Time to get out.

I can hardly add to what CSM and 90K have already said, except I do SO despise cowardice. We started it ... we are honor-bound to finish it. Simple as that.

But DO write your government representatives and explain your dismay at their not allowing professionals to do their jobs while novices attempt to play war.



It is not cowardly to recognize that the curent "tactics" in Iraq are a failure. It is not cowardly to look the reality of Iraq today in the face and call it what it is a mess. Nor is it cowardly to admit that this situation has gotten, allowed to by our military leaders and the White House, out of hand by far.

What IS cowardly is to not admit mistakes and to follow a error ridden path to eventual defeat. If you'll note in both my posts I mentioned change tactics OR get out. To "stay" this current course one would be a piss poor navigator or a fool.
I'd love to allow the "professionals" to hold sway in the decision making. But hasn't the administration been saying for a couple of years that they are following the advice of the pentagon. Or is Rumsfeld telling the Generals want to say and do?
 
It is not cowardly to recognize that the curent "tactics" in Iraq are a failure. It is not cowardly to look the reality of Iraq today in the face and call it what it is a mess. Nor is it cowardly to admit that this situation has gotten, allowed to by our military leaders and the White House, out of hand by far.

What IS cowardly is to not admit mistakes and to follow a error ridden path to eventual defeat. If you'll note in both my posts I mentioned change tactics OR get out. To "stay" this current course one would be a piss poor navigator or a fool.
I'd love to allow the "professionals" to hold sway in the decision making. But hasn't the administration been saying for a couple of years that they are following the advice of the pentagon. Or is Rumsfeld telling the Generals want to say and do?

The whole invasion was made upon fault predictions. They would welcome you with flowers and so on.
As an outsider there cannot be seen a clear strategy of U.S.A in Iraq.
Letting things go as it is, is not good.

And the whole world watches and wonders how USA will get out of this.
Can you imagine of a Iran dominated Shia Super-state with over 50% of oil reserves?
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/basbug/01-08_outlook_mideast_map.gif

Saudi-Arabia has problems with Shias, too. And their Shias are living around the gulf, till up to boarders with Iraq. Majority of oil reservers of Saudi-Arabia lie in this Shia area.

So you have to be carefull in which steps you take.
Not makeing plans in a short term period, but look to the future, too.
 
And the whole world watches and wonders how USA will get out of this.
We will solve the problem as best we can, while remembering that the Turks and others never lifted a finger to help. In fact, Turkey did much to hinder America by blocking the US Army's 4th ID's access to northern Iraq at the beginning of the war. Thus allowing Saddam's dissolved army to escape north of Baghdad, as it fled from Americans moving up from the south. We have a long memory canavar. Maybe America should massively arm the Kurds to show its appreciation for all the wonderful support that it has received from Turkey. By the way, why bother sending any forces to assist NATO in Afghanistan when your government will not let them deploy outside of Kabul? The fighting against the Taliban is in the south.
 
This is one conservative who's willing to say let's get the hell out of Iraq. The situation has deteorated to the point that we are in the way of a civil war.
We went in with the intelligence we had. We went in with the suppositions we had. Both have proven incorrect. We should have read our history and known Iraq was an amalgam not a nation. Time to cut our losses and hope for the best.
I know the criticism: we give a victory to al queda/islamic militants/ our enemies worldwide. However to remain with the current strategem is to waste American lives. Either we change the whole ballgame and go in and demilitarize entire regions of Iraq (evacuate the population in the sunni triangle and disarm same and th shiite areas) or we bug the fuck out!! Half measures or a continuation of current policy is unacceptable, unrealistic, and a plan of disaster.

They ;are improvising their strategy, as we speak.

Also, the ALL VOLUNTEER ENLISTED soldiers totally disagree with you. Their way of voting on whether or not they support the war is by the huge number of re enlistments they are getting, guys wanting to go back to Iraq.
 
It is not cowardly to recognize that the curent "tactics" in Iraq are a failure.QUOTE]

They arent a failure unless we give in to the pressure of the lying media and even worse lying liberals, and quit. THat would be quite French of us.

You really should read about G. Washingtons problems while General of the army for our revolution. He had at least two times had treasonous soldiers who tried to take over. The second time he had them shot. Now, anything in Iraq compare to that?

But, as Washington said, failure is not failure unless you fail to learn from it.
 
We will solve the problem as best we can, while remembering that the Turks and others never lifted a finger to help. In fact, Turkey did much to hinder America by blocking the US Army's 4th ID's access to northern Iraq at the beginning of the war. Thus allowing Saddam's dissolved army to escape north of Baghdad, as it fled from Americans moving up from the south. We have a long memory canavar. Maybe America should massively arm the Kurds to show its appreciation for all the wonderful support that it has received from Turkey. By the way, why bother sending any forces to assist NATO in Afghanistan when your government will not let them deploy outside of Kabul? The fighting against the Taliban is in the south.

Not true.
Ice-cream, water, gasoline and such things comes for US Soldiers all from Turkey.
Our airspace and landway is open to get supplies to Iraq, or transport wounded soldiers away. Turkish truckers supply US army.
We help you a lot.

And we wanted to help you even more, in October 2003 Turkish parliament agreed to send 10.000 soldiers to Iraq to the Falluja-Tikrit-Baghdad area, where mostly Sunnites live.
And Turks as Sunnites would have handled this Sunnite area better.
Or don't you believe?

The US pressured by mainly Kurds denied this offer.


10/7/2003

By Jack Kelley, USA TODAY
Turkey's parliament voted Tuesday to send troops to Iraq. The move could lead to the first contingent of Muslim peacekeepers there.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-10-07-turkey-us_x.htm
 
Thursday, January 29, 2004


Turkey's offer last fall to send 10,000 troops to Iraq to assist U.S. forces and civilian administrators was welcomed in Washington. Yet, the Iraqi Governing Council rejected the idea outright, forcing Ambassador J. Paul Bremer to inform the Turks that their troops were not needed after all.

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=showcase&alt=&hn=5207


Most of the Turkish population is Muslim, of whom a majority belong to the Sunni branch of Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Religion
 
It is not cowardly to recognize that the curent "tactics" in Iraq are a failure. It is not cowardly to look the reality of Iraq today in the face and call it what it is a mess. Nor is it cowardly to admit that this situation has gotten, allowed to by our military leaders and the White House, out of hand by far.

What IS cowardly is to not admit mistakes and to follow a error ridden path to eventual defeat. If you'll note in both my posts I mentioned change tactics OR get out. To "stay" this current course one would be a piss poor navigator or a fool.
I'd love to allow the "professionals" to hold sway in the decision making. But hasn't the administration been saying for a couple of years that they are following the advice of the pentagon. Or is Rumsfeld telling the Generals want to say and do?

Funny thing about military planning...every plan works on paper! Then the enemy gets a vote on your plan EVERY day. Discussions on tactics and strategy go on all the time; and the plan and accompanying tactics change all the time.

What is so disingenuous about the libs and their criticism of the President's assertions on staying the course is that the President is talking about finishing what we started and the libs have turned that into implications of incompetence of our military.

I cannot express how angry and disgusted with some folks that makes me feel. I will not however, stand silently while candy ass, mouthy and cowardly snots sit in the comfort of their domeciles and shriek denigrating remarks about the people fighting this war. If they even offered constructive criticism, I would listen and maybe even agree, but advocating surrender or appeasement is only offering aid and comfort to the enemy.

Putting quotes around the word "professionals" when refering to the military speaks volumes!
 
Screw honor, this war was not fought for honor. The only reason we need to keep troops in Iraq is that if we left now, the country would be in danger of falling to groups far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein.

That you have no honor comes as no surprise to me. A man's word is only as good as he is willing to back it up. Guess we know what YOURS is worth, huh?

Our troops fought with all of their hearts, but they were betrayed by a government that knew the war would be hell. The previous Bush administration offered a million analogies to describe the perils of an invasion of Iraq. "Dinosaur in the mud", "everlasting war in baghdad". This administration did not heed these warnings. Ambition blinded our leaders, and our troops suffered for that. Lets stabalize the new government and leave Iraq forever.


If our troops have been betrayed by anyone, it's pussies like you who haved aided and abetted the enemies of the US since Day One. Too bad we can't treat the enemies from within as we do the ones fron without.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: CSM
Our arguments are coming from two very different notions of war.

My metaphor was weak because war, no matter how difficult it is relative to other wars, is still hell. I meant mostly to say that the previous administration warned that this war may be difficult to the point that it is not worth fighting.

Your notion of war is similar to the article you posted recently. The difficulty of a war shall not deter the public, battle of the bulge, yada yada yada. I had an argument similar to this with my conservative brother just after the death toll in Iraq reached 1,000. His point was: historically speaking, this war is not so bloody. To which I responded with the grotesque Stalin quote: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic". Your argument is similar to my brothers in that you see this war as a battle that should be fought until we have won, regardless of the trials we must face.

There is another way to look at this though. Considering the war in Iraq is a "preemptive" war, it should not be viewed in the same light as World War II and the Civil War. This does not have to be a fight to the death. The stake is the pride of our president, not the fate of the world (or the union). Lets be blatantly honest: if George Bush thought terrorism was going to bring America to its knees, he would have attacked Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. In 2003, Saudi Arabia was the biggest terror threat to America, yet Iraq was chosen as a target instead. Why? WMD's? If these WMD's are such a great threat, why are we not swarming the globe trying to find the weaponry that forced us to invade a nation. There is no mention of trying to hunt down dangerous missing WMD's...probably because they never existed.

So if the Administration was fully aware that this war was going to be as difficult as major wars of the past...was it worth fighting? No. There was no obligation to invade. You can flush that article you posted down the toilet, because the public has every right to be down about the problems in Iraq. WWII was a fight against a threat to humanity as a whole...the public has to suck it up. Iraq was a preemptive strike against a country that was not our biggest terror threat (and that is not hindsight speaking, it was well known), and the country was not a WMD threat. When a country is "sort of a threat"--like Iraq was--a war against that country better be quick and painless (as war can possibly be), or the public will feel betrayed.

This administration was warned by their fathers (literally, in fact) that Iraq would not be quick and painless.

When you start talking "weak", try looking in the mirror.

If you don't think fighting radical Islam is about combatting a threat to all of humanity it's because you're stupid. Let me know if I need to spell that out for you.
 
Funny thing about military planning...every plan works on paper! Then the enemy gets a vote on your plan EVERY day. Discussions on tactics and strategy go on all the time; and the plan and accompanying tactics change all the time.

What is so disingenuous about the libs and their criticism of the President's assertions on staying the course is that the President is talking about finishing what we started and the libs have turned that into implications of incompetence of our military.

I cannot express how angry and disgusted with some folks that makes me feel. I will not however, stand silently while candy ass, mouthy and cowardly snots sit in the comfort of their domeciles and shriek denigrating remarks about the people fighting this war. If they even offered constructive criticism, I would listen and maybe even agree, but advocating surrender or appeasement is only offering aid and comfort to the enemy.

Putting quotes around the word "professionals" when refering to the military speaks volumes!

How's that old saying go? The best laid plans go out the window the second the first shot is fired?

It amazes me sometimes the clueless on here lecturing on military tactics and strategy.

We have the most awesome military in the world, and the best military leadership in the world. Hard to top that.

But the greatest weapon ever invented is about as effective as the wrost when still holstered.
 
(...)Maybe America should massively arm the Kurds to show its appreciation for all the wonderful support that it has received from Turkey. By the way, why bother sending any forces to assist NATO in Afghanistan when your government will not let them deploy outside of Kabul? The fighting against the Taliban is in the south.

Turkish mandate in Afghanistan is Reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Besides that, we took twice so far ISAF-command.
We have reconstruction teams in and around Kabul, building schools, hospitals and secureing the area.
And the Afghan people trust Turkish soldiers:

Turkish soldiers took it as a duty to demonstrate to the Afghans that they are not occupying forces in the country. Accordingly, for instance, they chose to patrol on foot and not in cars, and when they patrolled, they never wore bulletproof jackets, even if it meant putting their lives on the line. For the locals, this meant respect. In return, local Afghans showed admiration for the Turkish troops and were willing to cooperate with them.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2403

USA is telling Turkey, that they have no capacities to fight PKK in North-Iraq.
So, as Turkey has itself a Terror-problem at this time, USA will get the same answer in reliance to Aghanistan as Turkey gets in reliance to PKK: "No capacities to fight Terror in South Afghanistan".

Allthough we have that capacities, like USA has capacities to bomb PKK by F-16 etc. from air to hell.
We can the same time help Afghanis and not help USA in Afghanistan.
This functions.

Maybe America should massively arm the Kurds

Yes, maybe you can send them to South-Afghanistan to fight Taliban.
:dunno:
 
Turkish mandate in Afghanistan is Reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Besides that, we took twice so far ISAF-command.
We have reconstruction teams in and around Kabul, building schools, hospitals and secureing the area.
And the Afghan people trust Turkish soldiers:


http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2403

USA is telling Turkey, that they have no capacities to fight PKK in North-Iraq.
So, as Turkey has itself a Terror-problem at this time, USA will get the same answer in reliance to Aghanistan as Turkey gets in reliance to PKK: "No capacities to fight Terror in South Afghanistan".

Allthough we have that capacities, like USA has capacities to bomb PKK by F-16 etc. from air to hell.
We can the same time help Afghanis and not help USA in Afghanistan.
This functions.



Yes, maybe you can send them to South-Afghanistan to fight Taliban.
:dunno:

Turkey this ... Turkey that ..... keep your third-rate army home. Who cares? You seriously need to wake up and smell the coffee dude. Turkey was a pawn during the Cold War. When it ended, so did your true value. Now you're just a used-to-be ally kinda' like France. You aren't worth the paper any treaties we have with you are written on.
 
Turkey this ... Turkey that ..... keep your third-rate army home. Who cares? You seriously need to wake up and smell the coffee dude. Turkey was a pawn during the Cold War. When it ended, so did your true value. Now you're just a used-to-be ally kinda' like France. You aren't worth the paper any treaties we have with you are written on.

O.K.
Neverless we will help Afghanis in Afghanistan.
But for fighting some thousand Taliban 2nd biggest NATO-army, unfortunately, has no capacities.
Like mighty 1st biggest NATO-Army, the mighty USA, has no capacities in Air-bombing some thousand PKK-terrorists.

Enough said. It is like it is. :dunno:
 
O.K.
Neverless we will help Afghanis in Afghanistan.
But for fighting some thousand Taliban 2nd biggest NATO-army, unfortunately, has no capacities.
Like mighty 1st biggest NATO-Army, the mighty USA, has no capacities in Air-bombing some thousand PKK-terrorists.

Enough said. It is like it is. :dunno:

As usual, you prove your own ignorance. We are more than capable of bombing the entire Middle East into dust. A couple more terrorist attacks on US soil and you may have the opportunity to find out first hand.
 
As usual, you prove your own ignorance. We are more than capable of bombing the entire Middle East into dust. A couple more terrorist attacks on US soil and you may have the opportunity to find out first hand.

We have nothng to do with US terrorist attacks.
So, If you point with that "first hand" to Turkey, then you are wrong.
 
When it ended, so did your true value. Now you're just a used-to-be ally kinda' like France. You aren't worth the paper any treaties we have with you are written on.

And I just can't for the life of me think why so many former allies no longer trust or like the US. It baffles me...:rolleyes:
 
Boo whoo.....

So in order to win back OUR GOOD OLE ALLIES......

We should put down our guns, and break out the knee pads......:rolleyes:

They had no problem with us, when those guns were used to help save their asses.....:mad:
 
What the hell does that mean?
It means that he knows that there is no way he can substantiate his view of reality, so when called to the mat by a female poster, he deflects the argument by insulting her with a demeaning sexual innuendo. In other words, he's very low on the male human scale, only slightly higher than a child molester or wife beater. Probably has a huge kiddie porn library on his computer, and lives in his grandmother’s basement.
 

Forum List

Back
Top