Troops Want to Stay In Iraq

[Gunny]

Your right Kathianne. The killing in Vietnam had nothing to do with the soldiers problems. Nor did the chemicals we were using (agent orange). I mean how in the world could seeing your buddies heads and limbs get blown off even COMPARE to slanderous words being thrown at them back home. end sarcasm.

If the cause is just, so is the means to the end. When people get into the minds of those who have to do the fighting and convince them they are murderers, THAT screws up heads. It's hard enough psychologically without the politically-driven guilt trip.

 

[Gunny]

Plus I think the timetable given by the dems is more than fair. I think about 1.5 years is more than enough time for this so called surge to start working.

I think sending a schedule of events to one's enemy is not really the brightest idea I have heard.

 

[Annie]

I think sending a schedule of events to one's enemy is not really the brightest idea I have heard.

Ya think? I tried to rep, can't.

 

[T-Bor]

Im not saying it did not cause problems but I mean cmon....to say that it is meer WORDS that messed up the psyche of the soldiers over the violence that they saw is pure hogwash..Im sure it didnt help but cmon lets use some common sense here.


QUOTE=GunnyL;541560]If the cause is just, so is the means to the end. When people get into the minds of those who have to do the fighting and convince them they are murderers, THAT screws up heads. It's hard enough psychologically without the politically-driven guilt trip.[/QUOTE]

 

[T-Bor]

I agree with that.. but what else are we going to do. This so called WAR is definately not winnable. I dont know, im not a military strategist, but I do know that what we are doing there is certainly not helping anything. I agree with Gunny and we should have just left Saddam alone.

P.S - does anyone here actually care about Rep points? I care as much about that as I do my gamer rep on xbox live.

I think sending a schedule of events to one's enemy is not really the brightest idea I have heard.

 

[maineman]

I think sending a schedule of events to one's enemy is not really the brightest idea I have heard.

but you know as well as I do that the violence between sunni and shia will continue after our departure and will not be "solved" with American presence.

 

[Gunny]

Im not saying it did not cause problems but I mean cmon....to say that it is meer WORDS that messed up the psyche of the soldiers over the violence that they saw is pure hogwash..Im sure it didnt help but cmon lets use some common sense here.


QUOTE=GunnyL;541560]If the cause is just, so is the means to the end. When people get into the minds of those who have to do the fighting and convince them they are murderers, THAT screws up heads. It's hard enough psychologically without the politically-driven guilt trip.

[/QUOTE]

I'm not speaking of the violence they "saw." I'm addressing the acts of violence they committed, while continually having it hammered into their heads that they're fighting an illegal and immoral war.

The difference between being the good guy and bad guy is whether or not the cause is just. How an individual perceives himself and/or his actions will be a direct reflection of that. The difference in perception in this case is whether or not one perceives oneself as a liberator or a murderer.

Words a very real and they mean things.

 

[Gunny]

but you know as well as I do that the violence between sunni and shia will continue after our departure and will not be "solved" with American presence.

It isn't likely. My opinion is Arabs will go out and pick a fight with whoever's closest if they just start feeling they've gone too long without one.

 

[maineman]

It isn't likely. My opinion is Arabs will go out and pick a fight with whoever's closest if they just start feeling they've gone too long without one.

so our presence there actually accomplishes what, exactly, besides more business for honor guards here at home?

 

[Gunny]

so our presence there actually accomplishes what, exactly, besides more business for honor guards here at home?

I would say our presence is to prop up the Iraqi government until it can stand on its own, and keep the Islamofascists from getting control of Iraq's oil resources.

 

[maineman]

I would say our presence is to prop up the Iraqi government until it can stand on its own, and keep the Islamofascists from getting control of Iraq's oil resources.

do you honestly believe that anyone other than Iraqis - or perhaps Iranians after the shiites win the civil war and allign with them - will ever control Iraqi oil?

Do you really think that nefarious external AQ operatives are going to come in and subjegate all 28M Iraqis and steal the oil revenue?

 

[CSM]

do you honestly believe that anyone other than Iraqis - or perhaps Iranians after the shiites win the civil war and allign with them - will ever control Iraqi oil?

Do you really think that nefarious external AQ operatives are going to come in and subjegate all 28M Iraqis and steal the oil revenue?

Stranger things have happened....Taliban ring a bell? How about the Imams of Iran? Saddam Hussein? How much do you figuire those three entities stole from oil revenues. You make it seem like such things are inconceivable.

 

[red states rule]

Stranger things have happened....Taliban ring a bell? How about the Imams of Iran? Saddam Hussein? How much do you figuire those three entities stole from oil revenues. You make it seem like such things are inconceivable.

Saddam did well with the UN's Oil for Food Program

another great example of liberals keeping Saddam under control and contained

 

[maineman]

Stranger things have happened....Taliban ring a bell(1)? How about the Imams of Iran(2)? Saddam Hussein(3)? How much do you figuire those three entities stole from oil revenues. You make it seem like such things are inconceivable.

1. are you suggesting that the taliban could control Iraq's oil industry? 2. did you read my post? 3. Last I knew, he was Iraqi (albeit a dead Iraqi) and philosophically on the other side of the spectrum from islamofascists(whatever the hell that means!)

 

[CSM]

1. are you suggesting that the taliban could control Iraq's oil industry? 2. did you read my post? 3. Last I knew, he was Iraqi (albeit a dead Iraqi) and philosophically on the other side of the spectrum from islamofascists(whatever the hell that means!)

1) Don't start that crap...you know darn well what I was saying is that entities other than a country's citizens can and do control oil wealth, and often to the detriment to that country's citizens.

2) yes.

3) Again, it is entirely possible for AQ to subjugate 28M Iraqi's. External forces have entered other countries and subjugated their populations since the first caveman decided to expand his territory. History and even recent history has shown that this occurs all the time. Or are you saying it doesn't happen?

 

[Rosotar]

Ok, I'm going to wade in here, in a way I haven't for awhile. Vietnam had more 'shellshocked', 'battle fatigued' than previous wars. I truly do not believe that was do to their actions, but rather the concensus at home. They were the baby killers that Kerry and his ilk succeeded in labeling them.

Conservatives do a lot of rewriting history in regard to Vietnam Kathianne. They like to blame our failure on liberals, hippies, protesters, and just the general opposition at home.

What Cons seem to forget is that the situation over there turned bad as a result of poor policy. Opposition didn't begin at home until the public found out that it was being lied to about the reasons for us being over there. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was an example.

Vietnam was also the first time in history Americans got to see the reality of war on their televisions every evening. If the same kind of TV coverage had been available during WWII and Korea there wouldn't have been the consolidated "support" at home for those wars either. When Cons bring up the "good old days" of WWII and cite the support at home they're only telling half of the story. At that time war was sanitized and the only reports the average American got were DOD press releases (propaganda) that only glorified our efforts and painted every action America took as "just" and "noble."

It is unfortunate that some Americans vented their shock, outrage, and horror on returning soldiers. I'd like to think we know a lot more collectively now as Americans. I think we've learned that if you've got to spit on somebody it should be on the politicians that order our troops into situations like this in the first place.

Iraq? I think in the sense that the US needs a launching point in the ME, this is relevent, but that is not how it was sold. In any case, we are there, so we need to 'win'. Problem is, that would leave a positive GW legacy, which is unacceptable to some.

That's called "throwing good after bad" and it's not a very effective strategy for winning war. This whole thing was launched on false premises and poor strategies and those strategies have failed. The only person who can't admit that seems to be George Bush. To just hang on trying the same things that have been failing in the past hoping they're going to finally start working is suicidal and frankly borders on insanity.

Yeah....we're there alright. That's the problem. There's probably not going to be any happy ending here. Admitting that doesn't mean I'm wishing for defeat. It's simple pragmatism. We need to cut our losses, bring our troops home, regroup, assess and evaluate, and live to fight another day. That's the best we can hope for now.

Cons shouldn't shoot the messengers who are simply stating the obvious!

 

[maineman]

1) Don't start that crap...you know darn well what I was saying is that entities other than a country's citizens can and do control oil wealth, and often to the detriment to that country's citizens.

2) yes.

3) Again, it is entirely possible for AQ to subjugate 28M Iraqi's. External forces have entered other countries and subjugated their populations since the first caveman decided to expand his territory. History and even recent history has shown that this occurs all the time. Or are you saying it doesn't happen?

I do not think that Iraqis are going to let anyone control their oil except perhaps Iranians after the shiite victory in the civil war.

It is possible for pigs to fly.... if you want to believe that AQ is going to prevail over indiginous Iraqis, we will have to agree to disagree.... I think that is ridiculous to suggest, and even more ridiculous to plan for and develop and deploy forces to prevent that could be more effectively used to prevent things that have an actual chance of happening.

 

[CSM]

I do not think that Iraqis are going to let anyone control their oil except perhaps Iranians after the shiite victory in the civil war.

It is possible for pigs to fly.... if you want to believe that AQ is going to prevail over indiginous Iraqis, we will have to agree to disagree.... I think that is ridiculous to suggest, and even more ridiculous to plan for and develop and deploy forces to prevent that could be more effectively used to prevent things that have an actual chance of happening.

Which is it, the Iraqi's will control their own oil or some outside entity will do it....you can't have it both ways.

Don't be obtuse. Are you going to actully try to convince me that AQ had NO influence with the Taliban??? That AQ is not capable of influencing events and factions in Iraq which could conceivably come to power there?

As for things that have an actual chance of happening...9/11 changed my thinking about what has a "chance of happening" and what doesn't.

 

[maineman]

Which is it, the Iraqi's will control their own oil or some outside entity will do it....you can't have it both ways.

Don't be obtuse. Are you going to actully try to convince me that AQ had NO influence with the Taliban??? That AQ is not capable of influencing events and factions in Iraq which could conceivably come to power there?

As for things that have an actual chance of happening...9/11 changed my thinking about what has a "chance of happening" and what doesn't.

I am not suggesting "both ways". I am saying that Iraq may very well form a very strong alliance with Iran in the wake of a shiite victory in the ongoing civl war.

And of course AQ had SOME influence with the taliban.... they were priveleged house guests...they certainly did not control the taliban in any substantive way..... and I do not think that AQ will be able to gain control of the Iraqi population in any way. They are sunnis and are already fighting with iraqi sunnis... let alone how much they are hated by the shiites who make up the bulk of the population.

 

[Rosotar]

I've given $10 a month to the Navy Relief Society without fail since 1980. My firstborn child is currently serving in the US Army as a medic. And as one other poster put it ....I pay my taxes.

And I'm not out telling them I support them while protesting what they are doing.

Fair enough gunny.

If you say you're not a Republican then I guess you're not.

It's getting hard to find people these day's who will actually admit to being a Republican even if they are.

When you use Republican talking points to support Republican strategies though I think that the fact that you may not actually be a "registered" Republican is just splitting hairs.

Well....whatever you are you seem pretty cool to me.

I respect your right to have your opinions.