Gator
U of B and B Alumnus
Oh, I got your meaning, which is why I posted that he was our boy when he was doing his best killing, and not some madman as you would have him made out to be.
House passes HR 2956 (223-201) Redeployment from Iraq Act
Oh, I got your meaning, which is why I posted that he was our boy when he was doing his best killing, and not some madman as you would have him made out to be.
03USMC
Active member
Well he sure wasn't sane. He had his foot in the neck of his people and maintained his power by slaughtering them wholesale and intimadating the rest.
To wish for someone like him to retake power to provide stability to the region is to condone what he did and say ooops Saddam wasn't really so bad. It's the hieght of folly.
mmarsh
Active member
I just knew you were going to say that. :camo:
Yes of course things could get worse but my point was to say that things are already very bad right now, bad enough not to continue 'staying the course' as our President is fond of saying. However, You might remember that the Hawks during the Vietnam war were convinced that if the US to pulled out the result would be the unchecked spread of communism throughout Asia, -a situation that never happened. I think based on that historical footnote we need not automatically assume the worse. I do think that once the Iraqis are done with us, they will turn their attention on the al-Qaeda types, their is already some targeting of al-qaeda but other Sunni groups.
To use your example, I don't see the US Forces as the top of a pressure cooker, I see them as the flame underneath it. And as long as the flame is on the pressure keeps building until the inevitable explosion. Just look at the history: the entire history is covered by the Arabs resisting Western invaders. From the Romans, to the Crusaders, to Napoleon, to the British, -are we really naive enough to think we would be treated any differently? (OK some people at the White House were that Naive). No western Army has been able to completely pacify that part of the world. The fact is, even despite the best intentions, The Arabs do not want Western Armies on their land. Never have, never will.
I am not a big fan of congress, but the bigger problem is the President and his NEOCON masters who got us involved in this mess in the first place.
You wrote this:
Yes but the US can't go willie nillie invading every country that sponsers terrorists without regional and world fallout. We are over extended as it is.
I absolutely agree, but the NEOCONS don't. They think that it is our right to impose our values where ever we wish and to use force to do so when possible. You'd think they'd be lying low after the Iraq fiasco, but there right out their threatening to bomb Iran, Syria, North Korea, and anybody else they don't like. I'll be happy to start cleaning up Congress the moment this (totally nuts) foreign policy is abandoned.
Last edited:
Donkey
Active member
phoenix80
Banned
:lol: that was funny
phoenix80
Banned
U.S. General in Iraq Speaks Strongly Against Troop Pullout
By JOHN F. BURNS
Published: July 16, 2007
BAGHDAD, July 15 — An American general directing a major part of the offensive aimed at securing Baghdad said Sunday that it would take until next spring for the operation to succeed, and that an early American withdrawal would clear the way for “the enemy to come back” to areas now being cleared of insurgents.
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commanding 15,000 American and about 7,000 Iraqi troops on Baghdad’s southern approaches, spoke more forcefully than any American commander to date in urging that the so-called troop surge ordered by President Bush continue into the spring of 2008. That would match the deadline of March 31 set by the Pentagon, which has said that limits on American troops available for deployment will force an end to the increase by then.
“It’s going to take us through the summer and fall to deny the enemy his sanctuaries” south of Baghdad, General Lynch said at a news briefing in the capital. “And then it’s going to take us through the first of the year and into the spring” to consolidate the gains now being made by the American offensive and to move enough Iraqi forces into the cleared areas to ensure that they remain so, he said.
The general spoke as momentum is gathering in Congress for an early withdrawal date for the 160,000 American troops, as well as an accelerated end to the troop buildup, which have increased American combat casualties in the past three months to the highest levels of the war. In renewed debate over the past week, Congressional opponents of the war have demanded a withdrawal deadline, with some proposing that Congress use its war-financing powers to end the troop increase much sooner, possibly this fall.
General Lynch, a blunt-spoken, cigar-smoking Ohio native who commands the Third Infantry Division, said that all the American troops that began an offensive south of Baghdad in mid-June were part of the five-month-old troop buildup, and that they were making “significant” gains in areas that were previously enemy sanctuaries. Pulling back before the job was completed, he said, would create “an environment where the enemy could come back and fill the void.”
He implied that an early withdrawal would amount to an abandonment of Iraqi civilians who he said had rallied in support of the American and Iraqi troops, and would leave the civilians exposed to renewed brutality by extremist groups. “When we go out there, the first question they ask is, ‘Are you staying?’ ” he said. “And the second question is, ‘How can we help?’ ” He added, “What we hear is, ‘We’ve had enough of people attacking our villages, attacking our homes, and attacking our children.’ ”
General Lynch said his troops had promised local people that they would stay in the areas they had taken from the extremists until enough Iraqi forces were available to take over, and said this had helped sustain “a groundswell” of feeling against the extremists. He said locals had pinpointed hide-outs of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an extremist group that claims to have ties to Osama bin Laden’s network, that had been used to send suicide bombers into Baghdad and they had helped troops locate 170 large arms caches. The general said the locals had started neighborhood patrol units called “Iraqi provincial volunteers” that supplied their own weapons and ammunition.
The general declined to be drawn into what he called “the big debate in Washington” over the war, saying American troops would continue to battle the enemy until ordered to do otherwise. But he made it clear that his sympathies were with the Iraqis in his battle area, covering an area about the size of West Virginia, mostly between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, that extends about 80 miles south of Baghdad and includes 4 of Iraq’s 18 provinces. The offensive he commands is part of a wider push by American and Iraqi forces in the areas surrounding Baghdad, and in the capital, that began in February.
“What they’re worried about is our leaving,” he said. “And our answer is, ‘We’re staying,’ because my order from the corps commander is that we don’t leave the battlespace until we can hand over to the Iraqi security forces.” To hold on to recent gains, he said, would require at least a third more Iraqi troops than he now has, and they would have to come from other battle areas, or from new units yet to complete their training. “Everybody wants things to happen overnight, and that’s not going to happen,” he said.
General Lynch’s outspoken approach contrasted with the more cautious remarks made recently by other senior American officers, including the top American commander here, Gen. David H. Petraeus. General Petraeus has said in recent interviews that the troop buildup has made substantial gains. But he has declined to say whether he will urge a continuation of it when he returns to Washington by mid-September to make a report on the war to President Bush and Congress that was made mandatory by war-financing legislation this spring.
General Lynch said he was “amazed” at the cooperation his troops were encountering in previously hostile areas. He cited the village of Al Taqa, near the Euphrates about 20 miles southwest of Baghdad, where four American soldiers were killed in an ambush on May 12 and three others were taken hostage. One of the hostages was later found dead, leaving two soldiers missing. Brig. Gen. Jim Huggins, a deputy to General Lynch, said an Iraqi commander in the area had told him on Saturday that women and children in the village had begun using plastic pipes to tap on streetlamps and other metal objects to warn when extremists were in the area planting roadside bombs and planning other attacks.
“The tapping,” General Huggins said, was a signal that “these people have had enough.”
General Lynch also challenged an argument often made by American lawmakers who want to end the military involvement here soon: that Iraqi troops have ducked much of the hard fighting, and often proved unreliable because of the strong sectarian influence exercised by the competition for power between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political factions.
“I don’t know,” he said, how American war critics had concluded that the new American-trained Iraqi Army was not up to the fight. “I find that professionally offensive,” he said, after noting that there were “many Iraqi heroes” of the fighting south of Baghdad. “They’re competent,” he said. “There’s just not enough of them.”
General Lynch said that he and other American commanders were worried that extremist groups under attack by the buildup might retaliate with a spectacular, focused attack on American troops aimed at tipping the argument in Washington in favor of withdrawal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/world/middleeast/16commander.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fB%2fBurns%2c%20John%20F%2e&oref=slogin
By JOHN F. BURNS
Published: July 16, 2007
BAGHDAD, July 15 — An American general directing a major part of the offensive aimed at securing Baghdad said Sunday that it would take until next spring for the operation to succeed, and that an early American withdrawal would clear the way for “the enemy to come back” to areas now being cleared of insurgents.
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commanding 15,000 American and about 7,000 Iraqi troops on Baghdad’s southern approaches, spoke more forcefully than any American commander to date in urging that the so-called troop surge ordered by President Bush continue into the spring of 2008. That would match the deadline of March 31 set by the Pentagon, which has said that limits on American troops available for deployment will force an end to the increase by then.
“It’s going to take us through the summer and fall to deny the enemy his sanctuaries” south of Baghdad, General Lynch said at a news briefing in the capital. “And then it’s going to take us through the first of the year and into the spring” to consolidate the gains now being made by the American offensive and to move enough Iraqi forces into the cleared areas to ensure that they remain so, he said.
The general spoke as momentum is gathering in Congress for an early withdrawal date for the 160,000 American troops, as well as an accelerated end to the troop buildup, which have increased American combat casualties in the past three months to the highest levels of the war. In renewed debate over the past week, Congressional opponents of the war have demanded a withdrawal deadline, with some proposing that Congress use its war-financing powers to end the troop increase much sooner, possibly this fall.
General Lynch, a blunt-spoken, cigar-smoking Ohio native who commands the Third Infantry Division, said that all the American troops that began an offensive south of Baghdad in mid-June were part of the five-month-old troop buildup, and that they were making “significant” gains in areas that were previously enemy sanctuaries. Pulling back before the job was completed, he said, would create “an environment where the enemy could come back and fill the void.”
He implied that an early withdrawal would amount to an abandonment of Iraqi civilians who he said had rallied in support of the American and Iraqi troops, and would leave the civilians exposed to renewed brutality by extremist groups. “When we go out there, the first question they ask is, ‘Are you staying?’ ” he said. “And the second question is, ‘How can we help?’ ” He added, “What we hear is, ‘We’ve had enough of people attacking our villages, attacking our homes, and attacking our children.’ ”
General Lynch said his troops had promised local people that they would stay in the areas they had taken from the extremists until enough Iraqi forces were available to take over, and said this had helped sustain “a groundswell” of feeling against the extremists. He said locals had pinpointed hide-outs of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an extremist group that claims to have ties to Osama bin Laden’s network, that had been used to send suicide bombers into Baghdad and they had helped troops locate 170 large arms caches. The general said the locals had started neighborhood patrol units called “Iraqi provincial volunteers” that supplied their own weapons and ammunition.
The general declined to be drawn into what he called “the big debate in Washington” over the war, saying American troops would continue to battle the enemy until ordered to do otherwise. But he made it clear that his sympathies were with the Iraqis in his battle area, covering an area about the size of West Virginia, mostly between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, that extends about 80 miles south of Baghdad and includes 4 of Iraq’s 18 provinces. The offensive he commands is part of a wider push by American and Iraqi forces in the areas surrounding Baghdad, and in the capital, that began in February.
“What they’re worried about is our leaving,” he said. “And our answer is, ‘We’re staying,’ because my order from the corps commander is that we don’t leave the battlespace until we can hand over to the Iraqi security forces.” To hold on to recent gains, he said, would require at least a third more Iraqi troops than he now has, and they would have to come from other battle areas, or from new units yet to complete their training. “Everybody wants things to happen overnight, and that’s not going to happen,” he said.
General Lynch’s outspoken approach contrasted with the more cautious remarks made recently by other senior American officers, including the top American commander here, Gen. David H. Petraeus. General Petraeus has said in recent interviews that the troop buildup has made substantial gains. But he has declined to say whether he will urge a continuation of it when he returns to Washington by mid-September to make a report on the war to President Bush and Congress that was made mandatory by war-financing legislation this spring.
General Lynch said he was “amazed” at the cooperation his troops were encountering in previously hostile areas. He cited the village of Al Taqa, near the Euphrates about 20 miles southwest of Baghdad, where four American soldiers were killed in an ambush on May 12 and three others were taken hostage. One of the hostages was later found dead, leaving two soldiers missing. Brig. Gen. Jim Huggins, a deputy to General Lynch, said an Iraqi commander in the area had told him on Saturday that women and children in the village had begun using plastic pipes to tap on streetlamps and other metal objects to warn when extremists were in the area planting roadside bombs and planning other attacks.
“The tapping,” General Huggins said, was a signal that “these people have had enough.”
General Lynch also challenged an argument often made by American lawmakers who want to end the military involvement here soon: that Iraqi troops have ducked much of the hard fighting, and often proved unreliable because of the strong sectarian influence exercised by the competition for power between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political factions.
“I don’t know,” he said, how American war critics had concluded that the new American-trained Iraqi Army was not up to the fight. “I find that professionally offensive,” he said, after noting that there were “many Iraqi heroes” of the fighting south of Baghdad. “They’re competent,” he said. “There’s just not enough of them.”
General Lynch said that he and other American commanders were worried that extremist groups under attack by the buildup might retaliate with a spectacular, focused attack on American troops aimed at tipping the argument in Washington in favor of withdrawal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/world/middleeast/16commander.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fB%2fBurns%2c%20John%20F%2e&oref=slogin
Damien435
Active member
Politics. I could elaborate but that pretty much says it all right there.
Damien435
Active member
Ok, here's some reasons why we couldn't/wouldn't/didn't use as large a force in Iraq this time:
1.) No clear threat.
2.) Saddam had not taken any overwhelmingly provocative actions immediately prior to our invasion.
3.) Forces were already engaged in other areas.
4.) Public support for the war would waver with such a large number of troops being sent to Iraq.
5.) It was expected that the Iraqi's would step up to govern their own country once Saddam was removed from power, still waiting for this to happen.
6.) With Saddam's forces still in ruin after Desert Storm it was assumed that a smaller force could get the job done.
7.) When the Turks denied the US permission to send troops through their territory everyone assumed that Tommy Franks would wait for the Fourth Infantry Division to reach the Persian Gulf from the Med. Franks jumped at this opportunity and caught the Iraqi's off guard.
8.) The Army is more mechanized than it was in 1991, it was assumed that a smaller force could do the same job of a larger detachment had in 1991.
These are just a few reasons off the top of my head, I am sure I could come up with a larger list if I put some time and effort into it.
1.) No clear threat.
2.) Saddam had not taken any overwhelmingly provocative actions immediately prior to our invasion.
3.) Forces were already engaged in other areas.
4.) Public support for the war would waver with such a large number of troops being sent to Iraq.
5.) It was expected that the Iraqi's would step up to govern their own country once Saddam was removed from power, still waiting for this to happen.
6.) With Saddam's forces still in ruin after Desert Storm it was assumed that a smaller force could get the job done.
7.) When the Turks denied the US permission to send troops through their territory everyone assumed that Tommy Franks would wait for the Fourth Infantry Division to reach the Persian Gulf from the Med. Franks jumped at this opportunity and caught the Iraqi's off guard.
8.) The Army is more mechanized than it was in 1991, it was assumed that a smaller force could do the same job of a larger detachment had in 1991.
These are just a few reasons off the top of my head, I am sure I could come up with a larger list if I put some time and effort into it.
mmarsh
Active member
Donkey
Well, I must admit I did like the set of Beach Towels with the proposed 2010 Invasion plans of Iceland printed on them. :wink:
Damien+Donkey
I'll buy politics, but within the Republican Party. Remember in 2003 the Dems were the minority and Bushhad made it very clear that he didn't care a wit about their opinion.
I think ego had something to do with it too. One of the most dangerous things about the Neocons is their arrogent assumption that they are always right about everything. They didn't think the Iraqis would fight (they did) they thought the civilians would treat us liberators (they didn't) they assumed the oil industry could pay for the war (it couldn't) so on and so forth.
The Neocons were warned that they were wrong on these points, by those in and out of the country. It was a classic case of them believing their own bull.
Well, I must admit I did like the set of Beach Towels with the proposed 2010 Invasion plans of Iceland printed on them. :wink:
Damien+Donkey
I'll buy politics, but within the Republican Party. Remember in 2003 the Dems were the minority and Bushhad made it very clear that he didn't care a wit about their opinion.
I think ego had something to do with it too. One of the most dangerous things about the Neocons is their arrogent assumption that they are always right about everything. They didn't think the Iraqis would fight (they did) they thought the civilians would treat us liberators (they didn't) they assumed the oil industry could pay for the war (it couldn't) so on and so forth.
The Neocons were warned that they were wrong on these points, by those in and out of the country. It was a classic case of them believing their own bull.
03USMC
Active member
Your assuming that the majority of the insurgents are Iraqi nationals. The Jihadists and extermists are rat lining their people in and out of Iraq via Syria and Iran.
This is not an Iraqi nationalist movement against a Bad old US occupying force war. This is an international Jihad put forth by people who have supported attacks on western targets for years now their travel costs are just lower.
mmarsh
Active member
I know that, but the "International" group is neither as large nor as popular as the local insurgency. The Iraqis before the war were an extremely well educated people, very reformed as far as other Arab countries are concerned. I just don't think they are going to stand by and let Iraq revert back to some 12th century extremist backwater. Once the US leaves, the "internationals" are going to find the welcome mat pulled out from under them. As I said, this has already begun.
03USMC
Active member
Yes and the people of Iran were very educated and reformed for that region in 79-80 also.Look what happened there. Islamic extremist state thats pretty much been at war with the west and it's own people who don't observe the strictest of Islamic Sharia Laws. Who not only put out the welcome mat for Jihadists but finance them and lend harbor and tech support .
Okay now I'll wait a minute while you thump your chest mightily and say your Mi Culpas and rant about SAVAK and the Shah and the US support of same. Compare the Shah's government to Saddam's and educate me on how it's all the US of A's fault. Okay done now? Good.
Onward we go..............................................................................
If you don't believe that the same could happen in Iraq I suggest that you discard the rose colored eye wear. You are assuming way to much of the Iraqi government at this point in time and your confidence is misplaced. The Iraqi Military and Police while in better shape than they were say 12 months ago still are in a building phase. They are not with out need of support advisory and material. They are filling battle-spaces and they are taking more responsibility but they are still building and growing
And while we're at it where do you think all the ranking officers and NCO's in the IAF & IP came from? Do you think that Generals, Colonels and Sgt's magically appeared after Saddam went and crawled in his hole in Tikrit? Do you think the Baath Party members had a sudden change of heart and became benevolent and kind and put Care Bear stickers on their AK's and Tokarovs?
What about infrastructure? It's still being rebuilt. Education is the key it has to be made available to all Iraqi's not only to advance the country's economy but to dry up recruitment pools for the Islamofacists who prey on uneducated (and the young men educated in their madrases where their only education is the recitation of the Koran) to continue their unholy war.
To pull out before Iraq has a chance to stand on it's own before it and it's people have chance to self determine it's future is criminal and short sighted. There are Iraqis who I'm proud to call friends who have put on their country's uniform or taken civil positions in their government at great risk to themselves and their families. They want to see their country succeed and take its place in the world. To abandon them is the height of betrayal, especially if it's all about the number of votes some Senator (regardless of party) gets in November of 2008.
mmarsh
Active member
Actually I think what happened in Iran is precisely what the Iraqis are looking to avoid. Saddam himself was terrified of the thought which was exactly why her persecuted the clergy. Secondly, I never said it couldn't happen I said it was unlikely, especially when you consider the proximity of Iran and Hezbollah.
Consider this: Do you honestly think Iraqi Shia and the government in Iran is going to let a Sunni extremist group like al Qaeda quietly set up shop in its own backyard? The Sunni persecuted the Shiite for 800 years in a fashion much worse than Saddam. If you don't, then you have no understanding how far ethnic grudges carry in the Middle East, they hate each other far more than they hate us. In case you haven't read the various philosophies of Islam, each views the other as being heretics, so you can imagine how much they truly despise each other. They might smile for the camera, but the moment the world attention is elsewhere these two are going to go at it, my guess is sooner rather than later.
You talk about rebuilding infrastructure. How on earth do you expect to get an infrastructure if you don't have an effective Iraqi government? Its impossible. The Iraq government is perfectly happy pretending to 'play' democracy while America does all the heavy lifting. Do you honestly think the Democracy will last? One just needs to look at the drumhead trial of Saddam to show what a joke the judicial system is. As long as the Iraq government doesn't fear a US pullout they are never going to lift a finger to help their own country. Why should they? They live the good life and they have nothing to lose. They are perfectly happy letting the US run things while they are off taking a month vacation.
I have been saying this for months, the reason the country is in a shambles is because there is no effective central government, one that cannot function without a US support crutch. That also happens to be the opinion of the DOD and the Congress. As long as you don't have a government (of any type) you'll never have peace in that country, and you'll never get one either. "Iraq" is a British invention from the 1930s. But the 3 main groups the Kurds, Shia and Sunni all have their own agenda, none of which include
a unified Iraq. If they did, the war would be over long ago. The Shiia want to stay part of Iranian umbrella, the Sunni want to remain independent and the Kurds want Kurdistan.
Frankly I think the best thing for Iraq is to let them do just that. Kurdistan is tricky because of Turkey, but the 3 seperate state solution is far more likely to work that trying to make 'Democracy' out of the whole mess.
You should know that what you are proposing is NEVER going to work. We have been trying it for the past 5 years (almost as long as the entire Second World War), by now it should be obvious that ridiculous idea of "Nation Building" has totally failed, just likes its failed in every other country we tried it in since the end of the cold war. You can stay in Iraq 10 more years and you'll be exactly where you are now, except the US KIA will be at 10,000 and the cost into the Trillions (all of which will have to be paid back to China). And for what? Can somebody tell me that? How is our lives improved? That we Got rid of Saddam, so what? Saddam never bothered us, and believe it or not, there are much worse people out there than Saddam.
I for one, refuse to keep throwing good into bad. You call it 'cut and run' I call it 'not worth it'.
Consider this: Do you honestly think Iraqi Shia and the government in Iran is going to let a Sunni extremist group like al Qaeda quietly set up shop in its own backyard? The Sunni persecuted the Shiite for 800 years in a fashion much worse than Saddam. If you don't, then you have no understanding how far ethnic grudges carry in the Middle East, they hate each other far more than they hate us. In case you haven't read the various philosophies of Islam, each views the other as being heretics, so you can imagine how much they truly despise each other. They might smile for the camera, but the moment the world attention is elsewhere these two are going to go at it, my guess is sooner rather than later.
You talk about rebuilding infrastructure. How on earth do you expect to get an infrastructure if you don't have an effective Iraqi government? Its impossible. The Iraq government is perfectly happy pretending to 'play' democracy while America does all the heavy lifting. Do you honestly think the Democracy will last? One just needs to look at the drumhead trial of Saddam to show what a joke the judicial system is. As long as the Iraq government doesn't fear a US pullout they are never going to lift a finger to help their own country. Why should they? They live the good life and they have nothing to lose. They are perfectly happy letting the US run things while they are off taking a month vacation.
I have been saying this for months, the reason the country is in a shambles is because there is no effective central government, one that cannot function without a US support crutch. That also happens to be the opinion of the DOD and the Congress. As long as you don't have a government (of any type) you'll never have peace in that country, and you'll never get one either. "Iraq" is a British invention from the 1930s. But the 3 main groups the Kurds, Shia and Sunni all have their own agenda, none of which include
a unified Iraq. If they did, the war would be over long ago. The Shiia want to stay part of Iranian umbrella, the Sunni want to remain independent and the Kurds want Kurdistan.
Frankly I think the best thing for Iraq is to let them do just that. Kurdistan is tricky because of Turkey, but the 3 seperate state solution is far more likely to work that trying to make 'Democracy' out of the whole mess.
You should know that what you are proposing is NEVER going to work. We have been trying it for the past 5 years (almost as long as the entire Second World War), by now it should be obvious that ridiculous idea of "Nation Building" has totally failed, just likes its failed in every other country we tried it in since the end of the cold war. You can stay in Iraq 10 more years and you'll be exactly where you are now, except the US KIA will be at 10,000 and the cost into the Trillions (all of which will have to be paid back to China). And for what? Can somebody tell me that? How is our lives improved? That we Got rid of Saddam, so what? Saddam never bothered us, and believe it or not, there are much worse people out there than Saddam.
I for one, refuse to keep throwing good into bad. You call it 'cut and run' I call it 'not worth it'.
Last edited:
03USMC
Active member
No I don't call it Cut & Run. I call it betrayal for those every day run of the mill working & lower class Iraqis who put their faith in those guys in the gun trucks. The guys like me who promised them we'd be there with alot of damn-damn if they told is where the insurgents were.
I call it a betrayal of every Iraqi trooper I ever patrolled with because they enlisted thinking we wouldn't desert them. That We'd be there for them until they got on their feet and could run their own country.
Do I trust the Iraqi Pol's? No. How is it my Brit friends put it...They are a bunch of Tossers.Just like ours.Because their pol's thats their nature.
You may call it cutting the loss and I suppose it's easy to do sitting there in Paris all safe and secure just like it's easy to do sitting in D.C.. Because the Iraqi's are just video on the idiot box.And HEY all your Euro buddies will get off yer back and you can take off yer hair shirt.
I just don't believe that you stop before you finish what you started. We started this. We knocked out the government and infrastructure. We3 have a job to finish before we pull the pin.
I call it a betrayal of every Iraqi trooper I ever patrolled with because they enlisted thinking we wouldn't desert them. That We'd be there for them until they got on their feet and could run their own country.
Do I trust the Iraqi Pol's? No. How is it my Brit friends put it...They are a bunch of Tossers.Just like ours.Because their pol's thats their nature.
You may call it cutting the loss and I suppose it's easy to do sitting there in Paris all safe and secure just like it's easy to do sitting in D.C.. Because the Iraqi's are just video on the idiot box.And HEY all your Euro buddies will get off yer back and you can take off yer hair shirt.
I just don't believe that you stop before you finish what you started. We started this. We knocked out the government and infrastructure. We3 have a job to finish before we pull the pin.
Gator
U of B and B Alumnus
The Pottery Barn analogy?
Gator
U of B and B Alumnus
You do not seem worth it, so, I will not.
major liability
Active member
03USMC and Mmarsh are both correct. The situation is bad, but we can't just leave. That would be almost as criminal as invading in the first place.