Bush: Troop surge is on no matter what Congress wants

Here are some examples with regard to cutting funding and congress stopping the surge.

www.usnews.com...


But Democrats are realistic about their ability to block the surge. The Los Angeles Times says Democratic leaders "acknowledged that they had a limited ability to prevent the White House from adding forces." On NBC's Meet the Press, Senate Foreign Services Chairman Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential hopeful, said, "There's not much I can do about it. Not much anybody can do about it. He's commander in chief. If he surges another 20, 30, or whatever number he's going to, into Baghdad, it'll be a tragic mistake, in my view, but, as a practical matter, there's no way to say, 'Mr. President, stop.'" This week's U.S. News and World Report quotes a "Republican insider with close ties to the White House" who said, "The Democrats are going to be in a real bind. The President will come out with a strong plan to get order in Baghdad, and if the Democrats do anything to undermine or block it, it will look to Americans as though they wouldn't give his plan a chance."

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
These are just insurgents with AK-47's and RPG's!

That is such a load of crap it isn't even funny! You obviosly know nothing of tactical warfare. In Febuary of 97 two bank robbers in California armed with Ak-47's and a few other autos held 350 police officers off for two hours before they were killed. They didn't have RPG's or any other type of explosives that Iraqi insurgents are using.

www.student.oulu.fi...

Now I ask you this? How many tens of thousands of these guys are there over in Iraq with "JUST AK 47's AND RPG'S"?

Another thing that has screwed us are left wing human rights advocates. In earlier wars we used weapons with calibres that were meant to kill people. We are now forced to use mostly .223 calibre weapons which are meant to "nuetralize the threat". Do these rounds do that? They can if the people you are shooting at aren't doped up on Opium like a lot of these guys and girls are.

What a lot of people don't realize is that today, war is a lot different than it was 50 years ago. It is no longer a swarm the beach and kill everyone approach. We have to watch who we are shooting at or face going to jail for killing an "innocent"...and it is that split second of hesitation that is getting a lot of people I know killed.

Also Mr. TrueAmerican, have you ever seen what a 7.62x39 round from an AK-47 can do to a human being? What about an RPG or an IED? Yea, they can rip Humvees in half...

That crap may get past most people here but not me...no sir. Have a nice day.

Originally posted by GT100FV
... The President will come out with a strong plan to get order in Baghdad, and if the Democrats do anything to undermine or block it, it will look to Americans as though they wouldn't give his plan a chance."

And just as many will argue that he's had plenty of chances already, and why should he get any more chances, especially when the plan he's trying to push should have been implemented at the outset. This indicates to me that clearly, even in an unjust war, he is either a failed military commander or is not listening to his leaders in the field, or both. And if I recall correctly, there have been quite a few in the high military who told him at the onset this was going to take many more troops than he committed.

If he had some radically new plan, with a promising outlook of things that hadn't been tried before, I imagine much of the public might extend him the benefit of the doubt and try it. But that is just not the case.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by GT100FV
... The President will come out with a strong plan to get order in Baghdad, and if the Democrats do anything to undermine or block it, it will look to Americans as though they wouldn't give his plan a chance."

And just as many will argue that he's had plenty of chances already, and why should he get any more chances, especially when the plan he's trying to push should have been implemented at the outset.

OK, so in life, how many times do you try to solve a problem before you cut and run? What if it's a really serious or important problem, do you keep trying until you solve it, or do you give up and run away?

I still maintain that those that think "cut and run " is the best policy are only out to hurt the current administration - no matter who else they hurt in the procsess. They are getting a little desperate and perhaps they see this as their last best chance, since time is running out on the current president's term.

[edit on 1/13/2007 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
This includes not only stopping funding for the additional troops, but if need be, to stop funding alltogether, or whatever they've got to do. And I suppose if he still persists, they can always play the impeachment card. But the people spoke. And even though it always takes a while, they know they have no choice but to ultimately listen. Political suicide will be, GT100, if the Dems FAIL to achieve a course reversal in Iraq.

Yea that's a great idea...cut off all of our funding. What you fail to realize is that when the military can't get funding for one thing they just take it out of another pot of money. You know what that means? That means the troops that you people always say you support will suffer. Our stuff is already falling apart and you want to cut off funding!? Do you know how many people I know that have had to purchase armor plates and magazines themselves from the private sector because A) we can't get them or b) the ones we do get are hand-me-downs that are worthless?

I don't see how the democrats say they support the troops when they are willing to do something like this. I say this as an independent so don't get on some republican bashing rant...

You along with many others are very misguided....

And that's an excellent point I was also going to bring up. There are now businesses in the U.S. that serve the troops by selling them the essential equipment the government won't provide. We're talking about armor vests and even holsters to carry their sidearms here!

Disgraceful, but some still want to cut the funding and then hypocritically claim that they support the troops!

[edit on 1/13/2007 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst
Also Mr. TrueAmerican, have you ever seen what a 7.62x39 round from an AK-47 can do to a human being? What about an RPG or an IED? Yea, they can rip Humvees in half...

That crap may get past most people here but not me...no sir. Have a nice day.

rofl... wel well, thanks for helping me to get across my point. That quote you reference was from this paragraph:

If they can't handle war strategy planning for Iraq, they how in the HELL are we trusting these people with the defense of this country against the real threats? Can you imagine what would happen, if say, China or Russia were to get involved and we had to deal with state-of-the-art weapons and militaries coming in at us? These are just insurgents with AK-47's and RPG's!

And I am by no means belittling the power of AK's, RPG's and IED's. I feel sorry for you that you had to go dig all that up in an attempt to make me look the fool. But unfortunately, if you will re read the paragraph, I am making the point that if this administration can't handle that much, what's going to happen in the event we are dealing with the likes of Sunburns hitting our carriers, Shahab3's, worse, and trained militaries with truely devastating weapons? Could we afford a simple mistake like underestimating necessary troop levels to achieve a military goal? That was the essense of my point.

Edit to add: I am not necessarily advocating a harsh, insensitive cut and run that would hurt the troops, and I guess I should be clear on that. I would be for a phased withdrawl, on secret terms, letting the Iraqi government know that they are going to have to step up to the plate by a certain timeline.

Also, regarding your furer's wonderful policy of understaffing the troops and underequipping them, isn't that just typical of corporate America these days? Hand 5 guys a ladder to build a bridge that really needed cranes and multiple crews of 50. :shk:

[edit on 13-1-2007 by TrueAmerican]

Originally posted by centurion1211
And that's an excellent point I was also going to bring up. There are now businesses in the U.S. that serve the troops by selling them the essential equipment the government won't provide. We're talking about armor vests and even holsters to carry their sidearms here!

Disgraceful, but some still want to cut the funding and then hypocritically claim that they support the troops!

[edit on 1/13/2007 by centurion1211]

Of course you'll have some say, this war was started because the holster, camel back, and body armor industries didn't have enough business, and lobbied to get a war started, so they could profiteer.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
And I am by no means belittling the power of AK's, RPG's and IED's. I feel sorry for you that you had to go dig all that up in an attempt to make me look the fool. But unfortunately, if you will re read the paragraph, I am making the point that if this administration can't handle that much, what's going to happen in the event we are dealing with the likes of Sunburns hitting our carriers, Shahab3's, worse, and trained militaries with truely devastating weapons? Could we afford a simple mistake like underestimating necessary troop levels to achieve a military goal? That was the essense of my point.

Edit to add: I am not necessarily advocating a harsh, insensitive cut and run that would hurt the troops, and I guess I should be clear on that. I would be for a phased withdrawl, on secret terms, letting the Iraqi government know that they are going to have to step up to the plate by a certain timeline.

Also, regarding your furer's wonderful policy of understaffing the troops and underequipping them, isn't that just typical of corporate America these days? Hand 5 guys a ladder to build a bridge that really needed cranes and multiple crews of 50. :shk:
[edit on 13-1-2007 by TrueAmerican]

There are levels of war. You can't go and launch missles and destroy whole cities because of people with small arms and explosives. I believe that the United States is doing all it can do at this level of the war. If say the insurgents began using chemical weapons and nuclear arms, the stakes would obviosly be raised. This would in turn require a whole new strategy, possibly nuclear in nature.

I am not going to say this administration is right or wrong...of course I think some things could have been done better but there is nothing I can do to change that now.

I am definitely not trying to make you look like a fool...I just want you to know how this whole rat's nest of a problem looks to the people it really affects.

Say we do as you say and get out of dodge. What do you think the possibilities are that they will then come after us on US soil? What would your actions be then? I am curious...

If you read Debka. then he americans fancy a go at the Iranians as well as the Iraqies. After all, they have the country surrounded (and believe that this is the route of all their problems)

At least your persident (unlikde my prime minister) didn't come out with the lie of Al Quada in Iraq (I thought they were a swedish furniture maker).

I'm interested if any directors have the temerity to do a drama of Bush and Blair at an equivalent of the Nurembourg trials!!! That would make great drama

If you analyze major historical battles superior numbers do not necessarily equate to a decisive victory. Superior force in fact usually is made into a disadvantage by guerilla warfare.
Napolean had the same problem we did with Spain, an insurgency, and he sent 400,000 more troops in to quell the fighting but to no avail. The Spanish had no chance of defeating Napolean with a regular army, much as Iraq with a regular army has no chance of defeating the U.S, however, with Guerilla Warfare strategy must change, and our has not.
The problem we face is that our military strategy in general is too direct and has yet to evolve and adapt into the new age and to our new enemy. Basically we are fighting this insurgency with tactics and strategy of fighting another army, which will not work. We need to completely rethink our strategy, an increase of troops might see increased casualites to our enemy, however, that does not necessarily mean it will be effective, or lead to a decisive victory in Iraq.
How has our military strategy changed or evolved since Vietnam? We might have better equipment, however, we still have ths same overall strategy. Look what happened to the French on the onset of WWII when facing the Germans. The French relied on tactics of WWI, massive amounts of force which were not very mobile, the Germans, however, used mobile Blitzkreig tactics and in no time the French, as well as the rest of Europe (excluding Russia and Britian due to their geographical positions) were dessimated.

A bigger problem, yet, still lies in our Grand Strategy for Iraq. It is no big secret that we do not have the majority of the Iraqi people on our side. We need to find a way to break their will to fight, we need to find a way to gain their trust, stop our explotative use of their natural recources and show them that there is an end to conflict in sight.

We might see an increase of terrorist casualties in Iraq with this surge, however, our own will to fight is waning. America is growing war weary and soon we will be defeated if we continue with our current military strategy, and if there is not a drastic change in our Grand Strategy. Even despite our current disposition there is still time to rework the recources we have there. An increase of troops could be useful if they are utilized differently than how we currently are utilizing them.

At the onset of the war military generals estimated a need for 400,000 troops to secure baghdad, and if we had used such force then, perhaps the insurgency would have never evolved into what it has today. If Bush would have taken the time to analyze and fully understand what invadinig Iraq meant before he went in, if he knew how to win before he did battle, then we would not be dealing with this problem.

What does it mean to "win" in Iraq? How do we know if we are even headed in the right direction? When asked this question, Tony Snow replied :

QUESTION: Just a simple question: Are we winning?

SNOW: We’re making progress. I don’t know. How do you define winning?

The fact is, in taking on the war on terror — no, let me put it this way: The president’s made it obvious we’re going to win. And that means ultimately providing an Iraq that is safe, secure and an ally in the war on terror. And at any given time, as you’ve seen in previous wars, there are going to be spikes in violence.

An Iraq that is safe, secure, and an ally...

The President's plan only makes Baghdad a bit safer. The insurgents will just be forced into other parts of Iraq. How will this help? The President's plan is just DUMB, and we are creating more terrorists every day we stay there.

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst
Say we do as you say and get out of dodge. What do you think the possibilities are that they will then come after us on US soil? What would your actions be then? I am curious...

Well, that's a possibility that we always have to be prepared for- an attack on US soil. Because that can happen anytime, and not just from opportunistic terrorists. But so who is it you think that is going to come after us on US soil at that point? Al-Queda? Iran? Syria? NK? Don't you think the US has made their point quite clear by now between all the lives taken in Afghanistan and Iraq, that it might not be such a good idea for extreme Islam to try another 9/11? (that's assuming that Al-queda was really responsible). Have our original 3,000 and the additional 3,000 not been vindicated enough with the killing of over 100,000 (and probably a lot more than that)?

We made the point. Attack us and we will make you pay very dearly with lives, destroyed infrastructure, and probably- oil. They punched us, and we shot em. This notion that the entire Islamic population is going to have to be wiped off the planet for there to be any Christian satisfaction is rediculous. At some point here humanity is going to have to either learn to tolerate each other's religions, or keep dying try to fight em. I for one in good conscious will continue to hope that humanity can find that way. Because we lose THAT hope, and it's all over but the crying.

What if instead we said "The war on terror is over. We have neither lost nor won." And just pulled back as maximum as possible from the middle east. Let it stew for a while. Let history catch up and catch its breath. Let reflection time set in. Take off the pressure. And kept our nose out of other people's business for a while- or better yet- for good. Let them think about attacking us again very carefully. And let Israel choose what course they may to deal with Iran- hopefully, diplomatically. I'd dare say that anyone who wants to sit and play nukes-from-afar with the US is going to be in for a real bad time.

If our troops are doomed to get ransacked, why not have a strategic withdrawal and just lambast the whole country? I'm sick of our troops over there fighting a war for oil. Bush has to make a ballsy move now, the first one in his tenure. I doubt seriously that he will ever do it but sending in more troops is going to make this whole ordeal worse.

Well myself and many other Republicans in my area arent bothered much about Democrats gainig control of the House and Senate and possibly even the Presidencey in 2008!

I personally dont think Democrats can handle this. Democrats in full control, they will bring back all the troops. Terriorists, etc, etc will regain strogholds in Iraq and Afganistan (the forgotten war) and they will chase us all the way back to our land and attack us here. They will do it... I'm sick and tired of Democrats shoving this "Cut and Run" attitude and straight out bitching about everythign George Bush and Company do on a daily basis.

He was blamed personally for not going to New Orleans the second after the hurricane. Ray Nagin and Governor Blanco should be held responisble for what happend there. Ray Nagin had buses never used them, He has to call the Governor who then contacts Washington and FEMA etc.

He was blamed for the Hurricane that so called Racist Hurricane that hit a populated area of 95% African American , I still wish I had those sources it was a good laugh.

I hear people complaining about him going to his home in Texas, or taking a vacation or standing at the podium wrong, fumbling on a word (Mention not everyone is a public speaker) I surprised hes speaking at all or even bothers coming out to speak (Because for one his nerves are fried and 2nd people make fun of him all the time)


Next thing Democrats want to see Republicans and President Bush fail....You cant say thats not what you want to do its bright as day that dems want this to happen.


I think the Republicans should stand up when the next Democrat President comes in and bash him on everything he does and then scream for Impeachment.

I know you will try and bash me for this thread but I really dont care thats a common democrat tactic.


another note: I know strong democrats that get there news from Steve Colbert.....(are these the type of people are American youth should be watching I think not)

I heard Democrats with my own two ears say Republicans are stupid

I dont know what to make of it anymore. The enemy see this country is divided now more then any other except for the American Civil War!

Originally posted by centurion1211
Disgraceful, but some still want to cut the funding and then hypocritically claim that they support the troops!

cent, I am not sure where you are getting this idea that anyone wants to just cut the funding and leave our troops stranded to die or something over there with no equipment or food. Bills, talk, and policymaking happen all day long in government. But it's when the money gets appropriated that usually things start to happen. And often when the money does not get appropriated, they don't.

Right now there are thousands of private security personnel and mercenaries over there. If Bush's team wanted to, they coulda just hired 20,000 more on some clandestine black budget and never even made an announcement about it. But of course the Dems are starting to rattle the safes and tidy up the accounting. Or at least, so says the news.

I never stop being amazed at the shallow near sited use of GOP catch phrases that are constantly being parroted by narrow minded Republicans.

"Cut and run"

Thats quite a fun statement is it not? Easy to remember, easy to repeat, great work of fiction by the current administration!

Lets try a few more!

"Saddam has WMD's"

Repeat that for me?

"Mission accomplished" - Thats another fun one! While your saying "Cut and Run" repeat the mission accomplished statement a few times as well.

The bottom line is that nobody wants to "Cut and Run". Everybody wants a solution to this problem that will not keep us running in circles. I'm goddamn good and proud of people that stand up and say THIS IS NOT WORKING, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. Its highly intelligent to reflect upon what has happened and try to determine a new course of action.

If you keep repeating the same mistakes and take half measures, NOTHING will be accomplished and there will be more senseless loss of lives and no real long term solution.

Think before you speak, look at the sources of what you are saying and try to use your head to understand the meanings behind your words.

I am an American, Democrat or Republican should not matter... but damnit, THINK do not be a sheep repeating what you hear on FOX news or CNN without any forethought or hindsight to the meanings of your statements.

"Right now there are thousands of private security personnel and mercenaries over there. If Bush's team wanted to, they coulda just hired 20,000 more on some clandestine black budget and never even made an announcement about it. But of course the Dems are starting to rattle the safes and tidy up the accounting. Or at least, so says the news. "



The private security personnel aren't conducting offensive operations, and don't have the heavy equipment even if they could. They provide security at sites or for convoys. They aren't out conducting raids, cordon and searches, etc...

[edit on 14-1-2007 by GT100FV]

Could it be that the consistent use of army vs army tactics is mainly used because of the current administrations wish to portray the terrorist threat in Iraq as an army sized force instead of just being a few 1000 out of 100's of thousands Iraqi native "freedom fighters" "sectarian fighters" or "insurgents"?

Or is it just that the President has no clue at all about Military strategy and isn't listening to the people that know how to deal with guerilla warfare? (I'm guessing certain people in the CIA know full well how to deal and fight in these environments).

The president is maybe the commander in chief, but imho a commander in chief these days should say "I want to achieve this or that in Iraq" and he should leave it up to his military experts to choose the amount of troops and needed funds, which are then passed trough congress and legaly appropriated.

In the times of Napolean, Alexander the Great, Caesar and so on, the Commanders in chief aka, the Emperors, were themselves Military Geniouses and got to their position for being just that. They commanded an army and their military successes brought them to a point where they were crowned the leader.

Bush seems to be only listening to what he wants to hear while not having the slightest understanding of actual strategy.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
If they can't handle war strategy planning for Iraq, they how in the HELL are we trusting these people with the defense of this country against the real threats? Can you imagine what would happen, if say, China or Russia were to get involved and we had to deal with state-of-the-art weapons and militaries coming in at us? These are just insurgents with AK-47's and RPG's!

The last time the U.S. engaged a first world country, it was under the total war doctrine. That makes a huge difference. But I do agree with you, the war planners are making a big mess. I'm inclined to beleive it's deliberate to stir strife in the region.

Good thread btw, I agree that this is the mark of a dictator. I prefer to call him a despot.

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst
Another thing that has screwed us are left wing human rights advocates.

I hope you're not being serious.

Originally posted by KonigKaos
I personally dont think Democrats can handle this. Democrats in full control, they will bring back all the troops. Terriorists, etc, etc will regain strogholds in Iraq and Afganistan (the forgotten war) and they will chase us all the way back to our land and attack us here. They will do it...

Be afraid!!! Be very afraid! Lock up your daughters, the big bad muslim men are coming!


EDIT to add, how many times has the mujahadeen and even al-qaeda stated that if the West leaves the region (including support for Israel) they will call it quits? I'm losing count here.

[edit on 14/1/07 by SteveR]