The terrorist aren't fighting the U.S. Army? I think the fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, wives, and husbands of fallen soldiers will disagree.

 

I reckon this post is going to run for ever like the ' Answer an Question - Ask a Question' one

 

Personally I dont give a **** what the morons think. They are gonna claim they won no matter what happens. If we occupy, oops, I mean stay as guests, for 100 years, the day we leave will be the day they claim to have defeated us. Those people are F'n dipsh1ts.

Personally, I hope the new guy either a) pulls the troops out or b) floods Iraq with every service member in the military just to kick the **** out the baddies. Dont really matter much to me which option he chooses, but the current plan of sit and wait is not working.

 

^^^I agree with that^^^

If the plan isn't to win, then why bother? The problem with that is that the Dems are perfectly happy with losing. In fact, they prefer it because it reinforces their view of the world and they figure that a loss will help them politically in the future. The Dem worldview is a)the US military is evil and shouldn't be allowed to do anything b)if the US was only nicer and talked to the Islamic terrorists, then everything would be ok and c) the whole thing is Bush's fault, so you can't really blame us for anything.

Then the next time we are attacked at home or somewhere around the world the Dems will say "You can't use the military to fight back. Remember Iraq? Keep everyone in the barracks and the State Dept will talk to the terrorists and get it all worked out." Islamic terrorists love pussies like that. They can use them to their advantage and if they can't, then they behead them and put the vid on the net.

 

Dont you guys pay attention?? Rumsfield said a while ago, if the Election goes this way.. then he will step down.. how is that being fired? The dems now have control of the house.. It will be a lot easier to get a new sec of def approved now, then it would be later.. see what im saying? As for flooding Iraq with US troops, or pulling them out.. that would be the worst thing we could do.. I dont see how that would "help" the new Iraqi gov step up and take control of the situation without falling flat on their faces.. they are in a stage of development where they need to take baby steps. They cant just all of a sudden control their own borders and police their own people. hell they dont have an intel department yet.. how they going to know whos door to knock on? The US has so many assets that are a great service including soldiers to help.. once the Iraqi people start to trust their gov more,(the hope is) that more Iraqis will step up and fill the slots of the US soldiers. It will just take time..

 

Thats rediculous. You say you agree with the fact that the sit and wait plan is not working. Then you say the dems are pussies. Who are the ***** a$$ bastards who made the sit and wait plan. The damn Republicans.

I think you should think about that.

 

Personally I am tired of having to give a **** what stage of development they are in. Right now all I see is constant bickering, fighting, and sectarian violence. The govt there does not seem to want to step in and stop it, and as I am less than 20 days from my 3rd deployment, I say fvck em! I stand behind the idea of flooding the country with our troops, cuz in the end that will help get us out faster.


They can, except right now they know they dont have to. They have plenty of of people willing to fight and die, they are just not willing to do it for their country. Instead they would rather fight each other due to their differences. Thats fine with me, I could care less if they all die, but stop wasting our f'n time in that sh1thole country that they could defend themselves.


I am tired of giving time, a year at a time.

Before anyone jumps in with it, let me say that I know I signed up for this and it is my job, so please spare me that line. All I am saying is that they could be doing ALOT more for themselves than they are. And if they are not willing to stand up for themselves, then why the fvck are we?

 

Wow, that almost sounds like a rant, dont it

 

We are in Iraq fighting terrorists right now. The Dems want to stop fighting terrorists pronto. That's the difference.

I think what Blue was saying about "sitting and waiting" (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that currently our military is not using all of its abilities to go after the bad guys - because it is impolitic to do so because civilians might be killed in the process. I mean, how can you tell a civilian from a enemy if they all dress the same and most of them have weapons?

Anyway, you can't have peace until you kill the enemy. If you want to discuss "peace" with Islamic terrorists, you are wasting your time. It's either kill them(and I mean level Sadr City and probably some Sunni areas as well if you have to) or let them have the damn place. The press just freaks out if you do something like Falluja, where we decided to kill a bunch of the bastards, but the press never won a war either. It is great at helping lose wars though. We didn't win WWII by pulling up because "it's not nice to kill people" every time we got the Germans or Japanese on the run. No one has ever won a war that way. We won back public opinion after the enemy is destroyed and the population was actually 100% dependant on us for its very survival. It's a waste of time and blood to try to win public opinion while you are still fighting street to street.

So that's why I was agreeing with his "actually do something or get out" plan.

 

Guys, every occupation - and that's what we are doing now in Iraq - is a costly effort both in money and lives.

Here's a quick history lesson...

After WWII there were still German holdouts thinking the 3rd Riech would rise again. Almost 40,000 more Americans died due to further fighting "after" the signed surrender. We would be delusional to believe that this will be different.

Another footnote - though ANY lose of life is tragic and unacceptable and this is NOT an excuse for the war (personally, I feel it was wrong) - let's look at this from another perspective.

Every President has never had a perfect administration - some do more problems and cost more lives than others... Kennedy and Johnson got us in Vietnam - Nixon pulled us out and we lost just over 47,000 lives in 90 months (that's roughly 522 a month).

So far, in Iraq, we have lost just over 2800 in 44 months (that's about 64 a month) ...

Perhaps it will take a Democratic president to take us out of this one this time...

We all know Iraq was a bad idea that never should have happened and that Bush is a functional illiterate, but hopefully Rumsfeld's much anticipated departure will be a good sign that things will change...