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

Demiurge

jakelm wrote:

Who are we in "bad" standings with? Or maybe I miss understood what your saying.

Good question, but I have a better one....

More importantly "who cares?"

I never knew it was the goal of Americans to be popular among other countries. I suppose that's why our border is overrun with people trying to get in...This place sucks so bad people can't wait to get here.

jdhdiggs wrote:

Ok, next follow up, what should have been done?

...as soon as I hear a viable alternative I will stand up and applaud just for hearing one stated.

tonyb

jdhdiggs wrote:

Ok, next follow up, what should have been done?

As you said...lots of cry baby's,no one can offer up an alternative,another plan.Easy sitting in the cheap seats and be critical.

jdhdiggs

Actually, I don't know where you stand, that's why I asked...

Personally, I think Iran, Iraq, and Syria all needed to be sorted out. The reason Iraq was the one hit (in my mind) wasn't WMD or oil, but rather that because of they way the country was run and controlled, it had the least liklyhood of stopping the support of terrorism (whatever its form).

Iran, on the otherhand, has a strong moderate force pushing the Mullah's power back and a somewhat democratic practice of government. Many of the younger people in Iran want to be Westernized and are actively wroking towards that end. In another 10 years, they will start turning into a Kuwait or UAE as long as the extremists don't do anything too extreme (which is seeming more likely each and everyday) and the country becomes an obsidian parking lot courtesy of the US and Isreal.

Syria is just a skidmark wanna be of a nation. Get Iran and Iraq turned around, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi will make sure Syria stays in line.

To me, Bush's mistake was not going in hard enough (not enough boots, too many restrictions), not leaving the lower level Iraqi military units intact, and generally being too PC about it.

I think W did the right move, he just did it incorrectly.

jakelm

We can't turn our backs to evil...period!! I rather do something, wether its accross the street or accross the seas, and even though its not done 100% correct, than to sit back, turn our heads and do nothing at all.

Jake

beardog03

I think we should drop hugs sacks of crack over there and fly in a bunch of hookers, and let them kill each other..

did I say that outloud ?!!



no really !

tommyboy

jakelm wrote:

We can't turn our backs to evil...period!! I rather do something, wether its accross the street or accross the seas, and even though its not done 100% correct, than to sit back, turn our heads and do nothing at all.

Jake

Yeah I agree with you. But let me ask you this... What should we do about Iran, somolia, North Korea, Venezuala among others? Their leaders are evil... and right now we are "turning are backs" on them. Please don't tell me we invaded Iraq because Hussein is evil(even though he is). Because if that is true, then we should attack all the other countries listed above.

last post. Have fun guys
tommyboy

jdhdiggs

tommyboy wrote:

Yeah I agree with you. But let me ask you this... What should we do about Iran, somolia, North Korea, Venezuala among others? Their leaders are evil... and right now we are "turning are backs" on them. Please don't tell me we invaded Iraq because Hussein is evil(even though he is). Because if that is true, then we should attack all the other countries listed above.

Iran: See post above
Somolia: We are doing something, providing air and logistical support to the Ethyopian (sp) and Somali army who have almost exterminated the last remnants of the Jihadists.
NK: China's problem, if they start sabre rattling too much, China squishes them. Not our deal.
Ven: The guys a moron, not evil.
You left off Sudan as well....

Also, the US needs to show how efficient the UN is at making these things better... NOT....

Sadam was the only one with a firm control of his country and the money and resources to hit the US and US interests with no recourse from his internal population.

unc2701

beardog03 wrote:

I think we should drop hugs sacks of crack over there and fly in a bunch of hookers, and let them kill each other..

did I say that outloud ?!!
no really !

Huh... That's actually my solution to the Iran problem, and I am being serious. Attacking Iran would be a mistake 100 times worse than Iraq... as jdhdiggs mentions they've got a sorta democratic government and there's a movement against the Islamic extremists there. If we attack them I can promise you that they'll unify behind the extremists. They've a nationalistic streak, that'll come out hard if we attack.

My solution? GET THEM DRUNK... GET THEM LAID. Give out student visas to as many Iranian college students as you can keep track of. Make it prestigious and competitive- you gotta be smart to get one of these visas. Four years of beer and coeds and frat parties and western civilization and they're gonna take some of that home with them. These educated kids are going to be the ones running the country in a few years, and those college ties (plus american beer & titties) are going to push them away from the extremists.

jdhdiggs

Actually, UNC, that's not too far away from the truth as it is today. I went to school with some Iranian kids. The change in 4 years was dramatic.

We should start broadcasting HBO, ESPN, and Skinimax in the country as well. Get them nice and westernized... Or at least exposed to something beyond the extremist rhetoric.

jakelm

jdhdiggs wrote:

We should start broadcasting HBO, ESPN, and Skinimax in the country as well. Get them nice and westernized... Or at least exposed to something beyond the extremist rhetoric.

And send them a new Polk Audio Home Entertainment Center.

markmarc

Before, or after we invaded?

jakelm

During the invasion..Thats how we will distract them...while they are in awe about the new Polk line up.

F1nut

To me, Bush's mistake was not going in hard enough (not enough boots, too many restrictions), not leaving the lower level Iraqi military units intact, and generally being too PC about it.

Agreed

George Grand

"Cakewalk"
"Six months tops"
"The war will be paid for by Iraqi oil revenue"

hearingimpared

TroyD wrote:

IMO, the solution is to let Israel go ahead and clean house.

BDT

This says it all and I wish to God that Israel will finally tell the West and us to eeffff off and do their thing.

George Grand

Uh, telling everybody to screw off has been their policy for some time.

I just heard that we plan on adding 92,000 troops to our Army and Marine Corps over the next 5 years at a cost of $7 billion. Well, if somebody had thought of that right after 9/11, those troops would be fully trained and part of the military right now. Gen. Shinseki "suggested" that 300,000 troops would be required to stabilize Iraq after we invaded. It was "suggested" that he retire. Considering what we have spent already, and plan to spend in the future, $7 billion was a steal. Where were the deep thinkers back then?

I hear the prez constantly give kudos (well deserved) to the YOUNG people in our military who unselfishly serve. I'd like to give thanks to the ones between the ages of 30 and 60 (largely guardsmen and reservists) who do the same.

Frank Z

tonyb wrote:

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!

A slight correction here folks. Mrs. Foster did not write this, a man named Doug Patton did.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/foster.asp

Here's a link to the orinal article...
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/dpatton/2005/dp_0606p.shtml

markmarc

We should have followed the Powell Doctrine (300K boots) which includes taking and holding a position. Military history proves this out time and time again that once you win control you need to leave troops behind to stabilize and reshape. This would have allowed our troops the opportunity to destroy ammo dumps instead of putting a a new lock on the gate and leaving it unattended. Instead we used the Rumsfeld Doctrine of attack, win, move on.

Second, called on Iraqi army units to come forward. Immediately pay them $100, and assign them to guard various places, i.e. refineries, etc.

Third, hire Baathist to continue to run the gov't departments with bonuses for quality operations. Instead, we booted out anybody with ability/knowledge, and had to start all over.

Fourth, follow the Mercy Corps method for rebuilding. Hire locals and pay at the end of each day they work. There was plenty of rubble to clean up, sewer lines to dig, food to transport. our most successful battalions are one that have been in charge of rebuilding. many of their commanders were given cash to pay workers. Funny how well that worked.

Fifth, use the Green Beret much sooner in working with the rural tribes to assert their "control" over lands. Instead, due to inaction we left them to overrun by al-Qaida foot soldiers.

Just a start.

tonyb

Frank Z wrote:

A slight correction here folks. Mrs. Foster did not write this, a man named Doug Patton did.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/foster.asp

Here's a link to the orinal article...
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/dpatton/2005/dp_0606p.shtml

Thanks bro.Was sent to me by a 3 rd party but thought it was worthy to throw up here.

ben62670

beardog03 wrote:

I think we should drop hugs sacks of crack over there and fly in a bunch of hookers, and let them kill each other..

did I say that outloud ?!!



no really !

Can I fly the plane?

PolkWannabie

I highly doubt they need any MORE ...

hearingimpared

George Grand wrote:

Uh, telling everybody to screw off has been their policy for some time.

I know this has been their policy GG, I wish they would just do it NOW before the perception of WHO the good guys and bad guys are really gets convoluted. We are, in some of our own countrymen's, eyes the bad guys and when they speak up they undermine by building up the bad guys egos.

George Grand wrote:

I hear the prez constantly give kudos (well deserved) to the YOUNG people in our military who unselfishly serve. I'd like to give thanks to the ones between the ages of 30 and 60 (largely guardsmen and reservists) who do the same.

Hear, hear!

tonyb

markmarc wrote:

We should have followed the Powell Doctrine (300K boots) which includes taking and holding a position. Military history proves this out time and time again that once you win control you need to leave troops behind to stabilize and reshape. This would have allowed our troops the opportunity to destroy ammo dumps instead of putting a a new lock on the gate and leaving it unattended. Instead we used the Rumsfeld Doctrine of attack, win, move on.

Second, called on Iraqi army units to come forward. Immediately pay them $100, and assign them to guard various places, i.e. refineries, etc.

Third, hire Baathist to continue to run the gov't departments with bonuses for quality operations. Instead, we booted out anybody with ability/knowledge, and had to start all over.

Fourth, follow the Mercy Corps method for rebuilding. Hire locals and pay at the end of each day they work. There was plenty of rubble to clean up, sewer lines to dig, food to transport. our most successful battalions are one that have been in charge of rebuilding. many of their commanders were given cash to pay workers. Funny how well that worked.

Fifth, use the Green Beret much sooner in working with the rural tribes to assert their "control" over lands. Instead, due to inaction we left them to overrun by al-Qaida foot soldiers.

Just a start.

Huh??!!Wasn't the Baathist Sadams party??Loyal to who??And the Iraqi army was loyal to who?? Rural tribes??? Africa maybe,Iraq...shiite,sunni,kurds.Your not related to Nancy Pelosi are you??:p

mrbigbluelight

Politics is a major key in winning any war.

We will win the war against Iran via politics.

We are not fighting a military war against Iran at this point and hopefully we won't in the future.
By using restraint, and politics, we are allowing the moderate Iranians to gain power in their own country. It appears that this moderate element is rejecting the extremist faction that now rules Iran. If left to their own devices, this moderate element will become the majority and everyone, including the US, will benefit.

Could the same approach have worked in Iraq ? No, unfortunately not. It is a shame that the United States helped create such a powerful tyrant that this moderate, let time provide a solution, approach would not have worked. Opponents to Saddam's regime were, as we are all aware now, ruthlessly and systematically killed.
And why did the United States help create Saddam Hussein ? As a counter to the extemists in Iran at the time, to be sure. But a key element to our unwavering support for this tyrant was: Oil.

Oil from the 3d largest oil reserve in the world.

It is a shame that George Bush got poor advice from his military advisors at the beginning of the Iraq war. As George Bush pointed out in his political address the other night, these military advisors did not correctly inform him that more troops would be needed initially to stabalize a chaotic post-war Iraq.

It is a shame that George Bush didn't have such advice readily available to him from his military advisors in the beginning.
If only he had had such advice, than we would not, more than likely, be in the military situation we are now in Iraq (ie, in the middle of a civil war).

Yes, if only he had had such advice from the beginning, how different things would probably be in Iraq.
Luckily, George Bush was willing to stay the course which meant waiting until after the mid-term elections to accept the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld in order to begin raising troop levels.

That took great political courage on his part; if only his great statesmanship hadn't been hampered by such poor military advice from his military advisors, how different things would be now.

George Grand

Gen. Shinseki recommended 300,000 troops. That was at the beginning. He was forced into retirement, by people who had better or different ideas.

"Cakewalk"
"Six months, tops"
"The war will be paid for by Iraqi oil revenue"

Demiurge

300,000 is not what was needed. What was needed is the red tape unwrapped from the wrists of the men and women already there. Giving a scattered, and non-uniformed resistance more targets is ridiculous under those particular guidelines. You know, the one where a patrols goes up and down a street in a Humvee waiting to get shot at before they're allowed to engage, or get a nice roadside bomb set-up for them on a return trip. 300,000 sounds great now, when you've lifted all of the political restrictions from the troops. Was he advocating that?

All the terrorists in Iraq were doing was picking off coalition troops and bystanders when they could. There was/is no real battle plan on their part other than to lay and wait for opportunity.

BTW -- Iraqi oil revenues are at record levels as of today. It was never said that the war would be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues. It was said that reconstruction of Iraq would be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues, but you know...details and all that.

George Grand

I realize you have much more expertise in these matters than I ever could, and eternally more than say Gen. Shinseki or Colin Powell.

It wasn't the military advisors that got us where we are today. It was the civilian experts such as yourself. Where are guys like Wolfie and Keep the "Faith" now anyway?

We're trying to create a democracy over there. Well, this democratic nation recently spoke up, and clearly made its feelings known. Republicans and democrats alike voiced their displeasure. Recent polls (after the speech) indicate that 70% of the American people feel adding more troops would be unproductive. 26% feel it would be productive. 45% of Republicans polled felt counterproductive, and 90% Dems felt counterproductive.

Details and all that.

As much as I enjoy this forum, one has to admit that it really isn't a representative slice of average America here (at least the members that participate in these types of discussion, which we're really not supposed to have if memory serves). A quick look at the responses would show that. We're not supposed to discuss politics, and for good reason. Why yell at the newbies who flaunt the FM rules, if long-term members can't follow established rules? Me? I just wanted to try and balance out the clearly one-sided discussion, and would be happy to never post my feelings again, if others would do the same. Especially in light of how people with views that oppose the norm HERE, are called crack smokers and stuff like that.

markmarc

TonyB:
For years now, all the things I said have pounded upon by military experts. After WWII, US Military realized that many members of the **** party only belonged for one reason, a job. Same thing with the Baathist's.

By not having the Iraqi military stay together we put 100K+ of men out of work, with access to weaponry. What happened? Many ended up in the insurgency with knowledge on tatics, etc.

Tribal elders are key outside of Baghdad. The Green Berets in the past year have been able to get some tribes exert their influence, thus forcing Al-Quaida elements out. Police and elected officials are now able to have a law abiding community. (see MSNBC for an extensive article on this in late Nov. or early Dec.).

And as for the Nancy Pelosi statement/insult, if you check back on these boards you will find my overall support of John McCain, although on Iraq I disagree with him.

Demiurge

I may not have the expertise, but I still have a stake in what you guys do here and over there just being an American. I really think we're mostly above patronizing one another on this subject by way of career. I don't interject myself into discussions where I am not informed. You may not like my opinion, but it's more than calling someone stupid.

Either way, as much as we think we know one another, there's a lot of folks here who haven't spoke of their past or even their present situations. This is just an audio forum. If we're going to turn this discussion into one where only people actively involved in the military are allowed to have an informed opinion, just let me know. Then the 3 of you who have made yourselves known can argue about this while the rest of us dolts sit on the bench chewing a warm towel.

Much respect for you and your service, and any other past or active U.S. Military Polkies. I still disagree with you on this, and that's fine from where I'm sitting.

For the rest of your post. Were you polled? If so, what questions were asked? We addressed this earlier when someone claimed the troops don't believe in what they're doing based on the poll that stated they wanted to come home. Like I asked earlier, who doesn't want to be home with their wives and children?

A poll is only as good as the clarity of the question asked. You can go ahead and deduce whatever you want to with your own biases when a question is murky in it's clarity. If the President is running the war in Iraq based on polls he needs to stop. WWI and WWII weren't very popular either. When is war ever going to be popular?

The American people aren't getting the good in Iraq from the media -- only the bad. What is that going to do to the national mood on the subject? I got childhood friends over there, and soldier friends we've made on other forums by doing mass donations of stuff from home. I don't hear the troops with the same pessimism that the American people seem to have based on your polls, and they're the ones over there risking their lives over it. I'm sure we'll hear from someone claiming the exact opposite experience. I'm still going to stand by my personal experiences -- you're free to not believe it. I've got to imagine that if you're on a military base yourself that your view of this subject certainly isn't the norm.

I would say this forum is a good representation of America. You've got 10-20 people who pay attention to what's going on in the world, and the rest more content with only the goings on in their own lives. Anything political they hear is merely in passing from the wife of a friend at Bennigan's over a Yuengling and hot wings. The uninformed probably outweigh the informed in the country by a 10:1 margin.

So I ask, what the hell does the general uninformed public know what 20,000 more troops actually means?

Demiurge

I'm also still waiting for the people opposed to the war Iraq and the overall plan in the Middle East and the War on Terror to give us the alternative. Keep in mind that pulling everyone back home and sitting on our hands isn't an alternative. It's merely life before September 11th, 2001. That didn't work out so well.