Good News Out of Iraq

[USMC the Almighty]

What i believe is what I know .....we are NOT waging a war in Iraq.... we are on a police mission again. As usual we are NOT allowed to engage the enemy under certain T.O.E. rulings... thus Tying the hands behind the back. When will we ever learn? war is an ugly thing, when one takes the initiative to do so, they should be entirely aware of all that encompass's WAR...this limited engagement crap, and policing, training, and assisting, has ALWAYS just gotten thousands of young American men and women KILLED

Here and in many other lil god foresaken hell holes... we are Not being allowed to decisevly achieve the objective, which is TOTAL victory, and the Placement of yet another puppet Democracy...

Pulling out is not an option look what happened the last time we pulled out, Todays leaders should have payed closer attention to Patton, and learned what it is to be warriors .pulling out would be catastrophic on many levels what we need is to quit dancing the political correct dance and get to the business of war

I mean isnt that why we went to begin with?

I'm with ya here brother...

 

[Rokerijdude11]

I can't speak for Rokerijdude, but my stance as a libertarian is not aligned with the liberals. The Democrats simply want to play Republican-lite on defense. That won't work. We need a fundamental change in foreign policy. We need a return to the original foreign policy of non-interventionism:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html

This is what interventionism brings:

"In 1953, Iran had a democratic government. This is a very jarring thing for us to realize now because we are not used to seeing the word "Iran" and the word "democracy" in the same sentence. The fact is, however, that Iran was developing a long, rocky but democratic path in the early 1950s. For reasons which my book explains in great detail, the United States decided, in the summer of 1953, to go in and overthrow that democratic government. The result of that coup was that the Shah was placed back on his throne. He ruled for 25 years in an increasingly brutal and repressive fashion. His tyranny resulted in an explosion of revolution in 1979 the event that we call the Islamic revolution. That brought to power a group of fanatically anti-Western clerics who turned Iran into a center for anti-Americanism and, in particular, anti-American terrorism.

The Islamic regime in Iran also inspired religious fanatics in many other countries, including those who went on to form the Taliban in Afghanistan and give refuge to terrorists who went on to attack the United States. The anger against the United States that flooded out of Iran following the 1979 revolution has its roots in the American role in crushing Iranian democracy in 1953. Therefore, I think it’s not an exaggeration to say that you can draw a line from the American sponsorship of the 1953 coup in Iran, through the Shah’s repressive regime, to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the spread of militant religious fundamentalism that produced waves of anti-Western terrorism."

From: http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/07/29_kinzer.html

little side bar i was floating around in the I.O., on board one of our Carriers ,when all of this was actually Going down. I was in region in 79-80.....I know fairly well what happened and why..



Its too late for Non-Interventionaisim, as we are absolutly
intervening already.......... To change policy mid-stream, would be of no benefit to any of those who have something at stake here ....The reality is, this is all a part of a MUCH larger picture than Just the United States, so it actually sort of redundant to say what WE, should do because, we alone are not in charge of those decisions.



If you wage war, you must have a CLEAR, and DEFINITE, plan of achieving Victory, and what will happen after said war? And the re-building plan .. While the best PLAN would have been, to NEVER HAVE GONE AT ALL!!! but alas its too late we are there and what to do?


Achieve Victory, lay out the plans for what comes next, and then see them through..................but then thats the RUB, "THEY" dont want you to KNOW the plans ............

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Its too late for Non-Interventionaisim, as we are absolutly
intervening already.......... To change policy mid-stream, would be of no benefit to any of those who have something at stake here ....The reality is, this is all a part of a MUCH larger picture than Just the United States, so it actually sort of redundant to say what WE, should do because, we alone are not in charge of those decisions.

It's never too late to change a bad policy. I'm not saying, and have never said, that we shouldn't have a strong military. We should have a strong national defense. What I'm saying is that the military should only be used defensively and our foreign policy should be noninterventionism, the original U.S. foreign policy:

"The United States goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. If the United States took up all foreign affairs, it would become entangled in all the wars of interest and intrigue, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own soul." -President John Quincy Adams

The threats and dangers that most Neocons fantasize about are all the result of the actions of the U.S. overseas.

Al qaeda declared jihad because:
(1) the U.S. supplies weapons to and gives military aid to the Zionists in Israel
(2) the U.S. keeps military bases on ground in Saudi Arabia that they consider sacred
(3) and that the sanctions in Iraq (and now the occupation) are hurting the Iraqi people

Keep on doing these things, and you'll make yourself a terrorist target. Get out of their territory and stay out of their business, and they'll forget about you and would probably be open to a dialog.

They don't hate us for our "wealth" and "freedom." That's just sheer propaganda. THAT'S what you have to be gullible to believe at this point (not that I'm saying you do believe Bush's "argument" about that point - just that the general public believes it).

But there is no true threat. There is no true threat because we are the cause of much of the bad blood - the CIA's overthrow of a democratically elected leader in Iran in the fifties was a spark to much of this. The CIA's own declassified documents, which you can see in the documentary "Why We Fight" specifically stated that the U.S. should expect "blowback" from that action. "Blowback" meaning violent, life-threatening actions. Obviously the CIA feared that the Arabs would think retaliatory action was justified. The CIA has created many enemies for us:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm

Certainly, our initiation of force in the region on the behalf of British Petroleum was not justified. Certainly our initiation of force against any nation that isn't directly attacking us or declaring war against us isn't justified. Certainly, America has committed many atrocities which were not justified. They're all detailed here:

Why do they hate us -

http://www.chaostan.com/whydotheyhateus.html

As far as protecting our "rights" and "freedom" go, Bush has done nothing but restrict our rights and slowly take away more of our freedoms.

There's a reason the Founding Fathers warned us about domestic enemies of the Constitution - and Bush is definitely a domestic enemy of the original intent of the Constitution:

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debt and taxes and armies are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people...
[There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and....degeneracy of manners and morals....No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -- James Madison

...Continual warfare as in the neverending "war on terror"... hello, anybody awake out there in America?

Now, why I say an invasion of the U.S. won't happen if we declare neutrality:

First, if we remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S., the terrorists will have no reason to invade our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not attacking anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

Secondly, even if they did try to invade and occupy us after we left, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING. And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

And last but not least, no nation state wants a war with us. Why? The simple reason is that we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth. We are not helpless and we are not defenseless. No one could ever successfully invade and occupy the U.S. No other country's economy could stand the strain, let alone the bombardment that would follow.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Im not saying its not too late to change policy overall

just too late to effect any real change of the current situation they have found themselves in a bad spot and getting out isnt going to be as easy as a policy change in my opinion

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Former Reagan Pentagon official Lawrence Korb, "Do not believe anyone who tells you things are getting better"
http://zedc3test.techprogress.org/issues/2007/04/red_zone.html

Troop deaths up 21%
http://www.thevictoriaadvocate.com/428/story/39584.html

 

[TheWaffle]

I know it's a difficult question, but what do you believe the strategy should be.

Initially I thought that once the official operations had closed we should immediately have begun instructing our troops in the language. Even now this should be done. I think it was you who said it wasn't your job to learn their language. But in reality when armed men bust into your home your frightened enough without them speaking a foreign language. It just creates an extra barrier between our troops and the Iraqi people. Even if they learned the basics of the culture or had regular instruction to learn the basic language it could do a lot for swaying how the public perceives our troops.

The biggest thing is understanding how the Iraqis perceive us. And when we do things like construct a massive Embassy in the middle of their city, put our HQs in Saddam's old Palaces, drive around the city in Bradley fighting vehicles as if it's nothing out of the ordinary. All these things have profound effects on the people in Iraq. I mean if it has come to the point where we need focus groups or something like that than by all means get focus groups together and learn what the Iraqi people are thinking.

The fact that the Iraqi people still are lacking basic necessities like power and plumbing in some cities doesn't make much of a difference. In a lot of the cities outside of Baghdad it is difficult for the basic populous to side with us when for a great majority of the people we have not done much to change their lives.

The reality is that when a person drives down the street and sees an 18 year old kid behind a 50 caliber machine gun on a humvee it's unnerving. I remember feeling nervous one time in Italy seeing a member of the Caribineri behind an assault rifle that was pointed at the street. We need to integrate Iraqi leadership into our command posts so that it is not a question of the American post over there and the Iraqi one over here. We need Iraqi police who look like police not soldiers. And in the major population centers we need less American flags, replacing the flag on that humvee with an Iraqi flag and having it manned by Iraqi soldiers in itself makes a huge difference. Small things need to be dummed down. Stop flying military helicopters over the cities, stop driving military vehicles in the city.

Finally I think that along with the language idea we need continued training for the troops, continued instruction to ensure empathy with the Iraqi people instead of anger.

 

[rmarin]

Initially I thought that once the official operations had closed we should immediately have begun instructing our troops in the language. Even now this should be done. I think it was you who said it wasn't your job to learn their language. But in reality when armed men bust into your home your frightened enough without them speaking a foreign language. It just creates an extra barrier between our troops and the Iraqi people. Even if they learned the basics of the culture or had regular instruction to learn the basic language it could do a lot for swaying how the public perceives our troops.

The biggest thing is understanding how the Iraqis perceive us. And when we do things like construct a massive Embassy in the middle of their city, put our HQs in Saddam's old Palaces, drive around the city in Bradley fighting vehicles as if it's nothing out of the ordinary. All these things have profound effects on the people in Iraq. I mean if it has come to the point where we need focus groups or something like that than by all means get focus groups together and learn what the Iraqi people are thinking.

The fact that the Iraqi people still are lacking basic necessities like power and plumbing in some cities doesn't make much of a difference. In a lot of the cities outside of Baghdad it is difficult for the basic populous to side with us when for a great majority of the people we have not done much to change their lives.

The reality is that when a person drives down the street and sees an 18 year old kid behind a 50 caliber machine gun on a humvee it's unnerving. I remember feeling nervous one time in Italy seeing a member of the Caribineri behind an assault rifle that was pointed at the street. We need to integrate Iraqi leadership into our command posts so that it is not a question of the American post over there and the Iraqi one over here. We need Iraqi police who look like police not soldiers. And in the major population centers we need less American flags, replacing the flag on that humvee with an Iraqi flag and having it manned by Iraqi soldiers in itself makes a huge difference. Small things need to be dummed down. Stop flying military helicopters over the cities, stop driving military vehicles in the city.

Finally I think that along with the language idea we need continued training for the troops, continued instruction to ensure empathy with the Iraqi people instead of anger.

I do not want to be impolite but I think you should have studied a little history before going there. 1917 and the British in Iraq

www.theabsenteeballot.com

 

[Conservative Politica]

Do you think I like turning on the news and hearing about the hundred people killed in a market blast. Do you think I enjoy hearing about the soldiers and civilians killed everyday because of people like you? People who act before they take the time to stop and think. Do really think that I get a kick out of how much more dangerous the world is now after this mistake? I don't like the fact that people out there want to kill my family. I don't like that they are targeting my friends in the armed forces. I don't like the fact that if they had their way that my people in Israel would be eradicated. And I especially don't like the fact that every day and in every way you give them more and more followers with your ignorance, your bigotry, and your warped vision of patriotism.

I am tired of people believing that people hate America just because they criticize the government. It's people like you who took the approach that just because I didn't want a war in the first place then I must hate our soldiers, right? Because I didn't want to send them to a foreign country to die I must hate them right? No. It is sad when people become so partisan-driven that they are actually willing to have tens of thousands of people die in an effort to try and prove that they were right in the first place. People like you disgust me.
You believe in all the tenets of the regime that we toppelled in Iraq, you just don't know it. You support a single party system, you support torture, you support the government having the right to do what it feels like, you support militarism over education, and you have no care for human life. Now you tell me what seperates you from the Baathists...

Fact checks: We were not in Germany as part of a rebuilding mission our troops remained there because of the fear of an imminent Soviet attack, not as part of nation-building. Secondly Germany was the first to create the war.

Also contrary to what you guys think I don't believe in a withdrawl from Iraq. I think that would be an awful idea. But how about instead of doing nothing as "Fearless Leader" seems to be preoccupied with how about trying a real change, how about you stop lying about the reality, and how about you stop throwing away the lives of our service men and women.

It bothers me greatly that our troops are still not being taught the language. It bothers me that four years later our government still won't pay for our soldiers body armor after granting repeated tax breaks to people who make over a million a year.
And it bothers me greatly that rather than listening to reason our Command in Chief prefers to believe that stupidity is the better part of valor.

It bothers me greatly that you really do believe the liberal rhetoric you spew and you don't have a clue about this war, about our troops, about why they fight for freedom and liberty, about why they are willing to give it everything, about winning and victory. It bothers me that you don't see the real enemy. The real enemy is not George W. Bush. I could pick apart your words and tell you some real truth but quite honestly, you were so busy telling the person you wrote this to how stupid they are and how everything is their fault..blah, blah, blah. You liberals and the enemy have so much in common. You want the United States of America to lose.

I am the mother of a soldier and lady, my son is at war because he wants to serve and he wants to win. My son is at war for his country. He believes in service. He believes in Freedom and liberty. He believes in victory.

You on the left would serve yourselves so much better if you were to say WE ARE ALL AMERICANS! WE ARE TRULY SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS AND THEIR MISSION AND WE ARE IN THIS TO WIN!! Our troops deserve full funding with no stipulations, no time lines, no astronomical earmarks. Our troops are at war, in harm's way 24/7. They deserve the BEST from us and they deserve our support in what they are doing. If this country would unite and throw itself TOGETHER at this war, the war would be won and our troops could come home. Plain and simple.

 

[TheWaffle]

It bothers me greatly that you really do believe the liberal rhetoric you spew and you don't have a clue about this war, about our troops, about why they fight for freedom and liberty, about why they are willing to give it everything, about winning and victory. It bothers me that you don't see the real enemy. The real enemy is not George W. Bush. I could pick apart your words and tell you some real truth but quite honestly, you were so busy telling the person you wrote this to how stupid they are and how everything is their fault..blah, blah, blah. You liberals and the enemy have so much in common. You want the United States of America to lose.

I am the mother of a soldier and lady, my son is at war because he wants to serve and he wants to win. My son is at war for his country. He believes in service. He believes in Freedom and liberty. He believes in victory.

You on the left would serve yourselves so much better if you were to say WE ARE ALL AMERICANS! WE ARE TRULY SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS AND THEIR MISSION AND WE ARE IN THIS TO WIN!! Our troops deserve full funding with no stipulations, no time lines, no astronomical earmarks. Our troops are at war, in harm's way 24/7. They deserve the BEST from us and they deserve our support in what they are doing. If this country would unite and throw itself TOGETHER at this war, the war would be won and our troops could come home. Plain and simple.

See here's the thing. You didn't read my post. If you did you would realize that my intention is to do what is best for our soldiers and for our country.

I don't believe that I said George Bush is the enemy. I believe that I said he is hindering our progress in Iraq by standing by strategies that do not work. What he is doing is just bad as those who are calling for a pull-out from Iraq.

And I agree that our soldiers need funding, hence why I said it disgusted me that our soldiers didn't have body armor.

As far as us liberals are concerned I hope you realize that we never wanted to divide our country. You yourself just said in your post "You liberals and the enemy have so much in common. You want the United States of America to lose." This is exactly what is wrong with our country. People get this idea in their head that because people like me oppose an invasion we must hate the troops, and naturally because we want a change of strategy in Iraq we must want America to lose. And what you need to realize is that this is not a partisan issue. It's not Republican vs Democrat or liberal vs conservative. I honestly could not care less how George Bush looks coming out of this war. It really doesn't matter to me; give the whole administration Medals of Freedom for all I care. What I do care about is that I want this job done right and I don't want my children thirty years from now fighting in wars that began here.

The schism in our nation took place in every school, every office, and every neighborhood. When my fellow students accused me of supporting terrorists because I thought the war was a bad idea they voiced their lack of interest in a unified nation. When Donald Rumsfeld said that 'being against the invasion means that you want America to fail.'

I don't know how much of this thread you actually read, but my post was in response to another member saying that I wanted America to fail. His post was in response to one of mine in which I called for a change of policy because unfortunately for us our troops need more than just our support. They need intelligent leadership and they need effective long term strategies.

The thing that I am fighting for is a quite different from what most people aim for. You can't look only at the war we are fighting now, you need to look at the wars we will be fighting 50 years from now. With our current strategy and attitude we will be fighting many more wars in the future.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

You on the left would serve yourselves so much better if you were to say WE ARE ALL AMERICANS! WE ARE TRULY SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS AND THEIR MISSION AND WE ARE IN THIS TO WIN!!

Like we were "supporting our troops" and "trying to win" in Vietnam?...yeah, right:


"Norman Cousins - best known for his book Anatomy of an Illness - also wrote The Pathology of Power:

"The attachment to total power in our time not only has not served the purposes of national security but threatens to bring about a basic change in the kind of balanced relationship between government and people that is the central feature in the political architecture of the American Constitution-makers. No aspect of this threat is more apparent than the way genuine national security requirements have been allowed to serve as the occasion for an assault on the wealth of the American people. The chapters that follow summarize the reports of public and private investigators - reports documenting the loss amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars, through waste, bribery, kickbacks, circumvention of competitive bidding, flawed weapons systems, and sheer incompetence in the military program."

Cousins tells the story of "the M-16: a rifle that couldn't." He describes how the Vietcong, after winning a firefight, would strip the dead American bodies of "everything useful - boots, canteens, knives, grenades, rations, and so on. Even relatively outmoded rifles of World War II were eagerly snatched up. Yet the Vietcong disdained the M-16s, leaving them behind on the ground." Cousins then quotes from an article on the M-16 by James Fallows in the June 1981 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. The article includes quotes from various letters from American infantry soldiers in Vietnam:

"Our M-16s aren't worth much... Out of 40 rounds I've fired, my rifle jammed about 10 times... These rifles are getting a lot of guys killed because they jam so easily... " "The weapon has failed us at crucial moments... as many as 50 percent of the rifles fail to work." "During this fight... I lost some of my best buddies. I personally checked their weapons. Close to 70 percent had a round stuck in the chamber, and take my word it was not their fault."

Cousins then describes the development of the M-16, which started with the M-14 rifle. The M-14 had a major drawback in that its recoil during automatic fire was so violent that it bucked and jolted, and was difficult to aim. Weapons designer Eugene Stoner invented the AR-15 rifle as a solution. It was manufactured by the Armelite Corporation. It fired high-impact .22-caliber bullets, and was much lighter than the M-14 which used .30-caliber bullets. As a result a soldier with an AR-15 could carry three times as much ammunition as one with an M-14. The AR-15 was virtually jam-proof. It was a dream weapon. The Green Berets and the paratroopers requested and got them.

But in the early 1960s the Army Material Command falsified tests to "prove" that the M-14 was superior to the AR-15. They blocked the general issuance of the AR-15. The top brass considered Armelite an "outside" company. The Army ordinance "experts" decided to redesign the AR-15. Among other "bells and whistles," they introduced a new pattern of spiral grooving in the barrel. They changed the gunpowder in the ammunition. The end-result was a disaster, called the M-16 rifle. It overheated and jammed, both in tests and on the battlefield. In 1967 the House Armed Services Committee investigated the M-16. Their verdict included that "The failure... of officials with authority in the Army to... correct the deficiencies... borders on criminal negligence."

Cousins also writes:
"In 1966, [Rear Admiral Gene] La Rocque was asked by the secretary of the Navy, Paul Nitze, to head a task force of ten senior officers to study the Vietnam War and make recommendations for action. The question put to them: "What should the U.S. do?"

The team went to Vietnam. "We looked at all the options for completing the war, "La Rocque recalled. "It became obvious that we were wasting kids without really knowing why. There were no real goals. And that was what I told General [William] Westmoreland, 'You're spending $90,000 a day... and you don't really know why.'" After nine months of research, the group concluded that there was no way they could win the war in Vietnam, and advised Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara accordingly."

These are just two samples from three pages of Cousins's book.

From: http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/rape9.shtml

 

[Rokerijdude11]

anyone who has been saddled with one of these Crap weapons knows exactly how true the article is.........the M-16 Sux plain and simple

 

[Conservative Politica]

See here's the thing. You didn't read my post. Yes, I read it. If you did you would realize that my intention is to do what is best for our soldiers and for our country. Soldiers don't need a liberal pacifist saying what's best for them. Soldiers are soldiers. They break things. They kill people. They fight. That is their job. They joined up knowing this was their job. They volunteered..all of them. They want to finish their job and that means VICTORY. What is best for our country is not for us to leave Iraq. What is best for our country is you and your ilk to get behind them and support their mission. That is "support," not cutting off their money, not throwing alot of stipulations onto our military on their training, deployments and equipment, not making timelines for defeat, not throwing in a billion dollars of earmarks to bribe other senators to vote for the bill.

I don't believe that I said George Bush is the enemy. I believe that I said he is hindering our progress in Iraq by standing by strategies that do not work. This surge is working and it has only begun. Of course, you all don't want it to go on further because it will work and then George Bush and the country will have victory. What he is doing is just bad as those who are calling for a pull-out from Iraq.

And I agree that our soldiers need funding, hence why I said it disgusted me that our soldiers didn't have body armor. No, you said that because you wanted to say look, our soldiers don't have body armor. The plain, simple truth is..our troops do have body armor. My son told me after his first tour that they were all well-equipped. He is on his second tour and he tells me they are all still well-equipped. That was a lie the liberals put forward to put down Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. You bought it and it sounds good to you because it is rhetoric for our troops to not be there. It's a lie.

As far as us liberals are concerned I hope you realize that we never wanted to divide our country. You yourself just said in your post "You liberals and the enemy have so much in common. You want the United States of America to lose." This is exactly what is wrong with our country. People get this idea in their head that because people like me oppose an invasion we must hate the troops, and naturally because we want a change of strategy in Iraq we must want America to lose. And what you need to realize is that this is not a partisan issue. It's not Republican vs Democrat or liberal vs conservative. I honestly could not care less how George Bush looks coming out of this war. It really doesn't matter to me; give the whole administration Medals of Freedom for all I care. The Commander-in-Chief, during a time of war, was called a Nazi, dumb, idiot, loser, liar, and so many more. Yeah, sure..it's not D vs R. The whole thing is D vs R. Your members called our troops nazis, cold blooded killers, said they terrorized Iraqi women and children in the dead of night, said if they don't go to college they're stupid and will end up in Iraq as a soldier. See, I don't care if you want to walk away from your D vs R, but you spout all the rhetoric so you are a D and you are not fooling me by trying to pretend there is something larger here than politics.

What I do care about is that I want this job done right and I don't want my children thirty years from now fighting in wars that began here.
And you are the moral arbitrator for strategy? Here's the fact..here's the reason..you all believe THERE IS NOTHING WORTH DYING FOR. Our troops know that freedom, liberty and the US are worth dying for. If you are worried about your children, then you should support our troops winning now because the enemy will follow our troops home and you will have much words than VA Tech in this country.
The schism in our nation took place in every school, every office, and every neighborhood. When my fellow students accused me of supporting terrorists because I thought the war was a bad idea they voiced their lack of interest in a unified nation. When Donald Rumsfeld said that 'being against the invasion means that you want America to fail.'

I don't know how much of this thread you actually read, but my post was in response to another member saying that I wanted America to fail. His post was in response to one of mine in which I called for a change of policy because unfortunately for us our troops need more than just our support. They need intelligent leadership and they need effective long term strategies.
So, there you go. George Bush is not intelligent. Gen Patreas is not intelligent. Do you think you are the intelligent one above them? You are nothing more than a pacifist who thinks that is a strategy.

The thing that I am fighting for is a quite different from what most people aim for. You can't look only at the war we are fighting now, you need to look at the wars we will be fighting 50 years from now. With our current strategy and attitude we will be fighting many more wars in the future.

So, if you think cutting and running is not defeat and you think redeployment to Okinawa is not defeat, what exactly is defeat? When the Islamofacists kill your granny and your baby and celebrate as they do it, will you get it then? Will you get that our troops must be allowed to finish this instead of allowing it to come here?

Nevermind. It's useless. I'm wasting my time. You'd better go out and purchase, a koran, some burkas and a prayer rug because that's where you are headed.

 

[Conservative Politica]

oh..and one more thing. If you knew anything about our troops, you would know that many of them are learning arabic, especially our special forces. That was mentioned in your first epistle I answered first.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

that my intention is to do what is best for our soldiers and for our country.

Good intentions will not make an irrational policy work. There's an old saying - "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Good intentions in and of themselves, are not necessarily moral or ethical.

Soldiers are soldiers. They break things. They kill people. They fight. That is their job.

No, their job is supposed to be to defend the United States and the Constitution. Their job is supposed to be purely defensive. Pre-emptive wars aren't defensive. Iraq was not a threat to invade us.

They joined up knowing this was their job. They volunteered..all of them.

Many of them were persuaded to join because of the G.I. Bill or other benefits they'd receive - while the threat of death and dismemberment was severely downplayed. Regardless, they didn't join up to fight an unwinnable war against a country that was never a threat to invade the U.S.

They want to finish their job and that means VICTORY.

The type of "victory" you're talking about is impossible due to the following reasons:

http://www.henrymadisonresearch.com/bulletin-060105.html

What is best for our country is not for us to leave Iraq.

In your unproveable opinion.

What is best for our country is you and your ilk to get behind them and support their mission.

I've just shown you evidence that the government betrayed its own soldiers and subjected them to a higher chance of death simply for the sake of allowing political cronies in the military industrial complex to their "spoils". If the soldiers can't trust their leaders, who can they trust? Who can we trust? Seems like there's a disconnect. It's evident there's a problem, unless you're a braindead drone hanging on all of master Bush's words...

Here's the fact..here's the reason..you all believe THERE IS NOTHING WORTH DYING FOR.

Oh, I believe there are things worth dying for, but not the things your master Bush wants. It is not the job of the U.S. soldier to fight and die for the alleged freedom of Iraq. It is not the job of the U.S. taxpayer to pay to give the Iraqis alleged freedom. If the Iraqis want freedom THEN THEY SHOULD STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR IT.

you need to look at the wars we will be fighting 50 years from now.

Oh, boy, let's plan ahead and keep the "fun" going forever... As we've already been warned:

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -- James Madison

So, if you think cutting and running is not defeat and you think redeployment to Okinawa is not defeat, what exactly is defeat?

The only true defeat would be unconditional surrender.

When the Islamofacists kill your granny and your baby and celebrate as they do it, will you get it then? Will you get that our troops must be allowed to finish this instead of allowing it to come here?

Nevermind. It's useless. I'm wasting my time. You'd better go out and purchase, a koran, some burkas and a prayer rug because that's where you are headed.

Christ I wish you guys would stop with your neverending fearmongering. As I posted earlier, no one can invade us for the following reasons:

First, if we remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S., the terrorists will have no reason to invade our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not attacking anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

Secondly, even if they did try to invade and occupy us after we left, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING. And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

And last but not least, no nation state wants a war with us. Why? The simple reason is that we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth. We are not helpless and we are not defenseless. No one could ever successfully invade and occupy the U.S. No other country's economy could stand the strain, let alone the bombardment that would follow.

 

[vyo476]

Soldiers don't need a liberal pacifist saying what's best for them. Soldiers are soldiers. They break things. They kill people. They fight. That is their job. They joined up knowing this was their job. They volunteered..all of them. They want to finish their job and that means VICTORY.

What they want is not the key issue. When they joined up they became a part of the United States Armed Forces, the point of which is to defend America. In essence they became a part of an instrument, and instrument guided by the principles of the Constitution and the will of the people of the United States as expressed through their choice of Head of State and Commander in Chief (that's Mr. Bush). Members of the armed forces are still people but they are not a majority; they still have votes in regards to where and what the mission of the US Armed Forces is, but those votes do not override the votes of American citizens like you and me. Handing full control of the Army over to the Army would create a Roman political structure where military officials skilled at killing the enemy would ascend to positions of political power more suited to diplomats. Unless the assumption is that killing is preferable to negotiating, as I can never tell with neocons like yourself.

Basically: Waffle and Truth-Bringer and all of us have our opinions. You have yours and we'll respect that, so long as you at least attempt to respect ours. Dissent keeps this country free at least as much as really big guns do.