More Troops???!!

[Runner]

I’m not sure if 20K troop increase is enough. Ski Urban combat rules have not been in effect and we have not used our combat multiplier based on the threat. We always would occupy and hold. Not fight a battle and move on to another town. This is a huge problem and the Generals messed this up. If I was the ground commander here is what I would request.. Now to secure a 30-mile area with our forces is possible but I question if we have the resources to do it. Gunships need to conduct border patrols 24-7 and an Iraqi force and American force needs to be on the borders as Quick Reaction teams. Syria and Iran’s borders need to be closed or restricted to only medical or supplies that travel down a known route that must pass through checkpoints. Any other movement is classified as a free fire zone. We can’t stop everything coming in but we can make it difficult. Gain some control on ease of movement into Iraq and possibly contain fresh thugs moving into our area of operations.

I oppose sending in the reserves and guards, as they are not prepared for this. The huge problem I feel we face is a small military. Clinton downsized more then he should and we do need a larger standing force IMO to face the coming threats…

Don’t think for a second that other country’s are not watching what we are doing and seeing are weakness. I also think the thugs know our country is divided and they will only gather more strength.. This will not be in our longer-term interest as a nation.

In fact I will go out on a limb and say should we bail our country we will feel the effects for many years to come and our nation will be vulnerable for suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks that will make 911 look like nothing. This war is not going away because we pack up and leave. If anyone believes this I got a piece of moon rock I’ll sell you.

[skiracer]

I’m not sure if 20K troop increase is enough. Ski Urban combat rules have not been in effect and we have not used our combat multiplier based on the threat. We always would occupy and hold. Not fight a battle and move on to another town. This is a huge problem and the Generals messed this up. If I was the ground commander here is what I would request.. Now to secure a 30-mile area with our forces is possible but I question if we have the resources to do it. Gunships need to conduct border patrols 24-7 and an Iraqi force and American force needs to be on the borders as Quick Reaction teams. Syria and Iran’s borders need to be closed or restricted to only medical or supplies that travel down a known route that must pass through checkpoints. Any other movement is classified as a free fire zone. We can’t stop everything coming in but we can make it difficult. Gain some control on ease of movement into Iraq and possibly contain fresh thugs moving into our area of operations.

I oppose sending in the reserves and guards, as they are not prepared for this. The huge problem I feel we face is a small military. Clinton downsized more then he should and we do need a larger standing force IMO to face the coming threats…

Don’t think for a second that other country’s are not watching what we are doing and seeing are weakness. I also think the thugs know our country is divided and they will only gather more strength.. This will not be in our longer-term interest as a nation.

In fact I will go out on a limb and say should we bail our country we will feel the effects for many years to come and our nation will be vulnerable for suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks that will make 911 look like nothing. This war is not going away because we pack up and leave. If anyone believes this I got a piece of moon rock I’ll sell you.

I agree with you Runner. I always felt that we would have been better off initially by closing the borders to Iraq and not letting anything or anyone in except for medical necessities. Nothing by ship or plane and anything that tried would be shot down or sunk. That would have isolated Hussein and really put the pressure on without any loss of life or money. We are now in a bind and our military is hyper-extended. They have us in a most vunerable spot militarily being as thin as we are personel wise. If really pressed we do have the heavy stuff and the air power to equalize the situation but then we kill alot of innocent civilians and that tarnishes our personna even more. It's a no win situation in my estimation.

[New-born baby]

Ok...I'm going out on a limb here. Today is January 10, 2007 and I'm going on record for all of the world to see and I'm going to say that sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq will not solve the problem.

I hope I'm wrong.

Not much of a chance you are taking here, MM. The way I see the problem is philosophy. This country is divided philosophically between the liberals and the conservatives. The divide has entered the military leadership. The issue is the philosophy of conducting war. The liberals want to fight the war like we fought Korea and Viet Nam. In those wars you do not crush your enemy until he surrenders unconditionally; you defeat him just enough so that he negotiates a settlement. The conservative philosophy of war is to defeat your enemy so that he surrenders unconditionally. That means that he is so tired of war that he will pay any price to give it up, like Japan, Italy and Germany did in WW II. The people were so tired of war that they surrendered unconditionally. They quickly became our friends and remain so today. When you fight a war without an unconditional surrender, you simply lay the foundation for another war, e.g. Revolution led to War of 1812; WW I led to WW II; the Korean Armistice has given us 54 years of unrest along the border. That liberal philosophy of fighting wars is a losing philosophy that costs many more lives and much more money.

What needs to be done in Iraq? You crush the enemy. You seal off the borders and stop the infiltration of arms and volunteers. You find the caches of weapons wherever they are found and destroy them--doesn't matter if they are in a Muslim "holy shrine" or mosque. You recognise that everybody gets tired of war when the hardships are so terrible that their families cannot stand it any longer. This costs far fewer lives and far less money than a little light slap on the wrist.

I submit to you that it is an unwise use of power to fight like we did in Viet Nam: win every battle and lose the war.

[mrmarket]

Not much of a chance you are taking here, MM. The way I see the problem is philosophy. This country is divided philosophically between the liberals and the conservatives. The divide has entered the military leadership. The issue is the philosophy of conducting war. The liberals want to fight the war like we fought Korea and Viet Nam. In those wars you do not crush your enemy until he surrenders unconditionally; you defeat him just enough so that he negotiates a settlement. The conservative philosophy of war is to defeat your enemy so that he surrenders unconditionally. That means that he is so tired of war that he will pay any price to give it up, like Japan, Italy and Germany did in WW II. The people were so tired of war that they surrendered unconditionally. They quickly became our friends and remain so today. When you fight a war without an unconditional surrender, you simply lay the foundation for another war, e.g. Revolution led to War of 1812; WW I led to WW II; the Korean Armistice has given us 54 years of unrest along the border. That liberal philosophy of fighting wars is a losing philosophy that costs many more lives and much more money.

What needs to be done in Iraq? You crush the enemy. You seal off the borders and stop the infiltration of arms and volunteers. You find the caches of weapons wherever they are found and destroy them--doesn't matter if they are in a Muslim "holy shrine" or mosque. You recognise that everybody gets tired of war when the hardships are so terrible that their families cannot stand it any longer. This costs far fewer lives and far less money than a little light slap on the wrist.

I submit to you that it is an unwise use of power to fight like we did in Viet Nam: win every battle and lose the war.

I agree with you. But since when is the country of Iraq our enemy? Their government is our friends. Who the heck are we fighting??

I weigh 260 lbs. If I walk down the street and come across someone whistling a happy tune who weighs 115 lbs and punch him in the face, he will probably fall down and surrender. But I guarantee he will go get 5 of his friends, find out who I am and try to get back at me as I have just created 6 enemies when before I had zero.

[mrmarket]

Please...just because I don't support the war in Iraq, that doesn't make me a liberal. There are millions of Republicans who do not support this war.

[New-born baby]

I agree with you. But since when is the country of Iraq our enemy? Their government is our friends. Who the heck are we fighting??

I weigh 260 lbs. If I walk down the street and come across someone whistling a happy tune who weighs 115 lbs and punch him in the face, he will probably fall down and surrender. But I guarantee he will go get 5 of his friends, find out who I am and try to get back at me as I have just created 6 enemies when before I had zero.

Let's review: Saddam became our enemy when he was "partially" defeated in Gulf War I. Instead of an unconditional surrender, he was allowed to remain in power. He took the opportunity to sponsor terror organizations, including al Queda, and sought means to take revenge vs. the USA. Therefore, we had to fight Gulf War II.

What we are fighting now is a Saddam insurgency. This is akin to the Hitler Youth and SS and Gestapo that Hitler left behind in WW II. We fought an insurgency there until Dec 1946.

[Lyehopper]

I weigh 260 lbs. If I walk down the street and come across someone whistling a happy tune who weighs 115 lbs and punch him in the face, he will probably fall down and surrender.

I've always enjoyed doing that.... but they must actually be "whistling" to really make it fun.

Hey $MM$.... I'm on a new diet and exercise program. I hope to be down to 260 lbs. pretty soon myself.

[Lyehopper]

Please...just because I don't support the war in Iraq, that doesn't make me a liberal. There are millions of Republicans who do not support this war.

Just because one is "Republican" does not a "Conservative" make him....

[Lyehopper]

This forum is great!

Where else can you discuss politics, religion AND find great stock picks all at the same place?!

Thanks $$$Mr Market$$$!!!!

[New-born baby]

I've always enjoyed doing that.... but they must actually be "whistling" to really make it fun.

Hey $MM$.... I'm on a new diet and exercise program. I hope to be down to 260 lbs. pretty soon myself.

Best wishes on the "troop reduction" down to 260 lbs! It's not the carrots that get me, its the ice cream. And the chips.

[Lyehopper]

Best wishes on the "troop reduction" down to 260 lbs! It's not the carrots that get me, its the ice cream. And the chips.

Yep. The ice cream gets me too, Bryer's Butterpecan to be specific....

My goal is a "lean and mean" 220 lbs.... I'll post a before/after picture in about October.... I'm currently @ 310 lbs.

[New-born baby]

Yep. The ice cream gets me too, Bryer's Butterpecan to be specific....

My goal is a "lean and mean" 220 lbs.... I'll post a before/after picture in about October.... I'm currently @ 310 lbs.

Great!
Question: have you totally sworn off sugar? Ice cream? Or better, what is the plan?

[lemonjello]

Better watch it. Next thing you know, Karl Rove will be trying to "demonize" you as a closet liberal.

Please...just because I don't support the war in Iraq, that doesn't make me a liberal. There are millions of Republicans who do not support this war.

[lemonjello]

Sorry, but there's still no credible evidence Saddam sponsored "Al Qaeda" and none that he still had WMD. The "enemy" was in Afghanistan. Can someone ask Baby Bush why he's stopped looking for OBL?

There seem to be a lot of possible motivations for Gulf War II, but Saddam funding Al Qaeda and WMD were nothing more than slight of hand to get the sheeple in line. Very sad indeed.

Let's review: Saddam became our enemy when he was "partially" defeated in Gulf War I. Instead of an unconditional surrender, he was allowed to remain in power. He took the opportunity to sponsor terror organizations, including al Queda, and sought means to take revenge vs. the USA. Therefore, we had to fight Gulf War II.

What we are fighting now is a Saddam insurgency. This is akin to the Hitler Youth and SS and Gestapo that Hitler left behind in WW II. We fought an insurgency there until Dec 1946.

[lemonjello]

BTW, is it still possible to be a free thinking rational citizen along the lines of the founding fathers or must you Balkanize into one of the "teams" as a "liberal" or "conservative" where each demonizes the other? Rah, rah, rah.

Just wondering...

Lemonjello - not a liberal OR a conservative