Support the Troops, but not the war?

[RustyAngeL]

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a better idea about the war. I hear a lot of " we shouldn't be there" "we need to bring our toops home" and so on but what after that? Look were there and we need to finish the job. All the troops over there will tell you that, they understand that if we pull out now it will be a disaster for the United States because before long they will be coming after us here. The terrioist understand that why can't we understand that. We have already caught people wanting to take out shopping malls during the Christmas season, airports and jet liners. I hate it when I see as I did this last Wednesday that 10 US troops died. I weep for each and everyone of them. I think what we should do is put the war into the hands of the troops, the ones that are there. Let them make the desisions. These "Armchair Generals" that are sitting in their chooshy Washington offices have no cule what is really going on, nor do they know how to handle it.

[sweetycakes]

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a better idea about the war. I hear a lot of " we shouldn't be there" "we need to bring our toops home" and so on but what after that? Look were there and we need to finish the job. All the troops over there will tell you that, they understand that if we pull out now it will be a disaster for the United States because before long they will be coming after us here. The terrioist understand that why can't we understand that. We have already caught people wanting to take out shopping malls during the Christmas season, airports and jet liners. I hate it when I see as I did this last Wednesday that 10 US troops died. I weep for each and everyone of them. I think what we should do is put the war into the hands of the troops, the ones that are there. Let them make the desisions. These "Armchair Generals" that are sitting in their chooshy Washington offices have no cule what is really going on, nor do they know how to handle it.

Good idea, put the war in the hands of the troops that are there and are actually fighting the war. They know what they need, and how to fight the war.

But I know it will never happen. It's just a pipe dream.

Too many chiefs, and not enough indians.

Still, good idea, though

[followerofjesus]

My neighbor is coming back tomorrow from iraq working as a contractor. May God bless his safe return & his family w/ young children.

[GeneV]

Why is that? Why can't the most powerful and well equipped nations on earth not defeat a ragtag army such as the Taliban or Iraqi insurgents?

America (I cite America because you are an American serviceman, but it equally applies to Britain) - was able, in world war 2, to deploy almost overwhelming force to several fronts at once, all over the world. And that is what we are not doing at this present time, I don't think.

I believe, if we are going to fight a war, we should again employ absolutely overwhelming force, to minimise casualties on our side, instead of giving them a fair fight. And give the troops all the equipment they need to do the job. I refer to the lack of protective equipment supplied to British troops in particular, which was highlighted recently.

Given the capabilities, militarily, of our countries combined, I think that this war should have been won by now. And the bodies of our servicemen would not still be being carried home in caskets.

Send in the WHOLE of our resources, and defeat this enemy once and for all. No pussy-footing around. After all, our countries are not THAT stretched, militarily, are they? If they are, we are in trouble, should another major conflict break out.

Stephen,

Sorry to hi-jack your post - I have given this a great deal of thought and I am in agreement with you. The thing is that in order to win the war I don't believe sending in masses of troops will do the trick. This is not a convential war it is a guerrilla war which is extremely difficult to contain. The added difficulty is that these insurgents are coming from virtually all the Islamic countries.

1)If they are to be 'sorted' once and for all does it not mean that we will have to use the same tactics they employ? Would that not mean the dehumanization of the allied troops?

2)What about the countries that are supporting these terrorists ( as much as they deny it) - Syria for one - does it not follow that they will have to be invaded in order to root out and 'defeat this enemy once and for all'

3)The scenario I have painted might seem excessive - the point is that once you send in the troops in force to Iraq, as you suggest, they may control events within Iraq BUT they will have to stay there in order to control the enemy outside its borders short of 2) above.

4)Always keep in mind that we are dealing with fanatics or fundamentalists who do not share western values or morals. Their agenda is all out war against those who do not share their beliefs - we would call them mad men/women - they see themselves in an entirely different light.

In short if we are to fight them then we have to understand them, and in understanding them we have to become like them - and is that worth it.

By the way the troops have my fullest support and empathy but I don't believe that this war can be won as it is currently being fought.

Gene

[JustinM]

I believe sending a hundred + thousand more troops in (I wish they'd just airdrop all hundred thousand of them over Baghdad, would send a powerful and demoralizing message (to the insurgents) that you may kill 3000 of us, but we will send 100,000 more to replace them. All these people understand and respect is strength and brutality. Something we soldiers were allowed to use during the great wars. How can war be fought civily? Isn't the whole point of war killing? I think we need to take the gloves off and let these insurgents know how solid our backbones are. We are the people that have built up civilization and fought ferociously over it, we cannot let a bunch of ragtag 16th century barbarians destroy our Civilization. Now, I am not calling for brutality towards innocent women, men, children, but we should show no compassion or humanity towards these terrorists. They are wicked, evil, ruthless, barbarian, demons and the only thing we must do is kill them quickly. There's roughly 12,000 of them fighting and hiding in Iraq. 12000. There's fewer of them to fight than what we lost in one day at Iwo Jima and Normandy.

PC, progressivism and liberalism has turned us into amphibians.

[Guest yod]

I believe sending a hundred + thousand more troops in (I wish they'd just airdrop all hundred thousand of them over Baghdad, would send a powerful and demoralizing message (to the insurgents) that you may kill 3000 of us, but we will send 100,000 more to replace them. All these people understand and respect is strength and brutality. Something we soldiers were allowed to use during the great wars. How can war be fought civily? Isn't the whole point of war killing? I think we need to take the gloves off and let these insurgents know how solid our backbones are. We are the people that have built up civilization and fought ferociously over it, we cannot let a bunch of ragtag 16th century barbarians destroy our Civilization. Now, I am not calling for brutality towards innocent women, men, children, but we should show no compassion or humanity towards these terrorists. They are wicked, evil, ruthless, barbarian, demons and the only thing we must do is kill them quickly. There's roughly 12,000 of them fighting and hiding in Iraq. 12000. There's fewer of them to fight than what we lost in one day at Iwo Jima and Normandy.

PC, progressivism and liberalism has turned us into amphibians.

the problem with our current enemy is that they hide behind the skirts of wemon and put their children between us.

This makes it much more difficult politically to draw on the will of the American people. At some point, we will have to utterly wipe out entire villages of insurgent support to win this war. Are we ready to stomach that?

I don't think we are there yet...but one more terrorist attack that kills multiple thousands and you will hear even Cindy Sheehan complaining that we haven't done it yet.

I just hope it isn't too late....

[ted]

In short if we are to fight them then we have to understand them, and in understanding them we have to become like them - and is that worth it.

By the way the troops have my fullest support and empathy but I don't believe that this war can be won as it is currently being fought.

Gene

Hi Gene,

Knowing their ways and understanding their methods does not imply that we have to become like them to defeat them. We would be doing fine if half of our own Congress hadn't led half of our own nation to resist every effort we have made thus far.

And these are the same people who voted to send us in the first place!

You are correct, though: we cannot possibly win this war if half of the Congress continues to lead half of the nation against our efforts. In other words: The way it is currently being fought.

This does not even count the 7/8ths of the world that is against us, too.

That's one of the biggest differences between this war and WWII. In that war, 7/8ths of the world supported us whole-heartedly with troops, equipment, land use, and in a host of other ways. Now, because of various factors, the tables have turned. So, no, we can't win if we continue to go on the way we are.

What we can do, though, is wake up and do what needs to be done. If we are going to do it, then let's do it.

If we are going to quit later on, then let's quit now and go home. We can build huge walls around our borders, use the military to guard them, and forget what's outside of our borders forever.

But, in order for that to work, we would have to develop better ways of supporting our own energy needs. That means more domestic drilling, increased nuclear energy plants, and other ways. Seeing as how the same cowards that voted our troops into war now say that they didn't really mean it and now want to quit won't let us do things like drill in new places, make more refineries, or increase our nuclear energy generation, we kinda have no choice in the matter.

So, shutting our doors to the world is out of the question because we have way too many silly laws preventing us from becoming more independent from foreign energy sources, we kinda have to play the "world" thing for a while until we come to our senses.

Personally, I think it would be great if we could shut our doors for a while. Let the world blow itself up for a while and then we can open back up and see what's going on.

Today, that would mean opening the door and seeing nothing but camels and turbans. Sixty years ago, it would have meant seeing Nazi flags and concentration camps. Sixty to twenty years ago, we would see nothing but hammers and sickles everywhere.

There is a real threat out there, and we need to face it now. We have no other choice.

I support the war, and I support those fighting it, along with the civilians helping out. I also thank and support those few nations left that have the foresight to join in.

I just wish that the other 50% of our own leaders would do the same.

t.

[sweetycakes]

In short if we are to fight them then we have to understand them, and in understanding them we have to become like them - and is that worth it.

By the way the troops have my fullest support and empathy but I don't believe that this war can be won as it is currently being fought.

Gene

Hi Gene,

Knowing their ways and understanding their methods does not imply that we have to become like them to defeat them. We would be doing fine if half of our own Congress hadn't led half of our own nation to resist every effort we have made thus far.

And these are the same people who voted to send us in the first place!

You are correct, though: we cannot possibly win this war if half of the Congress continues to lead half of the nation against our efforts. In other words: The way it is currently being fought.

This does not even count the 7/8ths of the world that is against us, too.

That's one of the biggest differences between this war and WWII. In that war, 7/8ths of the world supported us whole-heartedly with troops, equipment, land use, and in a host of other ways. Now, because of various factors, the tables have turned. So, no, we can't win if we continue to go on the way we are.

What we can do, though, is wake up and do what needs to be done. If we are going to do it, then let's do it.

If we are going to quit later on, then let's quit now and go home. We can build huge walls around our borders, use the military to guard them, and forget what's outside of our borders forever.

But, in order for that to work, we would have to develop better ways of supporting our own energy needs. That means more domestic drilling, increased nuclear energy plants, and other ways. Seeing as how the same cowards that voted our troops into war now say that they didn't really mean it and now want to quit won't let us do things like drill in new places, make more refineries, or increase our nuclear energy generation, we kinda have no choice in the matter.

So, shutting our doors to the world is out of the question because we have way too many silly laws preventing us from becoming more independent from foreign energy sources, we kinda have to play the "world" thing for a while until we come to our senses.

Personally, I think it would be great if we could shut our doors for a while. Let the world blow itself up for a while and then we can open back up and see what's going on.

Today, that would mean opening the door and seeing nothing but camels and turbans. Sixty years ago, it would have meant seeing Nazi flags and concentration camps. Sixty to twenty years ago, we would see nothing but hammers and sickles everywhere.

There is a real threat out there, and we need to face it now. We have no other choice.

I support the war, and I support those fighting it, along with the civilians helping out. I also thank and support those few nations left that have the foresight to join in.

I just wish that the other 50% of our own leaders would do the same.

t.

You can't jump out now, Ted, and shut the doors behind you.

You lot dragged us into this thing, remember, and now we're in it for the duration. You can't just leave us to fight it on our own

We are in it, and in it to the bitter end, whatever that may be.

[ted]

t.

[sweetycakes]

You can not really support the troops and not support the war. I do not think the war in Iraq should have started when it did, but division and lack of support for the war only prolong it. The terrorists, Iran, Syria, etc. etc. have no hope of defeating the United States on the battlefield. Their only hope is putting up just enough resistance to make the soft U.S. populous demand an end to the war. When this happens, our allies see that they can no longer depend on the U.S. to fight to victory. Our infuluence in the world will greatly be hurt if we allow ourselves to withdraw from Iraq due to lack of williness to fight. The most powerful army in the world is useless if we are unwilling to use it. North Vietnam did not beat us on the battlefield, they beat us in the News media. The insurgents are not beating us on the battlefield, they are beating us in the news media. The American populous has become soft.

Yes