U.S. Troops Want Rumsfeld to Send Them Home
- Thread starter fluxquantum
- Start date
BTW: No one is going home soon. Now that we are in Iraq we have to finish this, or risk creating something 10x more destablizing and condusive to terrorism and etxremism than Afghanistan, not to mention the inevitable factional fighting.
Failure is not an option.
Failure is not an option.
Failure is always an option . . . regardless of whether you acknowledge or choose it. The question is whether this administration has the ability to recognize ALL of the problems presented by this situation and the strength of character to act in opposition to its impulses if those impulses would not benefit the short AND long term success of Iraq.
The worst possible scenario, is some sort of Vietnamization redux program, a puppet/weak government, and an American pullout after declaring mission accomplished for the assembled cameras.
If they are regulars, they shouldn't be bitching. That is EXACTLY what they signed up for and what they are paid to do. If they are Researves, then they got some BEEF. Reserves are not meant to be used like active duty forces. If they don't have enough troops, add more active duty troops. Cut the missile defense project and use the money for for troops and equipment.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Failure is not an option LOL> Save you speech for the Raiders this season, There is always a toll where it becomes the only option, veitnam comes to mind. We loose nothing but face if we leave now. There are no terrorists in Iraq but the ones we are creating by being there.
That's real foward thinking of you. There were no terrorists in Afghanistan either whne we left and look how well that turned out.
absolutely right..moronic that anyone would expect them say anything else..yet another example of the press trying to editorialize under the guise of "news"
and by the way, we are the only superpower in the world, we have the military capability to defeat any other country, this is irrefutable. The only real question is if
we have the POLITICAL will to defeat the enemy. The democrats mastered the art of defeatism during the Vietnam Conflict..
Yeah, right. Are you old enough to remember who was in the White House when we pulled out?
Hint, it wasn't a Democrat.
ah the rightiousness of the uninformed.......
well, lets review the full facts for a moment:
the vietnam conflict was embraced by Kennedy in 1960
the democrats (kennedy, and particularly johnson) ran and escalated the vietnam conflict
until 1968. By the time the democrats had put 500,000 troops after 8 years of conflict and 40,000 dead, public opinion had
completely turned against the war.
the democrats managed to start a war against a poorly equipted third world enemy (no significant airforce, navy, or weapons technology)
and then proceed to lose the war by not prosecuting the war appropriately, and by losing political support for the war at home.
Nixon ran for president on the platform of ending the war quickly "with honor", and he managed to get a cease-fire with north vietnam in effect by 1973.
Nixon didn't start the war, and he didn't promise to win it, he promised to end it, and he did.
By the time he inherited the war in vietnam, THE DEMOCRATS HAD ALREADY LOST THE WAR..all he could do was to negotiate a cease fire..indeed, Johnson tried to negotiate a cease-fire with the n. vietnamese prior to leaving office, but was unable to do so. Nixon brought the N. Vietnamize to the negotiating table by simultaneously reducing american ground forces every year he was in office, (sending a message that he wanted to get the troops), while bombing the cr@p out of Hanoi and Cambodia.
i was of draft age during the vietnam conflict...Nixon would not have been elected if he didn't run on extricating us from vietnam. the democrats managed to start and lose a war against what is now arguably the poorest country in the world..i believe both Bin Laden and Saddam studied the american reactions to vietnam, and assumed that the U.S. public would never support a war that resulted in loss of american lives (gee, sound like all the current press releases from iraq, and saddams strategy). this expectation on the part of saddam and bin laden (that we didn't have the will to fight if it would cost american lives) actually ecouraged them in their activities.
unfortunately, the reality of the world is that perceived weakness (lack of a political will to win a war once your in it, and remember nearly all the democrats VOTED WITH THE REPUBLICANS to authorize the use of the military in iraq..or have you forgotted that too) encourages our enemies.
the treachery of the democrats is in voting for and authorizing the use of the military in iraq....and then doing everything they can to encourage public opinion to turn against what they authorized! they're helping saddam!!
well, lets review the full facts for a moment:
the vietnam conflict was embraced by Kennedy in 1960
the democrats (kennedy, and particularly johnson) ran and escalated the vietnam conflict
until 1968. By the time the democrats had put 500,000 troops after 8 years of conflict and 40,000 dead, public opinion had
completely turned against the war.
the democrats managed to start a war against a poorly equipted third world enemy (no significant airforce, navy, or weapons technology)
and then proceed to lose the war by not prosecuting the war appropriately, and by losing political support for the war at home.
Nixon ran for president on the platform of ending the war quickly "with honor", and he managed to get a cease-fire with north vietnam in effect by 1973.
Nixon didn't start the war, and he didn't promise to win it, he promised to end it, and he did.
By the time he inherited the war in vietnam, THE DEMOCRATS HAD ALREADY LOST THE WAR..all he could do was to negotiate a cease fire..indeed, Johnson tried to negotiate a cease-fire with the n. vietnamese prior to leaving office, but was unable to do so. Nixon brought the N. Vietnamize to the negotiating table by simultaneously reducing american ground forces every year he was in office, (sending a message that he wanted to get the troops), while bombing the cr@p out of Hanoi and Cambodia.
i was of draft age during the vietnam conflict...Nixon would not have been elected if he didn't run on extricating us from vietnam. the democrats managed to start and lose a war against what is now arguably the poorest country in the world..i believe both Bin Laden and Saddam studied the american reactions to vietnam, and assumed that the U.S. public would never support a war that resulted in loss of american lives (gee, sound like all the current press releases from iraq, and saddams strategy). this expectation on the part of saddam and bin laden (that we didn't have the will to fight if it would cost american lives) actually ecouraged them in their activities.
unfortunately, the reality of the world is that perceived weakness (lack of a political will to win a war once your in it, and remember nearly all the democrats VOTED WITH THE REPUBLICANS to authorize the use of the military in iraq..or have you forgotted that too) encourages our enemies.
the treachery of the democrats is in voting for and authorizing the use of the military in iraq....and then doing everything they can to encourage public opinion to turn against what they authorized! they're helping saddam!!
Quite an interesting twist on history.
Bush LIED to congress to get approval for his invasion of Iraq.
The congresspeople who voted for the invasion, Republican and Democrat did so based on Bush's lies AND the fact that Bush and Co., along with people like YOU, called ANYONE who opposed the war a traitor and accused them of HELPING SADDAM just like you are now!
Rewrite history all you like. You're efforts are transparent.
Your version of history does not = facts.
What about the lies Bush told to congress and the threat of being labeled a traitor who wanted to help Saddam if you opposed Bush on Iraq?
Are those facts?
Yes and No. We gave Iraq weapons in the 80's where are they? Why are we finding underground bunkers with rubber seals and 15k NBC Air Filteration systems? Its up to debate, but the topic is troops want to go home. Well of course they do
Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes and No. We gave Iraq weapons in the 80's where are they? Why are we finding underground bunkers with rubber seals and 15k NBC Air Filteration systems? Its up to debate, but the topic is troops want to go home. Well of course they do
Well I know that's the topic but I didn't bring up Nam or who was to blame.
Many of the weapons Iraq had were destroyed in the Gulf War. And the UN inspectors were doing a good job in Iraq before Bush decided he couldn't wait until they finished.
The UN Security Council wouldn't sanction an invasion and our NATO allies France and Germany, along with Russia, opposed Bush's invasion. We know who was right now.
We should really be asking Bush and Co. what the rush was. I'd really like to know. There hasn't been ONE good reason given as to why Bush had to rush into Iraq and cause this crisis that has cost so many lives and will take billions of dollars and years to fix.
What was the rush?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes and No. We gave Iraq weapons in the 80's where are they? Why are we finding underground bunkers with rubber seals and 15k NBC Air Filteration systems? Its up to debate, but the topic is troops want to go home. Well of course they do
Well I know that's the topic but I didn't bring up Nam or who was to blame.
Many of the weapons Iraq had were destroyed in the Gulf War. And the UN inspectors were doing a good job in Iraq before Bush decided he couldn't wait until they finished.
The UN Security Council wouldn't sanction an invasion and our NATO allies France and Germany, along with Russia, opposed Bush's invasion. We know who was right now.
We should really be asking Bush and Co. what the rush was. I'd really like to know. There hasn't been ONE good reason given as to why Bush had to rush into Iraq and cause this crisis that has cost so many lives and will take billions of dollars and years to fix.
What was the rush?
12+ years of defying sanctions = rush?
14 months of troop build up in the area = rush?
finally giving him one last time to comply = rush?
Yeah - you're right...
CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes and No. We gave Iraq weapons in the 80's where are they? Why are we finding underground bunkers with rubber seals and 15k NBC Air Filteration systems? Its up to debate, but the topic is troops want to go home. Well of course they do
Well I know that's the topic but I didn't bring up Nam or who was to blame.
Many of the weapons Iraq had were destroyed in the Gulf War. And the UN inspectors were doing a good job in Iraq before Bush decided he couldn't wait until they finished.
The UN Security Council wouldn't sanction an invasion and our NATO allies France and Germany, along with Russia, opposed Bush's invasion. We know who was right now.
We should really be asking Bush and Co. what the rush was. I'd really like to know. There hasn't been ONE good reason given as to why Bush had to rush into Iraq and cause this crisis that has cost so many lives and will take billions of dollars and years to fix.
What was the rush?
12+ years of defying sanctions = rush?
14 months of troop build up in the area = rush?
finally giving him one last time to comply = rush?
Yeah - you're right...
CkG
Don't be obtuse. What was the overriding threat that made the invasion necessary?
And it was argued the 14 months of troop build up in the area made it impossible for Bush NOT to invade. Else why the huge build up? Which only proves Bush never considered any option OTHER than invasion.
Even though he was told time and time again not to invade. Even though millions protested his invasion.
And we know who was right now, don't we?
you know its hard to keep all the contradictions straight..
Bush is a moron..there have been plenty of threads claiming that.
Bush lied to Congress...gosh, how did such a moron fool so many smart democrats.
Saddam sought out uranium in the 1980's (not even the dems dispute this)
Parts of a centrifuge for purifying uranium to weapons grade was recently dug up in the home garden of an Iraqi nuclear scientist.
what do you suppose saddam's intention was? just give up on nuclear weapons? do you really believe he was just going to stop without a
credible threat of force? Do you propose we should have waited until he actually tested a nuclear bomb, like the N. Koreans are planning?
Senator Kerry (D-France) has stated that he voted for giving Bush authority to use the military in Iraq "to pressure Saddam to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors" But, he didn't really expect Bush to deploy troops! Well, Saddam didn't fully comply with U.N weapons inspectors (or have you forgotten that already) even with the Troop deployed!
if he had the time to develop nuclear weapons, what impact do you think that would have on middle east oil prices, the world economy, the U.S. economy?
yes, I actually do believe the actions of many democrats qualify as treason...and yes i do believe that it encourages saddam loyalists to hang in there and keep killing an occasional U.S. soldier, so their allies like Howard Dean can ultimately win the war for them politically.
Bush is a moron..there have been plenty of threads claiming that.
Bush lied to Congress...gosh, how did such a moron fool so many smart democrats.
Saddam sought out uranium in the 1980's (not even the dems dispute this)
Parts of a centrifuge for purifying uranium to weapons grade was recently dug up in the home garden of an Iraqi nuclear scientist.
what do you suppose saddam's intention was? just give up on nuclear weapons? do you really believe he was just going to stop without a
credible threat of force? Do you propose we should have waited until he actually tested a nuclear bomb, like the N. Koreans are planning?
Senator Kerry (D-France) has stated that he voted for giving Bush authority to use the military in Iraq "to pressure Saddam to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors" But, he didn't really expect Bush to deploy troops! Well, Saddam didn't fully comply with U.N weapons inspectors (or have you forgotten that already) even with the Troop deployed!
if he had the time to develop nuclear weapons, what impact do you think that would have on middle east oil prices, the world economy, the U.S. economy?
yes, I actually do believe the actions of many democrats qualify as treason...and yes i do believe that it encourages saddam loyalists to hang in there and keep killing an occasional U.S. soldier, so their allies like Howard Dean can ultimately win the war for them politically.
yes, I actually do believe the actions of many democrats qualify as treason
yeah, why don't you look up the legal definition of treason. Saying that people who don't agree with you are treasonous is UNAMERICAN! YOu'll make a great communist or Nazi party boss. Heart surgeon my as
yeah, why don't you look up the legal definition of treason. Saying that people who don't agree with you are treasonous is UNAMERICAN! YOu'll make a great communist or Nazi party boss. Heart surgeon my as
Aahh, ha, ha, ha!!! They need to shut their yaps and do their jobs. Every dogface who has ever served in combat has bitched, whined, complained and moaned about how they are being abused and not amused. The last time I looked nobody was conscripted. Guns were not put to their heads or knives to their throats to force them to join up. They need to get over it. They are there for whatever time it takes. When they go in for their ETS talk (reup to some of you) they can decline and get out.
The only thing different now is that we have instantaneous communication. Instead of letters that a week or two, sometimes a month, we have email and reporters with satellite phones looking for Johnny or Jane who never really wanted to be a soldier. No, they just wanted the money for college after spending 3 or 4 years "training".
Well, listen up bitch(s), you are getting your training now. This is what you signed up for. If you are careful and remember your training the chances of getting killed or even wounded are statistically miniscule.
My post has nothing to do with the right or wrong of this operation, only with some people in our military who are whiney little crybabies who don't like being inconvenienced.
That is the chance you took when you signed on the dotted line. I'll bet you never thought you would actually have to earn that college money, did you? Well, Uncle Sam knew.
<----served and didn't whine.
The only thing different now is that we have instantaneous communication. Instead of letters that a week or two, sometimes a month, we have email and reporters with satellite phones looking for Johnny or Jane who never really wanted to be a soldier. No, they just wanted the money for college after spending 3 or 4 years "training".
Well, listen up bitch(s), you are getting your training now. This is what you signed up for. If you are careful and remember your training the chances of getting killed or even wounded are statistically miniscule.
My post has nothing to do with the right or wrong of this operation, only with some people in our military who are whiney little crybabies who don't like being inconvenienced.
That is the chance you took when you signed on the dotted line. I'll bet you never thought you would actually have to earn that college money, did you? Well, Uncle Sam knew.
<----served and didn't whine.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter