Support the Troops, but not the war?

[Giaour]

If they move the age allowance date up a bit I'd be eligible to go.

Where do I sign?

[Giaour]

I've spoken to the reserves, they said no for me.

But there will be a time that we all, regardless of age and race and gender will have to take up arms to defend ourselves.

[ted]

I don't think troop levels is the problem necessarily. This was the mistake the Russians made. Large troop movements are exposed because they can't move as quickly as small bands of militia (terrorists)

The problem, in my opinion, is that we KNOW Iran and Syria are sending support and people who are fighting us so why are we limiting our options to Iraq?

Either seal those borders completely or let them know that we are going to retaliate. I think ted's idea is exactly the medicine that the doctor ordered

And how do we seal the borders without sending more troops?

Yes, thousands more troops.

Hundreds of thousands, if need be.

And as regards Ted's other statement earlier about dialogue:

I think 'Ultimatum' is the word we were both looking for. ??

Where are we going to get these additional troops?

The UN and NATO would be great places to start. I wonder if they would like to help?

Anyway, at this point, there needs to be a final push to end this thing once and for all. I think Bush understands this, as well as a few others. The problem is, it's going to take going into Iran to do it.

One of the things Bush was counting on in this whole process was for China and/ or Russia seeing the problem and lending a hand. I think that they were in negotiations to help behind the scenes in the UN, but for some reason, backed out just before we went in. Whether this was by design or not is for history to reveal.

China and Russia would have provided us with a virtual endless supply of people and equipment for the fight.

Bad thing was, they balked.

To me, Iraq was phase two in the war on terror and we are now bogged down with little momentum left. Had Russia and China helped, it might have been close to over by now. I really think that it was meant to be a world wide co-operative endeavor to end terrorism.

Now, we are left to our own devices. Some world leaders may rejoice if we are defeated in the long run and have to go home with no real dent made in the war, but they will eventually feel the islamic hammer on their own land if we fail. They either can't understand this or do not want to face it. We can barely handle the mop up in Iraq by ourselves, never mind meet our objectives of stopping world terrorism on a large scale by ourselves.

At this point, if we do not get help from some large countries in the war on terror, we will be forced to head home and seal the doors behind us. We'll be forced to put all of our attention on setting up a last ditch effort to defend our own borders eventually, because islam and it's sword will soon take over what is left outside of our doors.

So, if we are going to run from Iraq, we better do it soon. If we are not going to be able to do what we must there, we might as well get out tomorrow.

Personally, I would hope that others can see what is going on and join in.

We'll see soon enough, but at this point, it's not looking good. The year 2007 will be the pivot point in the war on terror.

t.

[Guest yod]

When the Civilian backing for a military force is broken, the force will break.

Someone needs to explain this to the Democrat party because that is what they are doing to America!!

[sweetycakes]

When the Civilian backing for a military force is broken, the force will break.

Someone needs to explain this to the Democrat party because that is what they are doing to America!!

It wasn't only the democrats who voted out the present republican congresspeople.

We can all see that we needed a new bunch in Washington and without the republican voters we would not have the Congress which will take power in January.

I've been in the military and I can tell you that the effectiveness of the force has nothing to do with civilian backing.

Soldiers are under orders and that is what they have been trained to respond to. IF they have the proper equipment, numbers and leadership, the military is capable of carrying out any mission assigned them.

Saying otherwise is very disrespectful to our fine men and women.

Yes, exactly what I've been saying. If they have the proper equipment, numbers and leadership.

Seems that Iraq is fast descending into civil war, though. The very reason why I thought they should have taken out the 'butcher of Baghdad' the first time around. Now we are bogged down in a quagmire, and if we don't do something decisive very soon, we will reach the point of no return, I think.

[ted]

I think that Iraq has been in a civil war since the day we took Saddam out. No one really wants to say it, but it's true. I don't know why we dance around the term, or are so afraid to publicly admit it, but there it is.

The day we took Saddam out of his hole, all hope of him coming back to power was lost by his supporters. From that point on, it became a race between the Iranian-backed Shia and the Jordan based-Sunni to wrestle control of the country from each other. We did a fairly decent job of heading off an all-out civil war by keeping everyone calm through the first two elections. The Sunni's balked, of course, and that kinda emboldened the Shia to move right on in. The Sunni's crying about things didn't phase the Shia one little bit.

The military portion of the war went very well, by even the closest scrutiny. The civil unrest which follows is the problem. Our big thing was to attempt to show them that they could stand together despite their thousands of years of hatred for each other. That, I'm afraid, is a mistake we will pay for for quite some time.

Saddam was more of an old school dictator along the lines of Hitler, rather than one of these new-fangled islamic tyrants like Ahmadinijihad. I don't remember Saddam even invoking the will of "allah" all that much until it looked like he could try to sway some of his islamic neighbors in to help him. No, he was more like a Hitler who only used people for his own gains. Just look at his life, or the lives of his sons. They don't look like they adhered to islam very closely. While he did keep a tight grip on his nation, no one should take that as "better" than what there is today over there. It's still a raw, open wound and it's going to take a while to scab over. But, it's going to be better one day.

All we need is the will to do it right. Unfortunately, we have to overcome half of the political leadership in our own country to do this.

Will America accept anything less than a positive victory there? Even having to ask that question sends chills down my spine. There was a time when that would not be questioned.

So, we opened up a can of worms, but couldn't figure out which lid would work best to cover it up later. That's what we have to figure out now.

t.

[sweetycakes]

I think that Iraq has been in a civil war since the day we took Saddam out. No one really wants to say it, but it's true. I don't know why we dance around the term, or are so afraid to publicly admit it, but there it is.

The day we took Saddam out of his hole, all hope of him coming back to power was lost by his supporters. From that point on, it became a race between the Iranian-backed Shia and the Jordan based-Sunni to wrestle control of the country from each other. We did a fairly decent job of heading off an all-out civil war by keeping everyone calm through the first two elections. The Sunni's balked, of course, and that kinda emboldened the Shia to move right on in. The Sunni's crying about things didn't phase the Shia one little bit.

The military portion of the war went very well, by even the closest scrutiny. The civil unrest which follows is the problem. Our big thing was to attempt to show them that they could stand together despite their thousands of years of hatred for each other. That, I'm afraid, is a mistake we will pay for for quite some time.

Saddam was more of an old school dictator along the lines of Hitler, rather than one of these new-fangled islamic tyrants like Ahmadinijihad. I don't remember Saddam even invoking the will of "allah" all that much until it looked like he could try to sway some of his islamic neighbors in to help him. No, he was more like a Hitler who only used people for his own gains. Just look at his life, or the lives of his sons. They don't look like they adhered to islam very closely. While he did keep a tight grip on his nation, no one should take that as "better" than what there is today over there. It's still a raw, open wound and it's going to take a while to scab over. But, it's going to be better one day.

All we need is the will to do it right. Unfortunately, we have to overcome half of the political leadership in our own country to do this.

Will America accept anything less than a positive victory there? Even having to ask that question sends chills down my spine. There was a time when that would not be questioned.

So, we opened up a can of worms, but couldn't figure out which lid would work best to cover it up later. That's what we have to figure out now.

t.

How right you are, Ted. To a great degree anyway, in my opinion.

Except for the part where you say the military portion of the war went great.

It did in a way - deposing Saddam Hussain and knocking out his republican guard was easy enough. But, as you say, it's the sectarian in-fighting since then that has been the scourge of our lives since then. I think our leaders had enough commitment alright in the initial objectives, but didn't really think things out concerning a clear exit strategy, which would leave the country with any kind of autonomous, viable government in place.

I think they just wanted quick results, to be honest. But war has a habit of being unpredictable. That is what I was afraid of from the outset.

I think that it was our governments' fault. It is they who lost the will after the initial victory. Not the people, whether military, or civilian (as with Vietnam). But the governments.

It's one thing to unleash a torrent of munitions on a rogue state. It's quite another to enter into a long-term commitment to rebuilding the affected country afterwards. They did this quite admirably after WWII, or course, but not in this instance, in my opinion.

They are simply not pouring enough of anything into this to get the job done, in my opinion. First and foremost, the military strength needed to secure a decisive victory. The troops are spread too thinly on the ground, for one thing. It seems they have just thrown a handful of soldiers in, which makes them nothing more than a target for the insurgents, not a conquering force.

And who is paying the price for their lax determination now?

Our troops, as well as the Iraqi people themselves. Whilst the terrorists become emboldened day by day.

I know it's easy for me to sit here and say how I would do things differently, but if I was in power, I would spare no expense to win this war quickly.

Because the eyes of the world are watching us.

It's also good (in a way) that poeple are beginning to realise and to admit that Iraq is sliding into civil war. This was always one of the dangers.

I just hope that, realising that, we can now muster the will to do something 'workable' to correct this situation.

And, no....I hope America doesn't just return home and close the door behind it, as you said earlier. There is too much at stake....for all of us.

[followerofjesus]

The wars are a success in my opinion. The Taliban were defeated. SAddam is conquered ,trial over-impressive victory. Its now the fourth quarter & time to gracefully take a knee. The question is' is there any politicians which were voted for smart enough to close the deal ,or is the agenda still open?

[billie]

I'm thinking it's time to start scaling back our presence as well.

[sweetycakes]

This is a copy if a reply that someone posted on the 'Jews wake up' thread.

I agree with it:

quote:

This all goes back to a simple fact.

Nobody likes war, but if you are going to fight a war, WIN THE DARN THING.

Stupidity and political correctness is what has gotten so many americans killed in Iraq. Not on the part of the soldiers themselves, but on the part of US THE AMERICAN PEOPLE because we let out government value the lives of THE ENEMY CIVILIANS above the life of our own people. I am sorry, but if there is a military target, and civilians are "protecting" or "shielding" it, or if they are willfully cooperating with the terrorists and fascists then BOMBS AWAY. They chose to be there, its their fault they were in the way. Kill them along with the murderers they are protecing, and let our people be safe.

Why in the name of God do we have all the high tech weapons and planes and things that we have, and we are fighting guerilla warfare? (More like "Gorilla" warfare the way we are botching it up.) Why? Because we are stupid and value the enemy more than our own lives. HEY!! NEWSFLASH MR. BUSH, TED KENNEDY, and all you other bozos in washington. THE ISLAMISTS DON'T GIVE A DAMN IF THEY DIE, SO LONG AS THEY KILL A FEW OF US WITH THEM. So why do they keep throwing our soldiers lives around like pawns on a chess board, when they could win this war by drawing a good old fashioned line in the sand?

end quote.

I support the troops. I don't necessarily support war. Except as a last resort. And then, if you are going to fight it, fight it to win it, so that fewer lives will be lost in the long run