RebelKev Wrote:Not saying everything is going swell by any means. It's a combat zone. Show me an aesthetic combat zone and I'll show you a gay Al Qaeda member.
However, what do you think the media is going to focus on, bombings in Baghdad? Or peace in the other regions?
Peace in other regions? Where? Maybe compared to the all-out civil war in Baghdad, but there are major attacks every month in Samarra, Najaf, Hillah, Kirkuk, and daily in Anbar province. I can't believe I'm reading this sometimes. The whole country is in chaos. 3,000 Iraqis and 100 American soldiers are killed every month. You think thats over one city?
Quote:Think about that. All media has an agenda. Killing sells. Peace does not.
To you, its an agenda. To the rest of us they are facts. When 300 people are killed in Najaf, to you this is somehow not newsworthy, and talking about it is propaganda.
Quote:Are there problems? Of course. They're in every war. However, you don't cut and run at the first sign of adversity.
What about after four years? There are retired generals from here to eternity who will tell you that there is nothing left for us to accomplish militarily in Baghdad. Are they cutting and running at the first sign of adversity? Hitler lost 600,000 at Stalingrad for months after it was clear he couldn't win. It cost him the wider war. But I guess he didn't cut and run, so he's got that going for him.
Quote:The military can handle it IF the politicians allow them to, that I can assure you.
This is the one I really love. Your party controlled every branch of government for the entirety of this war until LAST MONTH -- not sending enough troops and not providing them with enough equipment. But NOW its the politicians fault?
Quote: However, I don't buy the bureaucracy as being the 4th branch of government. Maybe the 5th. I believe the press, by proxy, is the fourth. The play on the emotions of the people by pushing their agenda, whether intended or not, and this gets back to the politicians. Politicians, and bless their cold-blooded, blood-sucking hearts, they want to get re-elected. So, restraints have been placed on the military.
More of the same from above. Who are these weak willed politicians that have put us in this position? Your party controlled the White House for the duration of the war. The President is the Commander in Chief and HE and HE ALONE has the authority to set the rules of engagement. Please, detail the restraints he has placed on the military, because I'm curious. I mean, we know he didn't send enough troops, or enough equipment. We know he never asked for another troop for the next four years until after his final midterm, despite the fact that everyone knew the country was slipping away. Maybe you have something to add to this list? Or maybe you meant that congress has placed these restraints? The Republican congress up until they left the leadership last month, held only about a half dozen hearings on oversight on how the war was going? Maybe you have some stuff to add to this list?
Quote:In addition, now we have calls for surrender, and yes, it is a call for surrender when you leave a battlefield before the mission is complete. Either that or a treaty is signed, and I don't remember the insurgency offering any treaty other than we submit to Islam.
We're not surrendering anything if we strategically withdraw our forces -- we've already accomplished as much as we can hope to accomplish. We got rid of Saddam and put a new government in place. The rest is up to the Iraqis and will have to be part of a political process.
Quote:That, in a nutshell, is how it is, NIU. We fight'em there, or we fight'em here. It is that simple.
Cool, when do we get to fight them in Afghanistan? Funny thing is, "they" weren't in Iraq until we showed up. This is double-think of amazing proportions.
Quote:Unlike the NVA, this enemy WILL follow us home and many are already here. If the two attacks on the Trade Center weren't enough proof for you, I don't know what will convince you.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that wealthy middle-class Saudis who were trained in Afghanistan by Osama bin Laden attacked the world trade center. But apparently you have evidence that it was frustrated Sunni Iraqi insurgents and Iraqi shiite militia that did it?
Am I the only one that still wants to commit the bulk of our military power to finding the guy that attacked us and making sure the regime who hosted and assisted him does not come back to power? I mean...call me crazy, it seemed like a good idea after 9/11... but I guess we kind of cut and ran at the first side of adversity, huh?