US Troops Want To Stay

[RetiredGySgt]

saying that I hope for our troops death is slander....and it is slander because I say it is....and the only affirmative defense against the charge of slander is to prove that the utterance is the truth... and you cannot prove that I hope for something.... you can only prove that I predict something.....so slander it is.

Your constant, consistant posts on the matter belay what you claim. The reality is that fewer American troops have died in this war than any other and at a miniscule percentage to boot, the numbers killed are barely larger than the numbers killed in yearly training exersizes. ( each individual death is heart breaking for someone, but is no reason to stop fighting, if it is then we should disband our military and surrender to the first enemy that demands it)

The left doesn't want to win, not because we can not, but because a win will be credited to Bush. And Bush is the Anti Christ to the left. They would sooner cut off a leg than allow that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We've been there for four years, rsr... how long do you propose we give them to get whatever it is you think needs to be accomplished done?

Or is it just your insatiable blood lust that causes you to want our troops being killed and maimed forever in a country we invaded on misinformation?

If you understood military reality you would know that this type of fight takes a long time. But we don't have to stay till the "insurgency" or all the terrorists are done, just till the Iraq military can do the job themselves.

You tell us how leaving will make things better? Is anarchy in one of the largest reserves of oil in the world a good idea? Is allowing AQ control of a country with that kind of oil reserves and potential money a good idea? Is allowing Iran to control Iraq and all her oil a good idea?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

of course he does, mm, chickenhawks don't care how many troops are killed or maimed as long as they aren't one of them.

What is your criteria for Commander in Chief? Only a person that has served and fought in a conflict? How about Congress? Shall we require the same of all Congressman and Senators? Your claim to Chickenhawk is bullshit.

Next question? Have you SERVED and in combat? If not then why are you involved in a discussion you claim only those that have can know about?

I suggest you get hot on changing the Constitution so that only the Combat Veteran can run for office.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Success? Just more death and injuries for both sides... and of course the friends of bush will get richer and richer and richer...

Provide some evidence of this bullshit claim.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It really isn't any more complex than MM stated. The military is a tool of the US government and has no self-will. While each servicemember is entitled to his/her personal opinion, it is irrelevant to the mission.

It is NOT irrelavant to this discussion, nor to the desire of the left to cut and run. The MSM is engaged in propaganda about the state of the war and its "winablity" , the military is the ones that would know if this is true or not. The Liberals would have you believe any general that disagrees with them is a lock step automan that is just parroting Bush. This is simply not true.

They are quick to trot out any general that happens to agree with them though. The rank and file have no input on strategic or political decisions, BUT that is not what is being discussed. Maineman and others would have us believe that reporters that do not even leave the safety of the green Zone know more about conditions in Iraq then the average soldier, Marine or service member that patrols or moves through the local neighborhoods. They discount " Press releases" from the military as biased and propaganda all the while touting the press reports from people that generally do not even know if what they are reporting is even true.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The commanders don't hold a formation before each mission and ask for a show of hands on who wants to go. The US military is NOT a democracy. It's an authoritarian dictatorship.

If Genera; Petraeus is asked for a professional assessment of the situation, that is what he is expected to give. He will not be officially asked his personal opinion on the matter. It is completely irrelevant to the situation.

So now you think the Congress should make military decisions without even being briefed by the military? He was not there to give a "personal" opinion, he was there to give a MILITARY brief on the conditions as he sees them from his position as Commander ON the Ground in that WAR. The Democrats did not even ask for the brief and in fact refused it before the vote,

 

[red states rule]

So now you think the Congress should make military decisions without even being briefed by the military? He was not there to give a "personal" opinion, he was there to give a MILITARY brief on the conditions as he sees them from his position as Commander ON the Ground in that WAR. The Democrats did not even ask for the brief and in fact refused it before the vote,

Dems had more important things to do then attend the briefing.

They had to pass the surrender bill

 

[maineman]

Your constant, consistant posts on the matter belay what you claim. The reality is that fewer American troops have died in this war than any other and at a miniscule percentage to boot, the numbers killed are barely larger than the numbers killed in yearly training exersizes. ( each individual death is heart breaking for someone, but is no reason to stop fighting, if it is then we should disband our military and surrender to the first enemy that demands it)

The left doesn't want to win, not because we can not, but because a win will be credited to Bush. And Bush is the Anti Christ to the left. They would sooner cut off a leg than allow that.

what bullshit. I claim that I am predicting bad things in Iraq.... that is COMPLETELY different than WANTING and HOPING for bad things in Iraq. For you to continue to misstate one for the other is slanderous. period. The reality is: more Americans are dying in this war today then were dying a year ago... the death toll is increasing over time and this idiocy that our surge is reducing American casualties is just that: idiocy. And I have NEVER EVER suggested that we stop fighting against the Islamic extremists who attacked us.... I have, rather, continually urged that we START that fight by extracting ourselves from the middle of a civil sectarian conflict in Iraq that has nothing to do with us and nothing to do with the fight we ought to be fighting..

 

[red states rule]

The left is hoping for failure in Iraq. There actions prove it

But the goods news is getting out - slowly

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48703

 

[maineman]

The left is hoping for failure in Iraq. There actions prove it

But the goods news is getting out - slowly

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48703

that is a lie... I do not hope for failure in Iraq and nothing I have ever said would show any such hope.

 

[red states rule]

that is a lie... I do not hope for failure in Iraq and nothing I have ever said would show any such hope.

Of course you do - and watch the video

Of course it goes against your doom and gloom picture you love to paint on what is going on in Iraq

 

[maineman]

no...of course I don't. You cannot find one sentence that I have written where I express HOPE for American failure in Iraq.

 

[red states rule]

no...of course I don't. You cannot find one sentence that I have written where I express HOPE for American failure in Iraq.

Sure you do. the last thing a loyal Dem like you wants is for success in Iraq

You already lost the talking points how rotten the US economy is - so your only hope is to press for surrender in Iraq

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you understood military reality you would know that this type of fight takes a long time. But we don't have to stay till the "insurgency" or all the terrorists are done, just till the Iraq military can do the job themselves.

You tell us how leaving will make things better? Is anarchy in one of the largest reserves of oil in the world a good idea? Is allowing AQ control of a country with that kind of oil reserves and potential money a good idea? Is allowing Iran to control Iraq and all her oil a good idea?

Waiting for an answer Maineman. Did you miss this one in your rant on slander?

 

[maineman]

Waiting for an answer Maineman. Did you miss this one in your rant on slander?


If you understood military reality you would know that this type of fight takes a long time. But we don't have to stay till the "insurgency" or all the terrorists are done, just till the Iraq military can do the job themselves.

You tell us how leaving will make things better? Is anarchy in one of the largest reserves of oil in the world a good idea? Is allowing AQ control of a country with that kind of oil reserves and potential money a good idea? Is allowing Iran to control Iraq and all her oil a good idea?

I understand military reality every bit as much as you do sarge.... I would venture to say that I got more time at special sea and anchor detail than you have underway... and I would venture to say that I have more time in uniform than you do...but that is beside the point..

I do not think that leaving right this second will make anything any better or any worse. I certainly think that your suggestion that AQ, a small contingent of sunnis who are stirring up the pot in Iraq will take control of the country when we depart is laughable at best and certainly insulting to my intelligence - and indicative of your lack thereof. Iran WILL eventually play a much greater role in Iraq than we would ever hope they would do.... and that is because the shiites will prevail in this sectarian struggle... just as they have a predominant control of the existing Iraqi government. If we didn't want the persian shiites of Iran to get a toehold in Iraq, we shouldn't have overthrown Saddam in the first place. Iranian influence in Iraq that far outweighs ours is a fact of life.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I understand military reality every bit as much as you do sarge.... I would venture to say that I got more time at special sea and anchor detail than you have underway... and I would venture to say that I have more time in uniform than you do...but that is beside the point..

I do not think that leaving right this second will make anything any better or any worse. I certainly think that your suggestion that AQ, a small contingent of sunnis who are stirring up the pot in Iraq will take control of the country when we depart is laughable at best and certainly insulting to my intelligence - and indicative of your lack thereof. Iran WILL eventually play a much greater role in Iraq than we would ever hope they would do.... and that is because the shiites will prevail in this sectarian struggle... just as they have a predominant control of the existing Iraqi government. If we didn't want the persian shiites of Iran to get a toehold in Iraq, we shouldn't have overthrown Saddam in the first place. Iranian influence in Iraq that far outweighs ours is a fact of life.

So your answer is " I know better" and there will be no consequences to us just abandoning Iraq? No chaos? No threat of any kind to us or our Allies?

And I see you have that whole Liberal " Elitist" I am smarter than everyone else attitude down pat.

 

[maineman]

So your answer is " I know better" and there will be no consequences to us just abandoning Iraq? No chaos? No threat of any kind to us or our Allies?

And I see you have that whole Liberal " Elitist" I am smarter than everyone else attitude down pat.

when did I say that? I do not happen to believe that our consequences of leaving Iraq in 2008 will be significantly worse than our consequences of leaving Iraq in 2010 or 2012. Iraq is a country that was created on a map in London... it contains groups of people with long standing and deep enmity for one another. The only way it has held together since the end of WWI is with some form of authoritative goverment or dictatorship. The Iraqi government has been formed... their military has been trained.... and whenever we leave, their military will dissolve into sunni and shiite armed militias. They will not develop loyalty to Iraq that supercedes their loyalty to religious sect, IMHO

and that sort of divided loyalty ought not to be that unfamiliar to Americans. Let me just offer up Robert E. Lee, U.S. Military Academy, Class of 1829 as a case in point.

 

[red states rule]

So your answer is " I know better" and there will be no consequences to us just abandoning Iraq? No chaos? No threat of any kind to us or our Allies?

And I see you have that whole Liberal " Elitist" I am smarter than everyone else attitude down pat.

MM's ONLY concern is how his party will benefit politically

 

[red states rule]

So your answer is " I know better" and there will be no consequences to us just abandoning Iraq? No chaos? No threat of any kind to us or our Allies?

And I see you have that whole Liberal " Elitist" I am smarter than everyone else attitude down pat.

MM does suffer from a superiority complex - common among liberals

Here is something that should really piss him off this morning

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1193127.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Time is the ONE thing the Liberals CAN NOT allow the troops in Iraq. They ( the libs) must cause our failure as soon as possible. They do not even want to wait till September, much less any longer for a "Bush" win. Liberals would rather the nation fail then Bush get credit for anything.

4 years later they are still harping about we should not have gone, that became pointless as soon as our troops invaded. The entire argument is not that we should help Iraq, but that because 4 years ago ONE of many reasons we invaded was possibly wrong we should now cut and run abandoning the Iraqi people to Chaos, murder and terror. The libs , people like Maineman , claim knowledge in military affairs and then make patently ridiculous claims that an Insurgency should be won in a matter of months. And then when success occurs they ignore it or marginalize it. Maineman has done just that with the success in Anbar province.

When pointedly reminded that Anbar was a success and belays the "Civil War" claim, what was his response? That it didn't matter cause in his opinion the province wasn't half and half Sunni and Shiite.

He can not even provide historical data to support his claim that Civil War is enavitable. Just the usual whine , THE SKY IS FALLING.