It may very well be that the local Sunnites won't like the "New Iraq", whatever that is. But the larger picture is that we're fighting a war on the terrorists who've attacked us, which means al-Qa'ida. If we succeed in driving them out of Iraq and keeping them out, we'll have accomplished something very important.


And of course, the author does nothing whatsoever to back up this gratuitous claim. Pretty much par for the course when it comes to this subject. Who needs to back up anything when Bush is the target?

Of course, the article Edit: One ot TedN5's articles was written, not by a single author, but several authors currently serving in Iraq.

They are:

•Buddhika Jayamaha
•Wesley D. Smith
•Jeremy Roebuck
•Omar Mora
•Edward Sandmeier
•Yance T. Gray
•Jeremy A. Murphy

*See TedN5's link.

I would say that that gives them more credibility than some of the pompom waving, pro-war board cheerleaders we have here - no names called.

BTW: Congratulations to DaytonRocker. This is now the most replied to thread in the history of and the first ever to receive 500 replies.

This is the reason I hardly ever get involved in Iraq debates because of the inaccurate name calling.

Calling somebody pro-war because they want to see us succeed in Iraq is puerile at best.

It wouldn't be very fair if I said people who were pro-choice were Pro-Abortion and waved pompoms at the notion of a fetus being aborted would it?

Wrong. The article quoted is from William Lind and was posted at antiwar.com.

The article by the members of the 82nd Airborne contains some interesting tidbits that have not been touched on.



The military has been handcuffed by not being able to apply "widespread use of lethal and brutal force". Something I agree with. Winning the hearts and minds will not work with such tribal groups. Putting the fear of God (err, Allah) would have work much better. Of course, our soft route seemed prudent by some, but it isn't what the military is good at.

Back to the article:


Interesting. Being able to walk down the street safely isn't what's important. Having members of the US military openly embraced by religious leaders isn't important. Well, what is important?



We are arming all sides in this conflict? The majority of Iraqis feel "increasingly" insecure? I wonder where they got their poll numbers or if this is just a gut feeling? I suspect the latter.

Here is the biggie:



Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which is must come first: military success or political success? The article starts by saying there has been military success, but not political success. Here it says the opposite. I wonder about this.

It is a very interesting read and I agree with much of it. Just not the conclusions.

TedN5 linked us to two articles, The NYT article written by the soldiers and a second link by William Lend. TedN5 believes the two articles have similar thoughts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=11483

At any rate, this war is a sow’s ear and all the cheerleading by people like former Bush lackey Ari Fletcher and his ilk isn’t going to change that. Bush will end his term talking about success or victory and neither he, nor anyone else will hnave any damned idea what he's talking about.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20408966/



People do accuse those who are pro-choice of being pro-abortion.

Your post would make more sense if someone could come up with any standard definition of success in Iraq.

Meanwhile, as NT's signature line indicates, the number of dead and wounded keeps rising. As my sig line indicates, I doubt this insanity will end until the next 517 days expire. Bush will end his term talking about success and/or victory and neither he nor anyone else will have the slightest clue what he's talking about. Bush's motto should be, "if it sounds good say it."

If you want an example, simply look at the information about Bush now tying Vietnam an Iraq together. I suppose someone out there believes all this non-sense - that is, believes anything this rotten to the core administration (Bush and his cronies) throws out there.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=224281

Heh. Is it even name calling if it's accurate?


That's true. Instead I view it this way:

Iraq War "pro-success" supporter [noun]
There is no fight they are not willing to have someone else pay

DaffyGrl






Daffy that wasnt me that said that hun, I think it was Aevans176 might want to check me on that though, but I think thats who said it.





Dontreadonme



I found this a little ironic, well I guess I shouldn't have considering. But look a this line where you say.......

how much longer are you willing to give it to possibly work? If your answer is until the job is done, then how many lives are you willing to sacrifice for Iraq?

In a post Ive probably put about 5 hours into as of now over the period of the last two weeks as I've found time, I'm covering multiple War on Terror related topics, In the first sentence of the post first section I state the following which is almost exactly what you just asked......

EDIT

Oops, I cant post IM quotes, but it was basically the same thing you said above phrased a little differently, I think its a good question though.
The rest of my response to you below the IM quote seems gone, but I'll quickly address the soldiers dieing. In a nutshell Ive heard people ask this many times, my reasons for my support are related to my belief in the wars cause, I can see where the skepticism is coming from, death is not pretty, Its not something I like to see but the fleas come with the dog as they say, I have a lot of appreciation for the sacrifices made by our soldiers. They understand the risk evolved when they volunteer there services though.

Nighttimer




Well that unfortunately is the sacrifice of war nighttimer. This has been true of every war, in most cases to an extent that makes this war look a lot less devastating than many would like to think. Is every death tragic? Absolutely Are families suffering great loss due to this war? Yes sir, but if you believe in the wars cause, you believe these men died to make the world a better place, I understand the sacrifices they are making more than you know.

Not to get rude or anything, and perhaps I'll leave it at this, Its easy to guess what might motivate someone to support a war if you happen not to, I have family there, furthermore I do not like war, and I don't like the fact that we have to stand up and fight them now and then, but I believe we need to finish this thing the right way, either that or we should have considered the commitment that fighting a war really is, before we even went in if we want to cop out now.




Its fine, its your right to post information like that, it is accurate. However given the numerous post I've read of yours, I'm pretty confident in saying that the primary motivation in posting that figure goes beyond helpful information to be presented to a public that is uniformed, It also helps condone this war as nothing but a waste of life and drives doubt into the minds of others. Its not that its inaccurate, its not even that its pulled out of context, its an accurate figure. However its all perspective as I've said, a supporter of this war could easily put the same figure into great perspective by providing a little look into history.

For example, look up the battle of Sit River, when the Mongol's invade Russia 270,000+ people die in one day! march 4, 1238. That is freakin crazy, absolutely unreal. So to inform your audience even further Nightimer, to how the Iraq war American death toll figure actually stands up to a notorious one day battle state a figure like this, even if the battle has no direct relation to Iraq, your talking about death, and talking about sacrifices, but believe me throughout history much greater sacrifices of life have been made. So put that figure under your Iraq figure and be sure to mention this war has lasted 4 years and that battle lasted one day. Information is great man, and the more the merrier. If your audience is really uninformed about this you might as well tell them how it compares to the wars and battles of the past, because If they don't know that over three and a half thousand Americans have died in this war, how they would understand what the scope of that figure really is, is beyond me.






EDIT

To rephrase this without IM reference, honestly I don't really care Nighttimer. Its become clear enough by now to me that your fixated on throwing out accusations to others while you talk about things like racism of all things, so its no loss to me bud.

Increasingly Democrats have to admit the surge is working. Even Hillary.


Baird sees need for longer U.S. role in Iraq

Brad Shannon
The Olympian
U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security.
"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work."
Baird said he would not say this if he didn't believe two things:
• "One, I think we're making real progress."
• "Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility … and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."
http://www.theolympian.com/news/story/192500.html

Ironically enough Ted Hillary supported the war up until about the time the public opinion on the war became a negative one. Many don't want to hear about success with a troop surge today, they just don't. Its their right and I respect it, but I find it interesting how so many in Washington, yes primarily on the left, have changed their position on whether or not to fight this war and Hillary is a great example. To those that were against it from day one, I have more respect for, Like Barrack Obama. I may think he is wrong, but at least he is consistent. I often relate flip flopping, to an attempt to appease the public at all cost. This troop surge will succeed almost solely depending on who is elected president next year.

What a strange attitude. Surely it is better to "see the light" and accept the truth (not saying this is the case here, just generally), than to stubbornly hold a wrong position. If you feel that the surge is the right thing, that it is working, then why would you not applaud Hillary for seeing the truth, rather than Obama who continues to hold onto a wrong ideal? So changing one's mind is just automatically flip-flopping? Do you have more respect for a debater who continues to stubbornly oppose you, or one who says, you know, net, looks like you were right.

The way you are painting this, Hillary is in a position where she cannot possibly act in a way you approve. If she agrees with you she is flip-flopping, and if she disagrees, she is wrong-headed. Your view leaves no room at all for anyone genuinely changing their mind. I wonder, do you hold conservatives to the same standard, or when they change their mind is it no more nefarious than just that?

Because honestly I don't believe that she honestly believed what she said in 2003 to begin with, I'm under the impression she is saying whatever it is that will help her at the time she says it. She is very intelligent, she knows how to get votes and today she is trying to present herself as the uniter of the democratic party. One who is on the left but not too far on the left, afteral she is considering the conservatives and swing voters for after the primary.

Regarding any support for our troops in the past, I believe she said what she did grinding her teeth. Obama, can be wrong I'm my opinion, because I'm a conservative and my support for this war is my opinion and choice, that I don't claim is better than anyone else's. So what is wrong in my eyes may be right to another, but consistency in regards to elected officials who are always well informed, is very important. If you are consistent, at least that is a sign that you believe what you say, whether I agree with it or not then becomes irrelevant, so thats why Obama does get some respect from me.

Now that President Bush has signaled it's okay to draw comparisons between the war in Iraq and Vietnam, a few quotes from the past bear repeating.







I think it's more important that we get an informed perspective from the guys who lay it on the line every day and not just politicians, pundits and spin doctors. As the toll of the dead creeps slowly toward 4,000 what has become clear to me is it impossible for a successful military strategy to compensate for a fatally flawed war policy.



Ancient history aside, net2007, what exactly does any of this have to do with the surge?

Is it your point that the deaths of nearly 4,000 American soldiers pales in comparison to over 270,000 people killed in one day? I'm trying to find the correlation of a particularly bloody day in Russia some 769 years ago to the slow drip-drip-drip of death for the Americans (and the sudden death that is the fate of many Iraqis) and coming up dry.

War is a nothing but a waste of life and the reliance upon it is a strong indicator we human beings still have far to go before we tame our primitive fear that Tribe "A" covets what Tribe "B" has (so we'd had better strike first and bash in their skulls before they bash in ours). War is sometimes necessary, but it usually represents a failure of not just diplomacy, but civilization.

You can reach any conclusion you like as to the purpose of the list of the American dead and wounded in Iraq. It's subject to whatever perspective you want or whatever motivation you want to assign to me. I know my reasons and feel no need to justify them to anyone.




Why is it people who say they don't care take such pains to make sure everybody knows how much they don't care?

I stand by what I wrote way back then. Now, four years later, my analogy is just as strong as ever. The war is four and a half years old. There have been 3,721 US deaths, according to nighttimer's sig this morning. Had we been losing soldiers at the rate we did in Vietnam, the death toll would be about 25,000. Recall that we lost over 5,000 men in 1966 over 9,300 in 1967 over 14,500 in 1968 over 9,400 in 1969.

Of course, that is statistical and fairly irrelevant. We must make a choice: is winning this war worth the price we will pay in deaths and money? I still say, four and a half years in, that it is worth it.

Iraq is a microcosm of the Islamic world only with the sectarian hatred spilling over into outward fighting. Saddam had kept this sectarianism in check with the most brutal methods imaginable. We are not willing to stoop to that level and thus we incur additional casualties. We are not willing to indiscriminately kill Iraqis and thus Iraqi insurgents escape to fight another day. The article from the 82nd Airborne alludes to this fact.

The choice we have to make depends upon the outcome that we foresee if we leave Iraq. Will leaving Iraq quell the violence? Will leaving Iraq cause the bomb makers and insurgents there to return to their former lives and live in peace with members of the opposite sect?

Or will they, as the Mujahadin did in Afghanistan, use the knowledge and experience they gained fighting this insurgency to extend the jihad outside of those borders and into the wider (Western) world? We have history to look upon to help us decide what will happen if the insurgency wins and if the Islamicists win a victory in Iraq.



It's abundantly clear that this has been your position for over four years now. I cannot understand how a military strategy could not win a war, despite what the "war strategy" is (whatever that is, I'm assuming it is something political--probably involves the words "stay the course"). Of course it is the military strategy that has failed in Iraq. Politicians do not win wars. They can, however, lose them. We saw this in Vietnam. We see this today where the constant drum of negativism is beat. The military can win in the theater of war and still the country can lose.

This brings me back to an earlier post, one which sentiment I try not to harp on, but your response brings it back up. Does it not make you feel the slightest bit hypocritical when you trumpet your support for the ‘cause’, yet you are not willing to lay it on the line commensurate with your zeal?
I hesitate to take this stand, because I realize the military is not everyone’s calling, mentally or physically……but as much as you say you support soldiers, likening their deaths to ‘the fleas come with the dog as they say’ comes off as callous at best.
I’ll restate again, that indeed soldiers can expect hardship, deprivations, injury and death……it comes with the contract and nobody has immunity. But look soldiers square in the eye and tell them that you believe their deaths are worthwhile, when most die not by Al Qaeda’s hand, but by Shia and Sunni insurgents; in a civil war/power struggle, which most soldiers don’t believe to be in our interest at all.
There is a distinct difference in serving your nation and it’s people, defending and protecting our democratic way of life…………and what we are involved in Iraq.


Do you?


We don’t always agree on things, but well said NT. As successful as the surge has been to this point in terms of military and essential services successes, it cannot hope to atone for the myriad of political mistakes by the CPA; it cannot abate the omnipresent influence of the Imams; nor can it reconcile two similar yet distinct forces vying for power left by the vacuum of Saddams overthrow.

Dontreadonme



likening their deaths to ‘the fleas come with the dog as they say’ ?

Come on, you know what that analogy means, as well as what I meant by it, I hope. I'm not relating the deaths of soldiers to fleas on a dog as if thats what they equate to. That analogy means the bad always comes with the good, thats all it means. Do a search on it, many sites will state definitions of analogies as well as words. In this war, just like every other war death is bad, it comes to us as a part of the sacrifice of war.

The good is the prospect of a free Iraq, as well as dependable ally. Of course overall the good also includes a win regarding Al Qaeda. This entire war goes beyond Iraq. We have presence now in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

But look soldiers square in the eye and tell them that you believe their deaths are worthwhile

Thank you for asking that, because I have. And for me it got appreciation. I told my cousin who was on leave from Iraq back in June that his sacrifices are worthwhile, he has known a couple who have been killed there, but when I told him that, the sense I got from him was one of appreciation, that I hadn't given up hope, and that what he is doing at least to me is appreciated, and worth it.

Id sooner be afraid of getting punched in the face for telling a solder that all the sacrifices them and their friends are making are not worth it. Wherever it is they may be stationed.



Why is it that a dedication on supporting our troops is looked on by the Anti-War in this country as a negative? That doesnt make sense, I support space exploration, yet I'm not an astronaut. They take big risk. I support many things and professions that include risk of various kinds, in most cases Id see these individuals looking at that kind of support with appreciation.

So do I understand the sacrifices? Let put it this way Dontreadonme
I support this war, because I understand the sacrifices they make, and thats as directly as I can put it. Understanding the sacrifices they have to make day in and day out, is part of my reasoning behind my support for them. It seems easy to me for one to say hey yea I support our troops but I don't support this war, you have every anti-war critic in office, from Floria to Main using that cute little line. All that really ever meant is I don't support this war but I dont want to look too bad to those that do, or to those that are fighting it.

I'll admit we have many soldiers themselves who say they don't support every choice this administration has made, neither do I, and many even have doubts about their situation, however that being said nearly all these men serve their country with dedication, and they are in it to win it. I'll probably support them until we either win, or some suit in Washington says that the death of thousands in Iraq, will be in Vien, all with the stroke of a fountain pen, and a fulfillment of a political agenda that will boost their popularity, well at least initially

nighttimer



Not only does it pale in comparison to that one day battle, it pales in comparison to most wars fought by this nation, as well as many other short battles. If you understood who Saddam Hussein was, you would understand our reason for taking an interest in him yet again. He was not only ruthless and evil, he was stubborn and uncooperative as well. Trying to use diplomacy with him was like trying to teach a baboon rocket science, forceful action against him was necessary, I'll soon elaborate on that.

For now what I can tell you is that your probably right, we live amongst a society that in many cases is uninformed about things like this war, so assuming someone doesn't know that almost 4000 people have died in this war, and your goal is to simply be informative as you claim. How much they would understand about the scope of that number wouldn't be much. You don't have to compare this wars death toll to the ancient battle of Sit River to realize that for a 4 year war, that number is unusually low.

The problem with that kind of information by itself with absolutely no elaboration on what it means or comparative figures, is that it can be misleading, whether it be accurate or not. For example I could make a commercial about a toothpaste product I invented and say over 1 million people have tried my product, even if I know that nearly all the competition has that figure beaten, as long as my audience doesn't know that, mission accomplished. That number sounds
high, so that would be all my audience needed to know for me to use that figure to my advantage.

As I said before though every death is tragic, and things like the decision to send in more troops, can likely result in more death, I don't take that lightly, and my cousin is in Iraq right now, he was my best friend growing up so I'm hoping we can win this thing so we can come home soon. I don't want to be there forever.








There are some very interesting questions I have myself in regards to some people, being the reason I IMed you, not because I care what you think of me.

You've made some bold claims about a number of people in forum discussion, but this forum isn't about you or me, so I don't have anything to discus here.

Dontreadonme is probably far too modest to toot his own horn, but before you put your foot farther into your mouth here, take a look at where he is posting from. He is a career infantryman (hope I have that right, DTOM!) and in my opinion, deserves the benefit of a doubt when it comes to talking about the situation on the ground in Iraq. Please understand, his being boots on the ground in Iraq doesn't necessarily mean his opinions are right, and yours are wrong. I merely put it out there because you seemed to be dismissing him as a typical "anti-war" leftie.

Well if he has served, or is serving now great. If he has served in Iraq, he wouldnt be the first Ive personaly talked to who has, opinoins like that come with
a great deal of opposition as well, just like with every group of people, we all come to the table with a different set of views. My cousin James has both served in Iraq, and supports our fight in Iraq. Not everyone does, but I would have served myself if it weren't for my medical condition as Ive stated a couple times, and if I had here Id be disagreeing with him to the fullest just the same as I am now. Just like my cousin does, just like my uncle does, and just like some of my freinds do. All of whom have served at one time or another.

Now oddly enough my mother is a nurse with absolutely no affiliation with our military at anytime, and her views on this war are as left as Ive ever seen, yet I don't proclaim that because she has never served she has no right to her opinion. My sister is anti-war and liberal as well. And she is a realistate agent, I don't tell her she shouldn't have the anti-war opinion she holds because she has never served. I'm just tired of hearing nonsense like that.

What can I say I support the war, and support our troops. Have I served? No, I haven't but thats an irrelevant fact. To suggest that that means I wouldnt understand the value of their sacrifice when I say the things that I do is ridiculous, im sorry but it is. We all learn what sacrifice means as we grow and mature, and I wouldnt say the things I do say if I honestly believed we have no chance of winning, or no motive to try.


Amlord




Very good point, I missed your post before but this is exactly the type of point Ive been trying to get across Amlord.

In fact, the only two wars fought by this nation, that I know of with a death toll lower than this one are Desert Storm, and the war of 1812, and both those wars were 3x shorter in length than this one. I'm glad someone here notices this kind of thing apart from me, good post.

Quarkhead is absolutely correct, I am a career Infantryman, and I may not be right in any of my views, I see events colored through the lens of my present environment. I will never be mistaken for an anti-war leftie, but my views on this war have certainly evolved.
I stated in January that I was willing to give the surge six months to work; I thought the operational plan outlined would be the one thing that we did right in the four years we had been in Iraq.
Having spent seven months in Baghdad now, I am of the mind that while the plan was sound, the timing was not, and lives are continuing to be lost for absolutely no gain. I may be incorrect, but I do not believe that Iraq will be stable, functioning democracy, at least in my lifetime.

Net2007, I didn’t mistake your fleas and dog analogy……but the key difference in our opinions is gain. What gain is accomplished by the deaths of service members? An ally in Iraq? Not worth my life if you ask me, and not worth the life of your cousin James.
I’ll say this bluntly but honestly, your naiveté is only surpassed by your zeal.
Most Iraqi’s place Allah and their Imams before the right to a democratic process. How do American deaths change that paradigm?
There is an elected parliament in Baghdad that just went on vacation while their nation burns. How do more troops solve the problem of corruption and political negligence?
Maybe if we defeated AQI you would agree that we could leave Iraq; except we spend more time fighting JAM Special Groups and other militias.


If that is your opinion, fair enough…..I respect your individual viewpoint. For myself, I have yet to meet an Iraqi who was worth my little girls growing up without a father.


There is a not so subtle difference in your analogy. Space exploration carries the risk of natural or mechanical dangers. Armed conflict carries the weight of men committing intentional violent acts upon fellow man. Not only must much more care be taken when committing men and women to war, more thought should be taken when deciding enough is enough. More care than simply stating that you’re ‘in it to win it’. This isn’t the big homecoming game. People’s lives are shattered. Sons and daughters are asking why Daddy isn’t coming home, or why Daddy can’t walk anymore.
To accept this kind of risk, and this kind of outcome…….the gain has to be absolutely worth it. In Iraq, I contend that it is not.


Don’t be too sure. Most of us harbor no doubts at all. Most of us are not ‘in it to win it’. We’re in it to stay alive until we re-deploy. We’re in it to keep our comrades alive. Most of us harbor no specter of Vietnam, coming home to an indifferent public or to a stigma of being failures. By and large we want to come home and continue our lives and be with our families. The prospect of leaving Iraq no better than when we found, it doesn’t alter that goal.


Or it could mean that people could actually want soldiers to come home, alive and of sound body and mind. That sounds like supporting soldiers to me. Support for the troops comes in more flavors than simply wanting them to be victorious. True support is certainly more substantial than petty Republican vs. Democrat squabbling. Who knows…..maybe I am an anti-war leftie after all……..

Dontreadonme




I realize and agree with some of the points you make here, Al Qaeda, is and always has been our main concern, we are only in the situation we are in today
because of *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** poor planing on the part of this administration and while I agree with the decision to go into Iraq, I far from agree with the method we chose and stuck with for so long, its a frekin shame in fact and it frustrates me. However this doesn't change the situation we find ourselves in today, if we leave now after all this mess we are in many ways responsible for and all this sacrifice, how the hell will anyone ever have confidence with this nation again?

Would I stand side by side with a nation that says one thing, and does another while playing with the fate of a nation, and the lives of thousands? In a war situation I would not, and if we ever, and I mean ever have to go back there for any reason whatsoever which there is a high probability of, I swear they will make us station outside their boarders.

I mean what a tragedy, you know what I respect your point of view here, this is extremely frustrating for anyone who cares in the least. I'm just not ready to throw my hands up, and this is because of the deaths of 3,721+ Americans, and the tens of thousands of Iraqis that have lost their lives in the last 4 years.

We went in with less than half the recommended forces according to most, 137,000 I believe when 400,000 - 500,000 was the proper amount of troops for this situation. The number of troops we sent into Iraq in Desert Storm was in that range. Rumsfeld and bush were wrong, and we simply couldn't secure Iraq as a result. I believe this is a mistake that can be corrected, but I'm not elaborating here because it will be in the post I'm working on if I ever finish the darn thing. Ive been squeezing it in as I have time. My schedule is busy, but I hope to post it in a week.



Sons and daughters are asking why Daddy isn’t coming home, or why Daddy can’t walk anymore.

As they were in WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and pretty much every other war we have fought. What it boils down to is whether or not one believes in the wars cause and purpose. You don't, but you do seem to support action against Al Quada. Im going to tell you now I don't support the war, the way it has been fought, but Saddam Hussain was responsible for the deaths of more men, women, and children than this entire war has claimed, and I'm confident in saying that , Ive done the research. With so much aggression to one mans name, he did not belong running a Baskin Robbins, let alone an entire country.

This thing could have been done a whole hell of a lot differently but I'm looking forward not backward, and we are in a situation today where we have a choice, and that choice is win a war and stay true to your word, or lose the war. There is not a bone in my body that believes we can not win this war if we want. Our military budget is over 500 billion dollars a year, no other nation even comes remotely close to that, we have the strongest economy in the world by far, an air force that is light years ahead of anyone, a navy that is lightyears ahead of anyone, and despite the downsizing by this administration a military that by the numbers is second only to China.

To top it off our war technologies far surpass anyone else as well. We have pilots stationed in Las Vegas, remotely flying unmanned predator drones on the other side of the earth. I'm sure you know all this, but I'm convinced this is not being properly utilized, and through politics money gets lost in the loop and never sees the battlefield. Decision making has been poor, which is why I'm ready to elect a strong leader who is ready to cut the nonsense and kick some rear end. Thats where I'm coming from




I never suggested you were left or right, but in regards to elected officials who say they support our troops in Iraq, but not the war in Iraq, I believe that is more often than not nothing but a punchline. This is probably especially true with those in office who have changed their position as the public opinion of Iraq became a negative one.

News Bulletin
To Net2007:

Support for the war will not be measured by jumping up and down and waving pompoms.

It's last chapter will be written in how we fund or do not fund medical care for - physical and mental - impairment and job assistance for returning soldiers. This will be a gigantic, taxpayer supported effort that will hit those like you - age 24 - more than others of us.

Support is easy until the bills start arriving in the mail. Are you prepared to make the kind of post war commitment you are making to the current war or will you just be gearing-up for the next war? Have you ever met a U. S. war you didn't like or think there may someday be one you won't like?

Just for the record, I have, for as long as I can remember, advocated providing vets whatever they need to live a normal life. It’s not “giving” them anything, they’ve earned it.

BTW: In my opinion, the surge is only adding to the massive need for medical and other assistance for vets.

That is another statement that doesn't hold up to the facts when shown the light of day- we are responsible now for hundreds of thousands of dead by our very presence- over 650k poeple have died, not neccesarily by our bombs, but by the sectarian violence we created by our very presence and the power vacuum that was caused by our removal of Saddam.

In fact, the death toll is so high now, that we can even be accused of genocide of the Iraqi poeple- I will bet the number will be over 1 million dead before we get out of there, the way things are going right now.

From what I understand that is in fact one estimate, sometimes I've read lower than 650k, sometimes higher. However your right that includes a whole lot more than deaths we are directly responsible for.

I do know that the two figures are close, the Death by Saddam figure is about as inconsistent as this wars death toll. I'm dedicating an entire section of an upcoming post to stating various facts about Saddam, with links. I'm thinking the numbers are close if you include the Iran - Iraq war, there alone he killed about 300,000 in a short amount of time. Of course that was when we were still allies with Saddam, during and after that you have a number of instances where he uses WOMD killing thousands upon thousands more. You also have the invasion of Kuwait in 91'

Most importantly is that in many cases he had no justifiable reason to commit many of the acts he did. Like invading Kuwait for mundane reasons, like the possibility they were slant drilling across the boarder to steal Iraq's oil, as if they had to. Other things like him sending his own people into a building his intelligence predicted we would strike, sure would make me want to live under his rule.

In short when you stand up against evil men, whether it be those loyal to Saddam, Al Qaeda, or the other radicals in the area that seem fixated on tearing that country apart, they will stand right back up against you and people will die in the process. The alternative would be to accept the fact that there will always be some idiot with a cause who on there own will take advantage of the weak, and ruthlessly kill at their own will, and the idea that we should stand by and watch that sort of thing happen as if it is not a problem is an idea I cant comprehend.

Its easy to say yea things were prettier in Iraq under Saddam, well no kidding we are at war now. I love analogies so I'm going to use another one. That would be like me taking apart my friends old car to restore it, only to have someone walk up to me and say, Hey dude that car was in better shape before you took it apart. Lol, well I suppose so Dr. Know.

Now what we could do is win this war and compare Iraq under Saddam, to a liberated Iraq, that would be fair and by the way that being our primary goal since the start of the war it would make more sense. Or perhaps we can leave our proverbial car in pieces, a wreck that is somebody else's problem now. Perhaps we had no business taking apart something we were not prepared to put back together, especially since we are not talking about a car, we are talking about a nation.

BoF


News Bulletin
To Net2007:



I'll write that down in my notepad, thanks.



As Ive said here, I don't like war. Unfortunately we don't live in the Garden of Eden, and in the case of this nation our intension's are usually good, and responsive to the aggressions of hostile nations, groups, or dictators.



More troops more medial needs, makes sense to me.

Interesting Analogy you used there as far as the restoring of cars goes- since that is a major field of my entire life. Few things I have learned in the biz-

1) If it ain't broke- don't fix it. 'Cause then it will be broke forever.

2) when restoring, make sure you have a plan when you start, and whatever you do, DON'T deviate from it unless you want to sell it off as a major loss halfway through the "build"

3) Label everything that is bad, quite clearly, figure out what others have done to fix the said part, and copy that- just because you think you have a better way may not neccesarily make it so- don't reinvent the wheel, try what others have done first, then go your own way if it doesn't work.

4) Know when to cut your losses and walk away, instead of just getting deeper and deeper in without any real progress being shown.

5) Know when you are completely in over your head, and get an expert to help you.


650k number comes from a John Hopkins study- and, to date, no peer revieweed study has been able to, in any way, reduce or increase the numbers they come up with.

when there is some science, not opinion, to back up a lessor or greater claim, I will change that view.

I anxiously await your post, because to this point, you have failed to address any of the specific points made by myself and others, concerning how we could possibly change Iraq’s course.
Regarding casualties…….you seem to be willing to trade lives for a sense of national credibility. I am not. I understand sacrifice, and that sacrifice can indeed be noble when engaging an enemy who is truly a threat to ones homeland or world peace.
But lives lost fighting against two disparate religious elements, which kill in the name of their god…….are lost for no gain.

CruisingRam
Interesting Analogy you used there as far as the restoring of cars goes- since that is a major field of my entire life. Few things I have learned in the biz-

thought you might like that one.



Iraq was the equivalent of an old truck with the break line cut, what I mean by that is that sure it could carry its own. However it was a danger to itself and
others. That place was not stable at all, granted that is even more true now, the explanation for that is we haven't finished our job.



Good point, and I totally agree with that. We had a plan but it was very controversial, personally I disagreed with the Rumsfeld approach all along, our
biggest mistake was not being prepared in the event that his approach didn't work.

The last part of that where you say ""and whatever you do, DON'T deviate from it halfway through the "build"" is exactly the type of point I'm trying to
get across. We shouldn't deviate from a commitment if it is at all important. To do that, is not only a sure way to make a mess of an automobile while having wasted your time, its also a guaranteed way to lose this war. Then every time someone runs around saying this war is lost, they will be telling the truth for a
change. Plans can change, but I believe once you commit to war you should be in it to win, otherwise you should have never committed to begin with.
The larger the significants of the situation, the more that becomes true.

In the case of a car you have wasted your time, lost money, and ruined the car.
A war is much more significant because if you walk out on that, here you have not only wasted your nations time, and money, you have wrecked a nation, and become in many ways responsible for the deaths of thousands, who deaths then become a tragic waste of life. If we finish this thing, at the very least the death involved is not for nothing.




If your still talking about Iraq, that would totally contradict what you said in number 2)






Dontreadonme


Its goes far beyond credibility or pride, read my last part on this response to cruisingram.

Our security is not as much as a concern as world peace regarding Iraq. You can read about that in my post soon, the reason its taking so long is the additional research Ive had to do to back my debate. As of now it contains a couple dozen links and is about 500 lines worth of text. I'm adding it in a special section of my Myspace page as well. I may post it elsewhere too, I just want to make sure all the info is accurate.

Yes Net- #2 and #4 contradict- you see, number 4 keeps you from being neck deep in #2 forever.

Being smart and realizing the plan you had is lost is why you have a way out in #4- thus keeping you out of deep #2

When something isn't going my way I just hit the pillow lol, I hear thats why bush goes through pillows, like he does underwear. Hopefully this Troop Surge wont equate to a shortage of pillows in the White House.

The article I was quoting from was written by a single author, not currently serving in Iraq. So now that you've made a totally irrelvant point, I'll just take this opportunity to repost what I wrote above. The author made a claim that he can't back up, most likely because it's completely false. I'd say that impacts his credibility just a tad.



But does that change the goal? All those groups may have their own particular reasons for wanting to drive the Coalition out of Iraq, but I don't see how that alters the necessity of driving AQ out, or the apparent success on that particular front that we've been witnessing.

I replied earlier to a point you had made about that, when you speculated that U.S. withdrawal could be bad for AQI. I said that this doesn't jibe with AQ's behavior in deliberately provoking their enemies in Iraq, and that indeed, the opposite seems to be the case, judging from recent events. Do you have anything you'd like to say in response to that?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070825/ap_on_...cNZr3Mvn6qs0NUE

BAGHDAD - This year's U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.


Everything in that article supports DTOMs ascertations.

and:

Baghdad has gone from representing 76 percent of all civilian and police war-related deaths in Iraq in January to 52 percent in July, bringing it back to the same spot it was roughly a year ago.

Okay- the surge has done so well, we are only back to what we were one year ago? Um, de dee de- that is they way this admin has done everything this entire go-round- make a new plan, when it is obviously failing miserably- set the bar a bit lower so they can claim "we made progress".

and it is not like we are making any real progress- we seem to just be chasing more folks out of the country- hey, less poeple, less violence- right?

"According to the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization, the number of displaced Iraqis has more than doubled since the start of the year, from 447,337 on Jan. 1 to 1.14 million on July 31."

So, we are not really doing anything- just chasing the problems into nieghboring countries- and I don't even think Blackstone can't see that this would be fertile recruitment for Al-Quaida.

Not the one I was actually questioning him on, regarding al-Qa'ida.


My impression has generally been that those who join al-Qa'ida do so for ideological reasons. But supposing your speculation to be true, where does that leave us? Do you really think our pulling out would reduce the number of people fleeing Iraq? I've yet to any serious commentator suggest that. No one seems to have challenged the ISG's conclusion that premature withdrawal would likely result in much more rapid destabiliization. Contrary to your assertion, we're not "chasing" Iraqi civilians out of Iraq. Those who are leaving are doing so despite our efforts.

In fact, the article itself lends support to this conclusion:


If this is accurate, then obviously British forces have been having a positive effect on the situation. If that's true of British forces, there's no reason to believe it isn't true of American forces.