In todays e mail:

Tragedy has struck again. This DAMN war! Maybe you heard about the Black Hawk that was shot down over Baghdad; a family member was killed. CSM Haller was also Maryland National Guard. It looks like we will have to take emergency leave for another trip to Arlington. I don't know how much more of this I can take! Don't worry, we won't be coming home. Please keep my family in your prayers. I'll be in touch. Thanks for everything!
Kim

This from a lady who lives on a house on my farm. Her husband Randy, who helps me when we're busy, has spent most of the last two years in the burn unit in San Antonio after being blown up doing convoy duty in Iraq for the Maryland National Guard which is to say for us. They're both still there, but he's lucky. He didn't lose any limbs and his short term memory is getting better. The guy who drug him away from the burning truck, Mike McMullen, and covered him right before the second bomb went off died. I water Kim's plants every other week. I forget fairly often and it might be three weeks or so some times.

My step son spent 12 months there for Uncle Sam as did my daughter in law.
He went back for 4 more months for his company and his Christmas present from all of us was that he just got recalled to active duty. Seems he hasn't served enough yet.

None of these people were gonna cure cancer or make wintertime static electricity go away and one could argue people get hurt and die all the time and most soldiers who go to Iraq come back in one piece. So then you have to reconcile if it matters or not what they were doing and why.

Objectively, you have to convince yourself that the 3,000 some odd dead, like Mike, and 25,000 or so wounded, like Randy, and the 100's of thousands of family members and friends, like Kim and the McMullens, impacted by these deaths and injuries are to be honored, the dead, and comforted, everybody else, by the idea that their sacrifice will keep terrorists off our streets and out of our planes thereby sparing so very many more fellow citizens a horrible fate.

Then, objectively, you have to convince yourself that their sacrifice was the only and best option we had in order to deal with Usama and Saddam and global terror.

Then, objectively, you have to convince yourself that by accepting these losses and continuing a course of action that guarantees more makes you tough and resolved and wise.

Lastly, objectively, you have to convince yourself that whatever it is we may or may not achieve in Iraq by staying it is worth the life and/or limb of another soldier, the life and/or limb of your neighbors kid, your own son or daughter.

There is no snappy last sentence to summarize this post and drive home a point.

My step son spent 12 months there for Uncle Sam as did my daughter in law.
He went back for 4 more months for his company and his Christmas present from all of us was that he just got recalled to active duty. Seems he hasn't served enough yet.
What do they think?

I have a cousin, a nephew, a step-son, friends, and several children of friends that are over in Iraq. I constantly pray for safe returns for not only them, but all of our troops. :huggy:

I have a cousin, a nephew, a step-son, friends, and several children of friends that are over in Iraq. I constantly pray for safe returns for not only them, but all of our troops. :huggy:
...and what do they think?

they all want to come home

And ironically, my cousin just sent this to me. Her husband got back from Iraq in March. It's long, but good. I started crying after the first sentence...

***********

You don’t know, but I’m the girl who cries every morning, and hopes every night for his safe return. I’m the girl who drags herself out of bed every morning so that he will be proud of her when he comes home. I’m the girl who lies in bed longing for him to be lying next to me. I’m the girl who sits quietly during class because all I can think about is that next moment when he will safely be in my arms again. You don’t know, but I’m the girl with a million things to say, but not one will come out without the thought of him. I’m the girl who checks my cell phone every five seconds just to make sure I haven’t missed his call. I’m the girl who stops and stares and wishes for him to return soon each and every time another man in uniform walks by.

What you don’t know is that I know love on an entirely different level from most. I know the love that spans time and space; that love that most people are constantly searching for. I’m one of the girls who waits months for a single kiss; a kiss that will make the months apart worth every second. A kiss where everything in the world stops and for what seems like eternity, you can see into that person’s soul and know that without them, life is not worth living. You tell me, I’m too young to be “so in love”; I know that love has no age limit. You tell me I don’t even understand what love is, I tell you, I know more love in one homecoming, than most know in a life time. You don’t know that every time he leaves part of me goes with him and part of him stays with me. You tell me that people change and I tell you, true love with always remain constant and steady. You tell me, I’m too young to be married, I tell you, and I’m too in love to not be. You tell me you know how I feel and that you understand what I’m going through; you have no idea. What you don’t realize is that I understand the true meaning of not only love, but of longing and anticipation.

You don’t see, but I’m one of the few who gets goose bumps as my heart fills with pride every time the National Anthem is played. I’m one of the girls who will stand tall and stay strong on the outside, but be dying on the inside. I am one of the girls who will make friends with complete strangers for only they can even begin to understand what I am going through. You don’t understand that I picture his face everywhere I go and that he is with me in everything I do. You think I don’t cry anymore, that I have gotten over it, but what you don’t know is that I just hide it better.

You don’t know the feeling the first time you hear the word deployment or the feeling of his hands as it slides out of yours for what could be the last time. You don’t know what that last hug or kiss means and how important that goodbye truly is. I’m the girl you see standing alone in the corner of the airport watching quietly out the window with tears rolling down my cheeks. I’m the girl you see walking by with a disheartened face staring silently at the ground. What you don’t know, is that I know true love and that no matter what obstacles we have to face, our love will live forever, that only we know.

You tell me that you support the troops; I tell you, I’m in love with one. I’m one of the silent, but outgoing; weak, but strong; scared, but grateful. What you don’t see is that without me, he is nothing and without him, I am nothing. I’m one of those girls; the girl who stands tall behind her Marine, stands proud behind her Hero, stands strong behind her man, watching silently as he serves and defends our country.

they all want to come home
Well duh. I could have told you that. :ohwell: What do they think about what they are doing there?

Very, very touching. I won't go into my feelings about this war.

:frown: Back on anysoldier.com I go... time to ship some more boxes.

God Bless our all volunteer force... :patriot:

What do they think?


...Bush fans.

...Bush fans.
I didn't ask if they were fans of Bush :shrug:

I didn't ask if they were fans of Bush :shrug:

...because they'll still do their jobs.

I didn't ask if they were fans of Bush :shrug:

Not meaning to speak for Larry or his family but, Larry's answer told me how they feel.

If they had any good to say, Larry would have shared it with us.

Bush is not the mission. The mission is not Bush.

There is no snappy last sentence to summarize this post and drive home a point.
I can summarize my point in one sentence:

This is what we have a military for.

War sucks and it's no fun for the troops and their families. But at the end of the day, they *did* voluntarily enlist to do the crappy job that so many not only don't want to do, but don't even understand.

It's too bad about Randy and McMullen and everyone else who has been injured or killed in this war. But that's the way it is - wars have a nasty habit of killing and injuring people.

And it sucks that Doug may have to go back, but look at all he's gained from his military stint: he has a job that he'd never have otherwise, he has a wife he'd never have met, he lives in a state he loves that he'd never have moved to, and he's grown into a fine young man, thanks in part to his military training. It beats the hell out of what his high school buddies are doing with *their* lives. And you can point to Will as the exception but he's in the military as well.

If we don't ever want our troops to be injured or killed in a war, we should disband our military right now and say, "Come and get us, suckers."

If they had any good to say, Larry would have shared it with us.
I think if you asked Doug would he do it all over again, he'd say yes.

I can summarize my point in one sentence:

This is what we have a military for.

War sucks and it's no fun for the troops and their families. But at the end of the day, they *did* voluntarily enlist to do the crappy job that so many not only want to do, but don't even understand.

It's too bad about Randy and McMullen and everyone else who has been injured or killed in this war. But that's the way it is - wars have a nasty habit of killing and injuring people.

And it sucks that Doug may have to go back, but look at all he's gained from his military stint: he has a job that he'd never have otherwise, he has a wife he'd never have met, he lives in a state he loves that he'd never have moved to, and he's grown into a fine young man, thanks in part to his military training. It beats the hell out of what his high school buddies are doing with *their* lives. And you can point to Will as the exception but he's in the military as well.

If we don't ever want our troops to be injured or killed in a war, we should disband our military right now and say, "Come and get us, suckers."

...of the adminstrations view point; Anyone who thinks bad decisions are a problem, shut up and row.

Who said anything about anyones service? I'm glad we're going to finally expand the service. I'm glad and proud of Doug for serving.

Does that honestly require me to just say "Whatever you decide, Mr. President, it's good with me."

If I recall, troops serve the President. He serves me.

...of the adminstrations view point; Anyone who thinks bad decisions are a problem, shut up and row.
If anyone has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. Pulling out and leaving Iraq in civil chaos isn't a better idea. Troop surge, cut 'em loose and let 'em do their jobs is a much better idea, but that means more of our military men and women will be killed and injured.

Wars are run by politicians - we knew that going in. They're not brilliant military tacticians, nor do they have the best interests of a few grunts at heart.

If anyone has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. Pulling out and leaving Iraq in civil chaos isn't a better idea. Troop surge, cut 'em loose and let 'em do their jobs is a much better idea, but that means more of our military men and women will be killed and injured.

Wars are run by politicians - we knew that going in. They're not brilliant military tacticians, nor do they have the best interests of a few grunts at heart.
But, who is to say that after the "troop surge," it won't be enough so more troop surge? When is enough enough?

Troop surge, cut 'em loose and let 'em do their jobs
I just hope like hell they will let them do their jobs. Stop with the politically correct BS. It's a war. Those against the fledgling Iraqi government are enemies of the state. Treat them all as such. :dead:

If anyone has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. Pulling out and leaving Iraq in civil chaos isn't a better idea. Troop surge, cut 'em loose and let 'em do their jobs is a much better idea, but that means more of our military men and women will be killed and injured.

Wars are run by politicians - we knew that going in. They're not brilliant military tacticians, nor do they have the best interests of a few grunts at heart.

...protect Iraq's borders.

What is a 'troop surge' gonna do? Clear out and secure a given area for as long as the troops are there. What happens when they leave? Either the Iraqi forces will provide security or they won't. Unless, of course, we stay forever and do it and once again, is that in our national interest?

Well duh. I could have told you that. :ohwell: What do they think about what they are doing there?

Don't duh me. 2 of them were like "I'm defending my country, lets kill them all." All hooting and hollering and excited they were going..........till they actually saw the bloodshed. So don't duh me.

Don't duh me. 2 of them were like "I'm defending my country, lets kill them all." All hooting and hollering and excited they were going..........till they actually saw the bloodshed. So don't duh me.
That's typical. It happens in every war/battle. It has nothing to do with the mission and whether or not it is worth the cost. :shrug:



That is the topic of this thread, isn't it? :confused:

But, who is to say that after the "troop surge," it won't be enough so more troop surge? When is enough enough?
If it were me, I'd do an "all hands on deck" and pull troops out of less important duty stations and send them to Iraq. We still have troops in places like Germany and Japan that don't need to be there. We have troops in South America that could easily be deployed to Iraq.

Now, I'm not some brilliant military strategist, but I also don't have to play politics. I say bring in overwhelming force, secure the country and get it over with. Forget this "winning hearts and minds" bull#### - they'll thank us later.

What is a 'troop surge' gonna do? Clear out and secure a given area for as long as the troops are there. What happens when they leave? Either the Iraqi forces will provide security or they won't.
With Iraqi forces on board, there's no reason why they can't do both - secure the borders and ferret out the insurgents already in country.

Objectively, you have to convince yourself that the 3,000 some odd dead, like Mike, and 25,000 or so wounded, like Randy, and the 100's of thousands of family members and friends, like Kim and the McMullens, impacted by these deaths and injuries are to be honored, the dead, and comforted, everybody else, by the idea that their sacrifice will keep terrorists off our streets and out of our planes thereby sparing so very many more fellow citizens a horrible fate.

Then, objectively, you have to convince yourself that their sacrifice was the only and best option we had in order to deal with Usama and Saddam and global terror.

Then, objectively, you have to convince yourself that by accepting these losses and continuing a course of action that guarantees more makes you tough and resolved and wise.

Lastly, objectively, you have to convince yourself that whatever it is we may or may not achieve in Iraq by staying it is worth the life and/or limb of another soldier, the life and/or limb of your neighbors kid, your own son or daughter.

There is no snappy last sentence to summarize this post and drive home a point.
Then I suppose objectively you have to accept that by doing nothing led to the 911 attacks and by doing nothing would likely result in the same or even worse in our future.

So objectively what do you propose we do Larry?

...of the adminstrations view point; Anyone who thinks bad decisions are a problem, shut up and row.

Who said anything about anyones service? I'm glad we're going to finally expand the service. I'm glad and proud of Doug for serving.

Does that honestly require me to just say "Whatever you decide, Mr. President, it's good with me."

If I recall, troops serve the President. He serves me.

Such a conundrum we find ourselves in. We elected our officials because we felt they were the best for the job. The President and Congress vote to go to war to rid the world of a disease and the majority agreed - and then because of politics the majority sways (and you'll never make me believe politics isn't the cause). In 20/20 hindsight we may have done things differently but unfortunately only MysticalMom is able to see the future. You may disagree with the President in any form you opt, but as you say the troops do serve him and he was elected to serve us to the best of his ability. IMO, this is going to end like another VietNam because we gave up.

My best friend from back home just got back from 12 months in Iraq. It was good to see him back in one peice since he's Army EOD. He spent a lot of time getting rid of IED's.

With Iraqi forces on board, there's no reason why they can't do both - secure the borders and ferret out the insurgents already in country.

...most of the insurgents are in the army and the police and the government.

...most of the insurgents are in the army and the police and the government.
That's just plain :bs:

...most of the insurgents are in the army and the police and the government.
What makes you think that?

What makes you think that?


...right? How many links do I need to post that show Iraqi police units betrayed from within? How many stories would you like illustrating death squad links to military units? How many stories from US troops describing how they don't trust the Iraqi soldiers they work with?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8272786/site/newsweek/

...right? How many links do I need to post that show Iraqi police units betrayed from within? How many stories would you like illustrating death squad links to military units? How many stories from US troops describing how they don't trust the Iraqi soldiers they work with?
Certainly there are a few infiltrators, but I don't think that's cause to say that *most* of the insurgents are in the Army, police or government.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5229440


Insurgents posing as police destroyed the golden dome of one of Iraq's holiest Shiite shrines on

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/09/insurgent-infiltration-b_n_24671.html


...any time.


Brutality and corruption are rampant in Iraq's police force, with abuses including the rape of female prisoners, the release of terrorism suspects in exchange for bribes, assassinations of police officers and participation in insurgent bombings, according to confidential Iraqi government documents detailing more than 400 police corruption investigations.

Larry, we have criminals in *this* country who impersonate a cop to do something bad. Plus we have actual bad cops who commit crimes. How is what's happening in Iraq all that different? :confused:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/09/insurgent-infiltration-b_n_24671.html


...any time.
:snort:

Quoting Huffington... :lol:

...try this;

Go to google, put in insurgents, Iraq, infiltration and enjoy you're afternoon of getting a clue.

For crying out loud. One of THE absolute fundamentals of insurgencies is infiltrating the legitimate authorities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/09/insurgent-infiltration-b_n_24671.html


...any time.
I'll stop you... all wars have their infiltrators... Benedict Arnold... why are you trying to present it as the majority? I know it can't be because that is what is in the headlines because you of all people know that choices as to what to put in headlines isn't fair and balanced.

Larry, we have criminals in *this* country who impersonate a cop to do something bad. Plus we have actual bad cops who commit crimes. How is what's happening in Iraq all that different? :confused:


...I love you.

I made a statement of fact; most of the insurgents are in the police and the army. That was challenged and I'll just go right along proving my point if you'd like.

Larry, this recent leftward turn of yours is disturbing me. First you friggin' quit smoking, then you go left. Any other little surprises you have for me??

Larry, this recent leftward turn of yours is disturbing me. First you friggin' quit smoking, then you go left. Any other little surprises you have for me??
You should check Gumbo's PMer box and see if Larry asked for the name of his doctor...:eyebrow:

I made a statement of fact; most of the insurgents are in the police and the army. That was challenged and I'll just go right along proving my point if you'd like.
You still haven't "proved" that "most" of the insurgents are in the police and the army. I fully believe that *some* are, but not most of them.

Larry, this recent leftward turn of yours is disturbing me. First you friggin' quit smoking, then you go left. Any other little surprises you have for me??

What is disconcerting is that I am thinking like Larry. :frown:

I'll stop you... all wars have their infiltrators... Benedict Arnold... why are you trying to present it as the majority? I know it can't be because that is what is in the headlines because you of all people know that choices as to what to put in headlines isn't fair and balanced.

...some people are invested in the myth that most of the violence is perpetrated by Al Queda. Nothing seems to support that.

People hear 'insurgent' and they think of Zarqawi, someone who came to Iraq to cause trouble.

Insurgents are, historically, mostly members of the state in which the insurgency is taking place. People are joining the army and police by day and working for their groups own interest at night.

US patrols are to use Iraqi locals as part of their job. They are finding that when a given group will cooperate and hel go raid a house, if the Iraqi's cooperate, they know they'll find nothing because whomever and whatever they're looking for is gone. When the locals won't cooperate, they know the tip is hot.

Vietnam. Same thing. It's what insurgencies do.

You still haven't "proved" that "most" of the insurgents are in the police and the army. I fully believe that *some* are, but not most of them.



...I don't have a tally. I withdraw my statement. I cannot prove there is even one insurgent infiltrated into Iraqi police or military units let alone several or many or more than 1/2.

There. That problem is solved!

Larry, this recent leftward turn of yours is disturbing me. First you friggin' quit smoking, then you go left. Any other little surprises you have for me??

..smoking is bad for you and Iraq was a mistake and doing more of the same is dumb.

I love you.

I'll stop you... all wars have their infiltrators... Benedict Arnold... why are you trying to present it as the majority? I know it can't be because that is what is in the headlines because you of all people know that choices as to what to put in headlines isn't fair and balanced.


...was a traitor; he switched sides and turned on his own.

An insurgent is more like a spy; he's trying to be part of the organization in order to better attack it.

I love you.
Good. I was scared for a minute that you were going to leave me for Cindy Sheehan. She's single now, you know.

:love:

...some people are invested in the myth that most of the violence is perpetrated by Al Queda. Nothing seems to support that.

I've not doubt that what we are seeing now is faction against faction. I do fully believe that foreign militants helped to egg that on and that faction leaders are taking advantage of the chaos for political gain. That being said I still hold on tight to the thought that the majority of the Iraqi citizens want to live a normal life and would accept an Iraqi government if that government can display some sense of control. To me, this means that we own some responsiblity in helping the fledgling government get control since we created the chaos by removing the dictator who was successful in keeping the factions under control via deadly force. That being said, I want the stops to be pulled out now. If a man raises arms against the Iraqi government as currently defined, that man should be considered an enemy of the state and eliminated. Time for talks and negotiations and rehabilitation are gone. I fully believe that the majority of Iraqi men in general will respect that and will side with the power in control. I also believe that the reason people aren't raising arms against the insurgents today, is because they know there is no support for them doing so. There is too much appeasement going on.

Good. I was scared for a minute that you were going to leave me for Cindy Sheehan. She's single now, you know.

:love:



...thinks there's no justification for the war.

I think the war is so important that there is no justification for screwing it up.

Besides, what if she doesn't like :larry: and :coffee: and :duel: and :gossip: and :otter: like we do?

...was a traitor; he switched sides and turned on his own.

An insurgent is more like a spy; he's trying to be part of the organization in order to better attack it.
He didn't "switch sides" until he plan was thwarted and he had to make a run for his life...

He is best known for plotting to surrender the American fort at West Point, New York, to the British during the American Revolution.

In September 1780, he formulated his scheme, which, if successful, would have given British forces control of the Hudson River valley and split the colonies in half. The plot was thwarted, but Arnold managed to flee to British forces in New York with the help of John Borns, where he was rewarded with a commission as a Brigadier General in the British Army, along with a reduced reward of £6,000.

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

I've not doubt that what we are seeing now is faction against faction. I do fully believe that foreign militants helped to egg that on and that faction leaders are taking advantage of the chaos for political gain. That being said I still hold on tight to the thought that the majority of the Iraqi citizens want to live a normal life and would accept an Iraqi government if that government can display some sense of control. To me, this means that we own some responsiblity in helping the fledgling government get control since we created the chaos by removing the dictator who was successful in keeping the factions under control via deadly force. That being said, I want the stops to be pulled out now. If a man raises arms against the Iraqi government as currently defined, that man should be considered an enemy of the state and eliminated. Time for talks and negotiations and rehabilitation are gone. I fully believe that the majority of Iraqi men in general will respect that and will side with the power in control. I also believe that the reason people aren't raising arms against the insurgents today, is because they know there is no support for them doing so. There is too much appeasement going on.


Us?

Everything you're saying is valid and fundamental but there are so many factions in Iraq that I think we're talking 1,000's more US dead, tens of thousands wounded and maybe another $2-300 billion over the next four years.

IS IT WORTH IT???

He didn't "switch sides" until he plan was thwarted and he had to make a run for his life...

He is best known for plotting to surrender the American fort at West Point, New York, to the British during the American Revolution.

In September 1780, he formulated his scheme, which, if successful, would have given British forces control of the Hudson River valley and split the colonies in half. The plot was thwarted, but Arnold managed to flee to British forces in New York with the help of John Borns, where he was rewarded with a commission as a Brigadier General in the British Army, along with a reduced reward of £6,000.

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


...an insurgent. He was a traitor.

Us?

Everything you're saying is valid and fundamental but there are so many factions in Iraq that I think we're talking 1,000's more US dead, tens of thousands wounded and maybe another $2-300 billion over the next four years.

IS IT WORTH IT???
As a citizen of this country I feel completely responsible for F'ing it up as soon as we finished marching on Baghdad. :banghead: It didn't have to be this way... :banghead: I don't like the thought of more of our troops getting killed and maimed but I also don't think we have much of a choice. I do have faith that our troops can kick azz and take names if there are given the chance. The freakin' desk "generals" and the MEDIA need to stop tying their hands....:banghead:

...an insurgent. He was a traitor.
in·sur·gent
–noun 1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.

He didn't agree with the decisions made by the Continental Congress so he devised a plan to undermine them. That's close enough to the definition above for my use.

IS IT WORTH IT???
You tell me. YOU are the one that keeps saying Saddam wanted to be the next Saladin. Should we have just let him?

And then what happens when all the Arab nations are united against their enemies (namely, us and the Israelis)?

Then I suppose objectively you have to accept that by doing nothing led to the 911 attacks and by doing nothing would likely result in the same or even worse in our future.

So objectively what do you propose we do Larry?


...9/11 = Iraq

Very nice.

Al Queda had very little, if anything, to do with Iraq. Al Queda had far more of a relationship with Saudi nationals. So, naturally, after 19 mostly Saudi's with boxcutters hijack US airlines, we invade Iraq.

What do we do?

Timetables.

Bush's definition of victory is "a free, stable and secure Iraq". Based on what? His opinion? This on top of already having accomplished our original mission of deposing Saddam, installing a democracy (oxymoronic in it's own right) and verified the WMD situation.

Iraq has the manpower and the training to take control of their nation in our absence. We can't give them the will. We can give them the motivation.


Or, we just keep doing what we're doing and say it's to complicated to leave.

If it were me, I'd do an "all hands on deck" and pull troops out of less important duty stations and send them to Iraq. We still have troops in places like Germany and Japan that don't need to be there. We have troops in South America that could easily be deployed to Iraq.

Now, I'm not some brilliant military strategist, but I also don't have to play politics. I say bring in overwhelming force, secure the country and get it over with. Forget this "winning hearts and minds" bull#### - they'll thank us later.
A lot of brilliant military minds said the same thing before the war started.. They didn't agree with Rumsfeld and were soon looking for new employment.

Rumsfeld was the biggest mistake Bush made, and putting his faith into a poitician with NO military background was beyond belief. It's good to work for someone that supports you and has your back, but when people "in the know" are saying something different, he should have listened.

Now he's trying to correct the mistake, personally I don't think 25,000 is going to do it, but when you have no solidarity, the democrats second guessing and coming out publicly and saying "They're winning, lets leave" empowering the enemy to continue the fight, I think at this point he's doing what he thinks will be the least harmful to the country as a whole.

Forestal posted about his 28% in the polls.. I think that should be a badge of courage the president should wear. He trys to do right despite the polls, and trys to protect his country despite the polls.. he trys to do right despite the press.. and continues to protect his fellow countrymen because I honestly believe he gets it, he understands the consequence of losing.

Rumsfeld was the biggest mistake Bush made, and putting his faith into a poitician with NO military background was beyond belief. It's good to work for someone that supports you and has your back, but when people "in the know" are saying something different, he should have listened.

*DING-DING-DING* :bawl: :banghead:

As a citizen of this country I feel completely responsible for F'ing it up as soon as we finished marching on Baghdad. :banghead: It didn't have to be this way... :banghead: I don't like the thought of more of our troops getting killed and maimed but I also don't think we have much of a choice. I do have faith that our troops can kick azz and take names if there are given the chance. The freakin' desk "generals" and the MEDIA need to stop tying their hands....:banghead:

...we are responsible.

We expected Iraqi's to see the opportunity we provided and sieze it.

Iraq's President has stated he thinks his nation is becoming able to secure itself and, if memory serves, should be in good shape by summer. All he has asked us for after that is weapons.

At some point, don't we have to accept what they choose to do?

I honestly believe he gets it, he understands the consequence of losing.


....what? What are the consequneces of 'losing'? The 'enemy' is vastly Iraqi people.

I can't say this enough; the Iraq War resolutuion stipulated deposing Saddam. Check. Establishing a democracy. Check. Verifying the WMD issue. Check.

Rumsfeld was the biggest mistake Bush made, and putting his faith into a poitician with NO military background was beyond belief. Rumsfeld did not have "NO military background."

He was a Navy pilot, was a drilling reservist until 1975, and retired from the USNR in 1989 as a Captain.

With that, if the Islamocrats truly wanted our men and women home, they would come out and support the President, and tell the world how we are winning and kicking ass, and that we won't quit until every sorry SOB there intending to hurt a fellow American is dead. Let's put the blame where the blame belongs, don't say you support the troops, then out of the side of your mouth say "We are losing, bring them home" that does nobody any good, and cost more good Americans their lives.

Solidarity, that's what will end this war and make most of the "insurgency" drop their weapons and go home. Now what they see is weakness, cracks in our resolve, and as long as we let them keep talking, they will continue to take up arms against us.

Rumsfeld did not have "NO military background."

He was a Navy pilot, was a drilling reservist until 1975, and retired from the USNR in 1989 as a Captain.


...you.


Maybe he meant no one should be Secdef if they haven't been Secdef before?

...we are responsible.

We expected Iraqi's to see the opportunity we provided and sieze it.

Iraq's President has stated he thinks his nation is becoming able to secure itself and, if memory serves, should be in good shape by summer. All he has asked us for after that is weapons.

At some point, don't we have to accept what they choose to do?
Ya want my vision of the future... I envision this latest surge of troops is being done so that we can offer even more reinforcement of the Iraqi troops and will then storm the doors and thin the insurgent herd. The writing is already on the wall for that... ex: statement that Sadr no longer "protected"... doors are already being stormed albiet on a small scale.... I'm thinking(hoping) the promise of this surge in troops was done with a behind the scenes agreement with Iraq that they need to shape up because we will begin to ship out when the surge dies down.

This is my dream of the future.

...you.


Maybe he meant no one should be Secdef if they haven't been Secdef before? You mean like Rummy was 75-77?

...9/11 = Iraq

Very nice.

Al Queda had very little, if anything, to do with Iraq. Al Queda had far more of a relationship with Saudi nationals. So, naturally, after 19 mostly Saudi's with boxcutters hijack US airlines, we invade Iraq.

What do we do?

Timetables.

Bush's definition of victory is "a free, stable and secure Iraq". Based on what? His opinion? This on top of already having accomplished our original mission of deposing Saddam, installing a democracy (oxymoronic in it's own right) and verified the WMD situation.

Iraq has the manpower and the training to take control of their nation in our absence. We can't give them the will. We can give them the motivation.


Or, we just keep doing what we're doing and say it's to complicated to leave.
Since you aren't paying attention to your own posts allow me to illuminate my point for you.

Then, objectively, you have to convince yourself that their sacrifice was the only and best option we had in order to deal with Usama (the perpetrator of 911) and Saddam and global terror.
I don't suppose you remember the "Axil of Evil" speech in which Democrats and Republicans all stood together in rounding applause then subsequently signed that all-famous (and beat up by me endlessly in this forum) Iraq War Resolution.

We finish what we started. We don't finish what we started based on your obscure, undefined end of this war. That's why we have a CINC that was elected by the American people. Not by Congress, not by some left-wing definition of how a president should conduct presidential business. Congress gave him the green light and now they want to change their minds. Now they want to change the rules. And so do you. That's not how things work and you know it.

I don't pretend to make some far-fetched connection between 911 and Iraq. You did. Congress gave Bush authorization and now you have a problem with that, so you are reaching for anything you can to dismiss history and what's defined under the Constitution when it comes to war. One more time... Congress grants the president to send our troops to war. Our president AS CINC fights the war, not Congress.

Ya want my vision of the future... I envision this latest surge of troops is being done so that we can offer even more reinforcement of the Iraqi troops and will then storm the doors and thin the insurgent herd. The writing is already on the wall for that... ex: statement that Sadr no longer "protected"... doors are already being stormed albiet on a small scale.... I'm thinking(hoping) the promise of this surge in troops was done with a behind the scenes agreement with Iraq that they need to shape up because we will begin to ship out when the surge dies down.

This is my dream of the future.



....that's what is so effed up about all this. When Sadr first came on the scene in late '03 or so, every single military commentator on the tube and in print said the exact same thing; this guy has got to go ( :dead: ) because you (we) can not afford for him to become an established figure of power because it WILL undermine the fledgling government.

Seemed obvious to me.

Rumsfeld did not have "NO military background."

He was a Navy pilot, was a drilling reservist until 1975, and retired from the USNR in 1989 as a Captain.
Navy Pilot.. I'm sorry, I guess he was more experienced then the Infantry and Cavalry Generals that have been to war(s), that have fought on the ground.. that defeated the Iraqui Army before.

I was wrong, but I don't think being a pilot in the Navy gives you the same experience or knowledge as someone that has commanded regiments, divisions and Armies.

....that's what is so effed up about all this. When Sadr first came on the scene in late '03 or so, every single military commentator on the tube and in print said the exact same thing; this guy has got to go ( :dead: ) because you (we) can not afford for him to become an established figure of power because it WILL undermine the fledgling government.

Seemed obvious to me.
:yeahthat: And what is equally sad is that the powers that be could have better handled the division in factions had they bothered to spend two hours watching "Kings: From Babylon to Bahgdad" on the History Channel. Heck, One hour in on the eliptical had me realizing we totally ignored the faction facts. :ohwell:

Rumsfeld served in the U.S. Navy from 1954 to 1957 as a naval aviator and flight instructor. His initial training was in the North American SNJ Texan basic trainer after which he transitioned to flying the Grumman F9F Panther fighter. In 1957, he transferred to the Naval Reserve and continued his naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the standby reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and retired with the rank of Navy Captain in 1989

1954 - 1957?????

Granted he was a good man, and he has a lifetime of service to his country, but I don't think he was the right man for this job.

Solidarity, that's what will end this war and make most of the "insurgency" drop their weapons and go home. Now what they see is weakness, cracks in our resolve, and as long as we let them keep talking, they will continue to take up arms against us.
I couldn't agree more. This is what happened in Vietnam - the enemy sees that they can wear you down, so they do.

I hate to keep bringing my kids into this, but kids are a lot like insurgents. If parents don't show a united front, they'll play them against each other to get what they want. But when both Mom and Dad are on board, the kids will generally give up the fight. Parenting is a lot like global politics - same concept. :lol:

Since you aren't paying attention to your own posts allow me to illuminate my point for you.


I don't suppose you remember the "Axil of Evil" speech in which Democrats and Republicans all stood together in rounding applause then subsequently signed that all-famous (and beat up by me endlessly in this forum) Iraq War Resolution.

We finish what we started. We don't finish what we started based on your obscure, undefined end of this war. That's why we have a CINC that was elected by the American people. Not by Congress, not by some left-wing definition of how a president should conduct presidential business. Congress gave him the green light and now they want to change their minds. Now they want to change the rules. And so do you. That's not how things work and you know it.

I don't pretend to make some far-fetched connection between 911 and Iraq. You did. Congress gave Bush authorization and now you have a problem with that, so you are reaching for anything you can to dismiss history and what's defined under the Constitution when it comes to war. One more time... Congress grants the president to send out troops to war. Our president AS CINC fights the war, not Congress.


...let's go! U S A! U S A! Go, Bush, go! :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

In case you haven't noticed, I've stopped engaging you any more because I think you basically ignore my points and flounder around with anything you can use to justify continuing this debacle. Maybe I'm just not making my self clear. Maybe I have no clue. Maybe I have no point. Whatever.

:patriot: USA! USA! :patriot:

Hmmm. This is much easier! :patriot: USA! USA!

I couldn't agree more. This is what happened in Vietnam - the enemy sees that they can wear you down, so they do.

I hate to keep bringing my kids into this, but kids are a lot like insurgents. If parents don't show a united front, they'll play them against each other to get what they want. But when both Mom and Dad are on board, the kids will generally give up the fight. Parenting is a lot like global politics - same concept. :lol:
... and if the parents can't keep their kids in line someone of authority is going to come along and boot them off the proverbial plane.

I couldn't agree more. This is what happened in Vietnam - the enemy sees that they can wear you down, so they do.

I hate to keep bringing my kids into this, but kids are a lot like insurgents. If parents don't show a united front, they'll play them against each other to get what they want. But when both Mom and Dad are on board, the kids will generally give up the fight. Parenting is a lot like global politics - same concept. :lol:


...Alex made dinner last night, totally out of the blue. I missed it as did you. I just noticed the leftovers ate a whole in my $900 trash can. They may be adjusting their tactics...

...Alex made dinner last night, totally out of the blue. I missed it as did you. I just noticed the leftovers ate a whole in my $900 trash can. They may be adjusting their tactics...
Well, she DID say it made both her and Emilie sick. :lol:

...Alex made dinner last night, totally out of the blue. I missed it as did you. I just noticed the leftovers ate a whole in my $900 trash can. They may be adjusting their tactics...


flap...slam...flap...slam...



sorry......:biggrin:

Well, she DID say it made both her and Emilie sick. :lol:


..insurgents. Check the Charmin. I'm missing some hand tools.

flap...slam...flap...slam...



sorry......:biggrin:



..my beat to #### $900 trash can.

:lmao:

flap...slam...flap...slam...
:roflmao:

Rumsfeld served in the U.S. Navy from 1954 to 1957 as a naval aviator and flight instructor. His initial training was in the North American SNJ Texan basic trainer after which he transitioned to flying the Grumman F9F Panther fighter. In 1957, he transferred to the Naval Reserve and continued his naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the standby reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and retired with the rank of Navy Captain in 1989

1954 - 1957?????

Granted he was a good man, and he has a lifetime of service to his country, but I don't think he was the right man for this job. Don't belittle his service. He served, and that matters.

As far as the right man for the job? He was qualified. The CinC picked him. He failed. Good riddance.

Don't belittle his service. He served, and that matters.

As far as the right man for the job? He was qualified. The CinC picked him. He failed. Good riddance.
Silly, don't you know if you aint Army you don't know crap about no warrin?

yes, they will greet us as liberators and shower us with flowers.

Doesn't anyone see the similarities to Vietnam?? Who the hell do you shoot? Better get it right, or you'll create ten more insurgents with each confirmed kill, or maybe you do get it right, you'll still create more insurgents. You cannot protect people who are trying to kill you.

<img src="http://www.cagle.com/working/070120/cagle00.gif"\>

If it were me, I'd do an "all hands on deck" and pull troops out of less important duty stations and send them to Iraq. We still have troops in places like Germany and Japan that don't need to be there. We have troops in South America that could easily be deployed to Iraq.

Now, I'm not some brilliant military strategist, but I also don't have to play politics. I say bring in overwhelming force, secure the country and get it over with. Forget this "winning hearts and minds" bull#### - they'll thank us later.

I hear that Silly String is a very popular way of getting rid of these booby traps. It hangs on the tripwire without detonating it.


My best friend from back home just got back from 12 months in Iraq. It was good to see him back in one peice since he's Army EOD. He spent a lot of time getting rid of IED's.

He's not going left. He's just not a 'neo-conservative'. He's definitely old school, the original.



Larry, this recent leftward turn of yours is disturbing me. First you friggin' quit smoking, then you go left. Any other little surprises you have for me??

You can't win a war with worn out platitudes.

If so, "Bring em on" should have worked along time ago.


As a citizen of this country I feel completely responsible for F'ing it up as soon as we finished marching on Baghdad. :banghead: It didn't have to be this way... :banghead: I don't like the thought of more of our troops getting killed and maimed but I also don't think we have much of a choice. I do have faith that our troops can kick azz and take names if there are given the chance. The freakin' desk "generals" and the MEDIA need to stop tying their hands....:banghead:

My grandad once said:

"A wise man knows when to change his mind. A fool never does."



Forestal posted about his 28% in the polls.. I think that should be a badge of courage the president should wear. He trys to do right despite the polls, and trys to protect his country despite the polls.. he trys to do right despite the press.. and continues to protect his fellow countrymen because I honestly believe he gets it, he understands the consequence of losing.

Earth to Bob, the insurgents ARE HOME. They aren't going ANYWHERE. We are occupying their country and will gladly kill themselves for the slimmest CHANCE at killing an American.



Solidarity, that's what will end this war and make most of the "insurgency" drop their weapons and go home. Now what they see is weakness, cracks in our resolve, and as long as we let them keep talking, they will continue to take up arms against us.

WTF???? Really, this about all we can offer. If we haven't solved the problem within two years we'll have pull out because our Army will be physically, and mentally incapable of continuing.

This isn't me talking. These are our generals opinions.

Ya want my vision of the future... I envision this latest surge of troops is being done so that we can offer even more reinforcement of the Iraqi troops and will then storm the doors and thin the insurgent herd. The writing is already on the wall for that... ex: statement that Sadr no longer "protected"... doors are already being stormed albiet on a small scale.... I'm thinking(hoping) the promise of this surge in troops was done with a behind the scenes agreement with Iraq that they need to shape up because we will begin to ship out when the surge dies down.

This is my dream of the future.

Earth to Bob, the insurgents ARE HOME. They aren't going ANYWHERE. We are occupying their country and will gladly kill themselves for the slimmest CHANCE at killing an American.
The problem with this is the insurgents are killing more (by far) Iraqis than Americans.

WTF???? Really, this about all we can offer. If we haven't solved the problem within two years we'll have pull out because our Army will be physically, and mentally incapable of continuing.

This isn't me talking. These are our generals opinions.
Show me the general's quotes please. Considering you are not in the Army I don't believe a word of that.

Don't belittle his service. He served, and that matters.

As far as the right man for the job? He was qualified. The CinC picked him. He failed. Good riddance.
He failed.. ergo he wasn't the right man for the job. Bad choice no matter who picked him.

Earth to Bob, the insurgents ARE HOME. They aren't going ANYWHERE. We are occupying their country and will gladly kill themselves for the slimmest CHANCE at killing an American.
The six Iranians we captured two weeks ago, they were home??


And what of ALL the stories about the "insurgency" being made up of mostly foreign (From outside of Iraq) fighters.

He failed.. ergo he wasn't the right man for the job. Bad choice no matter who picked him.
What wonderful hindsight you have... :rolleyes:

What wonderful hindsight you have... :rolleyes:
I'd have to look back, but I remember saying this before we invaded..

He wanted to lighten the Army (Rumsfeld's Stryker's) Fired the Secretary of the Army.. wanted to go in light just to prove a point that we could do it..etc etc..

I'd have to look back, but I remember saying this before we invaded..

Yeah, but did you send Bush a PMer pointing out the thread where you said it...:eyebrow:

Yeah, but did you send Bush a PMer pointing out the thread where you said it...:eyebrow:
No, they sent me Red karma and told me to shut the he!! up our else..

wanted to go in light just to prove a point that we could do it
Did we fail? I thought it was the fastest and most decisive victory in the history of warfare. :confused:

It was the post-Saddam time when mistakes were made.

BTW, my brother-in-law liked the Strykers while he was there :shrug:

Did we fail? I thought it was the fastest and most decisive victory in the history of warfare. :confused:

It was the post-Saddam time when mistakes were made.

BTW, my brother-in-law liked the Strykers while he was there :shrug:
I like the Strykers too, but not as a replacement for Heavy Armor..

Just like the Marines, when you send in LAV's or AAV's you better have Armor nearby to pull them out if they get into a heavy fight..

That is correct, but the argument before the war was just that.. you go in light, you won't have the manpower on the ground to take of business as it needs to be done.... Nobody doubted we would win, but they were concerned about controlling the country after the victory.. or having "drag troops" to engage and kill the enemy that was bypassed as the front line Blitzkrieged to Baghdad.

Did we fail? I thought it was the fastest and most decisive victory in the history of warfare. :confused:

It was the post-Saddam time when mistakes were made.

BTW, my brother-in-law liked the Strykers while he was there :shrug:
I guess it would depend on what you want to call victory. If the point was to bust up the place and depose the leader, then yes. But it always takes more to occupy, and if the point was to occupy and control then I would say we have not acheived victory yet.

I guess my question is "What did the American people think was going to happen". When ever we send American men and women into harms way there are going to be casualties. This is an unfortunate effect of "war". You may not agree with the President and his handling of Iraq or anything else he is doing but as a country we cannot go into any conflict with a quota in mind on how many casualties are we willing to accept. This has in the past (read Vietnam) and is today a major flaw in the american people and the folks who represent us. When we have many of our largest media outlets harping on the number of those killed in Iraq and the outcry of the people because of those reports we give the enemy reason to believe that if they can keep up their attacks we will wilt and fold our tents and go home.. The truth is this actual causes more deaths and injuries to our troops... As a whole we should tell the enemy that we are not going anywhere until the jobs done. Period.... Than we take away their hope and their ideas and ideals will rot on the vine...

But we wont do that.... We will fight amongst ourselves rather than against the enemy... We either finish this mess in the middle east now or we will have to do it later....

Did we fail? I thought it was the fastest and most decisive victory in the history of warfare. :confused:

It was the post-Saddam time when mistakes were made.

BTW, my brother-in-law liked the Strykers while he was there :shrug:


...mission accomplished.

I guess my question is "What did the American people think was going to happen". When ever we send American men and women into harms way there are going to be casualties. This is an unfortunate effect of "war". You may not agree with the President and his handling of Iraq or anything else he is doing but as a country we cannot go into any conflict with a quota in mind on how many casualties are we willing to accept. This has in the past (read Vietnam) and is today a major flaw in the american people and the folks who represent us. When we have many of our largest media outlets harping on the number of those killed in Iraq and the outcry of the people because of those reports we give the enemy reason to believe that if they can keep up their attacks we will wilt and fold our tents and go home.. The truth is this actual causes more deaths and injuries to our troops... As a whole we should tell the enemy that we are not going anywhere until the jobs done. Period.... Than we take away their hope and their ideas and ideals will rot on the vine...

But we wont do that.... We will fight amongst ourselves rather than against the enemy... We either finish this mess in the middle east now or we will have to do it later....

I predicted on the day we surge deployed for the war in Jan of 2003 that we would be there 10 years.

I predicted on the day we surge deployed for the war in Jan of 2003 that we would be there 10 years.


We may well be there 10 yrs... That may be what it takes..

What most people forget is that we have been in Germany, Japan, and Korea for 50+ years...

Another trip to Arlingt... 01-25-2007 01:31 PM LAV's never need help getting back out, they are the pride of the Marine Corps, Tip of the Spear!

Actually there was a firefight in Baghdad where they found out how good the LAV is. It's NOT a fighting vehicle and is thin skinned. They lost about a dozen Marines who died onboard when they were ambushed, and two or three LAV's got caught in the kill zone as the rest got out of Dodge.

LUCKILY there was real Armor nearby, and they sent in the M1's to get the LAV's and Marines out. Now, why the local commander sent LAV's into a Hot area when he had heavy armor available, or at least not send the Armor with them is beyond me.

LAV is a LOT like the Bradley, but the armor more resembles the M113.. their Armor is only 8 - 10mm thick.. Swiss cheese if hit by 12.7mm or better. That's why the L in LAV stands for LIGHT!!