President Bush: We're Sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq.

Refefer

Well, we're sending more troops to Iraq, according to President Bush, to the tune of 20,000.

There was no mention of any time tables or anything.

I personally believed that we went in with two few, ever since the beginning... but, as my father always says, there's no point in immunizing a patient who's already sick.

Think it will work?

POLKOHOLIC

no, it wont.

fireshoes

This is a politics-free zone. Move along.

disneyjoe7

Maybe if they have the power to take out who's causing trouble first.

Bill Ayotte

I'll reserve comment on this one.

markmarc

One Winston Churchill said the following after 5 years of British assistance in Iraq:
"At present we are paying 8 millions (British pounds) a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano."

xsmi

markmarc wrote:

One Winston Churchill said the following after 5 years of British assistance in Iraq:
"At present we are paying 8 millions (British pounds) a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano."

What?????? Winston Churchill?????? Iraq???????

markmarc

Yep, do a little historical research on British efforts in the Middle East during the 20th century.

Systems

markmarc wrote:

we are paying 8 millions (British pounds) a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano."

humm,his words are just as fitting today.

aaharvel

General Abizad and co., the generals on the ground that disagree with Bush, the man simply replaces them. Cherrypicking intelligence with no thought of rationality whatsoever. "I'll listen to the generals on the ground" my ****.

The man is **** clueless, as well as the people who still support his policies. Even the majority of soldiers overseas want to come home according to the new Military Times Poll.

And that's not unamerican to say this. Standing to up to incompetence for the good of the country is what being an American is all about.

This guy is a worse President than Nixon or Carter.

Demiurge

markmarc wrote:

Yep, do a little historical research on British efforts in the Middle East during the 20th century.

Muslim fundamentalist terrorist sycophants in the Middle East also weren't enriching uranium and developing nukes for the pseudo-sacrosanct worldwide rule of their religion.

The idea of Democracy in the Middle East may very well be hopeless. I don't really plan on waiting for one of those backwards countries to launch one in the United States, and it is certainly possible.

Bill Ayotte

I will say this. The man that replaced Gen. Abizad wrote the manual for counter-insurgency. Having served under him once already during the actual invasion, I have no doubt that the kid gloves are coming off. If he asks for 20k soldiers, he plans to actually use them, not tie their hands with rules of engagement. There was a reason the 101st was so successful after the "war" ended in the Mosul area. Now he is in a position to make that change again, and not have a new commander come in and screw it up.

Early B.

America is in over its head in Iraq. It's a lost cause, and sending in more troops exacerbates the problem.

Bush should order more body bags for our troops, as well.

PolkWannabie

... when we leave we can order body bags for half the country there ...

Then we can start ordering them here ...

Demiurge

PolkWannabie wrote:

... when we leave we can order body bags for half the country there ...

Then we can start ordering them here ...

Right-o!

aaharvel

thinking logically and simple fearmongering. apples to oranges. :rolleyes:

Bill Ayotte

I'll leave this alone before I get pissed

Demiurge

Try thinking logically sometime then, AH.

aaharvel

same here. I hope General Fallon's approach works. I just did some reading up on him. Regardless of differing opinions, our goal should be one and the same. Bringing the troops home safe.

Later.

shack

Bill Ayotte wrote:

I will say this. The man that replaced Gen. Abizad wrote the manual for counter-insurgency. Having served under him once already during the actual invasion, I have no doubt that the kid gloves are coming off. If he asks for 20k soldiers, he plans to actually use them, not tie their hands with rules of engagement. There was a reason the 101st was so successful after the "war" ended in the Mosul area. Now he is in a position to make that change again, and not have a new commander come in and screw it up.

I hope this is the case. The soldiers I have talked to that have returned from Iraq feel they could get the job done...if allowed to do what they were trained to do. We tried to have a "politically correct" occupation without getting the original job done so we wouldn't piss off any of the religious leaders or other countries. To hell with pissing any other country off. Someone I that was there and whom I respect their opinion told me the soultion would be to put the Kurds in charge and give them whatever backing they need. He said the Kurd northern territories are already back to close to normal The Kurds with the right support could kick butt and we could come home. But of course we would piss the shiites and sunnis off.

Demiurge

shack wrote:

I hope this is the case. The soldiers I have talked to that have returned from Iraq feel they could get the job done...if allowed to do what they were trained to do. We tried to have a "politically correct" occupation without getting the original job done so we wouldn't piss off any of the religious leaders or other countries. To hell with pissing any other country off. Someone I that was there and whom I respect their opinion told me the soultion would be to put the Kurds in charge and give them whatever backing they need. He said the Kurd northern territories are already back to close to normal The Kurds with the right support could kick butt and we could come home. But of course we would piss the shiites and sunnis off.

Just to add on to this -- I found this part of the speech interesting:

"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. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does."

That definitely needs to stop.

heiney9

Let's just say I watched Mythbusters instead of the President. I can catch the news clips in the A.M. I have an aversion to wasting my time listening to unintelligent people.

To borrow from our new member Bill Ayotte

"You can't fix stupid" dubbya can't be fixed.

Bill Ayotte

shack wrote:

I hope this is the case. The soldiers I have talked to that have returned from Iraq feel they could get the job done...if allowed to do what they were trained to do. We tried to have a "politically correct" occupation without getting the original job done so we wouldn't piss off any of the religious leaders or other countries. To hell with pissing any other country off. Someone I that was there and whom I respect their opinion told me the soultion would be to put the Kurds in charge and give them whatever backing they need. He said the Kurd northern territories are already back to close to normal The Kurds with the right support could kick butt and we could come home. But of course we would piss the shiites and sunnis off.

I worked with the kurds the first time I was there, and they are good folk. I think that the leaders of the religious sects need to come together to show the people that it can be done. The kurds were so oppressed for so long, I would be worried about retaliation against the others. I think there will be a drastic change soon, for better or for worse remains to be seen.

tonyb

aaharvel wrote:

thinking logically and simple fearmongering. apples to oranges. :rolleyes:

Andy my man,someday you will grow up and face the harsh reality's
of the world.

aaharvel

yeah. someday.

markmarc

The Kurd's also had several years of US protection in the north. They were able to develop a strong sense of gov't.

I've talked to several Iraq vets, the majority opinion I got was that the take/clear/ move was as dumbass as it could be. But even more important was the average troops needed was an extra 100K.

The only winner in this invasion was Iran, pure and simple. Spending very little, they were able to topple their biggest enemy, take control and radicalize their shiite neighbors. Plus, make the USA look like stooges.

ledhed

*I'm not getting political, I will not state my party affiliation here. Any opinions go for both parties*

20K troops would be less than 1/3 of the troops we need in order to secure western democracy as we know it. *Glances in direction of North Korea* Iraq has nothing and possibly never had anything, we have spent trillions of dollars guaranteeing that. North Korea is testing nukes. Now, where should we be?

There will always be civil unrest in the middle east. Two tribes that have been at odds with each other for centuries are not changed by diplomacy. We are acting as mediators which only gets Americans killed. Who are we freeing now? What oppressive force is being dealt with? I am not a proponent of just pulling out - you don't turn around on something you started. But 20K more troops? To do what? I guess my question is what is the goal for Iraq?

I have been out of the loop since last June - I got burned out on the news due to reasons which is not media's fault (a pointless, non-poignant story). So, can someone tell me the U.S's plan? Our exit strategy or our stopping point? I would really like to know so I can be a more informed citizen.

EDIT: As a side note, I fear a draft more than anything. Not for me but for everyone of my friends and all the effed up people other drafts have created. America is in no place for a war, mentally or monetarily.

tonyb

Let me try.....
Goal in Iraq....establish a democratic goverment
exit strategy...when the above happens
Stopping point...when the above happens
20K more troops....see first responce
Anything else? Simple huh?;)

TroyD

You know, I'm just going to throw this out there. How in the hell would WE know what we really need in Iraq? 20K? 50K? Hell, in Vietnam we had well over half a million and that didn't seem to do it either. IMO, that's a PR move. What is called for is a strategy shift. Our previous policy has actually been a liberal wet dream. Limited involvement. Basically just hang on until the Iraqis stand up. Well, the Iraqis haven't stood up as much or as well as we would like. So we have to hold thier hands a little more which is what these folks will end up doing. Again, we aren't the experts here.

General Abizad and co., the generals on the ground that disagree with Bush, the man simply replaces them. Cherrypicking intelligence with no thought of rationality whatsoever. "I'll listen to the generals on the ground" my ****.

Uh, if I'm not mistaken, Abizaid has been the one in command over there for awhile now. So, would it not follow that if he isn't getting the job done, he should go? Again, you are making assumptions based on soundbytes. Moreover, he's been in the position for quite awhile and commanders at that level usually only serve for limited amounts of time....so that isn't all that unusual.

Now as to the point that there will always be civil unrest in the middle east. Well, as long as Islamic extremism is allowed to flourish, I'd agree. However, there are a number of Gulf States that are very moderate and very stable. Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait. Democratic? Not really but having spent a good deal of time there...they are what we should be shooting for.

As far as how best to deal with the militant extremists? Hell, kill 'em. That's all they know and understand. How best to accomplish the mission? Shoot, I'm not an expert so I'm not pompous enough to sit here and pretend that I have the answers. Nobody does. What I DO know is that abandoning Iraq now is a recipe for disaster on a lot of levels.

Now, as to NK. You know, IMHO, they really aren't a concern as long as China continues to expand it's economy. Why? Because China has long been NK's protectorate. Now, China has pretty much decided that they need our money more than they need NK. Not that they will abandon NK, but they won't support thier endeavors as they would have 20-30 years ago. Let's just say NK does develop an operational nuke, ok, they could damage South Korea or perhaps Japan mainland. However, they are well aware that once they shoot thier wad, they will, more than likely, be a smouldering crater.

IMHO, rather than worrying about NK, we need to be concerned about Iran going nuke as well as India/Pakistan. Iran, IMO, the solution is to let Israel go ahead and clean house.

BDT

tonyb

Politics get in the way of progress,no doubt.Here is something sent to me just today
>
>
>
>
> WOW . ?? is this laying it on the line or what?
> The lady who wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and
>Associates in Atlanta. She's been in business since 1980 doing interior
>design and home planning. She recently wrote a letter to a family member
>serving in Iraq....... Read it!
> "Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not
>started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11,
>2001?
> Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally
>murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from our
>nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?
> Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible,
>burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
> And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated"
>when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?
> Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
> I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents
>for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
> I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start
>caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in
>Saudi Arabia
> I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for
>hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling
>slashed throat.
> I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out
>and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in
>mosques.
> I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search
>of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide
>bombs.
> I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First
>Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of
>the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
> In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up
>an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
> When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have
>been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured
>that I don't care.
> When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told
>not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank
>that I don't care.
> When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat,
>and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining
>that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in
>your heart of hearts that I don't care.
> And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran"
>and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it - -
>I don't care ! ! ! ! !
> If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail
>friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this
>ridiculous behavior!? If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete
>button.
> Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more
>atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country.
> I am not deleting this, I am sending it on, but only after
> I add:
> --"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a
>difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem."
> -- Ronald Reagan
> I have another quote that I would like to add AND...I hope you forward
>this such as I have.
> "If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will be a
>nation gone under."
> also by... Ronald Reagan
>
>
>
>
>--'nuff said....I'm out

---

>
>
>

>
>

---

>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>

---

>
>
>
>
>

---

>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________

mrbigbluelight

markmarc wrote:

Yep, do a little historical research on British efforts in the Middle East during the 20th century.

It's pretty far back in the mental stack, so I can't exactly recall the details of the particular British disaster, but they had an entire brigade(regiment/division) wiped out during a retreat from Baghdad (?). Something like 20,000 men killed.

Only one soldier survived, and he was known as "The Last Soldier".

Might be interesting to 'google' that.