Iraq troop buildup idea worries generals
mammasan
Posts: 5,656
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061220/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
Well it's good to see that the president has learned from his mistakes and is listening to the generals.
Well it's good to see that the president has learned from his mistakes and is listening to the generals.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
lmao How many times are people like you going to flip-flop back and forth between criticizing the President for not having enough troops on the ground for the job, and having too many?
Every level headed person here is fully aware that the next story stating that the President doesn't have enough troops on the ground to qwell the violence will be posted along with the headline "Will this dumbass ever listen"
How about debating something instead of leaning on the AP.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Have you always had such a hapless view of our military? If we would get serious about it and send overwhelming force we could complete this job.
We've completely destroyed the Iraqi military twice in 12 years. Something the Iranians were unable to do in 8 years and they still seem pretty terrifying to a lot of people. If beauracrats would leave they're "military intelligence" at home and leave war strategy up to military leadership we wouldn't be in the situation we're in.
Pump the country full of grunts and let them kick ass the way they're capable of instead of being a glorified, world-serving, U.N. approved police force. We can not be defeated on the battlefield unless people like Bush, Pelosi, Murtha... Hell, fill in the blank... Unless those people stop trying to be the smartest person in the room.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
We turned Hiroshima and Nagasaki into parking lots. Some estimates say we prevented a million American casualties. I'd have to chalk that one up as a pretty brilliant move on the part of the United States. Now, granted it did take two, and some may argue that was overkill, but the objective was completed.
If it takes an overwhelming display of American force to stop the violence, then that is our option. That I know is possible...
If you can find the right amount of 'words' that every other known diplomat has been unable to find then I'm all ears. You'd be surprised how folks respond to overwhelming force. Something I'm almost certain the folks we're dealing with don't is political end fighting here on the homefront. I would even be so heroic to assert that it emboldens them.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
How many times have you heard me say we need more troops on the ground. I'll tell you zero. A little advice, quit making assumption about people and spare yourself from looking like an ass. I have never once called for more troops on the ground. I have stated that this administration did not heed the advice of it's top generals who stated that we would need at least 500,000 to 600,000 troops to secure the country. Sending a couple of teh thousand more troops now after the insurgency has dug itself in is like putting on a condom after having sex and hoping you didn't catch anything. The president is stillliving in hisfanatsy world where he can do now wrong. As much as it might suck we need to admit that we are loosing and that we need help. We need help from neighboring Arab nations, including Iran. We need help from NATO and the UN, but our president thinks that we can still go it alone. Since 2003 I have been stating the same thing over and over on this board and you can ask just about anyone on here. So now you can either respond or you can continue to make assumptions about me.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Obviously they don't. We are not fighting a conventional war here and this administration needs to realize that. The Shia and the Sunni, a large minority, have no love for each other and as Cosmo posted in another thread, after 20+ years of being oppressed by the Sunnis and watching familiy memebrs carted off in the middle of the night only to be found is some mass grave, these people are going to want revenge. This section of the Shia population is not loyal to Iraq but to their religious leaders who want revenge. No amount of US troops or bombs we drop is going to erase that hatred. We bit off more than we can chew on this one. When we invaded Iraq we entered a hornets nest that spent decades building up and waiting to explode and it did. Now no amount of boots on the ground is going to stop that. Unfortunetly it has to run it's course and I don't think that our troops belong in the middle of it.
Can you see me now
I am myself
Like you somehow
I'll ride the wave
Where it takes me
I'll hold the pain
Release me
But here's the thing. While leveling the country from the get go is what was necessary, had this administration been honest about that, we'd never have had this war. So I guess that wouldn't have worked, either. But we needed to go to war - needed to start a war - and it was going to happen come hell or high water. Sell the population on a quick and easy operation - limited troops, surgical strikes, and a welcoming, appreciative Iraqi population - and many of those apprehensively in the middle of the debate think "well, that sounds O.K." and you've got your majority support. You've got your fun little game.
But, much like W's fake cowboy persona, the whole think was nothing more than a Hollywood store-front facade. Walk through those swinging saloon doors and ..... nothing. We've gotten nowhere in three and a half years because this administration didn't do what was necessary. And this administration didn't do what was necessary because they knew they wouldn't have had the support of the American people.
Now? I'm not so sure if more troops would "work" or not. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what goals we need to achieve in order to say "it worked." Bush says he'll have a plan sometime early next year. Thanks, Dood! That's just what we need - another plan to fix problems from four years ago - whether or not they're the still the same problems. Maybe Bush can pick up the pace a little - and in two years when he leaves office, he'll have a plan to fix the problems we have right now.
Well, he'll always have his diehards.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Not poor georgie...
Poor idiots with knee jerk reactions to everything...
Thank god, allah, etc. that none of you are the leader of any country.
I think putting more troops on the ground is only a good idea if there is a specific plan for them. Otherwise it is very similar to just throwing $/resources at a problem with no plan to fix it...it never works.
but cincy, that's W's fault...after all, he's the Decider...he chose to go it alone and to piss off the world...
he broke it, however, we bought, therefore, we get to pay for it...
also, I would think many repubs would be pissed a bush, too...just think, if he had fired Rummy a couple weeks before the mid-terms...I'm pretty sure we'd be bitching about the Repub controled congress right now...;)
Knee jerk reaction. Cincy 20,000 or 70,000, what ever the troop numbers are, is not going to be suffiecent to fix the problem. The problems over there can not be fixed by a show of force. You could add another 1,000,000 troops and sure security would improve but the underlying problem would remain and the minute those troops left the violence would resurface. I think the insurgency against the US occupation can be dealt with with more troops but the sectarian violence, the animosity between Shia and Sunni can not be fixed that simply and I don't think our President gets that. The President is trying to fix the problem with a solution that would have worked 3 years ago unfortunetly the time for that solution has long passed.
Don't misinterpret 'knee jerk reactions'...it doesn't apply to everyone.
I'm talking about the same people that called for more troups now condeming BUsh for saying he may be sending more troups.
I already said that I don;t think it's a good idea unless these extra troups have very specific agendas. And personally, I'm not convinced it would have worked 3 years ago...perhaps untying our troups hands might have helped.
Your not fighting the Iraqi military so your idea is stupid. Maybe you could make it a bit more simple I mean currently what is your plan? To kill every bad guy in Iraq? You probably still think that Vietnam could have been 'won' with enough troops.