So we pull out of Iraq, then what?

[HotRod82]

I've given this a lot of thought and nothing would make me happier than to see all of our troops out of that sh*thole and back home safe with their families. It seems to me though that if ( or when) we leave all hell is going to break loose over there. Iran will support the Shiite from the west and Syria will support the Sunni from the east. Major conflict will erupt and as a result 100's of thousands will die and oil will spike to $150 dollars a barrel. Lots of politicians pushing for withdrawl yet seem to be very shortsided as to the actual effect this would have. If Bush was smart ( ha ha yeah right) maybe he should let congress make the decision to withdraw and stand back and watch the fireworks. Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't. The next President is going to have their hands full.

[fatboy95]

Nothing will change as it has for hundreds of years. we will give them billions of dollars in aid and they will crap all over us like everyone else.We will go after Iran and spend more billions and then try to eradicate poppy farmers in afghanistan and fail again like we already have. Then we will again pump more billions into more third world countries to combat aids and fail again like we have in the past and move more money into North Korea to keep them from selling nuclear material to terrorists.

[never_fast_enuf]

No way in hell we could have won WWII with the US populace we have today. It's called war. In a war, you blow things up and kill people. If you blow up more and kill more of the opposition, you tend to win. Americans no longer have the will or stomach to actually win a war.
No one likes war but sometimes you either fight or get knocked on your ass. Personally, I prefer we not get knocked on our ass again.

[YeLLowBoaT]

I've given this a lot of thought and nothing would make me happier than to see all of our troops out of that sh*thole and back home safe with their families. It seems to me though that if ( or when) we leave all hell is going to break loose over there. Iran will support the Shiite from the west and Syria will support the Sunni from the east. .
thats pretty much what is happening now.

[never_fast_enuf]

thats pretty much what is happening now.
In the end, Iraq will be split up. The sooner, the better. Also, like it or not, we need to maintain our presence there...more than likely, forever.

[Blown 472]

No way in hell we could have won WWII with the US populace we have today. It's called war. In a war, you blow things up and kill people. If you blow up more and kill more of the opposition, you tend to win. Americans no longer have the will or stomach to actually win a war.
No one likes war but sometimes you either fight or get knocked on your ass. Personally, I prefer we not get knocked on our ass again.
And why are we there again?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

No way in hell we could have won WWII with the US populace we have today. It's called war. In a war, you blow things up and kill people. If you blow up more and kill more of the opposition, you tend to win. Americans no longer have the will or stomach to actually win a war.
No one likes war but sometimes you either fight or get knocked on your ass. Personally, I prefer we not get knocked on our ass again.
Pretty much right, on every single count.
But then, what do I know, I'm not over there just right now, and I don't sell insurance.

[never_fast_enuf]

And why are we there again?
Gen. Petraeus: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign."
Now you may not like that fact but a fact it is. This war was brought to America well before 911 but it took 911 to make America wake up and go on the offensive. Sadly, as you so happily represent, many Americans have fallen back asleep.
Iraq is just a part of the war on terror but right now, it is the most important part since Al Qaeda has made it their main focus as well.
Tell me...did you fall for the misinformation last week that said Al Qaeda was as strong now as they were pre 911? I bet you bought it hook line and sinker....and surprise, it turned out to be yet another lie reported by the extreme left wing biased "mains stream media" Geee....go figure. :rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Gen. Petraeus: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign."
Now you may not like that fact but a fact it is. This war was brought to America well before 911 but it took 911 to make America wake up and go on the offensive. Sadly, as you so happily represent, many Americans have fallen back asleep.
Iraq is just a part of the war on terror but right now, it is the most important part since Al Qaeda has made it their main focus as well.
Tell me...did you fall for the misinformation last week that said Al Qaeda was as strong now as they were pre 911? I bet you bought it hook line and sinker....and surprise, it turned out to be yet another lie reported by the extreme left wing biased "mains stream media" Geee....go figure. :rolleyes:
As I recall this message was all over Fox. Hardly "the extreme left wing biased mains stream media"
They have kids shows that lionize suicide bombers and actually incourage them to grow up and kill themselves for allah. It's scary to see what islamic culture is becoming in many parts of the world.
An indicator of progress?
And you talk about falling asleep?? The US went on the offensive in Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11. After minimal success the US abandoned that mission, and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the 9/11 terror attack. Our less than wonderful Commander and Chief opted to change US military focus to Iraq, Saddam and WMD's. with little to no evidence that
Iraq or Saddam had anything to do 9/11.
US Intelligence sources, not the so called left wing extreme media, confirm that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are flourishing in Pakistan. Why? Because we are are too busy trying to clean up the mess we unnecessarily made in Iraq.
I agree that many Americans have gone back to sleep, and you Sir, are apparently one of them.

[never_fast_enuf]

LMAO..."all over FOX". Tell me, who broke the story? You understand fully how that works. Once the "news" is out there, everyone reports on it. Again, tell me who "broke" the story. You are less than disingenuous with your "FOX: assertion.
You and almost every other liberal I have run across totally miss the point on the terrorism issue. We can kill Bin Laden today and Al Qaeda goes on. THAT is a fact that you simply do not want to deal with. At this point, it would be great to kill Bin Laden but again, that is but a small part of the war on terror. It has turned into a democrat talking point and deflection from discussing the real issue of terrorism.
As for Saddam having anything to do with 911, again, you totally miss the bigger point of what we face. I could argue with you until the next attack about Saddams links with terrorist groups, his willingness to work with those that would attack American interests and how the previous TWO administrations echoed those same FACTS and fears about Saddam. Somehow though you think suddenly none of that took place and Bush simply made it all up.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

LMAO..."all over FOX". Tell me, who broke the story? You understand fully how that works. Once the "news" is out there, everyone reports on it. Again, tell me who "broke" the story. You are less than disingenuous with your "FOX: assertion.
You and almost every other liberal I have run across totally miss the point on the terrorism issue. We can kill Bin Laden today and Al Qaeda goes on. THAT is a fact that you simply do not want to deal with. At this point, it would be great to kill Bin Laden but again, that is but a small part of the war on terror. It has turned into a democrat talking point and deflection from discussing the real issue of terrorism.
As for Saddam having anything to do with 911, again, you totally miss the bigger point of what we face. I could argue with you until the next attack about Saddams links with terrorist groups, his willingness to work with those that would attack American interests and how the previous TWO administrations echoed those same FACTS and fears about Saddam. Somehow though you think suddenly none of that took place and Bush simply made it all up.
You obviously understand the BIG PICTURE. :eek: :eek:

[never_fast_enuf]

You obviously understand the BIG PICTURE. :eek: :eek:
and you obviously do not. Do you honestly think if we kill Bin Laden today that the war on terror is over?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

and you obviously do not. Do you honestly think if we kill Bin Laden today that the war on terror is over?
Of course not.
We should just let this intelligent maniac run free to continue growing his organization, and develop effective plans to terrorize the US on US soil. Is that what we should do?
When you bring something of substance to these forums, maybe we can talk again. Until then, you are on your own.
Have a nice day

[eliminatedsprinter]

An indicator of progress?
Not an indicator of progress. What I am referring to has been going on since long before 911 and the war in Iraq. It is an indicator only of how anti-west and pathological much of the "Islamic World's" culture is and has been for a long time (while we all ignored them). Socially accepted pride killings, subjugation of women, persicution of non Muslims, and the cheering in the street at the initial reports of 911, are all examples of how this culture, that we are up agianst, is twisted, and has reviled, all that is western and infidel for a very long time. The Arab states still hate the British (and to a lesser extent the rest of the west) for militarily forcing them to stop their world wide slave trade.
You say we have to fight these people with "intellegence" and even though that is vague to the point of being an almost meaningless statement, it is also one that is true.
Part of this must be understanding the intrensic cultural influences that are driving their hatred of us, much of which have nothing to do with anything we (the west) have done in the last 100 years...

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Not an indicator of progress. What I am referring to has been going on since long before 911 and the war in Iraq. It is an indicator only of how anti-west and pathological much of the "Islamic World's" culture is and has been for a long time (while we all ignored them). Socially accepted pride killings, subjugation of women, persicution of non Muslims, and the cheering in the street at the initial reports of 911, are all examples of how this culture, that we are up agianst, is twisted, and has reviled, all that is western and infidel for a very long time. The Arab states still hate the British (and to a lesser extent the rest of the west) for militarily forcing them to stop their world wide slave trade.
Hmm. If you are fighting a war on drugs do you attack Columbia, occupy Bagota and the rest of the major cities turning average Columbians into freedom fighters willing to die to rid themselves of the occupying Army, and thereby alienating the entire Southern Hemisphere taking the focus from your war on drugs and directing it at imperialistic expansionism? Or do you fund covert operations to take out drug Czars and then work your way down the drug hierarchy to the dealers on the streets?
Democrats aren't against the war on terror. They are opposed to antiquated and expensive tactics that not only empower terrorists but unite the Arab and Muslim civilians of the world against the United States.
I tend to agree with this analogy.
I don't see out efforts in Iraq or the, so called, war on terror as being effective, in fact to the contrary. They hate us, and clearly we hate them. I don't see this changing by trying to engage this visually non disrupt enemy in a ground war. Covert intelligence, quietly taking out the leaders and working our way down the chain.
We must continue our battle without doubt. We just to start using more brains than brawn
ES please realize that I respect your opinions and comments

[never_fast_enuf]

Of course not.
We should just let this intelligent maniac run free to continue growing his organization, and develop effective plans to terrorize the US on US soil. Is that what we should do?
When you bring something of substance to these forums, maybe we can talk again. Until then, you are on your own.
Have a nice day
Clearly facts and history are not your forte so let me help you out...
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
Gee...seems you aren't the first to come up with this novel idea. Seems Bush talked about it in his speech to the American people on Sept 20th, 2001
THIS is what pisses me off about you liberals. You have zero regard for the facts. Your hatred of Bush clouds every aspect of your life.

[eliminatedsprinter]

We just to start using more brains than brawn
I think we need to use both.
Unfortunatly, the only thing that has worked in the "Islamic World" (esp the Arab portions) in the past, is brute strength. It seems to be the only thing they fear and or respect.
Soft methods such as aid and negotiations have all too often been seen by them as signs of weakness. I fear that the approach our current bunch of Democrats would use will only cause us to face an even greater confligration in the future.
I agree that we need to be smart about where we hit, but when we do hit we need to hit with all we have.
Theodore Roosevelt had to deal with one famous incident of Arab (actually Morrocian) terrorism. His "Big Stick" method worked very well, because it took into account the Arab mentality.

[never_fast_enuf]

I think we need to use both.
Unfortunatly, the only thing that has worked in the "Islamic World" (esp the Arab portions) in the past, is brute strength. It seems to be the only thing they fear and or respect.
Soft methods such as aid and negotiations have all too often been seen by them as signs of weakness. I fear that the approach our current bunch od Democrats would use will only cause us to face an even greater confligration in the future.
I agree that we need to be smart about whre we hit, but when we do hit we need to hit with all we have.
Theodore Roosevelt had to deal with one famous incident of Arab (actually Morrocian) terrorism. His "Big Stick" method worked very well, because it took into account the Arab mentality.
Well said. We need to and are using every tool we have, including blowing up people and stuff. THAT, they understand. Only the completly blind think we can do it with words alone and only the ignorant think we aren't doing covert ops behind the scenes.
Seems the only people interested in seeing us fail in Iraq are the democrats and the terrorists. Things that make ya go hmmmmm....

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Our less than wonderful Commander and Chief opted to change US military focus to Iraq, Saddam and WMD's. with little to no evidence that
Iraq or Saddam had anything to do 9/11. .
Who, just exactly WHO in the administration has ever claimed Iraq had a connection to 9/11/01?
Whip it out ultra. Who, When, Where? I wanna ("want to") know.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

and you obviously do not. Do you honestly think if we kill Bin Laden today that the war on terror is over?
Ultra believes that if we just get out of Iraq, Al-Queda will leave US alone. He has said that directly.
Thus, yes, he likely believes that one too.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Ain't it funny how these people want "covert opperations", yet they want to know what is going on, and every single time a "covert op" has a chance of doing anything, somebody REPORTS ON IT, making it public knowledge, and therefore, useless.
Kind of like the "wiretap" program the NSA had looking for terrorists in the US calling their buddies/contacts in the middle east.
Just exactly WHAT is wrong with, at the current problematic time, listening to telephone calls:
FROM US PHONES
TO MIDDLE EAST TELEPHONE NUMBERS IN TERRORIST PROBLEM NATIONS
AND TO TERRORIST NUMBERS THAT INTEL HAS ALSO DISCOVERED?
Just exactly how does this violate some grandma's "right to expectation of privacy"?

[asch]

and I don't sell insurance.
Now that's funny. :sqeyes:

[Rexone]

Well said. We need to and are using every tool we have, including blowing up people and stuff. THAT, they understand. Only the completly blind think we can do it with words alone and only the ignorant think we aren't doing covert ops behind the scenes.
Seems the only people interested in seeing us fail in Iraq are the democrats and the terrorists. Things that make ya go hmmmmm....
My opinion is that the war in Iraq was compromised and flawed in the very first days by the people in Washington. Shock and awe on TV was the word of the day. Letting the majority of Saddam's army run for the hills to fight us again now and featuring imbedded reporters at every turn to make sure all was PC was the reality of the day. That army should have been captured (preferably) or killed and rules of engagement should have been planned for just that in advance of the first troop on the ground. That is what a war is. Whether you agree or not with the reasons for going there, if you go there it better be to win. This 5 year ongoing semi war, semi police mission there is bs. And AL Quieda didn't have the large presence there in those early days that we've allowed it to develop now. By drawing it out we've drawn them there (maybe that was the goal right from the start designed by someone with much deeper insight and understanding than myself)... if so mission accomplished. But now that so many are there, why not complete the mission and obliterate them (if that was the mission, which we will likely never know).
It was never a real war right from day one with any intention of obliterating the enemy and then withdrawing. That is the problem today. We should never have started a war in Iraq we didn't intend to win quickly and decisively. We should have removed Saddam and his entire army immediately and had the forces and technology in place to stop any influx of fighters from surrounding nations like Syria. Big job, yes certainly. But that should have been planned for in advance or we should have stayed home and maybe used all that money and military might to secure our own borders (now there's a novel idea). :)
Just my .02 as some dumass looking at it from the outside.

[centerhill condor]

to answer the question, High Roller could be on to something with the withdraw now dem pres orders back in later idea.
strangely familiar to our involvement in china during the WWII.
It would, however, require a most unique set of circumstances and a marketing blitz as yet unseen...maybe Obama could do it!?
It is therefore, highly unlikely captain, and illogical.
CC spok

[ULTRA26 # 1]

My opinion is that the war in Iraq was compromised and flawed in the very first days by the people in Washington. Shock and awe on TV was the word of the day. Letting the majority of Saddam's army run for the hills to fight us again now and featuring imbedded reporters at every turn to make sure all was PC was the reality of the day. That army should have been captured (preferably) or killed and rules of engagement should have been planned for just that in advance of the first troop on the ground. That is what a war is. Whether you agree or not with the reasons for going there, if you go there it better be to win. This 5 year ongoing semi war, semi police mission there is bs. And AL Quieda didn't have the large presence there in those early days that we've allowed it to develop now. By drawing it out we've drawn them there (maybe that was the goal right from the start designed by someone with much deeper insight and understanding than myself)... if so mission accomplished. But now that so many are there, why not complete the mission and obliterate them (if that was the mission, which we will likely never know).
It was never a real war right from day one with any intention of obliterating the enemy and then withdrawing. That is the problem today. We should never have started a war in Iraq we didn't intend to win quickly and decisively. We should have removed Saddam and his entire army immediately and had the forces and technology in place to stop any influx of fighters from surrounding nations like Syria. Big job, yes certainly. But that should have been planned for in advance or we should have stayed home and maybe used all that money and military might to secure our own borders (now there's a novel idea). :)
Just my .02 as some dumass looking at it from the outside.
Great post Rex

[never_fast_enuf]

By drawing it out we've drawn them there (maybe that was the goal right from the start designed by someone with much deeper insight and understanding than myself)... if so mission accomplished. But now that so many are there, why not complete the mission and obliterate them (if that was the mission, which we will likely never know).
I think you are on to something with that.;)
Think what a daunting task it is to fight a war against an enemy that wears no uniform...has no "country" to associate itself with. How do you fight such an enemy that is so dedicated to fighting and killing us? You can't bomb every country where they happen to reside.
History will tell how this all turns out....it is far from over, as the liberals would have you believe.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I think you are on to something with that.;)
Think what a daunting task it is to fight a war against an enemy that wears no uniform...has no "country" to associate itself with. How do you fight such an enemy that is so dedicated to fighting and killing us? You can't bomb every country where they happen to reside.
History will tell how this all turns out....it is far from over, as the liberals would have you believe.
This is the exact point I have stated over and over and have been labeled a liberal pussy for stating the same.
I don't believe anyone with half a brain, liberal or otherwise, believes that the fight against the terrorists around the world is nearly over. A ground war in Iraq will never produce the result that this Country is seeking which, as I see it, is the reduction or elimination or terrorist attacks around the world. I have suggested a more covert and intelligent approach as a more effective means of attaining our Country's goal, and will continue to. Let me add to that a more aggressive approach as well. The cowboys and Indians method, simply isn't working.

[lucky]

I've given this a lot of thought and nothing would make me happier than to see all of our troops out of that sh*thole and back home safe with their families. It seems to me though that if ( or when) we leave all hell is going to break loose over there. Iran will support the Shiite from the west and Syria will support the Sunni from the east. Major conflict will erupt and as a result 100's of thousands will die and oil will spike to $150 dollars a barrel. Lots of politicians pushing for withdrawl yet seem to be very shortsided as to the actual effect this would have. If Bush was smart ( ha ha yeah right) maybe he should let congress make the decision to withdraw and stand back and watch the fireworks. Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't. The next President is going to have their hands full.
Some times things just reslove themselves ! boom problem solved

[never_fast_enuf]

This is the exact point I have stated over and over and have been labeled a liberal pussy for stating the same.
I don't believe anyone with half a brain, liberal or otherwise, believes that the fight against the terrorists around the world is nearly over. A ground war in Iraq will never produce the result that this Country is seeking which, as I see it, is the reduction or elimination or terrorist attacks around the world. I have suggested a more covert and intelligent approach as a more effective means of attaining our Country's goal, and will continue to. Let me add to that a more aggressive approach as well. The cowboys and Indians method, simply isn't working.
Because a war is difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't fight it. Personally, I think the tactic of drawing them out and establishing a "front line" is about the only tactic we had. How much more of Afghanistan could we blow up? We scattered them like rats there and killed many of the enemy. We also established that we would no longer sit back to wait to be attacked.
Pre 911, the intel we had on Iraq would never have been enough to justify a ground war. Post 911, we couldn't take the chance. Removing Saddam made since on every level. Is there a downside? Of course there is. There are downsides to every strategy.
The question you have to ask yourself is this...Are we safer?
The answer is a resounding yes and it didn't come from JUST the war, the removal of Saddam, covert actions or sound police work and intel gathering. It came from all of the above and all of the above feed on each other. All of the above will also continue to ensure our success.
Say what you like about W but I truly believe he has the countries best interests in mind as he fights the global war on terrorism. I can't say the same for those in power who wish to see us fail.

[never_fast_enuf]

This is the exact point I have stated over and over and have been labeled a liberal pussy for stating the same.
I don't believe anyone with half a brain, liberal or otherwise, believes that the fight against the terrorists around the world is nearly over. A ground war in Iraq will never produce the result that this Country is seeking which, as I see it, is the reduction or elimination or terrorist attacks around the world. I have suggested a more covert and intelligent approach as a more effective means of attaining our Country's goal, and will continue to. Let me add to that a more aggressive approach as well. The cowboys and Indians method, simply isn't working.
Because a war is difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't fight it. Personally, I think the tactic of drawing them out and establishing a "front line" is about the only tactic we had. How much more of Afghanistan could we blow up? We scattered them like rats there and killed many of the enemy. We also established that we would no longer sit back to wait to be attacked.
Pre 911, the intel we had on Iraq would never have been enough to justify a ground war. Post 911, we couldn't take the chance. Removing Saddam made sense on every level. Is there a downside? Of course there is. There are downsides to every strategy.
The question you have to ask yourself is this...Are we safer?
The answer is a resounding yes and it didn't come from JUST the war, the removal of Saddam, covert actions or sound police work and intel gathering. It came from all of the above and all of the above feed on each other. All of the above will also continue to ensure our success.
Say what you like about W but I truly believe he has the countries best interests in mind as he fights the global war on terrorism. I can't say the same for those in power who wish to see us fail.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Because a war is difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't fight it. Personally, I think the tactic of drawing them out and establishing a "front line" is about the only tactic we had. How much more of Afghanistan could we blow up? We scattered them like rats there and killed many of the enemy. We also established that we would no longer sit back to wait to be attacked.
Pre 911, the intel we had on Iraq would never have been enough to justify a ground war. Post 911, we couldn't take the chance. Removing Saddam made since on every level. Is there a downside? Of course there is. There are downsides to every strategy.
[BThe question you have to ask yourself is this...Are we safer?[/B]
The answer is a resounding yes and it didn't come from JUST the war, the removal of Saddam, covert actions or sound police work and intel gathering. It came from all of the above and all of the above feed on each other. All of the above will also continue to ensure our success.
Say what you like about W but I truly believe he has the countries best interests in mind as he fights the global war on terrorism. I can't say the same for those in power who wish to see us fail.
The question you have to ask yourself is this...Are we safer?
Hell NO
Are you unable to understand that what we are doing in Iraq hasn't and isn't going to work?
This Country isn't about failure everyone knows that.

[never_fast_enuf]

The question you have to ask yourself is this...Are we safer?
Hell NO
Are you unable to understand that what we are doing in Iraq hasn't and isn't going to work?
This Country isn't about failure everyone knows that.
Sorry but the facts say yes, we are safer. You can try and ignore it but it is what it is. We are MUCH safer and I don't happen to share your defeatist attitude. You do realize that people who think like you also said we couldn't win WWII...food for thought.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Sorry but the facts say yes, we are safer. You can try and ignore it but it is what it is. We are MUCH safer and I don't happen to share your defeatist attitude. You do realize that people who think like you also said we couldn't win WWII...food for thought.
I suggest that you check the facts again, as you absolutely wrong in this regard.
BTW, my attitude is not one of defeat and if you had read anything that I have stated yoou would know that.
This is the exact point I have stated over and over and have been labeled a liberal pussy for stating the same.
I don't believe anyone with half a brain, liberal or otherwise, believes that the fight against the terrorists around the world is nearly over. A ground war in Iraq will never produce the result that this Country is seeking which, as I see it, is the reduction or elimination or terrorist attacks around the world. I have suggested a more covert and intelligent approach as a more effective means of attaining our Country's goal, and will continue to. Let me add to that a more aggressive approach as well. The cowboys and Indians method, simply isn't working.
Read it again. Defeatist. I don't think so.
You sir are a political bigot. Sad but true

[Liberator TJ1984]

we piss off Russia and go to war with them ! Nuclear WW3 is next ;)
hav'nt you read Nostradamas's predictions ??? :rolleyes: :D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

we piss off Russia and go to war with them ! Nuclear WW3 is next ;)
hav'nt you read Nostradamas's predictions ??? :rolleyes: :D
In fact I have.
According to many in th PR forums, we are already involved in WWIII, so it may be just a matter of time. I would like think this wasn't the case.

[never_fast_enuf]

I suggest that you check the facts again, as you absolutely wrong in this regard.
BTW, my attitude is not one of defeat and if you had read anything that I have stated yoou would know that.
Read it again. Defeatist. I don't think so.
You sir are a political bigot. Sad but true
You can assign terms to me that fit your perception all you like. I am an American first, a conservative second. That is who I am. I use common sense in my thinking and eliminate emotion as that will taint reality.
The fact is, we are safer today than we were before 911. There are many reasons for that as well. The war in Iraq hasn't made us safer per se but it has increased our ability to gather intel on what al Qaeda is up to which does make us safer. We now share info between government agencies which we didn't do before 911. That makes us safer. Again, there are many reasons why we ARE safer, despite your emotional protestations....
I deal with facts....not emotion.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You can assign terms to me that fit your perception all you like. I am an American first, a conservative second. That is who I am. I use common sense in my thinking and eliminate emotion as that will taint reality.
The fact is, we are safer today than we were before 911. There are many reasons for that as well. The war in Iraq hasn't made us safer per se but it has increased our ability to gather intel on what al Qaeda is up to which does make us safer. We now share info between government agencies which we didn't do before 911. That makes us safer. Again, there are many reasons why we ARE safer, despite your emotional protestations....
I deal with facts....not emotion.
Is the following an example of your dealing with facts and not emotion?
Originally Posted by ULTRA26 # 1
Please educate me. Other than Smokin, who else here has been to or have had children in Iraq? Have you served in the military in Iraq?
Your response
That is a complete bull$hit deflection that is typical of liberals. Your premise is totally dishonest from the get go. With this bull$hit comment, you immediately imply if you don't have kids in combat, you don't care about the soldiers lives. Total horse $hit and typical Michael More liberal drivel.

[never_fast_enuf]

Is the following an example of your dealing with facts and not emotion?
Your deflections are usually better than that. Again, the fact is, we ARE safer. The fact that you attempted to deflect from that fact speaks volumes.
See...I love facts.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Your deflections are usually better than that. Again, the fact is, we ARE safer. The fact that you attempted to deflect from that fact speaks volumes.
See...I love facts.
Smokin, it worked for a little while. No more.

[eliminatedsprinter]

In fact I have.
According to many in th PR forums, we are already involved in WWIII, so it may be just a matter of time. I would like think this wasn't the case.
I think this may be the lead up to WWIII and I hope we can prevent it from becoming as big of a conflagration as the last one was, by not repeating the apeasment, that allowed it to get so out of hand.
I am aware that you don't see many of the similarities betweeen the lead up to the last WW and these times. I am also aware that you think I don't see or am ignoring the differances. The problem is, the similarities that I do see are the ones that were the most critical and ignored back in the 30's. And the differances only seem to indicate that our enemies in this may actually be worse than they were back then. I want this to be forcefully delt with now, so that my son wont have to be part of a major WW, like my great uncles and my grand parents were.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I think this may be the lead up to WWIII and I hope we can prevent it from becoming as big of a conflagration as the last one was, by not repeating the apeasment, that allowed it to get so out of hand.
I am aware that you don't see many of the similarities betweeen the lead up to the last WW and these times. I am also aware that you think I don't see or am ignoring the differances. The problem is, the similarities that I do see are the ones that were the most critical and ignored back in the 30's. And the differances only seem to indicate that our enemies in this may actually be worse than they were back then. I want this to be forcefully delt with now, so that my son wont have to be part of a major WW, like my great uncles and my grand parents were.
ES, I agree that this mess is gaining momentum and is beginning to spiral out of control. I also agree that force is an absolute. I just don't see the current cource as being effective. This surely doesn't mean that I welcome or invite defeat.

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES, I agree that this mess is gaining momentum and is beginning to spiral out of control. I also agree that force is an absolute. I just don't see the current cource as being effective. This surely doesn't mean that I welcome or invite defeat.
Perhaps that is why you should, stick to your major points and not directly respond to that particular charge, after all, you have already responded to it about 90 times already in the past.:)
P.S. I don't think you want defeat in Iraq, but I really am starting to think Pelosi and Co might. At this point, I'm starting to think they care more for the political points and their own personal power than they do for the welfare of our soldiers and our nation. But I must stress that this is just an opinion and I would love to see them prove me wrong.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Perhaps that is why you should, stick to your major points and not directly respond to that particular charge, after all, you have already responded to it about 90 times already in the past.:)
P.S. I don't think you want defeat in Iraq, but I really am starting to think Pelosi and Co might. At this point, I'm starting to think they care more for the political points and their own personal power than they do for the welfare of our soldiers and our nation. But I must stress that this is just an opinion and I would love to see them prove me wrong.
ES,
As you should already know, I'm not a fan of Pelosi & Co. Her (their) motives seem questionable at least.

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
As you should already know, I'm not a fan of Pelosi & Co. Her (their) motives seem questionable at least.
Most of the time when people here lash out against the evil libs etc... It is the likes of Pelosi etc and their supporters that they mean.
Everyone here does some over generalizing at one time or another. For example, I lumped you in with Poster when I said you guys were outnumbered, even though I am pretty sure (;)) you are not a supporter of "Utopian Socialism" like he is.:)

[SB]

Good post Rex.
If we aren't willing to shoot the looters, we shouldn't invade.
Next time, no more Mr. Nice guy.
What to do now?
We should probably withdraw to where we can protect the Kurds.
Then the Shiites will massacre the Sunnis. Then maybe there will be peace, sorta.
The Iraqis have spent us into the ground, we can't keep it up.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Most of the time when people here lash out against the evil libs etc... It is the likes of Pelosi etc and their supporters that they mean.
Everyone here does some over generalizing at one time or another. For example, I lumped you in with Poster when I said you guys were outnumbered, even though I am pretty sure (;)) you are not a supporter of "Utopian Socialism" like he is.:)
No worries ES. While I admire Poster and some of his opinions we are, as you suggest, very different.
Good post Rex.
If we aren't willing to shoot the looters, we shouldn't invade.
Next time, no more Mr. Nice guy.
What to do now?
We should probably withdraw to where we can protect the Kurds.
Then the Shiites will massacre the Sunnis. Then maybe there will be peace, sorta.
The Iraqis have spent us into the ground, we can't keep it up.
Good post SB

[tbanzer]

I feel the most important bench mark in Iraq or anywhere in the middle east is when the general population feels that they want to embrace our values our way of life and wants our help to get there (democracy). Only then will they be able to start standing on their own two feet and join the fight to eliminate the threat to all of the western world that doesent happen to have the same religious beliefs. I fear that this is the most pivotal times in the history of all of civilization and it is in fact a fight of good vs evil. I just hope im on the right side.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I feel the most important bench mark in Iraq or anywhere in the middle east is when the general population feels that they want to embrace our values our way of life and wants our help to get there (democracy). Only then will they be able to start standing on their own two feet and join the fight to eliminate the threat to all of the western world that doesent happen to have the same religious beliefs. I fear that this is the most pivotal times in the history of all of civilization and it is in fact a fight of good vs evil. I just hope im on the right side.
The bench marks you discuss would make the world much closer to a perfect one. Believing that those in the Mid East will ever embrace our values, way of life, etc. may be a little optimistic. I guess we will have to wait and see.

[CPBRIAN10THMTN]

My opinion is that the war in Iraq was compromised and flawed in the very first days by the people in Washington. Shock and awe on TV was the word of the day. Letting the majority of Saddam's army run for the hills to fight us again now and featuring imbedded reporters at every turn to make sure all was PC was the reality of the day. That army should have been captured (preferably) or killed and rules of engagement should have been planned for just that in advance of the first troop on the ground. That is what a war is. Whether you agree or not with the reasons for going there, if you go there it better be to win. This 5 year ongoing semi war, semi police mission there is bs. And AL Quieda didn't have the large presence there in those early days that we've allowed it to develop now. By drawing it out we've drawn them there (maybe that was the goal right from the start designed by someone with much deeper insight and understanding than myself)... if so mission accomplished. But now that so many are there, why not complete the mission and obliterate them (if that was the mission, which we will likely never know).
It was never a real war right from day one with any intention of obliterating the enemy and then withdrawing. That is the problem today. We should never have started a war in Iraq we didn't intend to win quickly and decisively. We should have removed Saddam and his entire army immediately and had the forces and technology in place to stop any influx of fighters from surrounding nations like Syria. Big job, yes certainly. But that should have been planned for in advance or we should have stayed home and maybe used all that money and military might to secure our own borders (now there's a novel idea). :)
Just my .02 as some dumass looking at it from the outside.
Rex,
You are talking about an army of men that did not want to be there, that did not want to fight and were extremely happy when we showed up and immediately surrendered. Rules of engagement were definetly planned, we dropped leaflets and aired warnings for people to stay in their homes, anyone on the street would be shot and killed. The problem we faced immediatly was the lack of security on the borders and soon enough iraq became a terrorist playground. We did obliterate the enemy we set out too but seem to drag our feet with the one that we fight today. Just not enough manpower to keep borders completely secure. I definetly agree with you on our borders!:D

[Old Texan]

Too much of this war is being fought in the press. Our media has given far too many opinions and far too few facts. When you listen to the views of those that have been over there, they are in direct contrast to what the media "reports".
We would have been far better off and will be far better off if the media and congress would sit back and leave the military do their jobs. We have finely trained professionals that have been severly harnassed to this point. It needs to stop. Release the restraints on our military for 6 months and then take a look at what they can really do. Pull out then would be no problem because the problem would be gone.

[CPBRIAN10THMTN]

Too much of this war is being fought in the press. Our media has given far too many opinions and far too few facts. When you listen to the views of those that have been over there, they are in direct contrast to what the media "reports".
We would have been far better off and will be far better off if the media and congress would sit back and leave the military do their jobs. We have finely trained professionals that have been severly harnassed to this point. It needs to stop. Release the restraints on our military for 6 months and then take a look at what they can really do. Pull out then would be no problem because the problem would be gone.
Exactly, so many times, I have been told not to take the shot or so on..... really it comes down to politics, hand and hand with the media, there have been numerous incidents i was involved with where the news reported something off the wall and completely different, especially reuter's, we were and are so held back its disgusting, there were so many oportunities over there but we were held back by formalities. Politics.

[Rexone]

Rex,
You are talking about an army of men that did not want to be there, that did not want to fight and were extremely happy when we showed up and immediately surrendered. Rules of engagement were definetly planned, we dropped leaflets and aired warnings for people to stay in their homes, anyone on the street would be shot and killed. The problem we faced immediatly was the lack of security on the borders and soon enough iraq became a terrorist playground. We did obliterate the enemy we set out too but seem to drag our feet with the one that we fight today. Just not enough manpower to keep borders completely secure. I definetly agree with you on our borders!:D
I see your point. Seems like very poor planning on the Iraq border subject though. The government and the military had to recognize in advance that it would be a big problem, one would think, based on the attitude and terriorist content of Iraq's neighbors. My question in hindsight is why our government would allow us to go in knowing that this infiltration over Iraq's borders issue would result in what we have today. Either they were just dumbasses or it had to be planned this way it would seem.
With the billions of dollars we've spent over 4 years I'm confident the technology exists to have secured those borders with night vishion and / or infrared heat sensing technology / satalite / backed up with air support probably for far less money than has been spent.
Again maybe the goal of the war was to draw the terrorists to Iraq so we could fight them all there in one place rather than here or other places. It's all I can think of that makes any sense at this point.

[HotRod82]

I see your point. Seems like very poor planning on the Iraq border subject though. The government and the military had to recognize in advance that it would be a big problem, one would think, based on the attitude and terriorist content of Iraq's neighbors. My question in hindsight is why our government would allow us to go in knowing that this infiltration over Iraq's borders issue would result in what we have today. Either they were just dumbasses or it had to be planned this way it would seem.
With the billions of dollars we've spent over 4 years I'm confident the technology exists to have secured those borders with night vishion and / or infrared heat sensing technology / satalite / backed up with air support probably for far less money than has been spent.
Again maybe the goal of the war was to draw the terrorists to Iraq so we could fight them all there in one place rather than here or other places. It's all I can think of that makes any sense at this point.
Finally!! I'm not the only one who thinks this "mess" may be exactly what the pentagon / CIA wanted. It kinda makes sense, draw the extremists to one point in the region so they would focus on Iraq, the result being no new terrorist attacks here in the US since 9/11. I hesitate to give Bush this much credit, but with all the doom and gloom that was forecast after 9/11, it is pretty amazing we haven't seen something 100 times worse than 9/11. Unfortunately, there is no way we can sustain the 12 BILLION a month cost of all this. I would love to see 12 Billion a month spent here at home on OUR infrastructure.