Someone explain to me how this 'troop surge' is supposed to work.

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: kage69

Try to imagine how much pain this war for nothing has caused, it's unimaginable.

Why do you want me to try if it's unimaginable? While I get what you're saying, I disagree on the war being for nothing. Nothing honorable or moral would be more correct, as were the reasons and actions that got us into it.

Some will say that saying that will diminish what the troops have achived, i will say that what i have said is because of the incompetent leadership, the soldiers themselves are worthy of respect, the leaders are worthy of nothing but disgust.

And those "some" would be the people who care more for their own ideals than the lives of their countrymen. I agree 100% on the incompetent leadership angle, with the one caveat that in addition to disgust they're worthy of a whole lot of prosecution. The entire Cheney Junta should be thrown in a hole, or better yet, forced to pitch in and help personally with the clusterfvck they created.

None of them have ever had to be in harms way yet they have no problem sending men in harms way.

Chickenhawks of the highest order, I agree. And they have the nuts to talk down to respected vets like Murtha and Cleland, and a collection of decorated generals about how a war should be run. It's fooking disgusting.
And the salt in the wound is that it's not just men. It's boys, girls, sisters, and mothers that are catching hell for these deceitful bastards. :brokenheart:

I hear you loud and clear, the threat as was forespoken did come, it was wrapped in a flag and it was carrying a cross.

It's time for the nation of the free to show what it's made of, it's time to reclaim the rights and stand strong in any storm without fear.

There are still people like you Kage69 and you are not alone, so i keep my faith in a people who won't be scared back into their livingromms taping doors and windows with duct tape (seriously).

The day may come when we have to put on our boots my friend and land in foreign lands, but it won't be for this.

We both have great faith in America, i salute you for a lot of other things, not all military things, but i also salute you for our faith in freedom. which IS the shining beacon that America stands for.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Bush calls for a surge, knowing that the Dems will oppose it. If they can kill it, then he can announce that we have lost, and it's the Dems fault. He might not have even needed Cheney to figure that one out.

 

[Aimster]

its supposed to scare iraqi govt officials.

if iraq doesnt crack down then bush is going to crack down on the iraq govt. Id hate to see that. Hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqi vs hundreds of thousands of U.S soldiers.

U.S cannot boss Iraq around. Iraq is armed and the people will fight for this Iraq. Nobody would have fought for the old Iraq.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Bush calls for a surge, knowing that the Dems will oppose it. If they can kill it, then he can announce that we have lost, and it's the Dems fault. He might not have even needed Cheney to figure that one out.

Bingo.

Also, a surge of troops to secure Baghdad was already tried last fall. It flopped.

 

[Strk]

It won't.

 

[lucasorion]

Originally posted by: Aimster
its supposed to scare iraqi govt officials.

if iraq doesnt crack down then bush is going to crack down on the iraq govt. Id hate to see that. Hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqi vs hundreds of thousands of U.S soldiers.

U.S cannot boss Iraq around. Iraq is armed and the people will fight for this Iraq. Nobody would have fought for the old Iraq.

There is no Iraq, there is Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Shiastan.

 

[Pens1566]

It isn't supposed to work militarily. It's strictly a political ploy to keep the meat grinder churning until after the boy king is out of office. Using, lets be more correct, sacrificing soldiers for a political ploy is horrible. Not to mention that everyone, including Barney is against the idea as well. Democracy FTW.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Bush calls for a surge, knowing that the Dems will oppose it. If they can kill it, then he can announce that we have lost, and it's the Dems fault. He might not have even needed Cheney to figure that one out.

The dems are wise to the tactics of this admin. They will give Dumbya & Co just enough rope to hang themselves.

 

[TRUMPHENT]

I am somewhat awed by the lack of suggesting the surge is a precursor to the notion of of the shock of exiting Iraq.

The Soviet Union surged into Afghanistan for the express purpose of exiting with their forces intact. It was and is considered a brilliant tactical operation.

 

[conjur]

Operation Together Forward was *70,000* security forces. Why will this escalation work now?????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Together_Forward

The plan was announced on 14 June 2006 by the then-recently installed Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, and intended to increase security conditions in Baghdad through instituting major new measures. Operation Together Forward was planned as an operation to be led primarily by Iraqis but with Coalition support and would put about 70,000 security forces on the streets of Baghdad.

...

On 24 July 2006, it was announced that Prime Minister Maliki was heading to Washington, D.C. for talks about the security situation with President George W. Bush. The White House also publicly admitted for the first time that the Operation had been a failure, and that a new security strategy for Baghdad would be designed.

On 1 August it was announced that the U.S. would redeploy 3,700 troops from Mosul to Baghdad to bolster security in the capital. On the same day, 70 Iraqis (including 20 soldiers) were killed in Baghdad violence and bombings.

...

The Iraq Study Group, in its December 2006 report <3> cited Operation Together Forward II (i.e. the second phase of the Operation), writing:

In a major effort to quell the violence in Iraq, U.S. military forces joined with Iraqi forces to establish security in Baghdad with an operation called Operation Together Forward II, which began in August 2006. Under Operation Together Forward II, U.S. forces are working with members of the Iraqi Army and police to ?clear, hold, and build? in Baghdad, moving neighborhood by neighborhood. There are roughly 15,000 U.S. troops in Baghdad. This operation?and the security of Baghdad?is crucial to security in Iraq more generally... The results of Operation Together Forward II are disheartening. Violence in Baghdad?already at high levels?jumped more than 43 percent between the summer and October 2006. U.S. forces continue to suffer high casualties.

So, why will 20,000 troops work wonders where 15,000 (plus thousands of Iraqi forces) troops resulted in ABJECT FAILURE and THOUSANDS OF DEATHS?!?!?!

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: conjur
So, why will 20,000 troops work wonders where 15,000 (plus thousands of Iraqi forces) troops resulted in ABJECT FAILURE and THOUSANDS OF DEATHS?!?!?!

The Decider would say, "It's a temp-rary set back.... It'll work if yall quit talkin' 'bout it...."

Meanwhile, slowly, the stage is being set for the US to go to war with Iran... With the Fox Newz Network's organismic news items concerning Iran, you'd think it was a done deal......

 

[nullzero]

Like the rest of you I am watching this Iraq war unravel infront of my eyes. I am trying to figure out what will happen when the dust settles. For those that compared this to Vietnam in the past... this is a far greater blunder then Vietnam.

When the dust settles in this war the effects will be seen for many years to come. Some of the senarios are higher oil prices due to the constant chaos in the region. Also Iraq War has caused massive new recruitments into fundamentalist islamic groups around the world. I would even go to say that we have more then tripled the amount of terrorist even after you account for the ones killed by the war on terror. Another interesting fact is that Iran almost has Iraq in its hands... how could we be so blind sighting and think that Iran was going to keep its hand out of the cookie jar? The flow of weapons and agents into Iraq from Iran is in the thousands. Iran now is in a position to have the capability to control most of Iraq as a proxy state and control the oil reserves in the country. If we lose (which I believe is a very high probability, we will basically hand the country over to Iran to do what they please with the oil reserves.)

Thank You Bush for all the bullsh*t I hope history is not kind of your legacy.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
I am somewhat awed by the lack of suggesting the surge is a precursor to the notion of of the shock of exiting Iraq.

The Soviet Union surged into Afghanistan for the express purpose of exiting with their forces intact. It was and is considered a brilliant tactical operation.

Clinton did the same thing in Somalia, read the book Black Hawk Down for details.

After the black hawk down mess we sent in a bunch of troops, made a lot of noise, and the left quietly.

Not sure this is the same thing, but in a way it makes sense. Send in additional troops in one ?last? effort to make it work. And if it fails he can say ?we did everything we can etc etc? and try to save face by placing the blame on the Iraqis. Unlike many of the anti-Bush crowd I would like to see this work. It is in the best interest of everyone involved for Iraq to become a peaceful ally as opposed to a non-state dominated by Iran and terrorists.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Martin
I really don't get it. Here is a graph of US troop levels since the start of the war. Currently there are a shade over 130k soldiers and Bush is proposing an extra 22k, which would bring the total to about 153k. But as you can see from this article, there were 153k troops there just over 1 year ago and they didn't exactly achieve victory, did they? Not only that, but there were 148k troops there this summer. How is restoring that number going to achieve or even change anything?

I have a hard time seeing how this can result in anything but failure.

Maybe, just maybe, if those "extra" troops are sent in to do a specific thing (i.e. secure Baghdad) there's a chance of it having a positive effect. Given the track-record of this Administration in Iraq, I'm not real hopeful.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Bush calls for a surge, knowing that the Dems will oppose it. If they can kill it, then he can announce that we have lost, and it's the Dems fault. He might not have even needed Cheney to figure that one out.

The dems are wise to the tactics of this admin. They will give Dumbya & Co just enough rope to hang themselves.

I'm so glad the dems are acting in the best interests of their politics and not the country. It's always great to see them playing politics with war...seems to me you are hoping for this plan to fail.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
It isn't supposed to work militarily. It's strictly a political ploy to keep the meat grinder churning until after the boy king is out of office. Using, lets be more correct, sacrificing soldiers for a political ploy is horrible. Not to mention that everyone, including Barney is against the idea as well. Democracy FTW.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I too consider this a political ploy, unlikely to work, and designed to deflect blame
in any of a number of exploitable directions, I very strongly disagree that it will buy GWB&co. any more than about six months more time---leaving GWB&co. even more politically wounded for the eighteen remaining months he has left to serve.

Meanwhile other events will be afoot--including democratic subpeopna powers that should be able to crack the lies our commander and thief has been telling. Unless GWB is praying for a miracle no rational man could hope to expect, in six months or so, GWB will almost certainly be in a much worse political position than he is today.---with a good probability that his popularity may dip to 20% or less.

So I have to conclude GWB is betting the his Presidency on what looks like more ill planned delusions with this surge.

And many will not wait to see GWB pay the lose the bet forfeit while they patiently wait for their backwards Bush watches to tick into 2009.---and will want to trim at least a year off that time.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: kage69
In order to honor the troops that have already been wounded or killed, we have to send more over to be killed or wounded.



It's so simple!

Let's just leave and honor our dead by turning yellow. You know this is a volunteer army right? And sometimes armies go to battle. Sometimes people even die. Die to protect freedoms you use as a punchline.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Bush calls for a surge, knowing that the Dems will oppose it. If they can kill it, then he can announce that we have lost, and it's the Dems fault. He might not have even needed Cheney to figure that one out.

The dems are wise to the tactics of this admin. They will give Dumbya & Co just enough rope to hang themselves.

I'm so glad the dems are acting in the best interests of their politics and not the country. It's always great to see them playing politics with war...seems to me you are hoping for this plan to fail.

If you look at the words they use A loss for the U.S. is a WIN for them. Always routing for something bad to happen so they can cast the first stone.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: kage69
In order to honor the troops that have already been wounded or killed, we have to send more over to be killed or wounded.



It's so simple!

Let's just leave and honor our dead by turning yellow. You know this is a volunteer army right? And sometimes armies go to battle. Sometimes people even die. Die to protect freedoms you use as a punchline.

How did you feel when GWB used WMD's as a punchline back at that press corp. dinner a few years ago....

Y'know, "WMD'S" - the reason that our troops were sent to Iraq to find and protect us from.....

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: kage69
In order to honor the troops that have already been wounded or killed, we have to send more over to be killed or wounded.



It's so simple!

Let's just leave and honor our dead by turning yellow. You know this is a volunteer army right? And sometimes armies go to battle. Sometimes people even die. Die to protect freedoms you use as a punchline.

How did you feel when GWB used WMD's as a punchline back at that press corp. dinner a few years ago....

Y'know, the "overwhelming" reason that our troops were going to Iraq to find.....

You do know that Saddam already used WMD's right? And that Both the U.K. intel and Saddams own generals said they still think Saddam had them.

Where did they magically disappear to? Did he sell them on ebay?

Was he just bluffing this whole time?

I guess GWB called the bluff and he lost? Sucks to be him.

Arrogance isn't bliss.

Regardless Saddam has killed 1 million +/- and now he's gone. And the worst part is that Iran's President seems to have the same deathwish in provoking hostilities. Hopefully Isreal will use more F-16's to bomb his nuke programs so we don't have to.

 

[UberNeuman]

Since you didn't answer me, I can believe that you are okay with the CIC making a joke out of not finding WMD's in Iraq - the major reason given to go into that country... Correct...

 

[Lemon law]

To EXman,

You are entitled to your opinions but not your own facts.

Fact----we should not have deposed Saddam in the way that we did because it resulted in over 600,000 additional people being killed.

Fact---the dems initially went along with the Iraq war after being given phony intel---after that they were not consulted---so this is a 100% GWB screw up.
Don't blame the dems for the conduct of a war they were powerless to alter.

Fact---GWB can not plan his way out of Iraq without altering goals along the lines of the Baker Hamilton report. So given that fact, its in the best interests of this country
to get rid of GWB so we can stabilize Iraq. and stop the loss of life---its not politics---its simple fact.---and when this country wises up---it will be repubs leading the charge to
give GWB the old heave ho.---and some reasonable republican will get the Presidency ala the Gerald Ford method.

Fact ---no matter how hard you wish, you can't stop the tides from coming in, gravity from working the way it does, and its you that is delusional if you think GWB will succeed in this surge----so fact---be open to other ideas before dismissing them as the same cynical politics GWB has played and is now playing.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To EXman,

You are entitled to your opinions but not your own facts.

Fact----we should not have deposed Saddam in the way that we did because it resulted in over 600,000 additional people being killed.

umm next time you lecture on facts you should try to use some good ones yourself. NO ONE believes the 600,000 figure.
The true total is most likely between 50,000 and 100,000. A lot yes, but FAR short of 600,000.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Fact---the dems initially went along with the Iraq war after being given phony intel---after that they were not consulted---so this is a 100% GWB screw up.
Don't blame the dems for the conduct of a war they were powerless to alter.

The same phony intel that Clinton used when he was President and making statements about Saddam having WMD?

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

What happened in-between 1998 and 2003 that made this intel phony?

I happen to like this quote: "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

On a side note: Can someone please tell me what the hell Saddam was doing by playing games with the inspectors if he truly did not have the weapons? This whole mess would have never happened if Saddam had cooperated with inspectors, and even Han Blix, the hero of the left, said "Why did they conduct themselves as they did throughout the '90s?" "Why deny access if you are not hiding something? What I am groping at now is whether pride was at the root of it."

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To EXman,

You are entitled to your opinions but not your own facts.

#1Fact----we should not have deposed Saddam in the way that we did because it resulted in over 600,000 additional people being killed.

#2Fact---the dems initially went along with the Iraq war after being given phony intel---after that they were not consulted---so this is a 100% GWB screw up.
Don't blame the dems for the conduct of a war they were powerless to alter.

#3Fact---GWB can not plan his way out of Iraq without altering goals along the lines of the Baker Hamilton report. So given that fact, its in the best interests of this country
to get rid of GWB so we can stabilize Iraq. and stop the loss of life---its not politics---its simple fact.---and when this country wises up---it will be repubs leading the charge to
give GWB the old heave ho.---and some reasonable republican will get the Presidency ala the Gerald Ford method.

#4Fact ---no matter how hard you wish, you can't stop the tides from coming in, gravity from working the way it does, and its you that is delusional if you think GWB will succeed in this surge----so fact---be open to other ideas before dismissing them as the same cynical politics GWB has played and is now playing.

#1 Ummm Who knows but definately not truth unless you are simple. 600,000 really... (I have seem many counts and surely none of them can be exact or confirmed) You don't think the suppression of the Shia by the Sunni's and the hatered between the two groups has led to bloodshed. After almost 30 years of the Shia getting raped, killed and mistreated in almost everyway everyday. Saddams reign of terror over the Kurds and Shia had more to do with the bloodshed but this war and their liberation has been a catalyst for it certainly. Somehow it is GWB's fault that Shia and Kurds are liberated? Damn right! Now to get Iraq to get a hold of itself

#2 Partial truth The intel was from many countries (16 If I remember correct)it wasn't all gathered by secret GWB agents.

#3 Opinion the Baker Surrend report OMG what a nice piece of fiction! Deal with Iran to help us. James Baker is Kin. and I was gonna hit him up for a job but damn that was a turd they wrote. Fact GWB needs to do something different.

#4= RANT Buch of stuff pulled out your ass NOT FACT! You don't know what I believe about this surge I never offered an opinion on that. Or on gravity either Laugh

But Since you call your facts facts and some clearly are not, with out addressing where the mystery WMD's went and that he already used them is telling.

Don't RIP SADDAM madman!:shocked:

btw want to help me get my Mazda Lemon lawed?