Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I just love when the retards on the left and the Libertarians bray about running away from Iraq. Here , lets just abandon these people....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/w...e0e8bfe5&ex=1353214800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
I don't know about running away, but it's high time the democratically elected government of Iraq along with its military got their collective crap together and started shouldering the burden of protecting themselves and the Iraqi people and let our troops come home.
I'm not talking about abandoning anyone, but we ARE doing THEIR job, and they don't seem very predisposed to altering the status quo.
But have you noticed this is only happening in small portions of the tri nation. and it will never occur in the total nation. I give that section credit for taking the steps. but that is just one section.Your wrong, did you even read the article? They returned home BECAUSE Iraqi troops, not American, are stationed in their neighborhood. WE are requiring them to take over and to get more combat forces up to standard. The British have all but left leaving the Iraqis to run those areas. Don't get stupid on us now Gunny.
Iraq: First up on the agenda is, of course, the war in Iraq, which, we are told, is going swimmingly. The much-touted statistics that we're being fed by the War Party and its media enablers sound good, but if you look at them a bit closer, the illusion begins to dissipate. The downturn in violence that we're hearing so much about is largely due to the fact that the ethno-religious cleansing of contested regions of Iraq has been completed, for the most part: in Baghdad, for example, the Shi'ites have driven the Sunnis out, with the help of the U.S.-supported "police" and the Iraqi "army" – which are really just Shi'ite death squads. They've shed all the blood they can, at least for now: give them a moment to catch their collective breath, however, and the sectarian killings will recommence with gusto.
Similarly, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki hails the "return" of "7,000 families" to Baghdad as proof positive that the "surge" is working, but the reality is that, as Juan Cole points out, the many tens of thousands who fled to Syria are now being forced by the Syrian government to leave, which explains the great "return." They're being kicked out of Damascus, and they're not allowed into the U.S., so where else are they supposed to go?
The emerging hotspot in Iraq is Kurdistan, which has been relatively peaceful until this point – but only because the ruling parties have kept such a tight lid on internal dissent, ruthlessly suppressing their critics and growing fat on U.S. and Israeli aid. The lid is about to blow off the pot, however, due to two factors: first, terrorist attacks in Turkey carried out by guerrillas of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), which many Turks suspect is funded and managed by the U.S. and the Kurdish regional government, and second, a provision in the Iraqi constitution that requires a referendum to decide who gets the oil-hub city of Kirkuk, which is claimed by the Kurds and the Iraqi central government.
Your wrong, did you even read the article? They returned home BECAUSE Iraqi troops, not American, are stationed in their neighborhood. WE are requiring them to take over and to get more combat forces up to standard. The British have all but left leaving the Iraqis to run those areas. Don't get stupid on us now Gunny.
Your wrong, did you even read the article? They returned home BECAUSE Iraqi troops, not American, are stationed in their neighborhood. WE are requiring them to take over and to get more combat forces up to standard. The British have all but left leaving the Iraqis to run those areas. Don't get stupid on us now Gunny.
There is no sectarian conflict. That is a media myth. Isolated incidents and mercenary guerilla attacks by Iranian-funded rabble suddenly turned into a "civil war." Reports from people who are actually interacting with the people there are baffled by the claim. I heard an interview once on NPR, of all places, with an Iraqi during the beginning of the reporting of the "widespread sectarian conflict." The reporter asked him about it and he said that his relatives in the States were calling him extremely concerned and he said he was baffled because the first he had heard of it was from them. I found that quite humorous. The enemy can play the MSM like a fiddle.
"Ya know, Son, you made the same mistake in Iraq I made with yer Mother...
I didn't pull out in time!"
I do not support running away and ceding the area to terrorists.
I also do not support the current ROES. When my unit was there, if you shot at us, we liberated a gridsquare via air/arty. Now the ROES are tighter and our troops sometimes die because of it.
What truly pisses me off is that we literally saved the whole freaking world in less time than we've been in theater.
It's time to either let loose the troops to definitily win, or seize the areas and rotate in Iraqi units and summarily depart.
So, did you go to school to learn how to paste goober-ass pics, or what?
I do not support running away and ceding the area to terrorists.
I also do not support the current ROES. When my unit was there, if you shot at us, we liberated a gridsquare via air/arty. Now the ROES are tighter and our troops sometimes die because of it.
What truly pisses me off is that we literally saved the whole freaking world in less time than we've been in theater.
It's time to either let loose the troops to definitily win, or seize the areas and rotate in Iraqi units and summarily depart.
It's time to either let loose the troops to definitily win, or seize the areas and rotate in Iraqi units and summarily depart
See, this simply won't work. I'm not even sure I know what "letting the troops loose" means.
One thing I'll give Patreus props for, is he is one of the few generals in the Army who truly understands how to fight an insurgency. He is, in fact, the author of the Army's manual on fighting insurgencies. And his view - the correct one - is that you don't apply massive, and overwhelming force. Blowing away everything in sight. That's how you actually lose wars of insurgencies.
Because Patreus understands - unlike most Bush fans - is that the field of battle in an insurgency is NOT the insurgents. It's the indigenous population. You tread lightly, winning hearts and minds. You don't use brutal firepower, and you don't fight it like a conventional war. The goal of winning an insurgency is to drain their support within the native population. You do that by treating them with respect, respecting their property and traditions, and you only use the minimal amount of force to kill insurgents. Because every innocent kid you kill by accident, creates ten more insurgents from his enraged family. Winning the hearts and minds of the population is the military doctrine - not killing insurgents.
And guess what? Whatever sucess we've had in the last 6 months, is probably due to the patreus doctrine on insurgencies.
But you bush fans go right ahead. "Unleash" the army, and return us to the days of 2005 and 2006.
It's time to either let loose the troops to definitily win, or seize the areas and rotate in Iraqi units and summarily depart
See, this simply won't work. I'm not even sure I know what "letting the troops loose" means. You and Congress.
One thing I'll give Patreus props for, is he is one of the few generals in the Army who truly understands how to fight an insurgency. He is, in fact, the author of the Army's manual on fighting insurgencies. And his view - the correct one - is that you don't apply massive, and overwhelming force. Blowing away everything in sight. That's how you actually lose wars of insurgencies. With all due respect to yourself and the General, you are mistaken. In the big blue arrow world, the General is correct. He is orchestrating a theater of operations. In the little green arrow world, the SSgt or GySgt level, the tactics are different. While you are winning hearts and minds by building hospitals and passing out candy, you are also sending a message that attacking you is akin to suicide. The General is setting up conditions where we can be the best friend. The young Lieutenants have to teach them about being thier worst enemy.
Because Patreus understands - unlike most Bush fans - Since you are speaking to me, how is it you are divining my mindset? Thinking you can read minds is almost as fatal as trying to hold forth on something you have no personal experience in. is that the field of battle in an insurgency is NOT the insurgents. It's the indigenous population. You tread lightly, winning hearts and minds. You don't use brutal firepower, and you don't fight it like a conventional war. The goal of winning an insurgency is to drain their support within the native population. You do that by treating them with respect, respecting their property and traditions, and you only use the minimal amount of force to kill insurgents. Because every innocent kid you kill by accident, creates ten more insurgents from his enraged family. Winning the hearts and minds of the population is the military doctrine - not killing insurgents.
And guess what? Whatever sucess we've had in the last 6 months, is probably due to the patreus doctrine on insurgencies. Or, it could be due to upping the kill ratio in Anbar.
But you bush fans go right ahead. "Unleash" the army, and return us to the days of 2005 and 2006. Personally, I'd rather do as we did in 03. The bottom line is that restraint of cops is one thing. That is what you are advocating. Restraint of the military gets people killed.
Wait, which is it? We can not win so must pull out OR we are winning so we can cut and run now?
You do this all the time, dude. You must think its clever and funny. You're actually one of the least funny, and most feeble minded parrots I've ever seen on a message board. And I've rarely met anyone who worships the ground George Bush walks on, like you do.
The "argument" you present above is known as the informal fallacy of false choice. Google it. It considered bad form, in any sort of debate, and a sign of weakness and buffoonery if used by anybody participating in serious discussion.
