Why isn't everyone a Democrat?

#79
#79
KB5252 said:
No one but the military minds of this country could answer that question. We will probably see significant numbers still in Iraq for at lest four or five years (by significant Say 3/4 to 2/3 of the current amount deployed.)
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone can answer that question because the chief refuses to put a timeline on events or reveal any strategies.
 
#80
#80
UT IE 95 said:
I don't think anyone can answer that question because the chief refuses to put a timeline on events or reveal any strategies.
Click to expand...

True, only the military leaders in charge know the scope of dynamics on the ground according to their plan and that is the way it should be. Setting a timetable would only play in to the terrorist hands and enable them to shape their tactics accordingly.
 
#82
#82
KB5252 said:
True, only the military leaders in charge know the scope of dynamics on the ground according to their plan and that is the way it should be. Setting a timetable would only play in to the terrorist hands and enable them to shape their tactics accordingly.
Click to expand...

We can disagree on this (as well as many other topics). By all indications, our current plan is playing in to the terrorists hands.
 
#83
#83
It is? You know how other strategies would have played out and they would have been better?
 
#88
#88
allvol123 said:
It is? You know how other strategies would have played out and they would have been better?
Click to expand...

I'm not an oracle, but I know that the coalition should not still be engaged in hand-to-hand combat with Iraqis (insurgents or whatever term they want to use) 5+ years later. I mean, were talkin about Iraq here. We have one of the top militaries in the world and we're still spending billions in Iraq? That ain't right by any account.
 
#89
#89
We shouldn't still be engaged in fighting terrorists? You thought they were just going to lay down and quit at some point? Also, nothing about your reply says anything about how we are playing into their hands.
 
#90
#90
allvol123 said:
We shouldn't still be engaged in fighting terrorists? You thought they were just going to lay down and quit at some point? Also, nothing about your reply says anything about how we are playing into their hands.
Click to expand...

That's how we play into their hands, they are still killing American soldiers, they are forcing the U.S. to spend billions of dollars which is a strain on the military to be there and a strain on the economy to spend that much money on a war that never ends. How does it, the insurgents continue to enter Iraq and they dress like civilians. How do you fight an invisible enemy? We are better served protecting our homeland at the ports and borders IMO.
 
#91
#91
joevol320 said:
how does the current strategy play in the terrorist hands?
Click to expand...

We're still fighting a war that should be the equivalent of a fight between a lion and a kitten. The longer we fight with Iraqis in their country the more time actual terrorists have to work unheeded.
 
#92
#92
Oh, I thought US casualities had hit a low in May that they haven't seen in like 4 years. If you just take the philiosophy to retreat home and defend your borders, you leave the terrorists with free reign to indoctrinate the masses as they wish.
 
#93
#93
UT IE 95 said:
We're still fighting a war that should be the equivalent of a fight between a lion and a kitten. The longer we fight with Iraqis in their country the more time actual terrorists have to work unheeded.
Click to expand...


Interesting stuff there. So the guys currently shooting at Americans in Iraq are not actual terrorists? And if we left there, terrorists would be heeded then?
 
#94
#94
You ever read certain things too early in the morning and you think you may feel a blood vessel about to pop? Yeah.
 
#95
#95
allvol123 said:
Interesting stuff there. So the guys currently shooting at Americans in Iraq are not actual terrorists? And if we left there, terrorists would be heeded then?
Click to expand...

More to the point....when are we going to learn that civilian casualties are part of war, and that half way fighting wars are as dangerous to the civilian population in the long run.
 
#98
#98
Lexvol said:
More to the point....when are we going to learn that civilian casualties are part of war, and that half way fighting wars are as dangerous to the civilian population in the long run.
Click to expand...

Also when are we going to learn that fighing against terrorists who starp bombs to anyone isn't exactly the same as say, liberating Kuwait?
 
#100
#100
what is worse, fighting terrorist abroad or allowing them to blow up buildings in our country. look what happened to our stock market and our economy on 9/11. talking about strain. we are winning the war over there, but you're not going to hear it from our media but we are.

i do have one question, we've been in Germany and Japan since WW2, Korea since the mid 50's. why isn't anyone demanding that we leave those countries? i mean we are basically in those countries for the same reason we're in iraq. it's been over 60 years since ww2.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top