20,000 more troops, how crazy is that?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 3 2007, 11:11 AM) [snapback]370215[/snapback]</div>

If my son or daughter were in Iraq I would want 200,000 more troops beside and behind him or her. The attempt to bring freedom and democracy to a people that have no clue as to what it means is a tough job. A job that the Dem's avoided and still do not want to do as far as I can tell. Their contribution is a litany of hate spewed toward the nation and armed forces that ensure their freedom. The USA has brought freedom for the first time to 30-50 million Arabs, what they do with it is entirely up to them. It may fail, it may not, the opportunity has been given to them. Something no one has ever done or is likely to do again. This region has been plagued with tyranny, murder, genocide and abject poverty forever. We have now broken the cycle and hopefully it will stick, we tried talk, it didn’t work now it is time for the big stick. Something almost every parent does with their children, every court does with a lawbreaker and every school does with a delinquent. Should it have been any different with this rogue nation and murderous regime?

Wildkow

p.s. 20,000 new troops? Yep I think it's a good idea unless of course the new demoncratic congress withdraws funding. I would not put it past them.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 3 2007, 01:41 PM) [snapback]370338[/snapback]</div>

I'm sure the French thought the same thing when they assisted us in our war for freedom.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jan 3 2007, 08:08 PM) [snapback]370441[/snapback]</div>

Problem is, the country works best when we're able to put aside our personal desires for the greater good.

So you'd want 200,000 other families to make a sacrifice, just so your offspring would be safe?

This sounds suspect to me.

I'd hope that you'd be more concerned that your son or daughter's last full measure of his/her devotion would be commemorated with honor...since it was, after all, in the defense of our Freedom.

 

A some commentator said, the time for 20-50K additional troops, in and of themselves, has come and long gone.

And as (oddly) both General Casey and Senator Clinton said on the same day a couple of weeks ago, they oppose sending/requesting ANY more troops unless there's a "context", that is, clear objectives, e.g., securing Baghdad (and perhaps one other city), providing cover for reconstruction, and, of course, providing more training for Iraqi troops (which Maliki OPPOSED). But to vaguely and simply throw another 20-30K bodies over there in "one last desparate hope of winning military victory" in basically the same manner we've been trying, that's simply throwing good money after bad.

The country is now on the same page Howard Dean was on during the 2003-04 primaries, and if our body count continues on the same arc it's been on, is headed for Rep. Kucinich's position, with me among them. 25K more Americans to fight for George Bush's vanity and "legacy"? No way.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jan 3 2007, 05:35 PM) [snapback]370368[/snapback]</div>

Oh, the freaks, well ok, maybe the extremists of the antiwar segment of our society think that way but I don't listen to those goofballs, they hate everybody. I'm not a liberal, believe it or not, but those that I know who are die-hard democrats don't believe that the miliary is "misguided, ignorant, uneducated automatons".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 4 2007, 10:32 AM) [snapback]370698[/snapback]</div>

I've been thinking about this more...and I have to say, the more I do, the more upset I become.

I think protests like the ones described earlier are extremely hurtful and selfish acts. If I'd have been there at that moment, I might have been prompted to remark that if we wanted their opinion at this time, we would have asked for it.

Or something a bit more abrupt, perhaps.

Seriously.

Unless we're at the point where we're calling up the milita to overthrow a corrupt government, it's really important that we act as a team as much as possible, even if we don't see eye to eye on lots of things. I know that doesn't sound terribly inspiring (it's so much more fun and expressive to be in disagreement). But I've learned lots from people I didn't agree with, after all; we probably all have...haven't we?

One look at the US auto industry shows that if your boat is sinking, you're going for an unexpected swim.

Whether you're at the helm, or down in the engine room, stoking the fires.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Jan 3 2007, 05:26 PM) [snapback]370457[/snapback]</div>

We've yet to hear a plan, but the pundits are putting forth several scenarios. As I think your post alludes to, larger forces in the earlier part of the war may have been able to secure the Sunni Triangle and given the Iraqis the ability to really practice their freedom. They have been courageous enough; the people with the purple fingers knew they were risking their lives, but they went and voted anyway.

The "surge" plan that makes sense to me is for a larger force to help protect American lives, secure the capital (Baghdad), and provide the environment where the Iraqi police can provide the rule of law. As it is, we send our troops in to clean up an area, they win the battle decisively, then they turn over the area to the local Iraqi police. But the insurgent elements that are not killed are still there, and the local policeman is being asked to make too big a sacrifice ... his life and that of his wife and children ... to maintain order. So the areas descend again into a hotbed of insurgency and militia activity.

I'm not sure strategies in wars are best planned in the open, which makes them incompatible with our form of government. A war longer than a few months is bound to be compromised by the swaying of public opinion from one side to the other.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 4 2007, 10:36 PM) [snapback]371152[/snapback]</div>

Don't forget that in some instances the local police are corrupt and that the Sunni's held sway and killed hundreds of thousands of Shiite's during the reign of Saddam. Not directed at you specifly fshagen but what kind of plan is everyone looking for? Good grief I have spelled it out a least a dozen times! [attachmentid=6149] I guess you want the step-by-step plan so that the NY Times and other liberal media can publish it for all to see on the front page.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 3 2007, 01:41 PM) [snapback]370338[/snapback]</div>

Because HE was elected commander in chief, not you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 3 2007, 01:41 PM) [snapback]370338[/snapback]</div>

Oh, you mean like the string MarinJohn started about politically motivated plunging gas prices just before the elections . . . which are now rising.
http://priuschat.com/rising-gas-prices-t27645.html

Funny how MarinJohn has remained silent since proven wrong. But of course, he thinks he is correct too.

 

Now that the dems are back in power the repubs are beginning to call for a dem solution for Iraq. Hahaha! It's juniors war and the dems are not required to present a plan. They are required to either give their commander in chief a thumbs up or down. Junior has been rescued by others his whole life and now looks to mommy Pelosi and co for his rescue. I believe the dems should focus on OUR nation and let the opposition cleanup their own mess. Let them stew in their own juices and pay the price again in the next, oh say, 10 election cycles. But bring oversight by making the war on the books and in the budget, hold hearings on possible fraud, and remove the corporate charters of corps proven to be defrauding the people of the US, and hang the CEO's of said corps. How to fund juniors war? High corporate taxes, and 95% tax rate on CEO's making say over $1million.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 5 2007, 12:40 PM) [snapback]371239[/snapback]</div>

This is a great example, of someone who is so far to the left, they've actually made it over to the extreme right... :lol:

It's over baby, Bush did what he did, you're grasping for straws in the end game... He's out of office, in what, 11 months, what's done is done bud...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jan 5 2007, 11:15 AM) [snapback]371249[/snapback]</div>

You're right, we --- all of us --- are grasping for straws.

And, yes, the damage has been done.

We've shattered an already unstable country, killed lots of people for reasons that kept changing from month to month, decimated our credibility in the international community, perhaps we've even gone so far as to have sullied the image of Christianity, by staging our very own little holy war...what's left to do but move on?

It also strikes me oddly that we've got such a great, destructive military...but, despite our humanitarian proclaimations, we have no force nearly as capable and well funded, ***that is only for the purpose of putting things back together again.***

Those pictures of soliders trying to help civilians while encumbered with all their weaponry (to the point of only having one hand free, since the other is holding a firearm) are particularly telling, I think.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jan 3 2007, 05:13 PM) [snapback]370446[/snapback]</div>

Sorry Pinto but that reply is a Cheap Shot. First we already are putting aside our personal desire for safety and comfort by going to the Middle East and kicking nice person on those tyrants suppressing the freedoms they deserve. In addition only 20-30K troops are expected to go over how do you get 200,000 familes? Besides what Mother or Father wouldn't want to have the utmost protection and help around they're children in a war zone? The only ones I can think of at the moment are the ones that don't have children over there and want us to fail in Iraq. I have no idea what you are trying to say in the last sentence.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jan 5 2007, 03:31 PM) [snapback]371453[/snapback]</div>

How can you shatter an already unstable country? You blame us for all the killing - yet you gave Saddam a free pass to slaughter hundreds of thousands in not millions over the past 3 decades (and us WMD's in the process without saying boo) - go figure that one out. Our own Holy War - if you refer to Democracy as our God - maybe you are correct - we have then in your opinion lost hundreds of thousands of American lives pursuing that God for ourselves and others.

Your last paragraph is all revealing.

We have a great military and it is because of that fact that you are free to transmit your thoughts to others - only because of their past sacrifices.

 

I thought Bush always said that he listened to his generals. I guess he listens...then replaces them if he dioes not like what they say. I am a uniter...not a divider. I am also the decider. In two years are long national nightmare will be over.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Jan 8 2007, 08:20 AM) [snapback]372401[/snapback]</div>

Presidents from Washington to Lincoln to FDR to JFK to Truman to Bush are all responsible for making the ultimate decisions - even if they are unpopular like dropping two nukes or the bay of pigs or removing habeus corpus or throwing Americans in internment camps or whatever. The elected representatives decide - the unelected can advise.

The President has ONE responsibilty - to protect the people --- ask Clinton what he did to protect us - maybe in his pursuit of uniting he abrogated his PRIMARY responsibility of protecting?? What is more important to you? My preference is obvious. Amazing how all the great war-time presidents of the last century were democrats.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 8 2007, 09:27 AM) [snapback]372431[/snapback]</div>

You forgot some of clintons record please -
1. not getting OBL x 3 or 4 being offered him on a silver plate
2. USS Cole
3. Embassy bombings
4. Somalia
5. failed middle east peace accords
6. cutting military and intelligence
7. building wall between fbi and cia - toricelli rule
8. waco

get to get back to work -
bye

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 8 2007, 09:27 AM) [snapback]372431[/snapback]</div>

quick break - forgot some things for clintons record

1. disbarment - thats a good one
2. impeachment - getting better
3. oval office hummer

bye again