You do want us to leave eventually, right?...lowing wrote:
Stand united at a retreat .brilliant!!!Turquoise wrote:
The Democratic Party doesn't run the NY Times. It may be a liberal newspaper, but if there's a problem with them disclosing war strategies, then it's the government's job to find a legal way to "censor" them, so to speak.
Either that, or just improve your security ffs.
I'm truly amazed at how many breaches have occurred with this administration. This isn't just a Democrat thing either.
Anyway, I would agree that we need to stand united in an exit strategy for Iraq, but my earlier post addressed that....
Sure do, as soon as Iraq is a stable country where children can play and grow without worrying about getting killed every waking hour of the day......and you??Turquoise wrote:
You do want us to leave eventually, right?...lowing wrote:
Stand united at a retreat .brilliant!!!Turquoise wrote:
The Democratic Party doesn't run the NY Times. It may be a liberal newspaper, but if there's a problem with them disclosing war strategies, then it's the government's job to find a legal way to "censor" them, so to speak.
Either that, or just improve your security ffs.
I'm truly amazed at how many breaches have occurred with this administration. This isn't just a Democrat thing either.
Anyway, I would agree that we need to stand united in an exit strategy for Iraq, but my earlier post addressed that....
Um... we're going to run out of money before that happens. You'd have to make Iraq a state for that to happen.... literally.lowing wrote:
Sure do, as soon as Iraq is a stable country where children can play and grow without worrying about getting killed every waking hour of the day......and you??Turquoise wrote:
You do want us to leave eventually, right?...lowing wrote:
Stand united at a retreat .brilliant!!!
No amount of time we spend as occupiers will fix this situation. Only something as dramatic as statehood (and the resulting changes in infrastructure) would change things in the ways you speak of.
That, and we'd have to conquer Iran too.
How can you achieve anything without setting goals?
If you don’t set a pull out time you will never pull out!
If you don’t set a pull out time you will never pull out!
Agreed...
I think the controversy is you are setting the goal for your enemies as well.BN wrote:
How can you achieve anything without setting goals?
If you don’t set a pull out time you will never pull out!
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Once Iraq's govt. is settled and can rule effectivly and control their own internal strife. I say we leave. We do not leave and let an entire nation fall into the hands of terrorists.Turquoise wrote:
Um... we're going to run out of money before that happens. You'd have to make Iraq a state for that to happen.... literally.lowing wrote:
Sure do, as soon as Iraq is a stable country where children can play and grow without worrying about getting killed every waking hour of the day......and you??Turquoise wrote:
You do want us to leave eventually, right?...
No amount of time we spend as occupiers will fix this situation. Only something as dramatic as statehood (and the resulting changes in infrastructure) would change things in the ways you speak of.
That, and we'd have to conquer Iran too.
Surely, we can set a timetable in secret, but with enough disclosure that certain people in both parties can know about it.Kmarion wrote:
I think the controversy is you are setting the goal for your enemies as well.BN wrote:
How can you achieve anything without setting goals?
If you don’t set a pull out time you will never pull out!
I would agree that making the timetable public isn't such a good idea.
Let me ask you something. Let's assume we put a stable government in Iraq ten years from now.lowing wrote:
Once Iraq's govt. is settled and can rule effectivly and control their own internal strife. I say we leave. We do not leave and let an entire nation fall into the hands of terrorists.Turquoise wrote:
Um... we're going to run out of money before that happens. You'd have to make Iraq a state for that to happen.... literally.lowing wrote:
Sure do, as soon as Iraq is a stable country where children can play and grow without worrying about getting killed every waking hour of the day......and you??
No amount of time we spend as occupiers will fix this situation. Only something as dramatic as statehood (and the resulting changes in infrastructure) would change things in the ways you speak of.
That, and we'd have to conquer Iran too.
What do you think is going to happen right after we leave? Iran and Saudi Arabia are going to do everything possible to either manipulate or undermine that government. As long as Iran and Saudi Arabia exist, Iraq is doomed to face ethnic strife.
Whether we leave today or 10 years from now, it doesn't matter.
How do you know we haven't?Turquoise wrote:
Surely, we can set a timetable in secret, but with enough disclosure that certain people in both parties can know about it.Kmarion wrote:
I think the controversy is you are setting the goal for your enemies as well.BN wrote:
How can you achieve anything without setting goals?
If you don’t set a pull out time you will never pull out!
I would agree that making the timetable public isn't such a good idea.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You set a date and then the Iraq's have something to aim for as well. They MUST be ready to take over 100% by that date.Kmarion wrote:
I think the controversy is you are setting the goal for your enemies as well.BN wrote:
How can you achieve anything without setting goals?
If you don’t set a pull out time you will never pull out!
When else do you leave when the goals for victory are not set?
Because the president could just call the Democrats on it. If the Democrats were bullshitting by making these resolutions, then he could be like, "I already told Harry Reid what the timetable was, but he agreed to keep it confidential."Kmarion wrote:
How do you know we haven't?Turquoise wrote:
Surely, we can set a timetable in secret, but with enough disclosure that certain people in both parties can know about it.Kmarion wrote:
I think the controversy is you are setting the goal for your enemies as well.
I would agree that making the timetable public isn't such a good idea.
Those things are discussed behind closed door by heads of states. Setting a date should not be used on the senate floor for personal political gain. Should we have announced to the Nazi's when we would be leaving? Publicly discussing when you plan to withdrawal not only motivates the enemy but it demoralizes the troop while the are currently engaged in combat.BN wrote:
You set a date and then the Iraq's have something to aim for as well. They MUST be ready to take over 100% by that date.Kmarion wrote:
I think the contro\\versy is you are setting the goal for your enemies as well.BN wrote:
How can you achieve anything without setting goals?
If you don’t set a pull out time you will never pull out!
When else do you leave when the goals for victory are not set?
I agree that benchmarks should be in place. And the government of Iraq should not see us as a blank check. But like I said before there is a proper way to let them know this.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Maybe US soldiers not throwing grenades into houses would help with that.lowing wrote:
Sure do, as soon as Iraq is a stable country where children can play and grow without worrying about getting killed every waking hour of the day......and you??
Proper title " Dems Defeat The Troops Again "
The only war that goes well is the war avoided. Please check your history. Bailing out at any signs of trouble only means you will fight again and on the enemy's terms. The Iraqis deserve a chance. Look at the heart breaking results of The USSR, P.R.C. , Cambodia, Vietnam. These people may not look like us but their welfare is worth our efforts. If Israel had been even near Vietnam we would still be their.
Look at the tragedies in history, The mass executions. The genocide's and note when and where they occurred.
It may not be palatable, its no place for the weak, timid or feeble.
( They should steer clear and limit their efforts to scathing diction ) But it must be addressed by people with experince and a greater sense of reality than youth allows.
You can't ignore trouble, We tried it for 8 years and 911 was the result.
3000 innocent people died in 20 minutes. It was their greatest victory and they badly want to repeat it. To date the have not. Professional all volunteer soldiers hunt them in their own back yards, flirt with their women and play with their children. Very emasculating to men of their culture. All they can do now is set off bombs that mostly kill their own. They are reduced to using their own children as shields and decoys. Not the game play of a Winning team. Iraqis despise them as would any balanced individual.
The only war that goes well is the war avoided. Please check your history. Bailing out at any signs of trouble only means you will fight again and on the enemy's terms. The Iraqis deserve a chance. Look at the heart breaking results of The USSR, P.R.C. , Cambodia, Vietnam. These people may not look like us but their welfare is worth our efforts. If Israel had been even near Vietnam we would still be their.
Look at the tragedies in history, The mass executions. The genocide's and note when and where they occurred.
It may not be palatable, its no place for the weak, timid or feeble.
( They should steer clear and limit their efforts to scathing diction ) But it must be addressed by people with experince and a greater sense of reality than youth allows.
You can't ignore trouble, We tried it for 8 years and 911 was the result.
3000 innocent people died in 20 minutes. It was their greatest victory and they badly want to repeat it. To date the have not. Professional all volunteer soldiers hunt them in their own back yards, flirt with their women and play with their children. Very emasculating to men of their culture. All they can do now is set off bombs that mostly kill their own. They are reduced to using their own children as shields and decoys. Not the game play of a Winning team. Iraqis despise them as would any balanced individual.
No I'm saying we shouldn't leave until the job is done.Turquoise wrote:
Are you saying we should never leave Iraq?CannonFodder11b wrote:
I feel betrayed.
If we leave, we fail. I hate being here but I have a commitment to follow.
When we leave this government will get ousted and Iran will swallow it whole.
I speak from first hand knowledge. Not from what I read on the internet or see on the news. As the main effort in the "surge" I can tell you why Iraq has gotten as bad as it has. And its really simple.
No Boots on the Ground.
Sure we have a lot of military in iraq. But about 1/3 of the forces in Iraq are Combat Arms.
Those units that do not have Strykers, are packed into Humvee's.
Now in a Humvee you fit 5. Driver, Vehicle Commander, Gunner and 2 strap hangers in the back seats.
Out of those 5 3 will dismount. Are you seriously gonna have the driver dismount and do a foot patrol? Or how about the Heavy Casualty producing weapon mounted on the top...you gonna leave that unmanned?
Units with Humvee's Do not bring the dismounted assests that Bradley's or Strykers bring. Stryker carry 3 more dismounts then a Bradley. Even the ATGM Varient can carry 4 dismounts, while still leaving a driver and a gunner, either manning the TOW Missles, or the M240b. M1126 (or Infantry Carrying Vehicles) can carry 11 (actually 18 has been crammed in many times) But out of those 11 , 9 pairs of boots can hit the ground.
We clear large area's like a units whole sector in a matter of days, and the intel we get from the local population is this "more foot patrols, will keep the insurgents and Al Qaida, Iraq, out of our area. Oh, by the way see that vehicle right there? I saw a man plant something there... He is not from this area, he sleeps there at night, but he's gone in the early morning, cause he fears a US Patrol might catch him. And he has threatend the village elder if he helps the US out he will get killed. But search that corner, and that house.. oh and that field right there.. theres a cache there" 3 out of 4 tips given by the locals to a foot patrol pan out.
I had 5 155mm arty shells daisy chained and barried a few feet from my Stryker, his tip, lead to the capture of an insurgent, saved my life, and we rescued a german couple that had been kidnapped.
All they ask for is increased U.S. patrols, or Joint IA/IP/NP/US patrols. Not every Iraqi is evil. Many are scared. The sunni Shia thing is caused by the insurgents blowing up mosques and blaiming it on the sunni or shia. That sparks anger and even more blood shed. Currently in Baquba we are fighting all the insurgents that ran away from the baghdad security plan. If my unit can maintain our current op tempo of 6 days a week 18 hour missions, we will surely win.. but 3 companies cannot do all the work by itself. We are the 911 package for baghdad. Our Strykers are breaking down because we have no time to do maintenence.
Answer: Spread the wealth, Buy more Strykers and keep them as Theater Property and send Stryker Qualified Crews to other bases to start the training for Light or even mechanized battalions. Drop a company of brads to pick up a company of Strykers. Use them like you would any one of the Taskforce Ironclaws. Route clearance teams, and sector clearing teams.
Strykers are geared toward city fights. We can out manuever a bradley in the city streets and we can chase down cars. But what do I know im a stupid Buck Sergeant on the ground.
If we leave now, we prove only that we will quit when the pressure is applied.
"Find the Bastards and Pile on!"
We leave it better than we found it, after that they are on their own. If any bullshit overflows from the ME after we leave, it is all out gloves off war. That is of course, if we can find a liberal leadership that thinks America is actually worth defending.Turquoise wrote:
Let me ask you something. Let's assume we put a stable government in Iraq ten years from now.lowing wrote:
Once Iraq's govt. is settled and can rule effectivly and control their own internal strife. I say we leave. We do not leave and let an entire nation fall into the hands of terrorists.Turquoise wrote:
Um... we're going to run out of money before that happens. You'd have to make Iraq a state for that to happen.... literally.
No amount of time we spend as occupiers will fix this situation. Only something as dramatic as statehood (and the resulting changes in infrastructure) would change things in the ways you speak of.
That, and we'd have to conquer Iran too.
What do you think is going to happen right after we leave? Iran and Saudi Arabia are going to do everything possible to either manipulate or undermine that government. As long as Iran and Saudi Arabia exist, Iraq is doomed to face ethnic strife.
Whether we leave today or 10 years from now, it doesn't matter.
a) Because it's so stable now? And since the Iraq people didn't put the government in effect how stable do you think it's going to be?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
a) Impossible, if you actually wanted some minor semblance of stability after taking down that regime.cpt.fass1 wrote:
a) Seeing how it isn't our country I would have much rather seen the U.S. take Sadam out of power and left the region in about a year.
b) Maybe keep a small Strike force there on a base of about 5k soldier to defend the borders from Iran and Saudia.
c) Our Military costs would have been so much less if we allowed the Iraqies build there own government without our involvent. Held our forces back and if the stuff got to deep over there do an other attack.
d) This "the Terrorist will win" if we pull out is bullshit, as far as I'm concerned every attack on the U.S. Soldiers is an attack on the U.S.. So since 9/11 we have had somewhere around one million attacks on the U.S..
e) Also we have put our country at a much bigger risk of collapse with the billions of dollars spent on rebuilding a country.
b) ...
c) Not necessarily, unless you were to abandon the country entirely like Bush Sr.
d) An attack on a US soldier outside the US is different than an attack that takes place on US soil. The impact can still be devastating, but there is a difference.
e) If we ever do hit another depression, we'll probably just go to war again to bring us back out of it.Leave? Sorta contradicts b), where border defense was suggested. But ask France about border defense. Anyhow, do the real police go away if there's still an angry mob lobbing explosives into the food court? They'd more likely radio in for military support from behind cover.cpt.fass1 wrote:
It doesn't seem like a retreat... It's not a full frontal battle, it's policing.
My view on this is if a Secruity Gaurd has a break in at his job and calls the real police.. The real police come and scare away the criminal, now should the police stay there all night and hold his hand while he works, or should they leave him to take care of his job alone?The fact that there are also non-Iraqis fighting us (and incidentally taking out a good share of civilians) in Iraq partially invalidates that analogy.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well if you break into your own house it's not a break in anymore..
And yes I am I'm simplifing it so it makes more sense
C) Yeah Bust went in, took care of bussiness and left. He understood that the Sadam Reigim was necessary for control over that type of people, and when the people where ready they would have overthrown the government themself. We forced labor when their sociaty wasn't ready
D) I still don't understand how invading a country has made our country safer,
E) the only reason war has brought us out of Depressions before was that the only manufacturing plants left in the world where from here, it will be just as easy for the Iraqies to go to Europe for better stuff.
You are definatly right on about the Police thing, I'm thinking of Waco Texas here. That was a great job
Really? about the war avoided thing? German Bailed out of WW1 totally in tact and tried again in WWII on there own terms, so what wars are you talking about?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Proper title " Dems Defeat The Troops Again "
The only war that goes well is the war avoided. Please check your history. Bailing out at any signs of trouble only means you will fight again and on the enemy's terms. The Iraqis deserve a chance. Look at the heart breaking results of The USSR, P.R.C. , Cambodia, Vietnam. These people may not look like us but their welfare is worth our efforts. If Israel had been even near Vietnam we would still be their.
Look at the tragedies in history, The mass executions. The genocide's and note when and where they occurred.
It may not be palatable, its no place for the weak, timid or feeble.
( They should steer clear and limit their efforts to scathing diction ) But it must be addressed by people with experince and a greater sense of reality than youth allows.
You can't ignore trouble, We tried it for 8 years and 911 was the result.
3000 innocent people died in 20 minutes. It was their greatest victory and they badly want to repeat it. To date the have not. Professional all volunteer soldiers hunt them in their own back yards, flirt with their women and play with their children. Very emasculating to men of their culture. All they can do now is set off bombs that mostly kill their own. They are reduced to using their own children as shields and decoys. Not the game play of a Winning team. Iraqis despise them as would any balanced individual.
9/11 wasn't the result of doing nothing for 8 years it was the result of constant attacks from our allies in the middle east. There are diplomatic ways around trouble, but the only problem is that we have fucked with the Middle easterners for 50 years. 3000 innocent people died on 9/11 but check into the innocent people who have died over there since the invasion.
First wouldn't that be defending Iraq not the U.S. Second why would Iraq fall into the hands of the terrorists if we left? They report that the majority of the Iraqies support the U.S. do you think they would just roll over once we were gone?lowing wrote:
We leave it better than we found it, after that they are on their own. If any bullshit overflows from the ME after we leave, it is all out gloves off war. That is of course, if we can find a liberal leadership that thinks America is actually worth defending.Turquoise wrote:
Let me ask you something. Let's assume we put a stable government in Iraq ten years from now.lowing wrote:
Once Iraq's govt. is settled and can rule effectivly and control their own internal strife. I say we leave. We do not leave and let an entire nation fall into the hands of terrorists.
What do you think is going to happen right after we leave? Iran and Saudi Arabia are going to do everything possible to either manipulate or undermine that government. As long as Iran and Saudi Arabia exist, Iraq is doomed to face ethnic strife.
Whether we leave today or 10 years from now, it doesn't matter.
4 years ago it was better then it is now and remember what happens when the people get to Vote they vote for the terrorist anyway.
Tell me. Are your kids (nephews, friend's kids....whatever) completely safe in america? No. There's pedophiles, gangs, etc etc. Why do you have some odd perception that Iraq - let alone any country on earth (specificially in the middle east) will ever be stable? All countries undergo strife. It's not something you can just eliminate.lowing wrote:
Sure do, as soon as Iraq is a stable country where children can play and grow without worrying about getting killed every waking hour of the day......and you??Turquoise wrote:
You do want us to leave eventually, right?...lowing wrote:
Stand united at a retreat .brilliant!!!
Israel is a stable goverment who stands alone in that regeon with our support. Why would you think Iraq couldn't.
ps. my kids are safe.
" Germany Bailed out of WW1 totally in tact " roflmao god !
ps. my kids are safe.
" Germany Bailed out of WW1 totally in tact " roflmao god !
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-03-29 07:03:00)
You're highly unreasonable ATG.ATG wrote:
Agreed.
I lay half of the deaths in Iraq at the doorstep of the DNC.
If you do not see the difference in the "strife" in America, and that of Iraq, we have nothing to talk aboutPoseidon wrote:
Tell me. Are your kids (nephews, friend's kids....whatever) completely safe in america? No. There's pedophiles, gangs, etc etc. Why do you have some odd perception that Iraq - let alone any country on earth (specificially in the middle east) will ever be stable? All countries undergo strife. It's not something you can just eliminate.lowing wrote:
Sure do, as soon as Iraq is a stable country where children can play and grow without worrying about getting killed every waking hour of the day......and you??Turquoise wrote:
You do want us to leave eventually, right?...
If you think Iraq is better with Saddam or people like him controlling the masses, with death threats and actual mass killings of his own people, then just like the other guy, we have nothing to talk about.cpt.fass1 wrote:
First wouldn't that be defending Iraq not the U.S. Second why would Iraq fall into the hands of the terrorists if we left? They report that the majority of the Iraqies support the U.S. do you think they would just roll over once we were gone?lowing wrote:
We leave it better than we found it, after that they are on their own. If any bullshit overflows from the ME after we leave, it is all out gloves off war. That is of course, if we can find a liberal leadership that thinks America is actually worth defending.Turquoise wrote:
Let me ask you something. Let's assume we put a stable government in Iraq ten years from now.
What do you think is going to happen right after we leave? Iran and Saudi Arabia are going to do everything possible to either manipulate or undermine that government. As long as Iran and Saudi Arabia exist, Iraq is doomed to face ethnic strife.
Whether we leave today or 10 years from now, it doesn't matter.
4 years ago it was better then it is now and remember what happens when the people get to Vote they vote for the terrorist anyway.