Is Iraq winnable?

[Rex Kickass]

I have 2 cousins and an uncle over there now, and a few more cousins in the various services that are stateside, so that is a moot point for me.  My 13 year old son has also talked about wanting to join the air force since he wants to fly.  I have no problems with that.  As for the needed manpower, we would have more troops if there weren't groups actively doing anti-recruiting.  If you think those groups haven't had an impact, you would be wrong.  And for the funding, why does everything involve a tax increase with you libs?  I for one don't think that the invasion was the best course of action. But the Murtha plan isn't very good either.  We are there, we just can't 'redeploy'.  Anything that looks like a loss, or a surrender, or that we are running away, will BE a loss because it will further embolden the enemy.  Since we are there, lets win.  I will be the first to say things haven't been run there as best they can be.  Hindsight is always 20-20.  How about some foresight?

 

As for sending ME over there, I am a good shot, but with my knees, bad eyesight and torn rotator cuff, I don't think they would want me. 

 

Why do some people think that doing "everything we can" to win the war in Iraq doesn't necessarily mean a sacrifice on behalf of everyone in this country? Like slightly higher taxes per se.

 

Most Democrats supported the war. Most Democrats got angry when they found out the President they trusted was wrong and might have lied. And I'd wager that most Democrats don't want to play politics when it comes to war - but when serious questions of judgment arise, the party in power refuses to do any serious investigations to clear up issues - and hold people responsible. A lot of the problems regarding this fight is that the party in power seems to have the "f*** you" mentality regarding openness, honesty and integrity in politics. It's a sad tradition in American politics - and one that needs to stop.

[Balta1701]

Most Democrats supported the war. Most Democrats got angry when they found out the President they trusted was wrong and might have lied.

Small difference here...I think you're wrong in saying that most Democrats trusted the President and supported the war at the start. Yes, the majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress voted for the "Authorization for the use of force", but that doesn't mean that every one of their constituents believed in it. I sure didn't think the facts I knew supported his words at all in 02-03. If I had believed him, I would have supported the war on those grounds.

[BigSqwert]

This is the kind of thing we are seeing everyday. So when someone question's my negativity it's really hard to see the positive side of things when these are the daily headlines...

At least 29 die in weekend violence in Iraq

Three U.S. soldiers among dead; mortar rounds hit Baghdad neighborhoods

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Violence killed at least 29 people Sunday, including three American soldiers, and mortar fire rumbled through the heart of Baghdad after sundown despite stringent security measures imposed after an explosion of sectarian violence.

 

A 24-hour vehicular ban on driving in Baghdad and its suburbs helped prevent major attacks during daylight Sunday, but after nightfall explosions thundered through the city as mortar shells slammed into a Shiite quarter in southwestern Baghdad, killing 16 people and wounding 53, police said.

 

Mortar fire also hit a Shiite area on the capital’s east side, killing three people and injuring six, police reported.

 

For rest of story go to link--> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11491483/

[BHAMBARONS]

To add to that point.  The Union was taking MASSIVE losses during Grants spring campaign of 1864.  He was getting 10-15 thousand men killed or wounded PER BATTLE!  Personally I dont think Grant displayed any great generalship during that time.  He basically used the Army of the Potomac as a bludgeon and kept hammering away knowing the South couldn't replace the men it was losing.  Basically it was a classic war of attrition but it was so bloody that the people wanted it stopped no matter what.

 

Up until Sherman captured Atlanta it was widely thought that Lincoln was going to lose the election, to McClellan of all people, and had that happened the war would have been halted and there would be 2 America's today.

 

 

Yes I was looking for a different term than leadership qualities I just couldn't come up with a good term for it. Grant was butcher like Nuke says he took his strength against Confederate weakness which was manpower which lead to some ugly losses. To that last point about 2 America's I also agree and that we would have also had at least 1 to 2 more Civil War's as well over territories. One of the things I am thankful for is the Sherman victory and that the Union won this terrible war.