More than 3000 dead American servicemen..

[roomy]

..and women and more than $400 billion to kill Saddam Hussein, destroy a country and turn most of the world against Americas foreign policies and war mongering.Now Bush has decided to send another 20,000 troops to Iraq to shorten the war.He has also made it clear he is losing patience with the new Iraqi government, I wonder what he will do about that?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558652/?GT1=8921

News and news services
Updated: 10:24 p.m. ET Jan. 10, 2007
WASHINGTON - Defying public opinion polls and newly empowered Democratic lawmakers, President Bush told Americans Wednesday that he is dispatching 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. And in a rare admission, he said he made a mistake by not deploying more forces sooner.

“The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me,” Bush said in a televised address from the White House. “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.”

With American patience running thin over his handling of the war, Bush said he would put greater pressure on Iraqis to restore order in Baghdad and used blunt language to warn Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that “America’s commitment is not open-ended.”

“If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people, and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people,” Bush said.

Bush said his new strategy, in which Iraqis will try to take responsibility for security in all 18 provinces by November rather than just three now, “will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings” and other violence.

But he said the increased military presence would help break the cycle of violence gripping Iraq and “hasten the day our troops begin coming home.”

Bush said that 17,500 troops would go to Baghdad and 4,000 to the volatile Anbar province, Senior administration officials said before the president spoke that the first wave of troops is expected to arrive in five days, with others joining about 130,000 U.S. troops already in Iraq in the coming weeks.

Bush’s decision will push the American presence in Iraq toward its highest level and puts him on a collision course with the new Democratic Congress.

Democrats: Strategy bound to fail
Democratic congressional leaders said shortly after Bush spoke that Bush's failure to impose a deadline on the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own security doomed the initiative to failure.

“Iraqi political leaders will not take the necessary steps to achieve a political resolution to the sectarian problems in their country until they understand that the U.S. commitment is not open-ended," said the statement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democratic Whip Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "Escalating our military involvement in Iraq sends precisely the wrong message and we oppose it.”

Anticipating such reaction, Bush warned in his speech that “to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale.”

Senate and House Democrats are arranging votes urging the president not to send more troops. While lacking the force of law, the measures would compel Republicans to go on record as either bucking the president or supporting an escalation.

Usually loath to admit error, Bush acknowledged in his speech that it was a mistake to have allowed American forces to be restricted by the Iraqi government, which tried to prevent U.S. military operations against fighters controlled by the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a powerful political ally of al-Maliki. This time, the president said, al-Maliki had assured him there will be no such interference and that “political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.”

The president also accused Iran and Syria of allowing use of their territory for terrorists and insurgents to move in and out of Iraq and vowed, “We will interrupt the flow of support from Syria and Iran. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Ahead of a visit to the Middle East by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush said Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Persian Gulf states needed to understand that a U.S. defeat in Iraq ”would create a new sanctuary for extremists — and a strategic threat to their survival.”

Last chance to sway public opinion?
After nearly four years of bloody combat, the speech was perhaps Bush’s last credible chance to try to present a winning strategy in Iraq and persuade Americans to change their minds about the unpopular war, which has cost the lives of more than 3,000 members of the U.S. military as well as more than $400 billion.

Eric Draper / The White House
“Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror - and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.”

Bush’s approach amounts to a huge gamble on al-Maliki’s willingness — and ability — to deliver on promises he has consistently failed to keep: to disband Shiite militias, pursue national reconciliation and make good on commitments for Iraqi forces to handle security operations in Baghdad.

“Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents,” the president said. “And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.”

He said American commanders have reviewed the Iraqi plan “to ensure that it addressed these mistakes.”

Bush said that under his plan, U.S. forces will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations.

 

[Gunny]

..and women and more than $400 billion to kill Saddam Hussein, destroy a country and turn most of the world against Americas foreign policies and war mongering.Now Bush has decided to send another 20,000 troops to Iraq to shorten the war.He has also made it clear he is losing patience with the new Iraqi government, I wonder what he will do about that?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558652/?GT1=8921

News and news services
Updated: 10:24 p.m. ET Jan. 10, 2007
WASHINGTON - Defying public opinion polls and newly empowered Democratic lawmakers, President Bush told Americans Wednesday that he is dispatching 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. And in a rare admission, he said he made a mistake by not deploying more forces sooner.

“The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me,” Bush said in a televised address from the White House. “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.”

With American patience running thin over his handling of the war, Bush said he would put greater pressure on Iraqis to restore order in Baghdad and used blunt language to warn Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that “America’s commitment is not open-ended.”

“If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people, and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people,” Bush said.

Bush said his new strategy, in which Iraqis will try to take responsibility for security in all 18 provinces by November rather than just three now, “will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings” and other violence.

But he said the increased military presence would help break the cycle of violence gripping Iraq and “hasten the day our troops begin coming home.”

Bush said that 17,500 troops would go to Baghdad and 4,000 to the volatile Anbar province, Senior administration officials said before the president spoke that the first wave of troops is expected to arrive in five days, with others joining about 130,000 U.S. troops already in Iraq in the coming weeks.

Bush’s decision will push the American presence in Iraq toward its highest level and puts him on a collision course with the new Democratic Congress.

Democrats: Strategy bound to fail
Democratic congressional leaders said shortly after Bush spoke that Bush's failure to impose a deadline on the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own security doomed the initiative to failure.

“Iraqi political leaders will not take the necessary steps to achieve a political resolution to the sectarian problems in their country until they understand that the U.S. commitment is not open-ended," said the statement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democratic Whip Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "Escalating our military involvement in Iraq sends precisely the wrong message and we oppose it.”

Anticipating such reaction, Bush warned in his speech that “to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale.”

Senate and House Democrats are arranging votes urging the president not to send more troops. While lacking the force of law, the measures would compel Republicans to go on record as either bucking the president or supporting an escalation.

Usually loath to admit error, Bush acknowledged in his speech that it was a mistake to have allowed American forces to be restricted by the Iraqi government, which tried to prevent U.S. military operations against fighters controlled by the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a powerful political ally of al-Maliki. This time, the president said, al-Maliki had assured him there will be no such interference and that “political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.”

The president also accused Iran and Syria of allowing use of their territory for terrorists and insurgents to move in and out of Iraq and vowed, “We will interrupt the flow of support from Syria and Iran. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Ahead of a visit to the Middle East by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush said Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Persian Gulf states needed to understand that a U.S. defeat in Iraq ”would create a new sanctuary for extremists — and a strategic threat to their survival.”

Last chance to sway public opinion?
After nearly four years of bloody combat, the speech was perhaps Bush’s last credible chance to try to present a winning strategy in Iraq and persuade Americans to change their minds about the unpopular war, which has cost the lives of more than 3,000 members of the U.S. military as well as more than $400 billion.

Eric Draper / The White House
“Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror - and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.”

Bush’s approach amounts to a huge gamble on al-Maliki’s willingness — and ability — to deliver on promises he has consistently failed to keep: to disband Shiite militias, pursue national reconciliation and make good on commitments for Iraqi forces to handle security operations in Baghdad.

“Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents,” the president said. “And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.”

He said American commanders have reviewed the Iraqi plan “to ensure that it addressed these mistakes.”

Bush said that under his plan, U.S. forces will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations.

You're right. We should just leave and make up some lame excuse for the genocide that will follow.

 

[roomy]

You're right. We should just leave and make up some lame excuse for the genocide that will follow.

Let the bastards get on with it, you want revenge?Let them kill each other.

 

[Gunny]

Let the bastards get on with it, you want revenge?Let them kill each other.

Whatever gave you the idea I wanted revenge? Revenge for what?

 

[roomy]

Whatever gave you the idea I wanted revenge? Revenge for what?

Whatever it is you are using as a reason for war.

 

[Gunny]

Whatever it is you are using as a reason for war.

Do clarify. What "war"? And while I am flattered that you have annointed me the leader in this "war," I would like to point out that I am not even a current participant.

 

[roomy]

Do clarify. What "war"? And while I am flattered that you have annointed me the leader in this "war," I would like to point out that I am not even a current participant.

Semantics and pedantics don't suit you, you know full well what I am talking about.

You probably agree with me but are afraid to say so, so you are attempting to change the direction of the thread and provoke conflict.

 

[Gunny]

Semantics and pedantics don't suit you, you know full well what I am talking about.

You probably agree with me but are afraid to say so, so you are attempting to change the direction of the thread and provoke conflict.

And I would say it is you that is trying to provoke conflict. So where does THAT leave us?

There is no "war." We already won that. The reason I support US troops helping crush the insurgency is that any day one can kill a militant, Islamofascist extremist is indeed a good day. Since we started this mess, we need to clean it up at least to the point the Iraqi gov't can stand on its own.

But if it makes you feel any better I did not agree with initial decision to invade. That however, is irrelevant to the fact we did, and have a responsibility to finish what we started.

 

[roomy]

And I would say it is you that is trying to provoke conflict. So where does THAT leave us?

There is no "war." We already won that. The reason I support US troops helping crush the insurgency is that any day one can kill a militant, Islamofascist extremist is indeed a good day. Since we started this mess, we need to clean it up at least to the point the Iraqi gov't can stand on its own.

But if it makes you feel any better I did not agree with initial decision to invade. That however, is irrelevant to the fact we did, and have a responsibility to finish what we started.

The war against terror, isn't that what it is called these days?

I was for the invasion but as far as I am concerned it is job done, we should pack up our stuff and come back home(Americans and British).I always support our troops, it is the decisions that are made for them by others that I often question.As far as I am concerned there is nothing to be gained by staying in Iraq and allowing our armed forces to die at the hands of invisible terrorists.We are acting as glorified policemen over there, I think it is about time they policed themselves.Let them die for their country, why should our people die for the Iraqies?

 

[Gunny]

The war against terror, isn't that what it is called these days?

I was for the invasion but as far as I am concerned it is job done, we should pack up our stuff and come back home(Americans and British).I always support our troops, it is the decisions that are made for them by others that I often question.As far as I am concerned there is nothing to be gained by staying in Iraq and allowing our armed forces to die at the hands of invisible terrorists.We are acting as glorified policemen over there, I think it is about time they policed themselves.Let them die for their country, why should our people die for the Iraqies?

If you would bother to read some of my posts on the topic, you will find we are pretty-much in agreement right up to the solution. You want to cut and run while I want to turn our military loose to do what it's trained to do and capable of.

I agree that politicians and decisions based on politics not sound strategy and tactics has caused most of this mess.

I agree our military is being used as rent-a-cops.

I was however not for the invasion because logical conclusion would bring one to exactly where Iraq is right now -- a bunch of thuggery and tribal infighting with AQ playing both sides against the middle, our current position.

 

[Avatar4321]

Whatever it is you are using as a reason for war.

Why on earth would you assume the reason for war is revenge? Against whom? Saddam?

When the police take out the local drug dealer is it because they are motivated by revenge? Granted it might be sometimes, but more than likely not.

I don't know about anyone else, but one of my main motivations for supporting the war is because far few people are going to die by taking care of the problem then by sitting around on our hands and pretending the problem doesn't exist.

The Iraqis are far better off now that they aren't being oppressed and killed by Saddam. And the American people are far better off with one less regime supporting terror. We've rebuilt the nation stronger than it's ever been and before we are done its going to be even stronger.

As for the world being against our foreign policy, im willing to bet alot more of the world agrees with what we did then opposes it. We didn't have 50+ nations offer us even nominal support because they were opposed to it.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say the worlds doesn't support us. Who cares? Why should we care what others think? If Iraq was the right thing to do, it wouldn't matter how many people opposed us, it was still the right thing to do. If Iraq was the wrong thing to do, it doesnt matter if everyone in the world, even our fun loving french friends, agreed with it. It would have still been the wrong thing.

The rest of the world doesn't have the best interest of the American people in mind. Heck, the leaders of many nations don't even care about the best interests of their own people. So why should we rely on them for our national security? If they don't want to protect themselves, that's their choice, but I'm not going to let them make our choice for us.

 

[roomy]

Why on earth would you assume the reason for war is revenge? Against whom? Saddam?

When the police take out the local drug dealer is it because they are motivated by revenge? Granted it might be sometimes, but more than likely not.

I don't know about anyone else, but one of my main motivations for supporting the war is because far few people are going to die by taking care of the problem then by sitting around on our hands and pretending the problem doesn't exist.

The Iraqis are far better off now that they aren't being oppressed and killed by Saddam. And the American people are far better off with one less regime supporting terror. We've rebuilt the nation stronger than it's ever been and before we are done its going to be even stronger.

As for the world being against our foreign policy, im willing to bet alot more of the world agrees with what we did then opposes it. We didn't have 50+ nations offer us even nominal support because they were opposed to it.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say the worlds doesn't support us. Who cares? Why should we care what others think? If Iraq was the right thing to do, it wouldn't matter how many people opposed us, it was still the right thing to do. If Iraq was the wrong thing to do, it doesnt matter if everyone in the world, even our fun loving french friends, agreed with it. It would have still been the wrong thing.

The rest of the world doesn't have the best interest of the American people in mind. Heck, the leaders of many nations don't even care about the best interests of their own people. So why should we rely on them for our national security? If they don't want to protect themselves, that's their choice, but I'm not going to let them make our choice for us.

Iraq is an escalation of the so called 'war against terror' which was initiated as an act of revenge after 9/11, so who are you trying to kid?

 

[Gunny]

Iraq is an escalation of the so called 'war against terror' which was initiated as an act of revenge after 9/11, so who are you trying to kid?

We invaded Afghanistan in response to 9/11. For the many reasons given to justify invading Iraq, 9/11 wasn't one of them, nor do I see the parallel you're trying to draw.

Iraq was a problem long before 9/11, or even the first WTC bombing, and Saddma was going to have to be dealt with sooner or later.

 

[roomy]

We invaded Afghanistan in response to 9/11. For the many reasons given to justify invading Iraq, 9/11 wasn't one of them, nor do I see the parallel you're trying to draw.

Iraq was a problem long before 9/11, or even the first WTC bombing, and Saddma was going to have to be dealt with sooner or later.

I said it was an escalation in the war against terror which started as a result of 9/11, please don't try to read more into my posts than what is written.

Iraq was never a problem before the USA sold weapons of mass destruction to it.Iraq only became a problem when we couldn't find them.

 

[trobinett]

I said it was an escalation in the war against terror which started as a result of 9/11, please don't try to read more into my posts than what is written.

Iraq was never a problem before the USA sold weapons of mass destruction to it.Iraq only became a problem when we couldn't find them.

Ya know, I belong to another board, populated with mostly liberals.

There was a thread started on the day, that the count of dead soldiers reached 3000.

I took offence to the thread, and spoke out against it, in no uncertain terms. I thought he was using it as a platform to make a political statement.

I've ALWAYS felt, that using the dead of ANY war, in a personal way, to make a statement, weather in support, or against, showed poor judgement, and a real lack of class.

Even though the names were not posted, as they WERE on the thread I'm referring to, the intent is the same.

So, even though our new board owner has removed the finger from our smilies, here's to you roomy........

 

[glockmail]

I said it was an escalation in the war against terror which started as a result of 9/11, please don't try to read more into my posts than what is written.

Iraq was never a problem before the USA sold weapons of mass destruction to it.Iraq only became a problem when we couldn't find them.

You are obviously a learned and wise fellow. So tell us, what would your strategy be to prevent another terrorist attack on US soil and against US interests (Israel)?

 

[CSM]

You are obviously a learned and wise fellow. So tell us, what would your strategy be to prevent another terrorist attack on US soil and against US interests (Israel)?

Hmmm...the European model might work; or a declaration from Congress that Islam is now the national religion.

 

[glockmail]

Hmmm...the European model might work; or a declaration from Congress that Islam is now the national religion.

But I'd like to hear it from Roomy. After all, its easy to play Monday morning quaterback, but not so easy to predict next weeks game.

 

[roomy]

Ya know, I belong to another board, populated with mostly liberals.

There was a thread started on the day, that the count of dead soldiers reached 3000.

I took offence to the thread, and spoke out against it, in no uncertain terms. I thought he was using it as a platform to make a political statement.

I've ALWAYS felt, that using the dead of ANY war, in a personal way, to make a statement, weather in support, or against, showed poor judgement, and a real lack of class.

Even though the names were not posted, as they WERE on the thread I'm referring to, the intent is the same.

So, even though our new board owner has removed the finger from our smilies, here's to you roomy........

If this had been posted by anyone with a semblance of knowledge or even an opinion on the subject I may have taken it a bit more seriously, as it is I am laughing my tits off.

I shall endevour to find something you may be able to chat about without feeling uncomfortably out of your depth..........erm.....................err..........oh, I know.......no you wouldn't have a clue..............ummmmmmmmm......no, I can't, sorry, I failed miserably

 

[CSM]

But I'd like to hear it from Roomy. After all, its easy to play Monday morning quaterback, but not so easy to predict next weeks game.

Yep; and it is even harder to plan next weeks game and even tougher than that to execute the game plan!