U.S. troop levels to remain steady in Iraq through next spring (1 Viewer)

[KidRocks]

Doesn't look like there is any peace in sight for our troops in Iraq thanks to President Bush, that is until the Iraqi "moderates and reformers" defeat the terrorists and extremists who are entrenched inside Iraq at the invitation of course, of our fine President who uttered the challenge... "bring em on"!

Indeed, that is what they (insurgents, al-Qaeda & Co) have complied only oh so willingly.

So President Bush is now pleading his cause to the Iraqi moderates to take up the fight because he now realizes that our fine troops cannot do it alone.

But we knew that, didn't we?












http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-19-troop_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military will likely maintain or possibly even increase the current force levels of more than 140,000 troops in Iraq through next spring, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East said Tuesday in one of the gloomiest assessments yet of how quickly American forces can be brought home.

Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command, said military leaders would consider adding troops or extending the Iraq deployments of other units if needed.

"If it's necessary to do that because the military situation on the ground requires that, we'll do it," he said. "If we have to call in more forces because it's our military judgment that we need more forces, we'll do it."

Abizaid said that right now the current number of troops "are prudent force levels" that are achieving the needed military effect.

His comments came as U.S. political leaders continue to face declining public support for the war in Iraq, as they head into the coming congressional elections. Abizaid, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace are expected to meet with members of Congress later this week.

Late last year, military leaders had said they hoped to reduce troop levels to about 100,000 by the end of this year. But Abizaid said Tuesday that the rising sectarian violence and slow progress of the Iraqi government made that impossible...

 

[ProudAmerican]

yeah, the finest, most advanced, greatest fighting force the world has ever known simply cant do it alone.

:roll:

as long as we fight the new, politically correct, kinder, gentler war.....I suppose you are right.

but if we would do the damn job the way it needs to be done, we would have been done in a matter of days.

 

[Iriemon]

yeah, the finest, most advanced, greatest fighting force the world has ever known simply cant do it alone.

:roll:

as long as we fight the new, politically correct, kinder, gentler war.....I suppose you are right.

but if we would do the damn job the way it needs to be done, we would have been done in a matter of days.

How are the troops not doing the damn job the way it needs to be done so that we could be done in a matter of days?

 

[KidRocks]

yeah, the finest, most advanced, greatest fighting force the world has ever known simply cant do it alone.

:roll:

as long as we fight the new, politically correct, kinder, gentler war.....I suppose you are right.

but if we would do the damn job the way it needs to be done, we would have been done in a matter of days.

Ya, I'm interested too, just exactly how (according to you) could we do the "damn job" in a matter of days?

Well?

 

[ProudAmerican]

sio you guys think we can put people into space,
we can develop nuclear technology before anyone else,
we can defeat nazi Germany, and imperial Japan,
we can build technology such as the F-22 raptor, the SR-71 Blackbird,

but somehow we cant figure out how to win the war in Iraq in days?

clearly nothing I explain to you will enlighten you at all.

you think the terrorists are a formitable foe. I cant combat that in a debate.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
yeah, the finest, most advanced, greatest fighting force the world has ever known simply cant do it alone.

as long as we fight the new, politically correct, kinder, gentler war.....I suppose you are right.

but if we would do the damn job the way it needs to be done, we would have been done in a matter of days.

Iriemon: How are the troops not doing the damn job the way it needs to be done so that we could be done in a matter of days?

Kidrocks: Ya, I'm interested too, just exactly how (according to you) could we do the "damn job" in a matter of days?

Well?

sio you guys think we can put people into space,
we can develop nuclear technology before anyone else,
we can defeat nazi Germany, and imperial Japan,
we can build technology such as the F-22 raptor, the SR-71 Blackbird,

but somehow we cant figure out how to win the war in Iraq in days?

clearly nothing I explain to you will enlighten you at all.

you think the terrorists are a formitable foe. I cant combat that in a debate.

LOL! Thanks for that informative post. I understand your position much better now. Hehe

 

[ProudAmerican]

LOL! Thanks for that informative post. I understand your position much better now. Hehe

its pretty clear you dont.

 

[Iriemon]

its pretty clear you dont.

My post was "sarcasm." Yes, it is true, I don't understand what you are saying, which is why I asked you to explain what you meant.

 

[KidRocks]

sio you guys think we can put people into space,
we can develop nuclear technology before anyone else,
we can defeat nazi Germany, and imperial Japan,
we can build technology such as the F-22 raptor, the SR-71 Blackbird,

but somehow we cant figure out how to win the war in Iraq in days?

clearly nothing I explain to you will enlighten you at all.

you think the terrorists are a formitable foe. I cant combat that in a debate.

Clearly, you don't know what the hell you are talking about, do you?

I thought as much!

 

[ProudAmerican]

My post was "sarcasm." Yes, it is true, I don't understand what you are saying, which is why I asked you to explain what you meant.

how do I possibly begin to explain to you how we could win the war in Iraq in days when you believe a rag tag bunch of terrorists are equal to our military?

our politically correct way of fighting a war wont get it done.

when people like you, who want to place the rights of terrorists, and foreign civilians above the rights of our military, and AMerican citizens are tying the countries hands, we can not get the job done.

we lose good men on a daily basis because they have to follow rules that protect foreign civilians while putting their own lives in danger.

but hey, at least they die knowing the left "supports" them.

if that doesnt explain it to you......give it up. thats as good as its gonna get.

 

[KidRocks]

how do I possibly begin to explain to you how we could win the war in Iraq in days when you believe a rag tag bunch of terrorists are equal to our military?

our politically correct way of fighting a war wont get it done.

when people like you, who want to place the rights of terrorists, and foreign civilians above the rights of our military, and AMerican citizens are tying the countries hands, we can not get the job done.

we lose good men on a daily basis because they have to follow rules that protect foreign civilians while putting their own lives in danger.

but hey, at least they die knowing the left "supports" them.

if that doesnt explain it to you......give it up. thats as good as its gonna get.

Tell us, tell us...

"how we could win the war in Iraq in days"

we're waiting!

We will wait until hell freezes over if we have to, but for Gods sake... tell us!

 

[Iriemon]

how do I possibly begin to explain to you how we could win the war in Iraq in days when you believe a rag tag bunch of terrorists are equal to our military?

What????!!!! LOL!

our politically correct way of fighting a war wont get it done.

This is where I am trying to understand what you mean. What politically correct way of fighting. I think the whole frigging war in politically incorrect, that doesn't seem to have been an issue with this Administration.

when people like you, who want to place the rights of terrorists, and foreign civilians above the rights of our military, and AMerican citizens are tying the countries hands, we can not get the job done.

What does your rights have to do with how we could win in days if we did the job like it needs to be done?

we lose good men on a daily basis because they have to follow rules that protect foreign civilians while putting their own lives in danger.

What rules are those?

but hey, at least they die knowing the left "supports" them.

You think "the left" is running the show? C'mon. If "the left" had any say in it we never would have invaded Iraq in the first place?

if that doesnt explain it to you......give it up. thats as good as its gonna get.

So, if I can paraphrase you position -- rules that were put in by "the left" who are apparently running things in Iraq is what is responsible for American soldiers dying.

I'm not sure what rules "the left" put in, but I disagree with your implicit assessment that "the left" is running the war in Iraq.

Really, what should the troops be doing that could win the war in days? Is your point that if we let the troops torture more we'd win? Carpet bombing cities? What?

 

[ProudAmerican]

the left doesnt have to be running the war to be costing American troops their lives.

we lost good men in Vietnam due to the same way of fighting a war.

the government wont do the job quickly and deciseively because of a fear of how the politically correct movement will portray them.

Is your point that if we let the troops torture more we'd win? Carpet bombing cities? What?

yes, among other things.

you continually say you think we are creating the terrorists.

I will tell you this. I believe if we nuked one city. just one. the clerics and imams would rethink what they are teaching.
And if they didnt, nuke another one.

Japan was the most radical, vicious oponent we had ever seen at that time. in a single (well double actually) flash of light, they caved. to date, they are a good partner in the global economy.

nukes arent allowed because of the ***** politically correct movement in our country.

I submit at this point, a couple of well placed nukes would save more lives than they would take.

I also believe its just a matter of time before one is used against us.

 

[KidRocks]

the left doesnt have to be running the war to be costing American troops their lives.

we lost good men in Vietnam due to the same way of fighting a war.

the government wont do the job quickly and deciseively because of a fear of how the politically correct movement will portray them.



yes, among other things.

you continually say you think we are creating the terrorists.

I will tell you this. I believe if we nuked one city. just one. the clerics and imams would rethink what they are teaching.
And if they didnt, nuke another one.

Japan was the most radical, vicious oponent we had ever seen at that time. in a single (well double actually) flash of light, they caved. to date, they are a good partner in the global economy.

nukes arent allowed because of the ***** politically correct movement in our country.

I submit at this point, a couple of well placed nukes would save more lives than they would take.

I also believe its just a matter of time before one is used against us.

AHA!

So we nuke the basterds, that's your answer. Typical!

It's a damn good thing you ultra r-wing extremists aren't in charge here in America as they are in Iran, there's not a nickels worth of difference between you and the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

It's your fool President Bush that is a ***** by being politically-correct and thank God he is not quite as nuts as you dittoheads are. Bush knows he can't drop the bomb on Iraq or Iran, he knew that from the beginning, before he invaded Iraq so you really only have him to blame, don't you?

You are pathetic!

 

[Iriemon]

the left doesnt have to be running the war to be costing American troops their lives.

we lost good men in Vietnam due to the same way of fighting a war.

the government wont do the job quickly and deciseively because of a fear of how the politically correct movement will portray them.

I haven't seen this Govt really worry a hell of a lot about what "the left" thinks about anything, but OK.

Iriemon: Is your point that if we let the troops torture more we'd win? Carpet bombing cities? What?

yes, among other things.

you continually say you think we are creating the terrorists.

I will tell you this. I believe if we nuked one city. just one. the clerics and imams would rethink what they are teaching.
And if they didnt, nuke another one.

Japan was the most radical, vicious oponent we had ever seen at that time. in a single (well double actually) flash of light, they caved. to date, they are a good partner in the global economy.

nukes arent allowed because of the ***** politically correct movement in our country.

I submit at this point, a couple of well placed nukes would save more lives than they would take.

I also believe its just a matter of time before one is used against us.

OK, I appreciate your explaining your position. If I understand your argument is that if we torture more of them more and nuke a city or two that would stop terrorism? Or the Iraq insurgency?

I disagree with your argument. And it's not just because my liberal moral values (I know, we liberals aren't supposed to have morals, that is supposedly the conservatives' province) would be appalled at the thought of our Govt vaporizing hundreds of thousands of innocent people (which it very definitely would be).

I also disagree with your argument because I don't think it would be successful. I don't think your belief that the Muslim population would be cowed with fear and suddenly stop supporting radicalism and terrorism has merit. Rather, I think the reaction would be an immediate increase in the number of anti-American radicals, with any moderation in the Muslim world wiped out. Also, the negative affect on the rest of the world regarding the US would be immediate and long term, if not permanent. The US would not longer be looked at as the victim of terrorists but as terrorists itself. Really, the effect would probably be catastrophically negative.

But I agree with you in one respect -- the current strategy is failing. Ultimately we have two choices: Either kill mass hordes of them so the remainder is so diminished they cannot organize, or find ways to diminish the number of them that feel compelled to become terrorists against us. I agree that sitting around in Iraq and killing a few thousand of them is not doing anything to address the danger of terrorism but is making it worse and we need a different strategy.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I disagree with your argument. And it's not just because my liberal moral values (I know, we liberals aren't supposed to have morals, that is supposedly the conservatives' province) would be appalled at the thought of our Govt vaporizing hundreds of thousands of innocent people (which it very definitely would be).

I only have history to go by. It worked extremely well with the Japanese, and IMO, they were just as radical as modern day muslems.

I also believe its us or them. If we continue down our current path, rather than be the one to use a nuke, we will be the ones to have one used against us.

I can only hope and pray that I am wrong.

 

[tecoyah]

I only have history to go by. It worked extremely well with the Japanese, and IMO, they were just as radical as modern day muslems.

I also believe its us or them. If we continue down our current path, rather than be the one to use a nuke, we will be the ones to have one used against us.

I can only hope and pray that I am wrong.

We used Atomics to force a Government into surrender. You cannot use a weapon (which by the way is a thousand times as destructive, unless we use tacticals), to force an Ideology into submission. The likely result of this action is an excalation of destruction, rather than a reduction.
To be Honest, the simple fact that you see no Fallout (pun intended) from the use of Nuclear Weapons on the world stage points to a limited understanding of the politics of world affairs. Torture, and dirty warfare are a part of this conflict.....Nukes are not, and for the sake of Humankind....shouldn't even be considered at all.
Do you seriously think, if the United States went this route....this war on Muslim Extremists would go away?......If so, you really need to think a bit more, and understand the term....reaction.

 

[ProudAmerican]

We used Atomics to force a Government into surrender. You cannot use a weapon (which by the way is a thousand times as destructive, unless we use tacticals), to force an Ideology into submission.

I dissagree. I believe the Japanese were an Ideology as well. A radical one, that flew planes into military targets as a weapon.

I guess untill we use one and see, we will all just have to stick with our own unfounded opinions on the matter.

I believe the aweseom destructive power of a nuke would have the islamofacists screaming for mercy immediately.

I also believe they will try to find out if the same will work on the "evil westerners" the first chance they get.

Do you seriously think, if the United States went this route....this war on Muslim Extremists would go away?.

go away? maybe not. be minimized to the point of irrelevancy? probably.

The terrorists are growing because WE ARE TOYING WITH THEM. If tomorrow, Iran erupted in a flash of light, I doubt seriously you would have as many students showing up the next day for class in the local radical mosque.

again, I can only have an opinion untill we find out for sure....which will never happen because there are too many weak people in this country with no stomach to win this war deciseively.

 

[ProudAmerican]

the thing I just cant grasp is that so many people dont believe one will be used on us eventually.
the ONLY reason they havent used one is because they dont have one.

the islamofacists wont hold your same value of "for the sake of human kind it shouldnt even be considered"

they will say "for the sake of the muslem cause it must be done"

 

[Volker]

So, hypothetically, someone would blow up an American city with such a bomb and say, they have more of it in other American cities.

Would you expect the Americans to surrender in this situation?

 

[Goobieman]

"If it's necessary to do that because the military situation on the ground requires that, we'll do it," he said. "If we have to call in more forces because it's our military judgment that we need more forces, we'll do it."

Abizaid said that right now the current number of troops "are prudent force levels" that are achieving the needed military effect.

Lets see:
"We have enough people there now, but if we need more we'll ask for more."

This is exactly what has been said since 2003.

How is this news?