RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,143717,00.html If you are going to go, GO, do not leave a few behind to get killed. Ether shut off the flow of MUNITIONS or get out. I wonder if we could do some CHEMICAL WARFARE. That is; Put something in the food & water that will make them SICK but not kill them. The other method is to fly planes beyond the sound barried ever thirty minuets over the cities. This is to deprive them of sleep, like we did to NOREGIA (?), when he was holed up in a church. They played load ROCK&ROLL twenty four'24' seven '7' until he gave up. Is he out of jail yet? REX

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah! Here is another thread we have already beat to death with nothing but nasties being thrown about. I do see Murtha has a say in this as well as the previous blogs on dems wanting to quit the war. Dems and quiters....hhhhmmmmmmm....redundant!

It ain't about quitting Dale (How're you doing BTW?) it's about trying to evolve something like a "sane" strategy that might allow us to achieve a few of our objectives. Whatever Congress says, do you honestly think we're just going to abandon all those bases on which we've spent billions to the Iraqis? Notice they're having a panic--"We can't cope on our own . . ." My personal belief is that whatever window dressing is put on it, we are in that part of the world to stay. Having gone in, well, we have to protect our investment. Now, I ain't saying that the troop levels will be anything near as high as they are at the minute, and I would hope that by the time our troops begin to stand down, the Iraqis will be able to take up the slack on policing. But come out completely, don't think it will happen whatever Congress says. That's just window dressing for the '08 elections.

Why can't they use all the weapons found in the buildings, house and sheds? Why wait on us to give them everything?

What expect may well happen is something like happened in the wind down to VietNam. You'll remember that in '68 Nixon was elected on a "Peace with honor" platform. We then got negotiations, and eventually combat troops went in '72 just in time to see him re-elected by a landslide (Watergate notwithstanding). The collapse of South VietNam came later on when the terms of the settlement didn't hold. But that wasn't anybody's fault. It just happened. Now, Iraq? Well, if we began a stand down in the fall, we could begin negotiations if we could find anybody to negotiations with, that might just calm things down. Does anybody really know what the "insurgents" want? A negotiated settlement to Iraq's internal difficulties might allow for lower troop levels and make the place safer, see my post above. Don't think for a minute this is about "cut and run". It's about trying to achieve objectives in another way.

quote:

Why wait on us to give them everything?

They don't have to do anything or take responsibility for anything while they're waiting . . .they just have to wait while our soldiers do the job for them. Some people will argue that the South VietNamese army (and I'm not talking comparison with VietNam, don't get me wrong on this) was perfectly capable of doing the job by the time we left in '72. I've never been too sure of that, in fact, never rated their capabilities very highly. They collapsed soon enough after American troops were withdrawn . . . but, it seems to me like we're in a similar situation here vis a vie the Irqai Army and Security Forces and Police. They are just not going to step up to the plate as long as they don't have to. If we go on fighting their battles for them, well, they'll let us won't they?

quote:

Originally posted by TPCAT:
It ain't about quitting Dale (How're you doing BTW?) it's about trying to evolve something like a "sane" strategy that might allow us to achieve a few of our objectives. Whatever Congress says, do you honestly think we're just going to abandon all those bases on which we've spent billions to the Iraqis? Notice they're having a panic--"We can't cope on our own . . ." My personal belief is that whatever window dressing is put on it, we are in that part of the world to stay. Having gone in, well, we have to protect our investment. Now, I ain't saying that the troop levels will be anything near as high as they are at the minute, and I would hope that by the time our troops begin to stand down, the Iraqis will be able to take up the slack on policing. But come out completely, don't think it will happen whatever Congress says. That's just window dressing for the '08 elections.

Window dressing, eh? I guess that could very well be it, but they seem to want to quit many ventures set forth by their own party. If this was a Democrat war, the Republicans would be whining and we would use the same verbage as we do the Dems. That is why I stay clear of politics and stay Independant, sanity is with those who relish the trench! ( I'm doing well....and you?)

PEOPLE MAKING DECISIONS THAT ARE NOT EVEN ON THE FRONT LINE OR EVER SERVED. THIS IS GETTING OLD.

SSG QUINONES; 101ST AIRBORNE DIVISION OIF IV COMBAT VET

I'm fine Dale, despite the floods. You are right, of course. If we had a Democratic President, well the Reps would be whining. You'll remember LBJ couldn't get anything right, according to the Republicans, but then when they took over the War, they managed to negotiate us out, but on terms that LBJ later wrote if he had accepted, he'd have got crucified by the same folks who later signed up. It's the political game, what annoys me about it is the same thing that annoyed me back in the late 60s early 70's, it's political game playing with the lives of our soldiers.

"no mas, no mas"

Where have we heard that before. No one likes or respects cowardice. Part of the problem has been the President's lack of forceful response to his critics.

Victory isn't when you give up while you are winning.

We all know, I think, if we're honest with ourselves that the problems in Iraq aren't capable of a military solution. They're not really military problems, they're political problems that will, in the end, require political solutions. What I think we need to do is get representatives of the various factions that make up the insurgency, representatives of the Iraqi Government, and ourselves plus the Brits around the negotiating table--it can be any shape they like (remember that one?) and work out a workable political solution that will leave Iraq stable, and allow the occupation to proceed making the place a safer place for our troops to rotate. Thoughts on that one?

It's real easy to point and call names, but it's a lot harder to come up with something constructive. What we're facing in Iraq is not a military problem, it's a political problem, and eventually, some time, everybody's going to have to sit down and work out a POLITICAL solution. Now if that doesn't happen before the '08 elections, or start to happen, well I'm pretty sure it will start to happen shortly after January '09. We can't simply go on as we are . . .we're just wasting our soldiers' lives to no real purpose. And like the rest of you, it would be nice to see the Surge working, I'm still waiting for that to happen.

quote:

Victory isn't when you give up while you are winning.

Itch, I'm still waiting to hear some evidence that we ARE winning. Yes, we win individual battles, then the insurgents just fade away into the local population, and come back out at hit us again. I don't think you can have a military solution (purely) that will solve the problem without a political/diplomatic solution that will deal with the CAUSES of the insurgency. We need to find out what the insurgents want, and then at least go some way down the road to giving it to them. Then maybe the whole situation will settle down. I think until we do begin meaningful negotiations aimed at a workable political settlement, well, things will just go on pretty much as they are. And have you ever thought that the President's response, or lack of it, to his critics, is because he's really got nothing to say?

Democrats must be the biggest social retards in the U.S. Do they get past the media for social contact. I really hate it when the media prints something and includes the quote "already un-popular war." No one asked me my opinion or counted my vote when they did the national poles regarding the war in Iraq. I am sure the elected officils do not enter their positions with a few thousand votes out of the billions of voters in the U.S. Go figure, they don't have a clue so they use a fabricated lie to tell American's to hate the President because of a war, then they want to use that lie to kill off some more Marines, and Soldiers for their political gain. If these power hungry pricks were not so excited about showing off their numbers in Congress, they might see past their social inadequacies and come up with a helpful plan regarding the war on terror.

quote:

Originally posted by Fun4usb:
Democrats must be the biggest social retards in the U.S. Do they get past the media for social contact. I really hate it when the media prints something and includes the quote "already un-popular war." No one asked me my opinion or counted my vote when they did the national poles regarding the war in Iraq. I am sure the elected officils do not enter their positions with a few thousand votes out of the billions of voters in the U.S. Go figure, they don't have a clue so they use a fabricated lie to tell American's to hate the President because of a war, then they want to use that lie to kill off some more Marines, and Soldiers for their political gain. If these power hungry pricks were not so excited about showing off their numbers in Congress, they might see past their social inadequacies and come up with a helpful plan regarding the war on terror.

Welcome Dan, and thank you for serving!

Salute!!!!

How about the "deeply un-popular war" also?

Semper Fi!

Mornin' Dale, TPCAT, et al.

Many branches but one brotherhood!

Oops, also mornin' Old Snipe. Great poitical cartoon BTW!

Many branches but one brotherhood!

Does Congressman Murtha really believe he'll become the Secretary of Defense by continuing to advocate his "Slow Bleed" theories?

Americans "want out of Iraq;" no doubt about it!

Most Ameicans "are opposed to losing a war;" and, that I firmly believe!

I'll stand with this Commander-In-Chief, and our Military Commanders, in the prosecution of this "MUCH NEEDED War against Bin Laden's al-Qaeda!"

- The same group of Islamic Terrorists that declared war on us and brought our "Towers Down!"

- The same group that Iraqi Troops are fighting!

- The same group that Coalition Forces in Iraq are fighting!

- The "Public Enemy Number One;" for both Iraqi and American Forces.

Collectively; our Military Commanders tell us "we can win!"

Congressman Murtha and other Congressional Leaders say "We've lost!" They're INVESTED in our DEFEAT in Iraq. And, they're working to advance their "political power!"

Many posting here; are supporting Congressman Murtha -- "I'M NOT!!! Nuff Said!

Additionally; the Public's Opinion of this war may also BE CHANGING (According to the New York Post):

--------------------------

THE PUBLIC & THE WAR


July 25, 2007 -- Are Americans having a change of heart over the war in Iraq?
Maybe yes, maybe no.

A new joint poll by CBS News and The New York Times shows that public support for the original invasion of Iraq has risen by a fifth - from 35 percent to 42 percent of those surveyed - over the past two months.

Moreover, there's been a similarly startling drop in those who say the war is going badly, from 45 percent to 35 percent. The number of those who say the war effort is going well is up by about a quarter, from 23 percent to 29 percent.

Back in May, in other words, twice as many Americans thought the war was going badly as thought it was going well. Now the numbers are only a few points apart.

To be sure, the poll shows overwhelming support for a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq or a complete withdrawal. That's hardly surprising, given the spate of negative reporting from Iraq and the lack of political progress.

So what has changed over the past two months?

Reports from Iraq say that the troop surge is gaining real traction. Indeed, there has been a significant drop-off in suicide bombings. All of which suggests strongly that support for the Iraq effort has long been directly linked to the actual state of the military situation.

Another likely factor: The public's renewed appreciation that the insurgency is linked both to Iran and al Qaeda.

Sure, Americans have serious qualms over the way the war has been prosecuted - and particularly with the seeming inability of the nascent Iraqi government to begin shouldering its share of the military burden.

That's entirely understandable - and not unjustified, either. Even the fiercest pro-invasion partisans are disappointed over what has happened in Iraq since Saddam Hussein was toppled.

But if, in fact, Americans increasingly understand that the invasion of Iraq was justified, that has tremendous political implications for Campaign 2008.

The Democratic presidential candidates, who are falling all over themselves touting their anti-war credentials, may find that running a "Bush lied and thousands died" campaign doesn't resonate as well with voters as they now hope.

If that's the case, it hopefully also holds true that Americans won't allow the Democratic-controlled Congress to undercut the troops by forcing them to cut and run before their mission can be accomplished."
===============



From A Proud Vietnam Veteran

When and if, as I suspect, we get a Democratic President in January '09, I wonder if Republican bashing will become as fashionable as Dem bashing seems to be at the minute. The whole purpose of an opposition in politics is to "oppose". Then you get a choice when you go to the polls--stay as we are, or change. Now maybe if the Administration actually tried to meet the opposition half way (and remember the Republicans controlled Congress for a long time before November last year) together they might be able to come up with a workable plan that could lead to negotiations and could lead to a settlement. Do not for a minute think that will happen. We will just go on as we are till the leadership changes. Then maybe a settlement will be possible. In the end, Congress can't do it by itself. It takes the President to implement anything Congress says ought to happen. If he won't, then their hands are really tied. They can only suggest, advise and warn. They can't make policy all by themselves. So for those who are worried things might change in a hurry, I wouldn't be.

quote:

Originally posted by TPCAT:
When and if, as I suspect, we get a Democratic President in January '09, I wonder if Republican bashing will become as fashionable as Dem bashing seems to be at the minute. The whole purpose of an opposition in politics is to "oppose". Then you get a choice when you go to the polls--stay as we are, or change. Now maybe if the Administration actually tried to meet the opposition half way (and remember the Republicans controlled Congress for a long time before November last year) together they might be able to come up with a workable plan that could lead to negotiations and could lead to a settlement. Do not for a minute think that will happen. We will just go on as we are till the leadership changes. Then maybe a settlement will be possible. In the end, Congress can't do it by itself. It takes the President to implement anything Congress says ought to happen. If he won't, then their hands are really tied. They can only suggest, advise and warn. They can't make policy all by themselves. So for those who are worried things might change in a hurry, I wouldn't be.

with as many "right" turns being made how could they?