Support the troops but not the war? Sheer hypocrisy

[Hutz]

I read this in Maclean's a few months ago. Got under my skin how support for soldiers is being trivialized by people like him.

http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?content=20070723_107246_107246&id=5


So once again: what does it mean to support the troops?

ANDREW POTTER | July 23, 2007 |

I don't know any drivers who hate getting parking tickets but who nevertheless support the meter maid. I have friends who are vegetarians, but I've never heard one of them declare their support for the butcher. And as nobody enjoys paying taxes, I doubt there is a single Canadian willing to put a "support the taxman" sticker on the back of their car. So what are we to make, then, of the fact that even those most viscerally opposed to the war in Afghanistan feel obliged to declare their undiluted support for the troops?

The question came to a head a few weeks ago, after Toronto's city council voted to remove the "Support the Troops" decals from the city's fire trucks and ambulances. Proving once again that nothing unites the country like hatred for Toronto, the decision was met with catcalls and derision a mare usque ad mare. It didn't help that the decision was taken the same week that three more Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan, but it gave Mayor David Miller a handy excuse to lead a new vote that reversed the original decision.

Because of course Toronto supports the troops. The war in Afghanistan, maybe not so much, but everyone supports the troops. Or do they? Does it make any sense to support the troops and not the mission itself?

It is easy to support the troops if you support the mission. Psychology 101 teaches that if you desire an end, you must also will the means to achieving that end. You want a beer, and the beer is in the fridge. You must therefore be willing to walk over to the fridge to get the beer; if not, you don't really desire a beer -- or at least not as much as you do sitting on the couch. As with getting drunk so with military campaigns: you desire the success of NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. The success of ISAF requires, unfortunately, killing a large number of Taliban insurgents. Hence, you must support the troops in their fight against the Taliban.

But it isn't as clear how one is to support the troops without also supporting the mission. What would you support them in -- not dying? What if not dying requires killing -- do we support them in that? If so, how is that distinct from supporting the mission itself?

So let us ask once again: what does it mean to support the troops?

One of the most common complaints about George W. Bush's handling of the war on terror is the apparent discrepancy between the threat he claims his country faces and what he has actually asked of Americans. America is supposedly locked in an existential war with a global enemy, but aside from air travel having become more of a hassle, it is business as usual in the U.S. of A. Bush has asked for no sacrifice; there is no rationing, no issuing of war bonds, and certainly no draft. In a remark for which he has been deservedly criticized, the President asked nothing more of the American people than that they keep shopping.

It isn't any different here. The goal of the mission in Afghanistan is to support the Afghan government in expanding its authority to the rest of the country. Part of that involves the nice-sounding "reconstruction," but as Canadian soldiers have learned over the past four years, it also involves killing and, sadly and far too frequently, being killed.

In the most recent issue of Policy Options, the military historian Desmond Morton takes stock of the Afghanistan mission, evaluating the conditions for success and the consequences of failure. One of the problems, he claims, is that Canadians are not really behind the mission. Sensing that we have not set our minds on success, the government has not committed anything close to the money, troops, and matériel that would be required if we were actually trying to win the war. Instead, we are treating it as a "half-hearted but dutiful involvement in a disaster."

But Canada is at war, and in war, if you aren't fighting to win then you are fighting to lose. If we are just waiting until we can quietly withdraw in 2009, we are not doing anyone any favours: not the Afghan people, who will be left to a waiting Taliban, and not the Canadian taxpayers, who will spend the next two years funding a certain failure. As for the troops, we can expect another three or four dozen to die and hundreds of others to be wounded before we bring them all home for good, in a losing cause.

There are only two intellectually and morally honest ways of supporting the troops. One is to put the full economic and political power of the state behind the war effort in order to achieve victory as quickly and with as few casualties as possible. The other is to demand that the government bring them home, now.

Every country relies on petty hypocrisies in its political life, to minimize division and enable competing factions to at least try to work together. The "support the troops" movement is one of those: the anti-war faction pretends to support the troops, and those who support the mission pretend to believe it. Given the half measures that result, it isn't clear that our soldiers should appreciate the gesture.

[Hutz]

This should prob be in the politics section. Oops.

[vinny_121_ND]

Most anti war protestors I have spoke to really have no idea what goes on in afghanistan. They seem to have a mind of a 12 year old. If you don't try, how do you know you won't succeed?

[sidman69]

the Canadian media's coverage has been dispicable, they love to hear bad news from A-Stan.

[deagle]

its is a complex topic. as for myself, i do support the war on terror (i still do question why we are in iraq a bit, but don't question why we are in a-stan, which i think our priorities should be focused on, though we can't leave iraq b/c its still in shambles now ... see how complex that was ? lol).

one thing remains is that i do support our troops, but they can't be used as cannon fodder for political agendas. i'm NOT differentiating b/w those in a-stan and those in iraq or elsewhere of course, but fully support ALL uniforms throughout the armed services. Alot of my peers and colleagues say i'm a war-mongerer, but i take offense to that. just b/c i support the troops doesn't mean i support war, i just realize that it is a part of life and the ever-struggle to preserve freedoms. the day the mission is over or shifts to something not worth fighting for, is when i won't support troop deployment.

i just told a co-worker that just b/c i support police doesn't mean i support crime, but they were ignorant and just walked off (stubborn fool).

[Hutz]

I just love it when people choose to not support those that are sent in harm's way by the very people they voted in power.

[LMAV]

(i still do question why we are in iraq a bit, but don't question why we are in a-stan, which i think our priorities should be focused on, though we can't leave iraq b/c its still in shambles now ... see how complex that was ? lol).
How do you support one and not the other? AQ is in both countries and its fighting to gain power in both.

[ginge51]

How do you support one and not the other? AQ is in both countries and its fighting to gain power in both.
Yes but AQ would`nt be in Iraq if the Sadame regime was ousted in the 1st place that`s a fact.
AQ was`nt even in iraq when Sadame was in power.

[LMAV]

Yes but AQ would`nt be in Iraq if the Sadame regime was ousted in the 1st place that`s a fact.
AQ was`nt even in iraq when Sadame was in power.

Ok, first of all what does that have to do with now? You are saying AQ is in Iraq, but because they supposedly weren't there before, we cant fight them there now that there is instability? So I ask again, why do you think we should fight AQ in Afghanistan but not Iraq?

Secondly, Iraq was in Florida but not Iraq. Yeah, right. Zarqawi was definitely in Iraq to get his leg amputated and he just happens to become the leader of AQ in Iraq? They may not have been working with Saddam, but they were there.

[Rictor]

Ok, first of all what does that have to do with now? You are saying AQ is in Iraq, but because they supposedly weren't there before, we cant fight them there now that there is instability? So I ask again, why do you think we should fight AQ in Afghanistan but not Iraq?

Secondly, Iraq was in Florida but not Iraq. Yeah, right....

The point is that you can't fight them - not successfully anyway. Staying there creates more instability, not less. If the US military could effectively fight al Qaeda in Iraq, it wouldn't have turned to Sunni militants to do the job.

As for supporting the troops, I have one simple question. How is it that the person who wants to put them in harms ways is the one that "supports the troops", and the one which wants to get them out of harm's way is unpatriotic?

[Yeoman]

macleans is one of the few places that has DAMN good articles.
like the one they did on my buddy Barney that lost part of his foot. very moving article.
I still say the majority of the sheeple are just that; uneducated about what is happening. you know how many times I'm asked about the ghan every time I go home? there needs to be a major change in the way this war is shown.

[budgie]

There are only two intellectually and morally honest ways of supporting the troops. One is to put the full economic and political power of the state behind the war effort in order to achieve victory as quickly and with as few casualties as possible. The other is to demand that the government bring them home, now.


Transplant that argument to the US/Uk and Iraq and those are the only two possible answers. Somehow the 'support the troops' crowd aren't interested in the second choice...

[packetloss]

As for supporting the troops, I have one simple question. How is it that the person who wants to put them in harms ways is the one that "supports the troops", and the one which wants to get them out of harm's way is unpatriotic?

Yes, its strange. I simply dont understand the sentiment all the way around. If i dont agree with a politicians decision to build a road - i dont throw rocks at the dump truck driver, i bitch at the politician.

In the same thought, if i dont agree with a politicians decision to enter a conflict, that doesnt mean im hoping the 19 year old kids there doing the job die. Even if i dont think our troops should be somewhere, why cant i insist we give them the best gear and support, while i appeal to my politicians to get them out?

[bugkill]

Yes, its strange. I simply dont understand the sentiment all the way around. If i dont agree with a politicians decision to build a road - i dont throw rocks at the dump truck driver, i bitch at the politician.

In the same thought, if i dont agree with a politicians decision to enter a conflict, that doesnt mean im hoping the 19 year old kids there doing the job die. Even if i dont think our troops should be somewhere, why cant i insist we give them the best gear and support, while i appeal to my politicians to get them out?

why waste time and resources if you only want to fail? you can't have it both ways, either you are for the troops to get better gear and support to WIN or you are for the troops to be pulled back, period. you really need to ask yourself why you are willing to waste taxpayer's money for equipment, but at the same time ask for the mission to fail? pretty stupid to have that opinion on a subject like this.

you just need to swallow the bullet and say that you do not support the mission because the truth is that you don't. it is not a question of supporting the troops because if you don't support the mission, you don't the support the troops due to fact that you do not want to see success in their efforts. you want failure and the troops do not fight to only fail, which is why you do not support the troops.

remember, we are presently engaged in the conflict and your opinions about WHY we are there are irrelevant and at this point, insignificant. it is all about the outcome you seek and wanting to see anything less than success means that you do not support the troops or the mission. we are not over there to fail and those that seek failure are not doing us a service or saving our lives. hell, you just might end up causing more troops to die if our enemies decide to attack our other interests to finish the job.

careful what you wish for.;)

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

remember, we are presently engaged in the conflict and your opinions about WHY we are there are irrelevant and at this point, insignificant. it is all about the outcome you seek and wanting to see anything less than success means that you do not support the troops or the mission. we are not over there to fail and those that seek failure are not doing us a service or saving our lives. hell, you just might end up causing more troops to die if our enemies decide to attack our other interests to finish the job.

careful what you wish for.;)

x2

I support our troops, although it is amazing how incompetent some people are in our general population.

Like the other day a girl at my work was telling me that there was oil in Afghanistan.... At least if she was going to start an argument, she could've backed it up with something like...facts :)

[LibertyUnites]

why waste time and resources if you only want to fail? you can't have it both ways, either you are for the troops to get better gear and support to WIN or you are for the troops to be pulled back, period. you really need to ask yourself why you are willing to waste taxpayer's money for equipment, but at the same time ask for the mission to fail? pretty stupid to have that opinion on a subject like this.

you just need to swallow the bullet and say that you do not support the mission because the truth is that you don't. it is not a question of supporting the troops because if you don't support the mission, you don't the support the troops due to fact that you do not want to see success in their efforts. you want failure and the troops do not fight to only fail, which is why you do not support the troops.

remember, we are presently engaged in the conflict and your opinions about WHY we are there are irrelevant and at this point, insignificant. it is all about the outcome you seek and wanting to see anything less than success means that you do not support the troops or the mission. we are not over there to fail and those that seek failure are not doing us a service or saving our lives. hell, you just might end up causing more troops to die if our enemies decide to attack our other interests to finish the job.

careful what you wish for.;)

very well said

[muck]

Most anti war protestors I have spoke to really have no idea what goes on in afghanistan. They seem to have a mind of a 12 year old. If you don't try, how do you know you won't succeed?

The worst thing is, they even don't want to get themselves informed. They just generalize all military-related topics and label them as something bad with the reason our soldiers would be in Afghanistan to suppress the Afghan people, without wasting any thought about what kind of suppression the Afghans would have to suffer if the Taliban gain power again. That is hypocrisy. This war is legitimated by the UNSC and the presence of foreign troops is clearly wanted by the Afghan government and still supported by a majority of Afghan people.

I support the troops, the troops of every nation in Afghanistan. Not because I would be sold on what they are doing there or because I would think they all were virtous and heroic Ubermenschen, but because I think we owe them respect since these people are our fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters and so on.

[Hutz]

Not to offend any of the non-mil folks here, but I found that for or against the war, civilians tend to be generally ignorant of what's happening. Example. When I was last in the States, we went to Mc****'s in uniform and a nice older lady thanked us for serving. We had to tell her we were Canadian and not American and then she thanked us for being in Iraq.

[PJSRAAC]

Not to offend any of the non-mil folks here, but I found that for or against the war, civilians tend to be generally ignorant of what's happening. Example. When I was last in the States, we went to Mc****'s in uniform and a nice older lady thanked us for serving. We had to tell her we were Canadian and not American and then she thanked us for being in Iraq.

Same here but its just a generalisation from them and all I do is don't take it personally but take it on board that there are people who support the Boys and the Girls in any theatre around the world, I just make sure I pass it on when our own doubt it.

[Rictor]

Not to offend any of the non-mil folks here, but I found that for or against the war, civilians tend to be generally ignorant of what's happening. Example. When I was last in the States, we went to Mc****'s in uniform and a nice older lady thanked us for serving. We had to tell her we were Canadian and not American and then she thanked us for being in Iraq.

That's bound to come with any profession. If I tell someone that I need a 300dpi CMYK TIFF file with 1/8' bleeds, they'll give me a blank look.

And yes, many people from the anti-war camp are uninformed and don't care enough about their convictions to learn anything. But that's going to be equally true of the pro-war camp, and with people in general. I at least try to be informed, so that my opinions don't sound like the inane ramblings of a pre-schooler.

[Hollis]

A good read is the Copperheads in the North during the American Civil War. Those who oppose the war have a very high percentage if those who are anti-military. Yes it creates a conundrum if you choose to support the troops but not the war. A person needs to watch their word carefully, or they will actually support the enemy.

I believe a person can oppose the war, the time to do it, is when the discussion is being made to go to war. After the war has started it is very difficult to advocate some kind of with drawl with out crossing the line of harming the troops.

Disengagement is probably the hardest part of the war. It just does not depend on your side, it requires all sides to disengage. The enemy may not be willing to disengage and the act of disengagement could embolden the enemy to go on the offensive.

Anti-War movements can actually reduce any military gains made, demoralize the troops, embolden the enemy, and worse of all PRO-Long the war, actually cost more lives and resources.

Again the best time to oppose a war and speak out against it, is at the time of the discussion to go to war.

[LMAV]

A good read is the Copperheads in the North during the American Civil War. Those who oppose the war have a very high percentage if those who are anti-military. Yes it creates a conundrum if you choose to support the troops but not the war. A person needs to watch their word carefully, or they will actually support the enemy.

I believe a person can oppose the war, the time to do it, is when the discussion is being made to go to war. After the war has started it is very difficult to advocate some kind of with drawl with out crossing the line of harming the troops.

Disengagement is probably the hardest part of the war. It just does not depend on your side, it requires all sides to disengage. The enemy may not be willing to disengage and the act of disengagement could embolden the enemy to go on the offensive.

Anti-War movements can actually reduce any military gains made, demoralize the troops, embolden the enemy, and worse of all PRO-Long the war, actually cost more lives and resources.

Again the best time to oppose a war and speak out against it, is at the time of the discussion to go to war.

X2


I've always been amazed at the anti-war's inability to see how they help our enemies with the things they do and say. Either they really don't see it, or they do any just don't want to admit it.

[Robbee]

Again the best time to oppose a war and speak out against it, is at the time of the discussion to go to war.

The discussion is only as good as the facts presented at the time. I don't recall many dissenting opinions with the evidence presented pre-OIF. Once the 20/20 hindsight kicked in a couple of years later, they all wanted a do-over.

[packetloss]

why waste time and resources if you only want to fail? you can't have it both ways, either you are for the troops to get better gear and support to WIN or you are for the troops to be pulled back, period. you really need to ask yourself why you are willing to waste taxpayer's money for equipment, but at the same time ask for the mission to fail? pretty stupid to have that opinion on a subject like this.

No one is asking the mission to FAIL. People are asking the validity of the mission in the first place. If you dont agree with the mission, you dont talk trash to the 20 year olds pulling watch. You talk to the people who put them there. Why is that such a tough concept? "I dont think you should have sent that kid there, but if hes going to be there, get him as much protection as we can give him while i work on changing your mind". Im not talking about the vehement anti-war people who hope soldiers drop dead and protest funerals.



you just need to swallow the bullet and say that you do not support the mission because the truth is that you don't. it is not a question of supporting the troops because if you don't support the mission, you don't the support the troops due to fact that you do not want to see success in their efforts. you want failure and the troops do not fight to only fail, which is why you do not support the troops.

See this is where youre confused. Stop saying 'you' because this is a mission i support - However, i can understand the sentiment. Wishing we werent in Afghanistan is NOT wishing failure and death upon the soldiers.

I honestly dont see your distiction. I sat in a little dusty hellhole back in the early 90s - i recieved letters from my highschool teacher saying "We all love you and think about you and we're 100% behind you. We're going to get you guys out of there".

Was he wishing us failure? No. Was he supporting us? In his way he was. He felt he was doing his part to save us from an unwinnable mission. Am i supposed to assume that Mr.Long wanted me to fail and die there?



remember, we are presently engaged in the conflict and your opinions about WHY we are there are irrelevant and at this point, insignificant.

I dont know about you - But i served my time, and believe that ive earned my place in my democracy to say what i want. If i dont agree with my politician, im going to say something. Am i going to chastize a 19 year old for signing up? hell no. the fact that you lump these 2 types of personalities together to me is disgusting and quite frankly unpatriotic. It sort of parrots the 'with us or against us' mentality. The world is not black and white.



it is all about the outcome you seek and wanting to see anything less than success means that you do not support the troops or the mission. we are not over there to fail and those that seek failure are not doing us a service or saving our lives. hell, you just might end up causing more troops to die if our enemies decide to attack our other interests to finish the job.

careful what you wish for.;)

Success to me would be every one of our troops coming home alive and safe. Period. Anything else is just partial.

We'll agree to disagree apparently. But troops are NOT the people to express your anti-war sentiment to. Politicians are. What the **** is wrong with loving and thanking your trooops, and telling the politicians that the shouldnt have picked the fight they picked?

I just simply cant grasp the mentality. Im supposed to not like soldiers because i dont like the engagement?

Your mentality reminds me of the antiwar pricks after vietnam - spitting on soldiers, because you dont agree with a war. **** that. Spit on the politicians - Kiss your soldiers.

[TheSteve]

X2


I've always been amazed at the anti-war's inability to see how they help our enemies with the things they do and say. Either they really don't see it, or they do any just don't want to admit it.

I hate that logic. So we invade a country, obviously with wrong reasons, but now we are there so you shouldn't protest it?

I understand it demoralizes troops, but getting blown up does to, and I don't want anymore to see anymore of that.

[Firetxmi]

Disclaimer: I am not saying that our troops are sinners. I feel quite the opposite in fact.

Doesn't the Bible have such logic in it though: "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

[bugkill]

No one is asking the mission to FAIL. People are asking the validity of the mission in the first place. If you dont agree with the mission, you dont talk trash to the 20 year olds pulling watch. You talk to the people who put them there. Why is that such a tough concept? "I dont think you should have sent that kid there, but if hes going to be there, get him as much protection as we can give him while i work on changing your mind". Im not talking about the vehement anti-war people who hope soldiers drop dead and protest funerals.




See this is where youre confused. Stop saying 'you' because this is a mission i support - However, i can understand the sentiment. Wishing we werent in Afghanistan is NOT wishing failure and death upon the soldiers.

I honestly dont see your distiction. I sat in a little dusty hellhole back in the early 90s - i recieved letters from my highschool teacher saying "We all love you and think about you and we're 100% behind you. We're going to get you guys out of there".

Was he wishing us failure? No. Was he supporting us? In his way he was. He felt he was doing his part to save us from an unwinnable mission. Am i supposed to assume that Mr.Long wanted me to fail and die there?




I dont know about you - But i served my time, and believe that ive earned my place in my democracy to say what i want. If i dont agree with my politician, im going to say something. Am i going to chastize a 19 year old for signing up? hell no. the fact that you lump these 2 types of personalities together to me is disgusting and quite frankly unpatriotic. It sort of parrots the 'with us or against us' mentality. The world is not black and white.



Success to me would be every one of our troops coming home alive and safe. Period. Anything else is just partial.

We'll agree to disagree apparently. But troops are NOT the people to express your anti-war sentiment to. Politicians are. What the **** is wrong with loving and thanking your trooops, and telling the politicians that the shouldnt have picked the fight they picked?

I just simply cant grasp the mentality. Im supposed to not like soldiers because i dont like the engagement?

Your mentality reminds me of the antiwar pricks after vietnam - spitting on soldiers, because you dont agree with a war. **** that. Spit on the politicians - Kiss your soldiers.

dude, i served in iraq and afghansitan, so i did my time as well. what i'm saying is that all the talk about why we are there is irrelevant because it solves nothing. you say you want to go after the politicians, but the best way to do that is to remove them from power with your vote, not with protests and making statements about the war that you (not necessarily saying you personally) have no clue about and are blind to fact of what may happen if we do leave.

the american people are the main ones with the least knowledge of military operations, so what makes them so smart about iraq or afghanistan? war is a military operation and civilians only rely on 2 min. sound bites from the nightly news that usually only reports when a bomb kills 3-5 soldiers, which makes it seem like iraq is hell on earth. the american people are the last people we need to listen to when it concerns war and that is a fact. i don't mind a civilian holding a strong opinion, but to make judgements on military operations that they have no clue about is where i draw the line.

also, you ARE asking the mission to FAIL if you want troops out of iraq. we did not go over there and kick saddam's ass only to quit because al qaeda decided to take the fight there. the war was already won and now we are trying to institute a government there, but we are faced with opposition from inside and outside forces. the fight is not going to end with us pulling out of iraq and what do you think will happen in afghanistan if we pull out? afghanistan is going to get even more dangerous and bloodier because our enemies will smell blood and go in for the kill there as well, you gonna pull out of there also when the tough gets going?

your view on success is totally unrealistic and will never happen. my view of success is accomplishing most of our goals and leaving the situation only where our country can benefit from it, and leaving iraq early has no benefit for us. iraq won't be a eutopia and it does not need to be. we have plenty of our sworn enemies operating in iraq, so why leave and make us go back to doing rotations at NTC or JRTC? we have lost 3,000 civilians on our home soil and you think that you have room to turn around and say "iraq was a mistake. we are sorry and please don't attack our other interests", you have got to be kidding me.

the fight is on and our enemy is fully engaged. iraq is a tough situation, but it is nothing that we can't handle. personally, i feel that we are sitting on our asses in the middle east and we are not truly using our best methods to destroy our enemies. the politics of this fight has greatly affected our effectiveness and has brought us down a tough road in iraq (the political decisions made in '03 seriously hampered our efforts).

in the end, i don't believe in people that don't have faith in what i do and if you don't support us to succeed, you don't have the right to say "i support the troops". no war is ever easy or good, unless you succeed in what you want to do and that rule applys to iraq as well. our elected officials made the decision for us to go fight and my job is to succeed, no matter what the mission is or if its popular back at home. iraq is not an impossible mission, only that it will take a long time and there will be many changes down the road (look at our own country's history). iraq is going into a new era and what is going on there is normal with the formation of new governments that have many different groups that were once opposed to one another under an oppressive regime.

blood has already been shed on the battlefield and iraq is slowly improving, and slow progress is always better than negative progress. there is no reason to leave because the military situation is not under serious threat (we have low casualties) and the political process is lacking, but that job takes a far longer committment to make work. people need to allow iraq to continue its course, we are already there and entrenched, no need to quit after all that we have accomplished to this point.

[brianm423]

dude, i served in iraq and afghansitan, so i did my time as well. what i'm saying is that all the talk about why we are there is irrelevant because it solves nothing. you say you want to go after the politicians, but the best way to do that is to remove them from power with your vote, not with protests and making statements about the war that you (not necessarily saying you personally) have no clue about and are blind to fact of what may happen if we do leave.

the american people are the main ones with the least knowledge of military operations, so what makes them so smart about iraq or afghanistan? war is a military operation and civilians only rely on 2 min. sound bites from the nightly news that usually only reports when a bomb kills 3-5 soldiers, which makes it seem like iraq is hell on earth. the american people are the last people we need to listen to when it concerns war and that is a fact. i don't mind a civilian holding a strong opinion, but to make judgements on military operations that they have no clue about is where i draw the line.

also, you ARE asking the mission to FAIL if you want troops out of iraq. we did not go over there and kick saddam's ass only to quit because al qaeda decided to take the fight there. the war was already won and now we are trying to institute a government there, but we are faced with opposition from inside and outside forces. the fight is not going to end with us pulling out of iraq and what do you think will happen in afghanistan if we pull out? afghanistan is going to get even more dangerous and bloodier because our enemies will smell blood and go in for the kill there as well, you gonna pull out of there also when the tough gets going?

your view on success is totally unrealistic and will never happen. my view of success is accomplishing most of our goals and leaving the situation only where our country can benefit from it, and leaving iraq early has no benefit for us. iraq won't be a eutopia and it does not need to be. we have plenty of our sworn enemies operating in iraq, so why leave and make us go back to doing rotations at NTC or JRTC? we have lost 3,000 civilians on our home soil and you think that you have room to turn around and say "iraq was a mistake. we are sorry and please don't attack our other interests", you have got to be kidding me.

the fight is on and our enemy is fully engaged. iraq is a tough situation, but it is nothing that we can't handle. personally, i feel that we are sitting on our asses in the middle east and we are not truly using our best methods to destroy our enemies. the politics of this fight has greatly affected our effectiveness and has brought us down a tough road in iraq (the political decisions made in '03 seriously hampered our efforts).

in the end, i don't believe in people that don't have faith in what i do and if you don't support us to succeed, you don't have the right to say "i support the troops". no war is ever easy or good, unless you succeed in what you want to do and that rule applys to iraq as well. our elected officials made the decision for us to go fight and my job is to succeed, no matter what the mission is or if its popular back at home. iraq is not an impossible mission, only that it will take a long time and there will be many changes down the road (look at our own country's history). iraq is going into a new era and what is going on there is normal with the formation of new governments that have many different groups that were once opposed to one another under an oppressive regime.

blood has already been shed on the battlefield and iraq is slowly improving, and slow progress is always better than negative progress. there is no reason to leave because the military situation is not under serious threat (we have low casualties) and the political process is lacking, but that job takes a far longer committment to make work. people need to allow iraq to continue its course, we are already there and entrenched, no need to quit after all that we have accomplished to this point.

Very well said my friend.

[budgie]

x2

I support our troops, although it is amazing how incompetent some people are in our general population.

Like the other day a girl at my work was telling me that there was oil in Afghanistan.... At least if she was going to start an argument, she could've backed it up with something like...facts :)

So she didn't know crap. I do. I know that supporting the troops does not equal blind support for the president and his 'mission'. The whole argument is just another angle to attack the left when reason is on our side. When reason defeats you - go emotional.

So screw the 'mission'. Let's get people home safe and sound: that should be the mission now, not some self-serving objectives dictated by the Right.

[bugkill]

So she didn't know crap. I do. I know that supporting the troops does not equal blind support for the president and his 'mission'. The whole argument is just another angle to attack the left when reason is on our side. When reason defeats you - go emotional.

So screw the 'mission'. Let's get people home safe and sound: that should be the mission now, not some self-serving objectives dictated by the Right.

so, how long are we going to stay home? who are you going to send back over there when our enemies attack more of our interests? what are you going to do when they send their fighters to afghanistan and step up their efforts there?

the problem with you people is that you are looking at this from a debate angle, but their is no debate because we are already in the fight. you say "screw the mission" and i'm not sure if you fully understand the importance of iraq. you are willing to give up iraq, which is an important strategic foothold in the middle east, because of suicide bombers and ied's?

we have not lost one freakin' battle and we have less than 3,500 troops killed by hostile fire (http://icasualties.org/oif/HNH.aspx) over a 4 1/2 year span, but you are ready to pack it in because you want your fighting men and women to be safe? how can you make us safe when our enemies are not going to stop even if we leave? you make it sound so damn simple, but the truth is that you people that hold that view are in denial.

what are you gonna say when bush leaves? i'm pretty sure most of you will go away when he leaves and just bitch and moan about how bad he was, but the president is not the damn issue. the issue is only about fighting this war and getting a foothold in the middle east, period. this fight is gonna last for years and no BS talk of "change of course" or "redeployment" is gonna change that fact.

if they bring us back, they will only send us back there, so why waste the gas?

[shocker1]

what are you gonna say when bush leaves? i'm pretty sure most of you will go away when he leaves and just bitch and moan about how bad he was, but the president is not the damn issue. the issue is only about fighting this war and getting a foothold in the middle east, period. this fight is gonna last for years and no BS talk of "change of course" or "redeployment" is gonna change that fact.

if they bring us back, they will only send us back there, so why waste the gas?
Why do we need this foothold in the Middle East? I support the original mission and it seems to me that that mission is nearly done. I as a citizen though do not expect you to go and prop up Iraq. At some point in the future the tensions your current mission holds back will bare fruit. America needs no Middle east foothold, this is utter nonsense.

I do not support a get out and be damned strategy. I think things are actually improving. I hope my assumptions are correct. Iraq's PM had a few kiss my ass words for some American officials of late. I think this is a good thing to be honest. Iraq needs to chart it's own course now even if we do not like the out come.

[ex Strathcona]

The point is that you can't fight them - not successfully anyway. Staying there creates more instability, not less. If the US military could effectively fight al Qaeda in Iraq, it wouldn't have turned to Sunni militants to do the job.

As for supporting the troops, I have one simple question. How is it that the person who wants to put them in harms ways is the one that "supports the troops", and the one which wants to get them out of harm's way is unpatriotic?

because the person who wants to put them in harms way is also prepared to listen to them when they say "this is a noble mission and we can achieve the goals you have asked us to meet"

whereas the person who wants to get them out of harms way is interfering in the soldiers ability to meet the goals because they must always worry about public opinion, meet sped up deadlines for these goals that mean taking dangerous short cuts. and generally eroding public support by spouting ignorant rubbish every time a news camera is pointed at them.

being a cop in parts of Toronto is very dangerous, should we pull them out of the Jane and Finch area because they may be in harms way?

i hear being a Fire fighter is dangerous, should we have them pull back from fighting fires and just assist with crowd control during the blaze?

oddly no one listens to the soldiers who say time after time that they can win this war, just leave them the hell alone and let them do what they do for a living. do you tell your doctor how to give you a physical?

[bugkill]

Why do we need this foothold in the Middle East? I support the original mission and it seems to me that that mission is nearly done. I as a citizen though do not expect you to go and prop up Iraq. At some point in the future the tensions your current mission holds back will bare fruit. America needs no Middle east foothold, this is utter nonsense.

I do not support a get out and be damned strategy. I think things are actually improving. I hope my assumptions are correct. Iraq's PM had a few kiss my ass words for some American officials of late. I think this is a good thing to be honest. Iraq needs to chart it's own course now even if we do not like the out come.

you keep forgeting this little incident called 9/11 and that was an incident where jihadists launched an attack that killed 3,000 of our citizens. we were not at war in the middle east (except for "containing" saddam). we did not invade any muslim country. the middle east has a significant problem that are not willing to confront, but has proven to be deadly for our country.

it is like having a pit bull. you keep him chained up and in your yard, but he sometimes gets out and ventures off into your neighbor's yard. the pit bull scares the neighbor's kids and the neighbor asks you to make sure that you dog is properly secured or their will be "consequences". the dog escapes again and this time he kills the neighbor's kids. the neighbor grabs his gun and guns down the mutt in your yard and sues the hell out of you, which also results in you going to jail for a couple of years.

the moral of the story is that the middle east needs to collar their dogs (muslim extremists) or we will collar them ourselves. some of those middle eastern countries are lucky that we depend on them for valuable resources or that they have close ties to our coalition partners, and that is the only reason we have not attacked them.

for you to think we don't need a foothold in the middle east is crazy. people really think that if we only go to afghanistan and kill bin laden that the war will end and that idea is "utter nonsense". there needs to be a direct confrontation in the middle east and it needs to be dealt with now. iraq and afghanistan is only the starting point and this war will eventually expand if the other countries don't change their spots and start cracking down on these terror groups.

we held your view for decades and we constantly have been getting attacked over the years and it it all came to a head on 9/11, so your theory has proven to be a failure. we had the "turn the other cheek" policy and it only led to more americans getting killed and now all bets are off, period.

[shocker1]

for you to think we don't need a foothold in the middle east is crazy. people really think that if we only go to afghanistan and kill bin laden that the war will end and that idea is "utter nonsense". there needs to be a direct confrontation in the middle east and it needs to be dealt with now. iraq and afghanistan is only the starting point and this war will eventually expand if the other countries don't change their spots and start cracking down on these terror groups.

we held your view for decades and we constantly have been getting attacked over the years and it it all came to a head on 9/11, so your theory has proven to be a failure. we had the "turn the other cheek" policy and it only led to more americans getting killed and now all bets are off, period.You really need some reading comprehension skills. I agree with the original mission, I have no damn turn the other cheek attitude pal. However an American foothold as you call it in the middle east is a festering sore. It also goes against what we should be doing. Our piss poor diplomacy skills and military planning have brought us to this point. It should not be your responsibility to patrol every damn street of every backwater **** hole in Iraq.

911 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. The fear of weapons floating around after such an attack was the primary reason we went in. The first Gulf war left the enemy in power, weakened his opposition and created a cluster for 12 years over the little Sheikdom Kuwait. Unfortunately the US nor anyone else cared about Iran and the Kurdish population being gassed and slaughtered. Now Iran has hated us for 30 years and we ignored the opportunity to break the Ice.

I support your mission pal. I am not some leftest fool that ignored the facts that were presented to me. However nearly 5 years on it is getting close to time for this mission to move on. I have two family members one is in Iraq now for his 2nd time and the other a Vet from the early days in Afghanistan. I know things are getting better, I am not wanting to pull the rug out from under you.

Saddam violated treaties, cease fire and countless other things and deserved his medicine so to speak. How we administered that cure was a damn disaster. How long does it take to train Iraqis to take care of their country? Are they really that untrainable without a dictator?

[LMAV]

911 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.Perhaps, but....
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4224/saddamyoubitch0ehlp6.jpg

This was displayed in Baghdad, just sayin'. :)



However nearly 5 years on it is getting close to time for this mission to move on.

5 years or not leaving wont end the war, only make it worse and more protracted than it already is.

[shocker1]

Perhaps, but....
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4224/saddamyoubitch0ehlp6.jpg

This was displayed in Baghdad, just sayin'. :)




5 years or not leaving wont end the war, only make it worse and more protracted than it already is.
If that is why we invaded then the stories of our ignorance are true. You guys need to ingrain real history and thought into your posts. I have been around a while and my posts have not changed. Please as I always point out provide the logic behind your thinking. Worse for who? We cold police the Iraqi street for 20 years and when we leave it will be shoot em up Iraqi style. At some point Iraqis must deal with the consequence of their incompetence and hate. We have no business getting in the middle of that. This current situation is not an improvment of the past.

[Exarecr]

Since I woke up this morning the CBC has played vidio of the Ramp Ceremony of the last 2 Canadians killed in Afghanistan 16 times in the past 4 hours. This News org. is so far to the left they trip on B.C. while walking up Younge ST. in Toronto.The blame in Canada over the misinformation of whats going on in Afghanistan not only lies with our huge leftist media but gullible,and yes,stupid Canadians who don,t want or care to check on what is being spun. Sad. Ps. Don,t mean to pick on TO.

[LMAV]

If that is why we invaded then the stories of our ignorance are true. You guys need to ingrain real history and thought into your posts. I have been around a while and my posts have not changed. Please as I always point out provide the logic behind your thinking. Worse for who? We cold police the Iraqi street for 20 years and when we leave it will be shoot em up Iraqi style. At some point Iraqis must deal with the consequence of their incompetence and hate. We have no business getting in the middle of that. This current situation is not an improvment of the past.
Thats not why we invaded, it was meant to be kind of tounge in cheek.

As far as no business getting in the middle of "that", we should have thought about hat before we invaded. We are in the middle of it now and leaving will only make it worse and last a lot longer.

[shocker1]

I give up you guys act like since I am not playing the same old party arguments that I am against the war. Nice analysis you did, the hatred between groups in Iraq will not go away with our help. However I want you to go back through my posts and show me where I want to pull out and leave the ME. Like I said I see and hear of improvements and Iraq is starting to assert itself. I think we should see this though but the how is the question. I suppose the day the Iraqi government tells us to leave will tell the tale.

[DB-ERAUPilot]

As far as no business getting in the middle of "that", we should have thought about hat before we invaded. We are in the middle of it now and leaving will only make it worse and last a lot longer.


Everyday you sound more and more like a broken record...step away from the talking points and engage your brain for a change :roll: THOUSANDS some sources say hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians have been killed since we've been there. From all causes including al aqaeda but I'd dare to venture more from their own civil strife since we decided to open up the pandoras box. And some how your crowd continues to think us being there is actually stopping that, we don't have enough troops to be in every single city, town and province to baby sit every single iraqi which is the only way violence "MIGHT" drop among the civilian population so how long should we stay trying to play referee 10 years...20...30?? Now, let me guess your response "If we leave they'll follow us home" how many VC or NVA followed us home after Vietnam? How many Cubans regulars after Grenada, Somalians after our intervention there....try NONE. And if the CINC was so concerned about our security and the possibility of terrorists coming here our borders wouldn't be WIDE OPEN. And I dread the day when we are attacked again(which is only a matter of when not if) and our guys are still in Iraq... what will be your talking point then for staying there? The reasons we invaded have been dealt with, its time to move on and let the Iraqi's have their civil war and decide their own future, just like we did, continuing to try to hold their hand is only making things drag out.

[bugkill]

You really need some reading comprehension skills. I agree with the original mission, I have no damn turn the other cheek attitude pal. However an American foothold as you call it in the middle east is a festering sore. It also goes against what we should be doing. Our piss poor diplomacy skills and military planning have brought us to this point. It should not be your responsibility to patrol every damn street of every backwater **** hole in Iraq.

911 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. The fear of weapons floating around after such an attack was the primary reason we went in. The first Gulf war left the enemy in power, weakened his opposition and created a cluster for 12 years over the little Sheikdom Kuwait. Unfortunately the US nor anyone else cared about Iran and the Kurdish population being gassed and slaughtered. Now Iran has hated us for 30 years and we ignored the opportunity to break the Ice.

I support your mission pal. I am not some leftest fool that ignored the facts that were presented to me. However nearly 5 years on it is getting close to time for this mission to move on. I have two family members one is in Iraq now for his 2nd time and the other a Vet from the early days in Afghanistan. I know things are getting better, I am not wanting to pull the rug out from under you.

Saddam violated treaties, cease fire and countless other things and deserved his medicine so to speak. How we administered that cure was a damn disaster. How long does it take to train Iraqis to take care of their country? Are they really that untrainable without a dictator?

if that is how you feel, stop crying about stuff that you can't change (like why we are there or the mission sucks). allow us to get the job done and once it is over, failure or success, you can sling as many flowers or arrows at those responsible for sending us there.

like i said a million times, nation building is not an overnight success. it is not like an RTS game where you can build bases and gather resources just by "pointing and clicking". this business takes years to take fruit and even longer when other forces are rallying against you in the interim. the president has said from day one that our mission in iraq was going to be long and difficult. you can hate the president all you want, but the man has always maintained that this mission was going to be a long committment.


If that is why we invaded then the stories of our ignorance are true. You guys need to ingrain real history and thought into your posts. I have been around a while and my posts have not changed. Please as I always point out provide the logic behind your thinking. Worse for who? We cold police the Iraqi street for 20 years and when we leave it will be shoot em up Iraqi style. At some point Iraqis must deal with the consequence of their incompetence and hate. We have no business getting in the middle of that. This current situation is not an improvment of the past.

there have been more iraqi police and army forces killed than US troops, so what is your point?. also, we are the ones that overthrew saddam's government and it is our responsibility to get iraq up and running again. you don't go into another country and remove its government and then tell them to fend for themselves, not the right thing to do.


Everyday you sound more and more like a broken record...step away from the talking points and engage your brain for a change :roll: THOUSANDS some sources say hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians have been killed since we've been there. From all causes including al aqaeda but I'd dare to venture more from their own civil strife since we decided to open up the pandoras box. And some how your crowd continues to think us being there is actually stopping that, we don't have enough troops to be in every single city, town and province to baby sit every single iraqi which is the only way violence "MIGHT" drop among the civilian population so how long should we stay trying to play referee 10 years...20...30?? Now, let me guess your response "If we leave they'll follow us home" how many VC or NVA followed us home after Vietnam? How many Cubans regulars after Grenada, Somalians after our intervention there....try NONE. And if the CINC was so concerned about our security and the possibility of terrorists coming here our borders wouldn't be WIDE OPEN. And I dread the day when we are attacked again(which is only a matter of when not if) and our guys are still in Iraq... what will be your talking point then for staying there? The reasons we invaded have been dealt with, its time to move on and let the Iraqi's have their civil war and decide their own future, just like we did, continuing to try to hold their hand is only making things drag out.

first of all, we did not invade vietnam and that war was a totally different situation. you can't equate the NVA and vietcong to al qaeda, because al qaeda is a international organization that can reach our interests worldwide and our homeland (which they have already succeeded doing). also, you try to make a theory of saying that the enemy will not follow us home and what you fail to realize is that our enemy has already hit us at home and will do it again. also, "following us home" means not just the homeland, but our interests abroad. they have already attacked several of our muslim allies and you think that they will return to their caves in afghanistan if we quit in iraq? lol, that idea is laughable.

if iraq were to go into a civil war, we would only just need to pick our allies and support them, but we better not leave that bitch. there is still alot to gain with having a presence in iraq and there is nothing to gain if you leave.

[shocker1]

if that is how you feel, stop crying about stuff that you can't change (like why we are there or the mission sucks). allow us to get the job done and once it is over, failure or success, you can sling as many flowers or arrows at those responsible for sending us there.

like i said a million times, nation building is not an overnight success. it is not like an RTS game where you can build bases and gather resources just by "pointing and clicking". this business takes years to take fruit and even longer when other forces are rallying against you in the interim. the president has said from day one that our mission in iraq was going to be long and difficult. you can hate the president all you want, but the man has always maintained that this mission was going to a long committment.

Look man I respect your service. I FREAKIN SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT you fool. It is my responsibility as an American to speak out what I think about the ignorance of our leaders. That is an insult you just handed out to those who are behind you. This is ridiculous, anyone who thinks I am a liberal, Bush hater does not read. Yes we are in a long commitment to Iraq but you, your fellow soldiers nor the American people are Iraq. Let me make this clear one more damn time. I SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ. I am intelligent enough though to see the screw ups and bad decisions. I also know the history of the region, our involvement of the past 30 years and how that plays. I am sorry to say no one but Iraqis themselves can fix Iraq.

[DB-ERAUPilot]

they have already attacked several of our muslim allies and you think that they will return to their caves in afghanistan if we quit in iraq? lol, that idea is laughable.

if iraq were to go into a civil war, we would only just need to pick our allies and support them, but we better not leave that bitch. there is still alot to gain with having a presence in iraq and there is nothing to gain if you leave.


Its also laughable that you admit that terrorist attacks are still taking place outside of Iraq but somehow us being there is helping stop them. And you assume that most of the violence is from outside parties instead of the various Iraqi militias and insurgents. There is already a civil war, just because you deny doesn't make it any less true. Or there hasn't been enough violence between the sunni and shia yet for you to call it a civil war? So which side should we support? Maliki, the president we've been propping up is Shia...Iran is Shia and is already backing him ..do we support them?, or do we support the Sunnis who Maliki couldn't care less about? And back to the topic, the idea that someone can support the troops but not agree with a war they've been asked to fight makes perfect sense to anyone with a brain. You have our support, Yes the death toll among you has been low but to those of us who have lost family members and/or friends over there its not as simple as Support the troops=support every single war their sent to fight no matter the reason. You guys won the war you were sent to fight, having the reason change every other week just to extend your stay so a CINC doesn't have a "loss" on his watch is no reason to drag out giving the responsibilty of building Iraq up to a workable nation to were it belongs, the IRAQI people.

[IraGlacialis]

Not to offend any of the non-mil folks here, but I found that for or against the war, civilians tend to be generally ignorant of what's happening.
No offense taken. I like to keep tabs on what is happening around the world. However, I found that most of my peers are ignorant about the current events and usually don't even want to know what is going on around the world (focusing instead on the latest celebrity mishap). Example, I saw this student-made current events poster that had Afganistan (that's how it was spelled) bordering, to the west of, Iraq. Plus the thing dripped of jingoism. Oh, and it irks me whenever I hear people calling Afghanistan an Arab country or Iraq a theocratic state under Saddam.

On the other hand, those who do know and care about current events usually seem to fall on the extreme sides of the political spectrum (Limbaugh-listening, glassing supporters on one side and anti-war, pro-socialists on the other), which is just as annoying.

[Firetxmi]

I am intelligent enough though to see the screw ups and bad decisions.

And now you are seeing the frustration of so many Americans. They are not on the fringes, yet those who are constantly drown the mainstream people out.

Shocker, I have always respected your opinion because whether we agree or not you are one of the first on the board to admit our rights and our wrongs. You also don't tow the party(s) line. Oh, and your sense of humor. :D

[shocker1]

And now you are seeing the frustration of so many Americans. They are not on the fringes, yet those who are constantly drown the mainstream people out.

Shocker, I have always respected your opinion because whether we agree or not you are one of the first on the board to admit our rights and our wrongs. You also don't tow the party(s) line. Oh, and your sense of humor. :D
Yes I know we disagree on issues but you do provide good reasoning for your views. I thought it was funny how I was accused of being a Bush hater, against the war, to hell with it kinda guy. Even you know that is just not the case. I also refuse to sit down and shut up until the war is over Jeez!.:)

[Firetxmi]

It is pretty humorous Shocker! :D

Bugkill, what constitutes the end of the Iraq war in your eyes?

[shocker1]

Middle east foothold, nation building and the terrorists in Iraq will follow us home are reasons for being there that leave a bad taste in my mouth. Iraq is no threat at all now and our continued presence is like a terrorist bug zapper in the jungle. It will never stop until the zapper breaks. I support the war, ousting Saddam but the day Bremmer took control we have been trapped by our own ignorance.

This is how I see it and it is now at the point where we do not owe anyone. The killings, bombings and religious hatred are not our responsibility anymore. A society filled with this kind of hate must purge itself or control itself, we should not do it for them.

[LMAV]

The killings, bombings and religious hatred are not our responsibility anymore.


It will never stop until the zapper breaks.

What exactly is giving you the idea that leaving somehow ends the war or violence? Everything in our history tells us this will end badly if we pull out. Why continue this war on terror at all if we are just going to stir the pot, only to leave and create ANOTHER safe haven for our enemies?

Unless you can show me of an example where we pulled back and the enemy didn't exploit that opportunity to kick us in the ass?

[Hollis]

Some of you guys seem to have some smarts.

Google Iraq and Saddam for all the comments form the various administrations prior 2000.

911 was not the soul/only/major reason to go into Iraq.

it is only for Bush bashers.

read Pelosi, Kennedy, Clinton, Daschle, etal;

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Bill Clinton powerful message to Saddam;

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/clinton_12-16.html

[DB-ERAUPilot]

Some of you guys seem to have some smarts.

Google Iraq and Saddam for all the comments form the various administrations prior 2000.

911 was not the soul/only/major reason to go into Iraq.

it is only for Bush bashers.

read Pelosi, Kennedy, Clinton, Daschle, etal;

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Bill Clinton powerful message to Saddam;

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/clinton_12-16.html


and this has what to do with the current situation, the wmd issue is dead, none were found, your point?

[shocker1]

What exactly is giving you the idea that leaving somehow ends the war or violence? Everything in our history tells us this will end badly if we pull out. Why continue this war on terror at all if we are just going to stir the pot, only to leave and create ANOTHER safe haven for our enemies?

Unless you can show me of an example where we pulled back and the enemy didn't exploit that opportunity to kick us in the ass?
What exactly gives you the idea I want to pull out? Because I question the current tactics? You sir are a noob and no longer have my back up if that is your logic. Do you really believe Islamic extremists will cease to function in Iraq at some point? Give me a break dude. All you guys do is recycle the same old lines. then you ask me to provide new insights on enemies biting us in the ass.

In the end my whole point is things are improving. I do not want to say the hell with it. However by your logic we must invade every "safe haven". Is that what you want? Do you really think that a Muslim populous will ever do what America wants? Can we control Iraq's religious establishment? I see positive changes in Iraq and when Gen. Petraus recommends a decrease in troop levels. What will be your rational for keeping up the tit for tat?

We are going to be involved in the ME for a long time and rightly so. However it is not our job to bring the three Iraqi camps together for their country. Only Iraqis can do that, only Iraqis can do for the greater good and not their religion. All we should be responsoble for in Iraq now is territorial integrity and support for their military,police. Our moral ideologies are irrelevant to most Iraqis I would imagine.

You were right about one thing we should not have invaded in the first place. That would be 1991, when we should have stomped him out in the 80's for using WMD's on Iran and the Kurds. It amazes me you do not take in the whole 30 year picture and see why your logic is flawed. Carry on

[Gat0r]

And you think staying is going to stop the violence? The hatred between Shiats and Sunnis has been going on for thousands of years, you think we can really stop them? Im sick of this "if we dont fight them in iraq we'll fight them in our streets" Al Qaeda and other extremist groups are going to try to attack us here wether we are in Iraq or not, remember Fort Dix a couple months ago? We are seeing that Iraqis arent putting up with Al Qaeda's shi!t, their actually fighting them now, it seems their welcome has been worn out much like ours.

[ElHombre]

As far as no business getting in the middle of "that", we should have thought about that before we invaded.

Ya think?

[/quote]We are in the middle of it now and leaving will only make it worse and last a lot longer.[/QUOTE]

Try this experiment: 1) Find an ant-bed that needs removing (there's quite a few around my neck of the woods). 2) Whip out your d**k and start swatting the mound with it. Not the best way to get rid of an ant bed, is it? Now you will have two options. 1) Keep swatting away, or 2) Stop and try something else.

It's the First Rule of Holes: When you're in one, stop digging. This isn't a game of baseball where you always get one more inning to try to win the game (just ask the Orioles). It was a mistake of the first order to invade Iraq. There's no getting around that basic fact. Staying isn't going to change anything except the body count.

[LMAV]

What exactly gives you the idea I want to pull out?Your posts.


Because I question the current tactics?There is nothing wrong with questioning tactics, but from your posts I gathered you though retreat was a better tactic.


You sir are a noob and no longer have my back up if that is your logic.A noob? This isn't Battlefield 2 man.


Do you really believe Islamic extremists will cease to function in Iraq at some point?Yes, thats the plan. Otherwise we are all going to be eating a big **** sandwich in the near future.


All you guys do is recycle the same old lines. then you ask me to provide new insights on enemies biting us in the ass. You guys? Do you mean "noobs"?


However by your logic we must invade every "safe haven".My logic? It seems to be the p rivaling wisdom, even in the democrat party. We already saw what happens when we allow the safe heavens to fester.


Do you really think that a Muslim populous will ever do what America wants?What do you mean by "do whatever America wants"? If by that you mean, stop extremist Muslims from killing other people than yes I think we will work something out eventually. We have to have some victories for that to happen though. The moderates will only step up with they have confidence we will be there to back them up and keep them from being beheaded.


What will be your rational for keeping up the tit for tat?Its all about weighing the cost benefit. If its in our interests to stay and clean up our mess, than we will. In my opinion, leaving costs more than staying and I think our leaders are coming to the same conclusion.



It amazes me you do not take in the whole 30 year picture and see why your logic is flawed. Carry onWhat are you talking about? I'm constantly brining up the 80's and 90's to prove my points! In fact, I don't see how you can look at the past 30 years and think leaving Iraq is a good idea or not see the brewing conflict we are facing.


We're going in circles though....

[bugkill]

i have said what i needed to say. i'm not worried about debating issues that have yet to play out or cannot be changed. we are there and we are doing what we can to succeed. this is a game of chess, not checkers. iraq will go through many changes because the formation of a new country is always tough, especially in the middle east.

the situation in iraq is nothing new in history and one way or another, iraq will recover, but what exactly will iraq look like is a question that noone knows at this point. so, allow us to do what we can and try to get the best situation out of it. iraq is strategically important to us and our interests. it will enable us to apply more pressure on iran and our other enemies in the region.

as far as making your leaders pay for sending us there, you and others have failed miserably. the same characters that have been in government, republican and democrat, are still there. the fact is that the whole damn congress and senate should have been replaced by other canditates from each state after 9/11. yet, the american people keep sending the same damn idiots back into power and the idiots decided to give themselves pay raises after failing to defend the country from the largest attack ever on the united states, but i hear nothing about that.

bush is out of office next year and the same characters that were part of this mission is replacing him, do you think anything will change? my point is stop lying to yourself about holding your leaders accountable because the amercan people, whether they be republican or democrat, are electing the same type of crap every 2 and 4 years.

[shocker1]

Your posts.
There is nothing wrong with questioning tactics, but from your posts I gathered you though retreat was a better tactic.

I said our continued presence basically will not decrease the number of Islamic terrorists in this world. Our tactics for strategic goals in the Middle east is flawed and has been for a long time. Like I said things are getting better in Iraq and our mission is about over. Unless we want to hang around and if that is the case then yes someday I will say. GET US THE HELL OUT NOW! Which is not what I said. So what is your criteria for the day we leave Iraq? Mine is about met and the fact that Iraqis are killing each other is not hampering that list.

At some point a bomb, beheading, terrorist attack in Iraq has to be an Iraqi problem. These problems are not going to be solved by Americans in Iraq. I can see how if you did not read into what I say and know my post history you could think what you do. So let me say this for the 5th damn time, I support the war in Iraq, I want the Iraqis to suffer for their own incompetence and hate not our troops and I do not want our guys in the middle of the Islamic sect hate machine. Now keep the government form being overrun by terrorists, keep the Iranians and the Turks out, help with logistics, training and let Iraqis settle their internal scores.

[shocker1]

We are arguing with each other when we should argue with elhombre. I think we can agree on the strategic importance here my opinions about the Iraqis themselves is not an indicator of my support for the mission goals. I do not want an Iranian proxy state or terrorist haven. So can you understand my frustration with the tactics now not the mission?

I hope the fact that you ignored elhombre's post is because mine are more interesting and make some sense.:)

[Hollis]

and this has what to do with the current situation, the wmd issue is dead, none were found, your point?


And what is your point? The facts leading to a situation is important. Your sounding like the you want to ignore everything and act as what is happening today, just came out of no where.


BTW, there where more issues than WMDs, I mentioned, I guess your reading also lacks, was to Google Saddam and the previous administrations comments. I picked a few for those, I guess like you, who are incapable of using google.

[shocker1]

Hollis you are a smart guy. Are my posts making any sense to you? Am I misrepresenting myself?

[ElHombre]

We are arguing with each other when we should argue with elhombre.

Sure, gang up on me, whydontcha? :lol:


I think we can agree on the strategic importance here my opinions about the Iraqis themselves is not an indicator of my support for the mission goals. I do not want an Iranian proxy state or terrorist haven.

So let's take a moment and discuss the excuses given for not leaving Iraq. I can think of a couple off the top of my head.

They'll follow us home. aka, the 'Flypaper Strategy'. Barring AQ taking posession of an air force and navy capable of invading the US, we're talking about another 9/11 attack. That's going to take intel operations and law enforcement to deal with.

Leaving Iraq will hand AQ a victory. Invading Iraq handed AQ a victory. Staying there just gives them more opportunites to improve tactics to kill the troops. On the same point, does anyone else think it's high-time that we stopped giving a s*** what AQ thinks of us?

[shocker1]

Sure, gang up on me, whydontcha? :lol:



I don't won't to argue anymore. I am now a Bush hatin commie for having opinions not in line with the GOP. OMG!!!!

[LMAV]

I don't won't to argue anymore. I am now a Bush hatin commie for having opinions not in line with the GOP. OMG!!!!

I don't think that at all.

[shocker1]

I don't think that at all.
Sorry pal. that was not directed at you. Another poster said "you can hate Bush all you want". Not knowing I am a member of the RNC for the past 8 years. Although Conservatism is now lost in the party and I went my own way. They still sent me a lapel pin this year though and I hope I get one more White House Christmas card.:)

[bugkill]

I don't think that at all.

me neither and i don't subscribe to any political parties.

[Hollis]

Hollis you are a smart guy. Are my posts making any sense to you? Am I misrepresenting myself?


No way dude, I would be happy to have a beer with you any time.

I F'in hate partisan politics.

Truth be known, I am probably more left than these mindless morons who are just mouthing off propaganda. I really don't care who is in the White House, I want them not to squander lives or back down to haj. I am in no mood to do the shahada or anything else. If your going to go it, DO IT. If your not, than NOT.

H.

[IraGlacialis]

I F'in hate partisan politics.
Like it or not, it is almost guaranteed that partisan politics would exist under this kind of government (republic) that rules over a large country that is this involved with the rest of the world.
I personally despise politics such as this, especially the kind that takes advantage of a detrimental situation.

[shocker1]

No way dude, I would be happy to have a beer with you any time.

I F'in hate partisan politics.

Truth be known, I am probably more left than these mindless morons who are just mouthing off propaganda. I really don't care who is in the White House, I want them not to squander lives or back down to haj. I am in no mood to do the shahada or anything else. If your going to go it, DO IT. If your not, than NOT.

H.
Thank you sir, I thought I was making sense. I hate partisanship myself and only joined the RNC for local stuff and manipulating Zoning rights.

[ElHombre]

I don't won't to argue anymore. I am now a Bush hatin commie for having opinions not in line with the GOP. OMG!!!!

Let me be the first to welcome to the world of reality. We've been waiting for the folks in DC to join for a looong time. :lol:

[LMAV]

Let me be the first to welcome to the world of reality. We've been waiting for the folks in DC to join for a looong time. :lol:


Also being shown in this reality, "Only war can secure peace"!

[Firetxmi]

I don't won't to argue anymore. I am now a Bush hatin commie for having opinions not in line with the GOP. OMG!!!!

Now you understand the frustration of a good portion of our country who is not lock- step with the GOP.

[LMAV]

Now you understand the frustration of a good portion of our country who is not lock- step with the GOP.


What you guys still fail to understand is that it has ZERO to do with politics or the GOP. It has everything to do with principle and the need to finish what we started. Your not lock step, well good for you but that doesn't change the fact there is no other viable plan right now.

[Hollis]

Like it or not, it is almost guaranteed that partisan politics would exist under this kind of government (republic) that rules over a large country that is this involved with the rest of the world.
I personally despise politics such as this, especially the kind that takes advantage of a detrimental situation.


IRA, that is 100% percent there. Only way to get rid of it, is to get rid of all humans including me.. OUCH,...

I just try to retain some form of humor.

Partisan politics is also proof evolution does not work.

[shocker1]

What you guys still fail to understand is that it has ZERO to do with politics or the GOP. It has everything to do with principle and the need to finish what we started. Your not lock step, well good for you but that doesn't change the fact there is no other viable plan right now.
Viable Plan? What talking head did you hear that from. What you fail to see is we screwed up our good intentons with politics. Both parties not one or the other. We have been lead down this road with Iraq long before your average American even gave a **** about Islamic Terrorists. It would be absolutely wrong for us to abandon Iraq. However no one can deny Politics in Iraq and here is going to directly affect the outcome. I loath the defeatists attitude like some posting here.

The Plans have all gone to ****, and for the most part it was self-inflected screw up. We as a nation let a bunch of low lives engaging in a low intensity war with us to rattle our cage. The more divided we seem the more embolden the enemy becomes. This is why I say protect the strategic goals but the internal Iraqi strife and political bs is theirs. If it interferes with our regional security goals. Stamp out the cause with all force within law and without regard to what headline the latest former asswhipe official wants to harp on.

[LMAV]

Viable Plan? What talking head did you hear that from.

What are you asking me here? Did I hear a talking head use the phrase, "viable plan"?

I'm saying there is no alternative to what we are currently doing except retreat. Since thats not going to work, it means we have no other viable plan. I don't need a talking head to tell me that.

[ElHombre]

What you guys still fail to understand is that it has ZERO to do with politics or the GOP. It has everything to do with principle and the need to finish what we started. Your not lock step, well good for you but that doesn't change the fact there is no other viable plan right now.

You'd fit right in with WW1 generals, you know that? The current plan isn't working? It's been working ever since it became apparent to everyone that we've touched off the Iraq civil war. The Bush admin plan for Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with any of the (repeatedly changing) goals they've stated. The Bush admin Iraq plan has one, and only one, goal: Avoid accountability for making the biggest strategic blunder in US history and dump the Iraq disaster on the next admin. To meet that goal they have one, and only one, plan: Not to be the one's giving the order to leave Iraq, no matter what. They're trying to play baseball (where the home team always gets one more inning to try to win) at the Super Bowl five years after they've lost the game. Any event, any evidence will be given as proof that we should not leave Iraq or that we should just wait a little longer to find that magic pony under the Christmas tree ('Another six months! That's all we need!').

[LMAV]

('Another six months! That's all we need!').
They have been saying years for a while now.

[ElHombre]

They have been saying years for a while now.

But only after it became too obvious that the critics were right that Bush admin estimates of the war effort were woefully inadequate. :roll:

The goalposts will be moved further and further back in accordance with the plan I've outlined above. After Petraeus's report in a few weeks, the Bush admin will find a new reason to keep the troops in the middle of the civil war for a few more months. One prediction I've heard based on the events of the past few days goes something like this: Political progress in Iraq (the only thing which will actually bring a halt to the violence) is at a standstill. Prime Minister Maliki will be held to blame and pressure will be used to replace him*. We will then be told that we have to stay in Iraq in order to give the new PM 'a chance to bring the various factions together in a political solution'. This should take a few more months, at which time the goalposts will have been set back even further and further until January, 2009...

*Apparantly the former interim PM, Iyad Allawi, has been using DC lobbyists to apply pressure to the Bush admin to replace Maliki. One of those lobbyists was Condi Rice's former deputy at the State Department. So if this prediction comes true, you can say you heard it here first.

[LMAV]

Man, I could spend an hour on your talking points ridden post there, but we have hashed this out enough by now. All I'm going to say is that there is no civil war (yet), political progress can only be made with security or with military success and this war have NEVER been described as a short war. Thats complete politics and spin by the media.

[bugkill]

But only after it became too obvious that the critics were right that Bush admin estimates of the war effort were woefully inadequate. :roll:

The goalposts will be moved further and further back in accordance with the plan I've outlined above. After Petraeus's report in a few weeks, the Bush admin will find a new reason to keep the troops in the middle of the civil war for a few more months. One prediction I've heard based on the events of the past few days goes something like this: Political progress in Iraq (the only thing which will actually bring a halt to the violence) is at a standstill. Prime Minister Maliki will be held to blame and pressure will be used to replace him*. We will then be told that we have to stay in Iraq in order to give the new PM 'a chance to bring the various factions together in a political solution'. This should take a few more months, at which time the goalposts will have been set back even further and further until January, 2009...

*Apparantly the former interim PM, Iyad Allawi, has been using DC lobbyists to apply pressure to the Bush admin to replace Maliki. One of those lobbyists was Condi Rice's former deputy at the State Department. So if this prediction comes true, you can say you heard it here first.

is this the very same critics that gave him the green light in the first place to go into iraq, only to seek political cover when the tough got going? dude, you are completely wrong to believe that the political process is the one thing that will end the violence in iraq, you are ignoring the fact that the secterian violence and the insurgents are only part of the problem, and you people are truly ignoring the outside organizations that have been the main ones responsible for the major bombings. the political process is not going to deal with those groups coming in from outside of iraq, unless they get what they want.

it does not matter who you put in charge of iraq because if they are anywhere close to being an US ally, the violence will continue. i don't know about you, but we should only leave when our interests are best served and i don't give a damn if it takes 6 months or 15 years to acomplish it. all your arguments are invalid because your view does not address the impact it will have in afghanistan and our other interests in the region. it is easy to say "we need to leave" or "redeploy", but that is totally unrealistic given the situation.

[budgie]

Your 'intrests' were best served by not going in the first place. Anything done since then is counter-productive. Stay or leave: it'll be a failure either way. The blame rests entirely with the admin: the troops have nothing to do with it.

[Bia]

Really dumb question.


Easy answer.
It's easy to support my nations soldiers and not support their Commander In Chiefs descisions.


Apples and oranges.

[bugkill]

Your 'intrests' were best served by not going in the first place. Anything done since then is counter-productive. Stay or leave: it'll be a failure either way. The blame rests entirely with the admin: the troops have nothing to do with it.

how do you figure that? last time i checked we were already in iraq enforcing a "no fly zone", supporting anti-saddam groups, and an embargo that only hurt the iraqi people for over a decade, so what the hell do you mean by saying "not going in the first place? we were already there, but you just forgot that the first gulf war never ended, only a ceasefire was agreed upon. the policy of regime change has been in place for almost ten years. clinton came up with the policy, but he did not want to use US combat troops at the time and went with a covert operation instead, which proved to be a failure. the removal of saddam was not a bush admin policy, but a policy that was approved by the government well before bush took office.

also, bush would not have been able to have gone to war without the approval of congress, who tried in vain to say they were "misled" by the same damn intel from years ago. if they were so misled, why the hell are they still elected officials? how could they vote to give bush the authority if they felt that iraq was a completely bad move and then they were outsmarted by an administration that can't even keep their wiretap operation a secret? they had every right and obligation to vote "no", but they did not, you ever wonder why?

dude, you need to realize that finger pointing is futile and that making assumptions about how the world would be if we had not gone into iraq is only wishful thinking. we are where we are and there is no changing that. the quicker people quit bickering over who is at fault and all that crap, the better off we will be.

[LRPV]

Bugkill, I agree with some of your points but you lost me getting to home base (Aussie attempt at Yank analogyp-)). In closing you say that we would be better off not bickering in the blame game and we would then be better off.

Childish bickering aside, robust debate is required to establish a factual basis for responsibility. It is not good enough to simply ignore mistakes and pretend they did not occur. There is a saying that those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.