OIF Troop Surge

So will additional troops eventually solve the Iraq problem or is it a hopeless cluster?

We cannot know the outcome of the new plan for military operations in Iraq. The plan, once implemented, will reveal its potency. I only ask that all involved in this effort, go about their assigned duties and tasks with great determination and vigor.

I would hope, that if this plan should start to fall short of the desired outcome, we will come forth with yet another plan.

WE MUST PREVAIL!

I think DC needs to let the military commanders do their jobs, and keep politics out of it. Just like in Vietnam, when the boys back home tell us how to do our jobs, nothing gets done right. Let the guys (and gals) on the front line do it right!

MRB Motorsports
1937 Chevy Sedan (Legends) #37
www.northstarspeedway.com

hopeless cluster. not the most popular answer around here, i'm sure, but that's my initial feeling.

We can not afford to fail in Iraq. If this plan doesn't work, we need to do something else. Leaving Iraq means that all of your sacrifice and hardwork is wasted. Worse yet, it will leave a major place for Islamofacism to to grow and fester. Iran will become the major power in the region, and any other allies of ours in the region (other than Israel) will be forced to switch allegiances. Iran will have a nuclear weapon, control of the region's oil, and hegemony will reign in the region. Israel will be isolated. And nobody will ever trust the USA again. They will think that we will always abandon our friends when the going gets tough.

Remember, Iran's nutty president Ahmadinijead is constantly calling for the destruction of not only Israel, but also the USA. He is indisputedly developing nuclear weapons. To avoid a much more dangerous and deadly clash in the future, we must prevail in Iraq today.

There is way too much at stake here. It is truly a clash of civilizations. I don't think most people here understand that yet. Due to the above outlined scenario, failure in Iraq unfortunately will lead to a broader understanding of this fact.

One thing that was in Bush's speech that I don't hear a lot of commentary on. Our troops are being given the green light to pursue the insurgents. I truly hope that this is the case. Otherwise, the defeatists (and Islamofacists) will prevail.

I don't think anyone disagrees we musn't fail.

What I'm wondering is if all of you think this new strategy will do the trick? Or at least start us back in the right direction?

This new plan seems to be sound. With an unhindered path to implement this strategy, the U.S. Military will succeed. This confidence I have in our fighting men and women.

Understand this...obsticles to the success of the U.S. Military prevailing in Iraq does not include any counter military strategies or tactics presented to the American GI by their military opponents. For the American GI, this is in the course of conflict.

As I write these words, real obsticles are being readied to be placed in the path of our military. For our fighting men and women these obsticles are insurmountable. Should these obsticles be laid down, American troops will fail in Iraq.

Who, you ask, are the formulators of obsticles that are able to cause America to fail in Iraq?

110th U.S. CONGRESS! This confidence I have in our government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Savanna

This new plan seems to be sound.

---

what's new about it? dumping countless bodies and dollars into a war of pride? certain Iraqi sects are determined to prove they will not be controlled by our Gov't, while our administration is hell-bent on pursuing and glorifying it's own ego, vulgarity and belligerence.

the last three+ years have been the same. little to no evidence of the Iraqi gov't developing and organizing enough to put forth meaningful efforts to unite it's people.

so go ahead and tell me what a pansy-liberal i am for fundamentally disagreeing with war. while you're at it, mention how some things are worth fighting for and how freedom isn't free.

blah. why do i bother?

"Those that do not heed history are doomed to repeat it!" The boys in Washington running the show, a US backed foreign Government with no will/backbone to govern themselves and foreign fighters infiltrating major portions of the country.

I detect a parallel of 35 years ago called Vietnam!

You draw your conclusion if we are headed down the right path.

"I detect a parallel of 35 years ago called Vietnam!"

The parallels to Vietnam definitley exist. Permit me to outline a few.

We have a military who is not being allowed to take the fight to the insurgents. They are not allowed to pursue them into Mosques, etc. They have very politically correct rules of engagement. When mistakes are made, it is our soldiers and Marines who are made out to be the bad guys.

We have one sided press coverage of the war. For each news article that is negative towards the insurgents, there are literally hundreds of negative stories about our military, our policies, etc.

No matter what the Bush administration proposes, Bush is wrong. A few months ago, leading democrats were torn between a complete "re-deployment, while others criticized Bush for not having enough "boots on the ground." Now, those calling for "re-deployment" (surrender) are still calling for it, but those who were demanding more soldiers are now saying that this policy will never work. (Not a united front behind our fighting men.)

Reading the press, you would think that GITMO is a real hellhole, on the par with some of the worse German concentration camps. We "torture" the prisoners there. Abu Grahib, was another torture center for Iraqi prisoners. We apparently don't even respect their basic human rights.

You might think that the press would save some of their indignation for the Iraqi on Iraqi violence. We give our prisoners food, water, and even the Koran. They give their hostages beheadings, yet we are morally equivalent. We avoid innocent casualties whenever possible. They purposely inflict casulties on innocents They also hide behind them. Our enemy and our soldiers are NOT being held to the same level of moral behavior.

One sided press coverage, condemnation and hand wringing by the liberal elite, all creates a feeling that this was a venture doomed for failure from the start.

The only way we can fail here, is to believe all of the rhetoric, and give up. Just like Vietnam. This is exactly what the liberals and liberal media wanted. Another Vietnam. Looks like they are getting what they have so desperately wanted.

Only this time, the resulting death and genocide will likely dwarf that of Cambodia, Laos, and South Vietnam after our pullout, since now there may be nukes involved.

quote:

---

Originally posted by n8pee

quote:

---

Originally posted by Savanna

This new plan seems to be sound.

---

what's new about it? dumping countless bodies and dollars into a war of pride? certain Iraqi sects are determined to prove they will not be controlled by our Gov't, while our administration is hell-bent on pursuing and glorifying it's own ego, vulgarity and belligerence.

the last three+ years have been the same. little to no evidence of the Iraqi gov't developing and organizing enough to put forth meaningful efforts to unite it's people.

so go ahead and tell me what a pansy-liberal i am for fundamentally disagreeing with war. while you're at it, mention how some things are worth fighting for and how freedom isn't free.

blah. why do i bother?

---

what's new about it?

Speaking only of strategies used in this war by the U.S., the current strategy, or the so called troop surge, is the second strategy the U.S. will implement; it is a new plan. To discern the differences of the two strategies, review the presidents address to the nation on this matter and the media archives.

At the risk of appearing to be hostile, I suspect your concern about this war in Iraq, lies not in any strategy the U.S. might implement to prosecute it; but rather, that the U.S. is prosecuting the war at all is the thorn that tears at you. War worries me also, as it should anyone in their right mind. This conflict our country is now engaged in, I support.

Although you have granted me the liberty, I will not place you in any particular category of liberalism; I'm not qualified. I must confess though, I dofind it extremely difficult and frustrating conversing with liberals on most matters. It's an old refrain, huh?

"Although you have granted me the liberty, I will not place you in any particular category of liberalism; I'm not qualified. I must confess though, I dofind it extremely difficult and frustrating conversing with liberals on most matters. It's an old refrain, huh?"

Sananna, you can never argue with a liberal. Most liberals can only debate on emotional terms. I think most conservatives agree with many of the emotions of liberals. Nobody wants a war. Nobody wants to see people killed or maimed. Nobody wants to see a poor child go hungry or without healthcare. That is how most liberals frame their agruments, and how do you rebutt those emotions?

Most conservatives, on the other hand, think through the issues a little deeper. For instance, what is the alternative to the the troop surge? We can keep the status quo, which is not necessarally a plan for victory. (Most liberals don't even believe we can achieve a victory in Iraq.) We can also pull out. That would ensure defeat. What happens with that defeat? Most liberals think that the Islamofacism problem will just go away, because we caused it with our presence there to begin with. They have short (and convenient) memories.

re: memory there are two choices, simply put:

one is to push aside the illegality (misleading reasons for the invasion) and immorality (probably profit-greed motives) of the war so that we can focus on the solution. while i agree that a solution ("victory" for the prideful) must be found/achieved, it's all too "convenient" and amnesiatic to suggest that's it's merely an emotional response to mention any of the resulting horrors, especially when there are to be weighed against the positives.

the second choice, i suppose, is to hasten the homecoming of all our deployed brothers and sisters by evoking a natural human response (in this case, an emotional response is not without logic based on the handling of the war thusfar) so that we aren't forgetful of the gross mishandling of the entire affair.

wether they be called liberals or not, to say that those opposed to this have short memories is unfair at best. to suggest what you've simply called 'islamofascism', could be ended by a continued and failing effort to change the hearts and minds of several disparate entities with brute force is only idllyic to the brute.

the war could be viewed as something only publicly visible and merely a political statement. i might prefer a series of more effectual covert operations to "get on with it" and eliminate whoever the defense dept. deems a threat.

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.

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?

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!