For Dems only.

[Damen]

17.

 

 

I hope you'll soon be enlisting in this war you still believe so much in so my friends don't have to go back for their third and fourth tours.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I hope you'll soon be enlisting in this war you still believe so much in so my friends don't have to go back for their third and fourth tours.

 

 

I agree with Kaps viewpoints and Ive already fought in this war and am preparing to go back for a second go around.

 

 

Any questions?

[Balta1701]

I hope you'll soon be enlisting in this war you still believe so much in so my friends don't have to go back for their third and fourth tours.

Small note...you should make sure the person you're saying that to isn't in the military himself when you say that.

[Damen]

Fixed for ya.

 

There is no military solution. I'd rather we face the obvious rather than keep sacrificing more lives and more money just to save some egos.

 

Small note...you should make sure the person you're saying that to isn't in the military himself when you say that.

 

17?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

There is no military solution. I'd rather we face the obvious rather than keep sacrificing more lives and more money just to save some egos.

17?

 

 

What exactly is the obvious? Is it that our current strategy is not working? I agree with that, it is not. What is your solution then aside from turning tail and running?

[Damen]

I agree with Kaps viewpoints and Ive already fought in this war and am preparing to go back for a second go around.

Any questions?

 

Nope...I'm glad you've got the balls to back up what you believe in unlike so many others these days. But it doesn't change anything else I've said.

[NorthSideSox72]

17?

I'll give you another tip. I'm pretty sure Kap isn't 17.

[Damen]

What exactly is the obvious? Is it that our current strategy is not working? I agree with that, it is not. What is your solution then aside from turning tail and running?

 

I don't see how keeping our military to support an Iranian-aligned fundamentalist Islamic government when most Iraqi's no longer want us there accomplishes anything for our country. If you believe in risking your life to support whatever goal it is we've got, then good for you. I don't.

 

 

 

I'll give you another tip. I'm pretty sure Kap isn't 17.

 

He just said he was...that's kind of all I've got to go by at this point. When you say you're 17, and you write like you're 17, I'm going to take you at your word.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I don't see how keeping our military to support an Iranian-aligned fundamentalist Islamic government when most Iraqi's no longer want us there accomplishes anything for our country. If you believe in risking your life to support whatever goal it is we've got, then good for you. I don't.

 

 

The goal is a stable democratic government and I believe it to be a laudable one. The biggest problem we have over there right now is Iran and Syria engaging us in a proxy war by stirring up sectarian violence. I agree that its time for us to step back into a training and backup role and let the Iraqi's pacify their own country but for us to up and leave now would be foolish.

[Damen]

The goal is a stable democratic government and I believe it to be a laudable one. The biggest problem we have over there right now is Iran and Syria engaging us in a proxy war by stirring up sectarian violence. I agree that its time for us to step back into a training and backup role and let the Iraqi's pacify their own country but for us to up and leave now would be foolish.

 

I've got to get some work done, but I'll respond to this later.

[kapkomet]

[southsider2k5]

17?

 

Times two?

[kapkomet]

Times two?

No, I just write like I'm 17. My fault.

[Damen]

The goal is a stable democratic government and I believe it to be a laudable one. The biggest problem we have over there right now is Iran and Syria engaging us in a proxy war by stirring up sectarian violence. I agree that its time for us to step back into a training and backup role and let the Iraqi's pacify their own country but for us to up and leave now would be foolish.

 

 

Even members of the Bush administration have backtracked from claiming that to be our goal. Here's the problem with that. 90% of Shiites have voted for religious Shiite candidates. 90% of Sunni's voted for religious Sunni candidates. 90% of Kurds voted for Kurdish candidates.

 

But 80% of Iraq is Shiite. That's how you end up with a plurality made out of two Iranian-aligned parties, The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Call parties. Yes, the Shiite Islamic fundamentalist governments of Iran and Syria are providing some support, but so is Saudi Arabia for the Sunni minority. But I think its a mistake to view their support as engaging us in a proxy war, and moreso capitalizing on the opportunity we provided for them to extend Shiite control from Iran across to Syria. Which is why Saudi Arabian clerics have called for support for Sunni militants, and the government has threatened to provide further monetary and military support if we leave.

 

But, I don't see where our military comes into play anymore on a large scale. After 3 years of training, the Iraqi army has yet to take on Sunni militants without needing American troops to take over, and the day we ask the Iraqi army to engage with other Shiites in Al Sadr's militia is the day the army falls apart.

The weapons we've provided for them find themselves on the blackmarket, to be used by the insurgency against us, likely purchased with smuggled oil profits we've been unable to control. Every "surge" we've had so far has failed to quell the violence. On the contrary, Anbar has all but been conceded to Al Queda connected Sunni insurgents and Baghdad is as violent as ever, despite the repositioning in June.

 

Extending tours and reducing breaks to allow for 30,000 additional troops to get shot at will barely recover the troops in the "coalition" who are pulling out their troops, if they haven't already. It's nothing but an act of arrogance and vanity by men who have been wrong about everything so far, but still want to give one more CYA push on other peoples backs so they don't have to admit they were wrong.

[southsider2k5]

Even members of the Bush administration have backtracked from claiming that to be our goal. Here's the problem with that. 90% of Shiites have voted for religious Shiite candidates. 90% of Sunni's voted for religious Sunni candidates. 90% of Kurds voted for Kurdish candidates.

 

But 80% of Iraq is Shiite. That's how you end up with a plurality made out of two Iranian-aligned parties, The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Call parties. Yes, the Shiite Islamic fundamentalist governments of Iran and Syria are providing some support, but so is Saudi Arabia for the Sunni minority. But I think its a mistake to view their support as engaging us in a proxy war, and moreso capitalizing on the opportunity we provided for them to extend Shiite control from Iran across to Syria. Which is why Saudi Arabian clerics have called for support for Sunni militants, and the government has threatened to provide further monetary and military support if we leave.

 

But, I don't see where our military comes into play anymore on a large scale. After 3 years of training, the Iraqi army has yet to take on Sunni militants without needing American troops to take over, and the day we ask the Iraqi army to engage with other Shiites in Al Sadr's militia is the day the army falls apart.

The weapons we've provided for them find themselves on the blackmarket, to be used by the insurgency against us, likely purchased with smuggled oil profits we've been unable to control. Every "surge" we've had so far has failed to quell the violence. On the contrary, Anbar has all but been conceded to Al Queda connected Sunni insurgents and Baghdad is as violent as ever, despite the repositioning in June.

 

Extending tours and reducing breaks to allow for 30,000 additional troops to get shot at will barely recover the troops in the "coalition" who are pulling out their troops, if they haven't already. It's nothing but an act of arrogance and vanity by men who have been wrong about everything so far, but still want to give one more CYA push on other peoples backs so they don't have to admit they were wrong.

 

You probably need to do a little bit of research on your ethnic breakdown numbers FWIW. They really aren't close.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is where I sing my Kurdistan song. Its really the best option at this point.

[Rex Kickass]

I'll give you another tip. I'm pretty sure Kap isn't 17.

 

He has, however, been posting here for 17 years....

[kapkomet]

This is where I sing my Kurdistan song. Its really the best option at this point.

Probably right. But it's not going to happen - at least not yet.

[Damen]

You probably need to do a little bit of research on your ethnic breakdown numbers FWIW. They really aren't close.

 

Yeah, you're right. 60% Shiite. It was late.

[Balta1701]

John Kerry proposes adding more troops to the U.S. Army

 

Bush campaign responds Kerry Campaign proposal to add troops to the army would make America "Less safe".

 

2 years go by

 

George W. Bush proposes adding more troops to the U.S. Army.

 

Republicans, media thank God that they kept that flip-flopper John Kerry out of the White House.

 

Just another day...

[FlaSoxxJim]

John Kerry proposes adding more troops to the U.S. Army

 

Bush campaign responds Kerry Campaign proposal to add troops to the army would make America "Less safe".

 

2 years go by

 

George W. Bush proposes adding more troops to the U.S. Army.

 

Republicans, media thank God that they kept that flip-flopper John Kerry out of the White House.

 

Just another day...

 

Now that Rummy's lean and efficiant "modern military" apparently isn't the answer, it's time to punt in another direction.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Now that Rummy's lean and efficiant "modern military" apparently isn't the answer, it's time to punt in another direction.

 

This remark is fraught with ignorance.

 

Rummy's idea of a "modern military" was a lighter and more agile force that had less administrative fat and with equipment that was easier to deploy. The Cold War era force structure that existed before was too heavy and too slow to react to modern conflicts ( think of the 1991 Gulf War where it took 6 months to build up the necessary forces ). Nowhere was it implied that we were going to reduce troop levels. The idea was to contract out some support and administrative jobs and free up those slots within the authorized end strength for more "trigger pullers". This has been done and as a result, there are a greater number of brigades available in the order of battle for deployment.

 

This idea was outstanding in every respect, especially when you consider that the next time we go to war we may not have the months of prep time that we have in the past.

Edited December 20, 2006 by NUKE

[FlaSoxxJim]

What, then, has changed in two years that made increasing armed forces by 40K something that "would us less safe" if it was a Kerry idea, but now increasing them by 50K or more is the right idea?

 

A key part of the Administration's earlier opposition (voiced just 6 months ago) was that "increases in minimum active Army and Marine Corps end strengths in Title IV. . . could require DoD to maintain a higher personnel level than is needed."

 

It was the wrong strategy before, but now it's the way to go?

 

The Administration voted against the troop increase before they voted for it?

 

We all know full well who is fraught with ignorance. And we have to suffer through two more years of it.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

What, then, has changed in two years that made increasing armed forces by 40K something that "would us less safe" if it was a Kerry idea, but now increasing them by 50K or more is the right idea?

 

A key part of the Administration's earlier opposition (voiced just 6 months ago) was that "increases in minimum active Army and Marine Corps end strengths in Title IV. . . could require DoD to maintain a higher personnel level than is needed."

 

It was the wrong strategy before, but now it's the way to go?

 

The Administration voted against the troop increase before they voted for it?

 

We all know full well who is fraught with ignorance. And we have to suffer through two more years of it.

 

Im not talking about whether increasing overall troop strength or not is a bad idea and when it was a good idea or not. Rummy's plan to transform the military was a necessary and vital reform which you ridiculed and described as "punting".

 

I was in favor of increased troop strength when Kerry first proposed it and was incredulous that Bush was against it back in 2004, especially in light of all these commitments worldwide.

 

Transforming the military and haggling over what is an appropriate troop strength are seperate issues and you should get them straight before voicing your opinion.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Transforming the military and haggling over what is an appropriate troop strength are seperate issues and you should get them straight before voicing your opinion.

 

But they were NOT presented as separate issues when the administration dismissed the Kerry proposal, nor when it defended it's position on keeping the troop strength at sattus quo back in June:

 

The restructuring of the Army and the Marine Corps, plus other initiatives, is enabling our military to get more warfighting capability from current end strength.

 

"Statement of Administration Policy," June 14, 2006,

 

Translation: We don't need to increase troop numbers because Rummy's restructuring of the military makes current levels sufficient for our needs.

 

I have my issues plenty straight. It's the administration that has bundled them together.