quote:

Originally posted by TPCAT:

quote:

My vote is for victory...

So is mine, Snipe, but you define "victory" for me. What can it mean in a totally FUBAR situation? I'll tell you what I think it would be, a negotiated settlement that would result in a stable, maybe democratic, maybe not, Iraq, but an Iraq we could live with without our soldiers having to die every day to keep everything standing still. If the goal is a peaceful occupation of a stable Iraq, then you won't get it militarily. You'll only achieve that with a negotiated peace . . . seems like to me it's time to start talking. And listening . . .

This seems to be a popular way to justify the "cut and run" strategy that the dems came up with - Define Victory. As if any third grader wouldn't understand what victory means. Let me see if I can break it down "webster" style for ya: 1. Mission - Remove Sadam, accomplished, 2. Mission - Assist the Iraqui people in establishing a new government, accomplished, 3. Mission - Give the Iraqui people time to raise a defense for their new nation and governement, in progress.

When three is accomplished, we will have complete victory. And that may well be 2 - 4 years away.

The point at which the Democrats declared war on the President, instead of keeping focus on the enemy in Iraq, is when the terrorists realized they had a chance for victory. Any suggestion from this Administration that success was imminent was quickly undermined by those wanting to make political brownie points along with a willing anti-war media. Unlike ourselves, the terrorists learned from our recent history in Vietnam, as well as our lack of response from more recent terror attacks. The President has certainly made his share of mistakes, however I place the preponderance of blame for the current situation in Iraq on the Democratic party and the MSM. Although we can only speculate at this point, who knows where we might be today had the country, as a whole, remained united in our efforts to eradicate this threat. We are our own worst enemy.

originally posted by TPCAT:
Thing is we've all been told so many stories that it's real hard anymore to separate what is true from what might be true, and what isn't true. It was all going to be so easy in the beginning. A surgical war, Sadaam removed into exile, or just removed, and everything would just settle down real nice. Well that was the plan, but it didn't happen that way. Remember DR's "Watch my lips, 'No Quagmire'" remark. Well it's turned into quicksand . . .and DR got left with egg all over his face. I'm just convinced that when you put all the rhetoric from both sides to one side, we're going in the end to have to do what we should have been trying to do all along, negotiate our way to a peaceful settlement . . .it's the only way that in the long run can work. [/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by EAG154:
VOTE for HILLARY!!

Slick Willie First Man!!

That auta fix it!

Im not voting for Hillery, she already had her 8 years in office. Come to think of it Im not voting for anyone that had a "D" beside their name. Republicans are on my sh@# list at the moment too. Fortunatly Im an independant so I can now see all the lies. Vice lies being told by one party.

quote:

but offer nothing put cut and run

If you had bothered to read what I've posted today, you will have seen something else on offer besides "cut and run". The middle way--a negotiated settlement--Nixon did it--are you telling me this President can't or won't? Because if he doesn't, our soldiers are going to go on dying daily, and eventually somebody else will. Just be good to see something begin to happen now, rather than later.

Now that has to be the height of hypocrisy.

quote:

Originally posted by leekujawa:
Snipe's incapable of that. He only reacts. Not a leader, just a follower. But hey, we need these types. Not everyone can lead, and Snipe's a perfect example of that. But if he would only react with something constructive and intelligent ....

quote:

But if he would only react with something constructive and intelligent ....

Yeah, Leeks, we're all waiting for that to happen . . .

this is nothing but a sign of weakness to our enemy.... this is not the image we want them to see... they need to see us strong and united to defeat them....

How about not setting a withdrawl date and leaving when the job is done? Cuz if its not, the stupid TA's will get stronger and screw us over here in the US, it has always been our policy to try and fight the enemy "Over there", or does this make too much sense that the idiots completely ignore it?

quote:

Originally posted by 6486143:

quote:

Originally posted by uh34d:
Many people here are correct, the same old political rhetoric and the ignoring of relevant evidence.

For those who want to remain in Iraq, instead of political cartoons and the spouting of political dogma, please, tell us all how we can win in Iraq? Provide some tangible tactical expertise that demonstrates our military operations are creating an environment that will conclude in a victory? Will establish an Iraqi government that is accepted as legitimate by Iraqi citizens?

S/F Gordon

This is the job of the Generals not you or your fellow armchair warriors do decide.....as you condemn this admin appointed non mil leadership you want to offer your own? Can you spell H I P P O......

Your right on. Running a military through TV observation and comments from a few in theater is an excellent plan for disaster. If you listen to the TV anchor man, the anchor is around your neck and he is about to throw it over board in water well over your head. If you listen to the soldier in country, that person also has knowledge of their surroundings and intimidate problems, If they have greater knowledge they are called generals and are running the war. No general hands out any information, that just gives his enemy information he don't want them to have. "armchair warrior", I like that, kind of goes with the catch all "I told you so". After the fact intelligence.
Thank you for your service to our country.

TPCAT,

I notice on your profile you state NO military experience, How can you make such comments about Vietnam, Iraq etc? ( and by the way a lot of comments) You have and had no military experience to base you comments on.
Are you basing everything out of left handed news?

You see this is part of the problem..We have plenty of Non-military people come here and try to tell US how things should go and how they have went before ( and of course wrong ). Why are they wrong..you only read or listen SO far, you don't read and listen completey for one, you haven't been there done that.
So how in good faith how can you make such comments is beyond me.

You might be a great guy, I don't know...but you are way off base and pounding the drum for the left will get you no where..It will not change one single mind.

You have a good day

Did you mean 2-4 Preston, or 24. 2-4 years I think is alittle optimistic--24yrs, well maybe if we hold out that long. I think it would be alot more realistic to try to settle this thing through negotiations. The questions in Iraq are political. The military phase ended with the removal of Sadaam. If we're to secure the peace and finish up with the stable, democratic Iraq we'd all like to see, then we're going to have to negotiate. And I'll point again to the Nixon example . . . we did it then, we could do it again. Not to, just seems to me to be throwing away our soldiers' lives

This message has been edited. Last edited by: TPCAT,

quote:

Originally posted by TPCAT:

quote:

So is calling them war criminals and murderers, but your fellow Liberal Islanders seem to think that helps....ridicule

I have never, and would never, nor would anybody I know call a United States or British soldier a "war criminal" or a "murderer". And whatever you may think of the Brits, Snipe, they're still there . . . And will be I'm certain for as long as need be. I do resent the implication in that one . . . any suggestion that I would give any soldier anything but complete respect really pisses me off. I'm waiting for the apology, but don't suppose for a minute I'll get one.

This is MilCom son.....if you voter liberal you accept all the baggage of your party.....if you are unaware Murtha and Kerry have echoed this...I suggest you visit their websites or change party...

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.

Amen, brother...well said. I don't ever recall having been asked my opinion yet either.

quote:

Originally posted by leekujawa:

quote:

Originally posted by TPCAT:

quote:

This is the job of the Generals not you or your fellow armchair warriors do decide.....as you condemn this admin appointed non mil leadership you want to offer your own?

And that's an easy get out Snipe. You must have a few thoughts of your own on what ought to happen. Why not share them with the rest of us? It's easy to say, well, it's up to the Generals, or the President, or Congress to decide, but what do you really think? That's what we're interested in.

Snipe's incapable of that. He only reacts. Not a leader, just a follower. But hey, we need these types. Not everyone can lead, and Snipe's a perfect example of that. But if he would only react with something constructive and intelligent ....

It's about time you start addressing the message and stop insulting me and other posters, as it is a direct violation of the TOU here.....

quote:

Originally posted by TPCAT:
Did you mean 2-4 Pam, or 24. 2-4 years I think is alittle optimistic--24yrs, well maybe if we hold out that long. I think it would be alot more realistic to try to settle this thing through negotiations. The questions in Iraq are political. The military phase ended with the removal of Sadaam. If we're to secure the peace and finish up with the stable, democratic Iraq we'd all like to see, then we're going to have to negotiate. And I'll point again to the Nixon example . . . we did it then, we could do it again. Not to, just seems to me to be throwing away our soldiers' lives

Negotiate with who? AQ? If not them, some other terrorist group? Nixon's negotiations lost South V and resulted in 2 million + deaths. Is that your idea of victory?

2 - 4 years will give the Iraqui people enough time to stabalize and provide for their own defense. Even if it takes longer, the total number of deaths would be far less than the millions who would be slain if we cun and run now.

Pounding the drum for the left, I don't think so. I base my comments only on experience. Yours may have been different from mine, and that's fine, you'll see things differently. And at least you bothered to read the profile. See, it's all there. I just try to tell it like I see it, and saw it at the time. You see it differently? Well, that's your right and I don't dispute it. But to call me left wing, or a salesman for the left. . .well think that's maybe going alittle too far. What's your opinion then? If you read most of what I say, you'll have seen that I certainly don't think whatever happens, cut and run is on the cards. The present strategy doesn't appear to be working, though I hope it does and am prepared to give it another month or so like the President said. If things aren't right come September, well that's when everybody's going to have to think again, wouldn't you say? Y'all have a nice day now . . .

SENSE WHEN HAS CONGRESS BECOME THE DOD THEY DO NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND WHATS GOING ON JUST LIKE BEN LADIN THEY ALONG WITH CLINTON DID NOT WANT TO STOP HIM WHEN THEY KNEW HE WAS A THREAT AND NOW THEY KNOW THAT IRAN IS A THREAT TO THE USA BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT THE PRESADENT OF IRAN HAS SAID ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF THE USA HE SAID KILL ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE US . HE ALSO WAS THE ONE THAT ORGANIZED THE TAKE OVER OF THE IRAN EMBASSY . IF THE US DOSE NOT STOP HIM IN IRAQ NOT THEN HE WILL ATTACK THE US ON OUR OWN GROUND SADAUM SENT HIM AND SIREA HIS WEAPONS THATS WHY THEY WERE NOT FOUND. IF THE US GOVERNMENT DOSE NOT ACT NOW TO STOT THE THREAT TO THE US OUR FAMILYS AND OUR CILDREN WILL PAY

quote:

Originally posted by itismarine:
The point at which the Democrats declared war on the President, instead of keeping focus on the enemy in Iraq, is when the terrorists realized they had a chance for victory. Any suggestion from this Administration that success was imminent was quickly undermined by those wanting to make political brownie points along with a willing anti-war media. Unlike ourselves, the terrorists learned from our recent history in Vietnam, as well as our lack of response from more recent terror attacks. The President has certainly made his share of mistakes, however I place the preponderance of blame for the current situation in Iraq on the Democratic party and the MSM. Although we can only speculate at this point, who knows where we might be today had the country, as a whole, remained united in our efforts to eradicate this threat. We are our own worst enemy.

Very well said Major!

quote:

2 - 4 years will give the Iraqui people enough time to stabalize and provide for their own defense. Even if it takes longer, the total number of deaths would be far less than the millions who would be slain if we cun and run now.

Nobody's suggesting cut and run, Preston--well not me certainly--cause if you've bothered to read the stuff I write you'd know I don't think we will be leaving Iraq anytime in the foreseeable future. What I would, however like to see, is the place become safer for our troops. The only way you will achieve that is to try to achieve a political solution that will stabilse the country. And as to Nixon, well, he may have got it wrong, but that wasn't the opinion most folks had at the time . . .

One of the posts earlier talked about the billions of dollars of permanent bases built in Iraq that we are not likely to abandon. If some of you would get past the "WMD's", and the body counts, and the political posturing, maybe you would realize that the entire operation (OIF and OEF) had 3 objectives. Those objectives are to topple a sadistic dictator that wasn't serving our purpose anymore, establish a permanent presence in the Middle East to protect the worlds 2nd largest oil reserve (an American interest), and provide a jumping off point into Iran from at least 2 directions (Iraq and Afghanistan) should that become necessary (and it will). A nice sideline is that millions of Iraqis now have a chance at free choice. The surge is working. It's a fact. If it does work as expected, libs and Dems will end up with major egg on their face. It is in their party's best interest for it not to work, hence their constant push to "cut and run". Go ahead libs, take your shots at me. I've been there, have you!