Originally Posted by senojekips

We will never be able to say that we have won, unless we "de-populate" the whole country and make it a part of the US or whatever, because the moment we leave, it will start to revert back to square one.

BUT, given time we will certainly come to realise what we have lost. How many lives will it take. Some people are already aware of this but if they speak their mind they are accused of lacking patriotism.

How many lives will it take?

As many as it takes. That is the nature of service, my friend. Numbers, being critical to the mission, do not override the mission; numbers do not dictate success or failure.

Instead, numbers are the see-saw tipsy on the playground of the political battleground - which is hardly your concern, as you're not an American (given your own profile submission). I in no way intend to offend you, your heritage or your country, but our politics are just that: Ours. Y'all stay, we'll be there. Y'all leave, we'll be there. Anyone leaves or stays, we'll be there. We don't back down from the fight, and if your government wishes to accept the easy way out, then shame on the and you. We have a mission, and our mission will not be compromised by a liberal and leftist slant without any real teeth sans the ability to bite into the natural human conscience.

It's called homeostasis, which is a Homo Sapient neuropathology to restore a chemical sense of balance to the brain's core of receptors through seratonin and other chemicals that are released in emotional responses. Certain limbic reactions are routed through the thalamus to the hypo campus in order to generate a limbic response to restore the body's natural sense of comfort respond to stimuli, which are then transmitted as emotions to the thalamus and recognized in the hypo campus as a regenerative need. The result is an "Oh My!" feeling, and we are each wired to reply to these feelings differently - but the neurological pathways are indistinguishable from one person to another.

In the military, we learn to control our homeostatic state through training that develops certain chemicals as a natural response while withholding other emotionally-charged impacts as irrelevant to survival - which is ingrained as mission priority. In other words, we accept human loss as something that simply occurs, not something unavoidable... in the name of the higher purpose, the mission.

We're called robots because of it. But that verbiage is the sure sign of the ignorant.

How many lives will it take? As many as it takes, sir. Mission trumps emotion.

Originally Posted by AZ_Infantry

Funny, but Iraq was exactly the same: Strong (almost unanimous) support early on, fading to the annals of bitter resentment later.

In fact, by doing your research, you'll find that almost every single chair occupied by a politician signed their name to refute the UN's decision and support the "invasion." Civilians also strongly supported the American-made resolution, and they, too, have turned tail to run.

Yep and the minute those same politicians found out that what they had signed was made up of half truths and disinformation they promptly changed their minds as did the general public.

Whether you like it or not people make up their minds based on the information they are given and I would suggest that the big rush to get into Iraq was caused primarily because the US/UK administrations knew damn well that their public support would not stand up with long term scrutiny.

In the world up until about 1950 you could get away with misleading people it took ages for information to traverse the world now its not so easy because information is transmitted via telephone, internet, news and general travel almost instantaneously around the world, it is becoming harder and harder to fool any of the people for any length of time these days.

So while you may know something about warfare it is clear you don't understand public reactions.

Public re-action has to be led, and this to a large extent is by agenda-led opposition looking for reasons to unseat the government. They come in many shapes and sizes, and often from an opposition who would do precisely what the government has undertaken if they themselves were in office.

The more advancement USA has made in its mission in Iraq - the louder the chorus has become; any success would be devastating for them.

It sis all about timing, by all means reduce troop levels when it suits, but don't holler and shout about retreat while the battle rages. It seems that USA troops are expected to fight with one arm tied behind their backs.

There has been one big problem all along and that was the mismanagement of the post-war era. The war was won in record time at that point, with happy Iraquis celebrating. The following chaos was not of the troops' making, and they have sweated through it.

These guys deserve thanks, hugs and pats on the back all round, and a few prayers wouldn't go amiss - they certainly have mine.

If you want to tell them what a disastrous failure they are fighting, wait until that situation is certain, and the battle over. Until then - kindly zip it.

And even then - make sure you don't try telling them to their faces in the real world.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

If you want to tell them what a disastrous failure they are fighting, wait until that situation is certain. Until then - kindly zip it.

And even then - make sure you don't try telling them to their faces in the real world.

Don't tell them what?
That their politicians failed them again?

I am somewhat amused that you persistently feel the need quieten people you don't agree with by casting your own spin on things and creating stories but at no point in this discussion has anyone blamed the military or those serving it for the mess that Iraq has become in terms of failing public support.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Don't tell them what?
That their politicians failed them again?

I am somewhat amused that you persistently feel the need quieten people you don't agree with by casting your own spin on things and creating stories but at no point in this discussion has anyone blamed the military or those serving it for the mess that Iraq has become in terms of failing public support.

No , but that because of what you do tell them, their mission becomes illegal and worthless in your opinion! They don't deserve to hear that from you while the battle rages. It is pure lifes' blood to our enemies, their deadly enemies.

'The mess that Iraq has become in terms of failing public support'! Yeah - just keep telling them that!

Now then - your 'amusement' is a fraud, you merely seek to discredit me. You do not know what I 'persistently need', and furthermore I have never, ever sought to quieten anyone; if you tell that lie often enough you might get folks believing it.

'Casting my own spin' - isn't that what we are all doing - expressing our opinions? My opinions may not match yours - So?

Now give me just one example of my 'creating stories'.

Nothing but desperation from you here.

I don't know if this discussion is leading anywhere... even if you would withdraw- then what? Let them kill each other until theres another Dictator on top of things? USA is into deep and has taken responsibility, if the war was justified or not are things left for historians- doesn't matter now anyway...
thats my opinion

Usually that's how it turns out. History judges right and wrong.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Usually that's how it turns out. History judges right and wrong.

God can't change history, historians can...
(im studying the right thing i guess )

haha yeah.
There's been some attempts to bring a different variation of "who started the Korean War?"
But it's pathetic because it's so plainly obvious that North Korea started it as militarily they had a massively lopsided advantage, American troop presence was minimal... There's a lot of revisionist history going on here on this side of the world so I'm well aware of all this stuff. What makes it a right war or a wrong war? Usually whether or not you won.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Yep and the minute those same politicians found out that what they had signed was made up of half truths and disinformation they promptly changed their minds as did the general public.

Whether you like it or not people make up their minds based on the information they are given and I would suggest that the big rush to get into Iraq was caused primarily because the US/UK administrations knew damn well that their public support would not stand up with long term scrutiny.

In the world up until about 1950 you could get away with misleading people it took ages for information to traverse the world now its not so easy because information is transmitted via telephone, internet, news and general travel almost instantaneously around the world, it is becoming harder and harder to fool any of the people for any length of time these days.

So while you may know something about warfare it is clear you don't understand public reactions.

So, what you are stating, in brevity, is that politicians are not responsible for their own signatures? In other words, President Bush cannot be held accountable for the invasion given his advisory committee; likewise, I am not responsible for any driving infractions occurring between the time I received my license and now if I was not personally aware than a new law was enacted?

Allow me to use your words:

In the world up until about 1950 you could get away with misleading people it took ages for information to traverse the world now its not so easy because information is transmitted via telephone, internet, news and general travel almost instantaneously around the world, it is becoming harder and harder to fool any of the people for any length of time these days.

Given that I fully agree, please explain this statement directly preceding it:

Yep and the minute those same politicians found out that what they had signed was made up of half truths and disinformation they promptly changed their minds as did the general public.

So, which is it, my friend? Are the politicians and "general public" of this country just stupid, or were people "duped and fooled" and, in retrospect, stupid?