Originally posted by Robtard
Sometimes you solid "Lefties" crack me up... The initial plan in the war was to remove troops as areas became stable and Iraqi forces became able to hold their own. So what's the problem with Britain withdrawing 1500 troops out of a regain deemed "stable"?
Originally posted by RobtardNot Iraq is stable across the board, the area where those certain troops are (Basra) is stable and has seen little action comparably speaking. And I agree with you that those troops should be redeployed instead of decommissioned, but that's Britain for you and in reality, they're playing a MUCH smaller role, 7,000 of their troops compared to how many of ours?
I'm not arguing that there aren't political reasons for this too as they're certainly always are; but the fact remains, the plan from day one, was to pull out and hand control over to the Iraqi forces as regions became stable.
Well said.
👆
.
Originally posted by AllianceIraq is not stable and this is a pullout. If this wasn't a pullout, troops would be redeployed to an area of Iraq that supposedly needs them and 20,000 more of my countrymen.
And I would venture that those Brits (who've been there close to 4 years) want to go home now that they've secured their area and handed over power to Iraqi's.
20,000 of "our countrymen" are fresh (or at least fresher) than the Brits and they are going to secure Bahgdad.
And as it's been said, "As baghdad goes, so goes Iraq."
The tide is slowly turning.
The new offensive is going to work, wait til end of summer and you'll see.
Agreed.
But by summers end I believe we'll see a much safer Baghdad, one that's on its way to being turned over to Iraqi's.
I believe that the troop surge is a good move, and that a full 6 month onslaught (from Mar.- end of Aug.) will show a significant drop in insurgent efficiency.
And don't let the polls fool you, it depends where you go.
In Northern California, where I am... it's alot more than 30% approving of Bush and the war and 10% approving of the surge.
Bush is still supported 6/10 and the surge is at about a 50/50 right now.
Originally posted by Tptmanno1
The entire military strategy is not working at all..
There either needs to be a major policy and ideal change. The straightforward attackin and clear military goal strategy is not working at all, this is not the correct type of warfare...
or we need to pull out all together.
Not the correct type of warfare, haha.
Insurgents are being trained by Iran and being given weapons from Iran (just like Iran did for Hezbollah in Lebanon.)
These aren't street thugs with guns and religious conviction alone, it's more.
We cannot "attack" the problem, so how do you develop a strategy to overcome the problem when it's changing due to the face of your enemy changing per say and being reinforced from outside forces (Iran.)
Originally posted by Robtard
First of all, I have never voted for a Republican, so that should give you a hint to my political leanings... (Spoiler:) Also, how grown-up of you to resort to an ad-hominem attack simply because I disagree with your views.
it isn't Republican
I didn't say you we're a Republican, I called you a "righty". No different than you saying "lefty" So if you really got a problem with it, examine your own actions first.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not Iraq is stable across the board, the area where those certain troops are (Basra) is stable and has seen little action comparably speaking. And I agree with you that those troops should be redeployed instead of decommissioned, but that's Britain for you and in reality, they're playing a MUCH smaller role, 7,000 of their troops compared to how many of ours?I'm not arguing that there aren't political reasons for this too as they're certainly always are; but the fact remains, the plan from day one, was to pull out and hand control over to the Iraqi forces as regions became stable.
Well the original plans have been useless for a while. Redeployment makes more sense, but its not the option being pursued. That to me says pullout. Especially because he appears to want to implement at least something resembling a timetable.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
And I would venture that those Brits (who've been there close to 4 years) want to go home now that they've secured their area and handed over power to Iraqi's.
Hah. My friends want to go home too. So what? There has been no "transition of power" the Iraqi government is still corrupt and can't get anything done.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
20,000 of "our countrymen" are fresh (or at least fresher) than the Brits and they are going to secure Bahgdad.
Tell that to people who have served 3 tours of duty or had theirs extended from 9 to 12 months, or even longer. "fresh" I think the apple I'm eating know more about the state of our troops than you. The Brits have had 7,000 troops there over four years. We've had 132,000. Of course these are down from the initial invasion numbers, but are troops are nowhere effing near fresh.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
And as it's been said, "As baghdad goes, so goes Iraq."
So. Its been said panda's wear panties. I don't really find useless rhetoric appropriate when were at war and tens of thousands of people are dying each month.
In Bagdad you find your father out ton the street sitting in a pool of his own blood with holes drilled in his legs. Or see your brother being pinned down beheaded with a knife that problem more suited lengthwise for peeling apples. You see your sister split in half form a carbomb still clinging to her schoolbooks. You see troops with blood running out of their ears with their faces melted off from IEDs.
Yes. Stupid comments like yours straight from Tony Snow's mouth are exactly what we need.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
The tide is slowly turning.
See above. Note the drastic increase in violence in the past year. If anything, the tide is turning against us.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
The new offensive is going to work, wait til end of summer and you'll see.
Just like we've heard that the current "strategy" has been working for the last four years?
And again, you know crap. Even our own command said it will take a year or so to know if it really is working. And this isn't the command that said this "new" "strategy" sucked.
Then my question, are we just going to stay in Iraq forever? Because we're going to leave sooner or later, and these tensions can just as easily erupt again with a few key leaders and mosques destroyed.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yes, because the military action on the ground is better or worse based on Bush, not the generals and commanders giving the orders for the missions. 😬
Wait...did Bush start this war or did the US armed services. Thats what I thought.
Bush is telling them to go and "fix" an impossible situation. "Mission accomplished" is just a sign of how effing little he knows about war.
Originally posted by Alliance
I didn't say you we're a Republican, I called you a "righty". No different than you saying "lefty" So if you really got a problem with it, examine your own actions first.Well the original plans have been useless for a while. Redeployment makes more sense, but its not the option being pursued. That to me says pullout. Especially because he appears to want to implement at least something resembling a timetable.
No problem with calling me a "righty" or even a Republican for that matter; the "problem" was your jab at my intelligence. If you didn't mean anything, than no worries mate.
Redeployment does make more sense, but like I said, it's Britain not America and it's only 1500-2000 troops (so far). I personally think a timetable is a good idea, it will let the Iraqis know that they need to plan ahead and be ready to take control; which is the ultimate plan. It's that what everyone wants anyhow? America out of Iraq and an Iraq that is democratically self sufficient?
I think Iran is a bit of a red herring. Iran would be such an unpopular move that it would cause a ridiculous amount of political turmoil. Iran is a big problem. It's a bigger problem for the US than Iraq ever was. So right now the political forces in this country are going to worry the public over another war while they attempt to clean up the mess this one has become.
As for anyone who thinks that this troop surge of 20 thousand "new" soldiers is going to accomplish anything, 130,000 existing troops + 20,000 new troops isn't much of a tide-turning surge. It's just a band-aid on an open wound that will continue to bleed. Nothing will change by summer's end...much less year's end. Furthermore, I think it's the opinion of an irresponsible citizen to claim that additional troops will somehow remove the fault from the Bush administration's past actions. Lies were told to the public and congress to get this war off the ground; intelligence was made up and plastered all over the front of the news papers; personal agendas were served by entering this war, while the public interest took a back seat to those agendas.
So, this is not a case where the ends justify the means. We were lied to; congress was lied to; intelligence reports were covered up; personal agendas were the real goal; big buisness was the real goal, and it was all under the guise of national safety and the war on terror. This administration pulling their ass out of the fire at the last minute doesn't mean the fire's been put out.