually solve the Iraq problem or is it a hopeless cluster? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| andersra |
Posted - September 29 2009 : 18:28:09
Just curious. Does anyone see a replay of this building in Afghanistan? |
| Savanna |
Posted - July 18 2007 : 14:01:29
According the the plan of the "Troop Surge" the Generals were supposed to submit a report on the effectiveness of the plan in the month of September 2007. The time has not come for the assessment but yet the liberal democrats have already labeled the effort a failure.
Who are these people!? What do they want!? |
| Savanna |
Posted - July 18 2007 : 13:46:46
How's it going Andersra?
First off let me say, with Americans like you out there, America will always put up the good fight. I appreciate your zeal for our nation.
My time at Griffiss, upon reflection, I truly did enjoy. It was my first assignment and the military people I met during that time, Team Chiefs and members of the teams I served on, were of the highest.
In barracks 442 I probably passed you up dozens of times; but could not know that at this time we both would wonder about our country and its future. |
| AzTech |
Posted - June 09 2007 : 00:42:42
quote:
Originally posted by billss - We desperately need a Republican president who can speak eloquently and isn't afraid to tell Congress to take a hike. President Bush has no problem doing this, he just can't speak to save his life. That's what makes him ineffective.
This is EXACTLY what I've noticed, and have been telling people for years now. When Bush speaks from a written script, he can really knock 'em dead. However, when he tries to speak off the cuff, this is where he stumbles, and is mistaken for a bumbling idiot. The liberal press picks up on his mistakes and focuses on them, instead of reading into the true meaning of his speeches. What I wouldn't do to have Ronald Reagan back right now. That man knew how to speak, and also knew how to deal effectively with rowdy Dems.
I also have access to people returning (and redeploying) from the Persian Gulf, and the stories they tell me definitely do not jibe with the news coming from the liberal press. I'm glad that I'm able to listen to all of the facts I hear from real people, instead of the talking heads of CNN, NBC, and CBS. I'm not so keen on watching FOX, as the far-right can be wrong as well, about a great many things. Just trying to prove Liberals wrong isn't journalism, folks. Stick to the story without the constant negative spin, and let us make up our own minds.
Back to the original subject, I'm hearing news from my students that we are making good progress with the troop surge. Yes, there are plenty of places that are still very dangerous. Yes, we are still losing American lives, almost on a continual basis. And yes, our troops are getting tired of it. However, with the surge comes hope, and some relief withe the overall effort.
I just hope that we will prevail before a liberal Congress destroys all we have worked for. |
| andersra |
Posted - April 26 2007 : 16:45:50
Billss,
That is exactly my point. |
| billss |
Posted - April 26 2007 : 05:29:18
I see your point now. It's typical Democrat behavior. Democrats are inherently self-defeatist, help yourself to a handout, let's talk it over, "leaders." They'd rather talk than do. Meanwhile, our brothers (and sisters) in arms are dying without their support. You want to get out of there? Let us do our jobs, the way we were trained, with clearly stated goals. Then watch us kick butt!
MRB Motorsports
1937 Chevy Sedan (Legends) #37
www.northstarspeedway.com |
| andersra |
Posted - April 25 2007 : 10:12:39
"You're saying Senator McCain doesn't know anything about war? Most of our government leaders are in their 50s. They don't remember growing up with Vietnam, and Korea for a few? They don't remember the Cold War? I think they do."
I was not saying that. My point, perhaps not expressed correctly, wasn't that McCain and other leaders didn't experience war, or remember Vietnam, Korea, or the Cold War. (B.T.W., McCain is a big supporter of the surge.) My point was that they have not lived through a true threat to our civilization. The key phrase from my post was "no MAJOR war or threat to our existence since WWII." Please read it again.
This was not to belittle the Vietnam war (we all know about John McCain's experience here.), The Cold War to most people now in their 50's was mostly an abstract threat. My father was an infantry soldier in Korea, so I wasn't belittling that either. My point was that most people in Congress (mainly the anti G.W.O.T. folks) have been insulated from feeling any true threat to our very existence throughout their entire lives, due to the very fact that the USA has always been a very strong nation, capable of defending her vital interests. In their minds, we have always been strong, and we will always be strong by nature. (No effort required on our parts. to maintain this strength.) They think that the threat of Islamo Facism is no more of a threat to the U.S that was Vietnam, or Korea. I would argue that they don't think it is as much of a threat as those two confilcts were to us. They certainly don't think we are capable of winning in Iraq.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid publicly stating "We have lost in Iraq", while the troops are still over there fighting, illustrates my point clearly. He sees zero threat to us if we are defeated in Iraq; and by extension, he gives encouragement to others who would attack us by publicly declaring our country incapable of winning. And all of this to score cheap political points. He probably wouldn't do this if he felt that we were truly threatened as a nation. I would submit to you that if he experienced the terror of WWII, with the millions killed, concentration camps, and other horrors that resulted, his approach to this whole war would be much different. As would so many others.
I completely agree with you on your other points. I sometimes think that President Bush is his own worst enemy. His lack of ability to communicate effectively only adds fuel to the fervent hatred that many on the left have for the president. It also gets in the way of implementing good, sound policy on both foreign and domestic issues. |
| billss |
Posted - April 19 2007 : 06:03:53
You're saying Senator McCain doesn't know anything about war? Most of our government leaders are in their 50s. They don't remember growing up with Vietnam, and Korea for a few? They don't remember the Cold War? I think they do.
The problem, as you so correctly stated, is their desire to retain power at any cost. I whole-heartedly agree that, if we don't confront our threats now, they'll be much harder to fight later. The problem is getting them to give up control so we can do our jobs.
The Democrats will expand government aid programs, it's what they do. We desperately need a Republican president who can speak eloquently and isn't afraid to tell Congress to take a hike. President Bush has no problem doing this, he just can't speak to save his life. That's what makes him ineffective.
MRB Motorsports
1937 Chevy Sedan (Legends) #37
www.northstarspeedway.com |
| andersra |
Posted - April 18 2007 : 10:51:49
Hi Savanna,
I was looking at your profile. You were at griss in the 485th at the same time i was there. I was in the Weather Radar shop. |
| andersra |
Posted - April 18 2007 : 10:48:01
Hi Savanna,
I understand and agree with everything you are saying, but I am (maybe naively) a bit more optimistic.
I think all people yearn for individual freedom, be they Americans, communists, or Muslims. It is the natural human condition. Unfortunately, along with that freedom comes responsibility for one's self. That is where I believe a lot of people fall short. People are way too willing to allow others to accept that responsibility for them. Just look at all those on welfare, medicare, and the plethora of government aid programs. (Don't get me wrong, everyone may need a helping hand at some point in their lives. With too many, it is a way of life. Government "aid" is a powerful narcotic.)
Socialist and communistic governments take this several steps farther. Those in the position of handing out benefits can become quite powerful. They want to stay in power, so they use their power extract wealth from the producers in their society to hand it out to the unwashed masses in order to maintain their power. This was official policy of the communists and socialists. Look at Cuba to see the result of such policies.
Islamic controlled countries take even this many steps further. They combine the economic hammer that communists use to control their people with a zealous, fundamental religious twist. They brainwash their people from the time they are very small that that they need to either convert or kill the infidels (read us). They think nothing of killing their own people in order to achieve their objectives.
It seems that most of our imcumbent congressmen are following the same course. (Without the killing.) Basically they will do anything to stay in power, even at the ultimate expense of our country. They are very dangerous. In addition to creating a more unproductive and socialistic society, they are allowing an extremely evil and lethal threat in the form Islamo facism to grow. Just like the ever increasing government benefits they want to hand out, they are doing this in order to score cheap political points.
Having said all that, the American people will prevail. We are the most free and powerful nation on the face of the earth. Those that are not paying attention now have spent their whole lives without any real threat to their existence. Hence, they still feel very safe. They don't think anything bad can really happen to our country. They have been insulated from evil, due to the very fact of living in our great nation all of their lives, with no MAJOR war or threat to our existence since WWII. (No one really felt the cold war threat here at home.)
The American people are strong, brave, intelligent (usually), and will eventually rally around any threat to their existence. The only problem is that the longer they wait to recognize the threats facing them, the harder it will be to conquer the threats, and the more it will cost in terms of our blood and treasure. Most of our elected representatives are NOT helping us to recognize this growing threat, much less address it. And it is our fault. We need to send people to congress that are dedicated to protecting the USA, and not their careers.
|
| Savanna |
Posted - April 16 2007 : 09:09:05
Andersra,
I hear you. Your points are taken. I fear for our country. Not only the the handling of our involvement in Iraq by the politicians, but the many other issues they refuse to fix. The border issue, the continual usurping of the constitution by liberal supreme court justices, illegal imigration, and one of the most alarming activities; the liberal effort to eliminate God out of our hearts and minds.
Really, if we continue with our current behavior this nation will expire. |
| andersra |
Posted - April 11 2007 : 15:10:02
An addendum to my above post:
According to the below article, Nancy Pelosi is thinking about another unauthorized diplomatic trip. This time to Iran. Scary, huh?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/10/BAGV9P6C0S6.DTL |
| andersra |
Posted - April 11 2007 : 10:39:33
Savanna and Hantop,
The difference between Hanoi Jane and Baghdad Nancy is that Nancy Pelosi is an elected official, and therefore much more dangerous. (For the life of me, I can't understand it.) However, she is only elected by her local congressional district, and not the entire USA. She represents her (liberal) district only. She is way overstepping her authority on this.
I have not been to Iraq, but I know some who have been there. I also read quite a bit about what is happening there. You can't depend on the main stream media, as they really only report negative news. If anything positive is reported by them, it is only in the context of negative news dwarfing any positive developments.
What most sources do agree on (therefore, I have some confidence in this) is that the surge does appear to be working so far. While I believe we have made many prior missteps in Iraq, we are there for good reason, and we can and should prevail. There is way too much at stake for the entire world if we pack it up and leave. Iran with nukes, anti western Islamo-facism having a greater base to operate and export terror from, oil revenue to finance their evil deeds, and the general instability in the region are just some examples.
Too many elected Congressman and Senators are either playing politics with the war in Iraq for selfish gains, or think that they are elected to usurp the constitution by seizing executive powers and conducting their own foreign policy, in an attempt to end the war. Virtually all of these Congressman and Senators voted for authorizing the Iraqi invasion. Now they want to change their minds, undermine the president and military, squander our sacrifices, and risk global security. These actions are all for their own selfish interests, which is driven by their hatred for our president. (The scary thing is some of these people actually believe we can leave Iraq with no negative consequences.) These folks want to blame everyone else (read President Bush here) for all that has gone wrong in Iraq, and refuse to accept any blame themselves. In fact, these guys don’t think the US is capable of anything but defeat in Iraq. They see the choice as a slow defeat over several more years, or a quicker defeat by leaving now. Defeat is the only choice they want to give to the president.
I can’t sit here and say that if we stay in Iraq for an undetermined amount of time that victory is guaranteed. (If we leave, then defeat is guaranteed.) However, I can sit here and say that I agree with those liberals who say that we ultimately need a political solution to the war in Iraq. None of the major wars that we were ever involved with were won without such a political solution. The same will be true for the larger “Global War on Terror”. What the liberal viewpoint misses is that the military is used to create an incentive the enemy to come a political solution that we can live with. We need to make it too painful for nations to sponsor terrorism, and to show that it does not advance the interests on Islam. Without the credible threat of military action, no political solution will ever work. If we leave Iraq before stability is achieved and the Islamo facists subdued, then we will have provided ZERO incentive for the enemy to come to a lasting and workable political solution.
I know that ultimately the American people will prevail. The question is at what price? The actions of Pelosi only work to ensure that the cost of our security will be much higher and harder to achieve.
|
| Savanna |
Posted - April 10 2007 : 19:10:50
Hantonp,
As you suggest, they are not as rare as one might think. Tokyo Rose,... Hanoi Jane,...and now, Baghdad Nancy. Hmmmmm. I do declare! |
| hantonp |
Posted - April 10 2007 : 08:05:06
quote:
Originally posted by Savanna
We have been getting favorable reports of the effectiveness of the troop surge tactic implemented in Iraq. It seems though, the speaker of the house could care less. She and her merry band of dolts are advocates of taking away troop funding.
Additionally she has decided to break the law and start her own foreign policy initiative.
This women is a true friend to the enemy of our country and a potent enemy to the United States.
Well, during the Vietnam war we had Hanoi Jane why not have Baghdad Nancy for the OIF? |
|
|
Opinions and views expressed on this site are personal comments by the respective author. Most images and graphics are un-official media submitted by current and former U.S. Air Force personnel. Some images and graphics are U.S. Air Force media
available to the public. This website is not sponsored nor endorsed by the Department of the Air Force.
|
|
| Copyright ©2001- 2010 All Rights Reserved. |
Developed and Managed by DCS | Online Users: 10 |
|
