It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Breaking News-Vote slams Bush's Iraq plan

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:22 PM

Originally posted by jsobecky
It is already showing results. Mookie al-Sadr had fled to Iran, and the number of civilian attacks in the past week has shown a drastic drop.

Stop feigning that you don't understand how Guerrilla warfare works. Al-Sadr made a tactical retreat and his supporters hid their weapons then blended into the general population. Painting this as a surge success is an act of desperation.

Also, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq was wounded/captured this week, and his top aide was killed.

Do we ever kill just an ordinary member of al-Qaeda? It seems that we only kill innocent civilians and al-Qaeda leaders. This sounds like dueling propaganda to me.

Originally posted by Royal76
This is a really big case of C.Y.A. These people don't have the power to do anything but show the rest of the world that we aren't united.

Most of us are tightly united. Maybe it's time you get with the program and realize that the best way to support to the troops is to bring them home. We may need to get a cattle prod to get the Democrats better united and moving in the right direction.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
The argument here is that either there's going to be a troop surge...

Please, this isn't that difficult to understand. You must stop increasing the number of troops before you can start reducing the number of troops. Which part confuses you?

[edit on 16-2-2007 by df1]

posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:27 PM
I can't quite seem to understand why everyone treats this like ALL of the terrorists are in Iraq. Even if it were possible to exterminate all of the terrorists in Iraq there are many, many more places for them to reside and are residing. If you can't tell who your enemy is how exactly do you "defeat" them?
Was this not the case in Vietnam? We are heading down a road to have a handful of "Vietnam's". Unless you feel eliminating everyone of Islamic faith is a viable solution, I think a guy named Hitler had a similar game plan. The strategy is not working.

We steamrolled right through Iraq the firs time, our enemy was evident, and we still have alot of vets from that war that are not cared for properly by the V.A. What in anyones wildest dreams make anyone think we can care for the wounded, sick, or other problems associated with war vets when they come home. If they come home.

This problem can not be solved the way we are going about it. Give out candy to the children of your allies, sooner or later on will come back with a grenade and a smile. I have a friend who returned a while back and told me about being in a humvee that ran over a child. Did any man in that humvee want it to happen NO. In the same token weeks earlier a humvee stopped in the road to avoid hitting a kid and BOOM! Some of the men didn't come back others severely wounded. This is war people.

Pull them out, leave covert surveillance equip and operatives with laser pointers, wait for the flag burning celebrations to start in the streets THEN YOU WILL CLEARLY SEE THE ENEMY. Bring in the air raids. But like I said you still haven't solved the whole problem... time to whack another mole somewhere else.

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:00 AM

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

Nope. I'll say it again, anything less than 400,000 troops mean nothing. The insurgents will hide till we move on. Simple as that. Oh, then they come back and start terror all over again. Why don't you tell me how you willl eliminate that?


It would be nice if you would directly respond to my post when you quote instead of rehashing the same tired arguments from earlier in the thread. The content of my post was that failure to provide a mass of troops with proper reinforcements and equipment will likely lead to higher death counts.

Of course, you come back with this arbitrary 400,000 count. That count is not the gospel, that is simply a number put forth in one general's plans.
The current general in Iraq seems to think that this can be done with 20,000 additional troops. This plan is based on experience in the current situation on the battle field...not a wargames exercise freom 8 years ago. Honestly, I don't know if it will work or not, but you throwing around this 400k number is just ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the current situation.

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
And it was 8 years before 9/11 where there was ZERO terror plots.

That's completely false. There were plenty of plots and there were plenty of terrorist attacks successfully carried out.

Originally posted by df1
Go sign up.

Already did. Five years in the U.S. Army.
BTW .. you are welcome.

if I'm expected to live out my life in the Bush43 house of horrors then let Al Queda come kill me now, because this would be existing, not living.

Oh the drama. If it's so bad then go see Dr. Death and decrease the surplus population already.

For the record. I am against the additional troops being sent. I think this war has been run backwards. The 'additional troops' should have been there at the start. The borders should have been secured. Now is when we should be sweeping up and leaving... not building up. This is running too close to a Johnson type decision to make me comfortable.

[edit on 2/17/2007 by FlyersFan]


posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:30 AM
I am still for either.....

This is a WAR......
in wars you KILL other humans to attain your objective
I hate this on the fence bullcrapo.

If I were a soldier on the group right now,
and had an insurgent in the sights of my gun,
would I shoot and kill and have to answer for it in the end.
Saying I was just following orders, from a government
that has their hands in their pockets ?

Go In SHOCK and AWE then....
tell all Iraqis to get out of Dodge or face the consequences
and Bomb the living hell out of it.

IN or OUT , and take the BIG GUNS With Ya!!!!

[edit on 2/17/2007 by Ex]


posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:38 AM
Isn't the objective to WIN this war???
Then bite the bullet and do that.
If the decision is to let the Iraqis fight it themselves,
let the civil war begin ( it already has)
and may the best group win.

How would you have liked say, Russia,
to have stepped into the middle of our civil war??
Would you thank them?

An intelligent solution , is three separate States inside Iraq
with a central government that controls the oil money
and distributes fairly.
But of course that isn't even on the table.
( end of my rant.sorry)

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:44 AM
Once america went into iraq, they had to go all the way. Now all this talk is just going to lower moral of there own troops. The noises coming out of washington, must piss of the troops over there, knowing know they are not supported at all by most of the country.

Next stop Iran, or total failure. How the are going to get of of this is going to be interesting. what capital hill is doing is nothing and they will not stop the money, so how can they really stop Bush.


posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:00 AM

Originally posted by FlyersFan
decrease the surplus population already.

You'd be much better off by just letting al-Qaeda blow me up, as I have my own ideas on who is surplus and who is not.

I think this war has been run backwards.

The entire country has been running backwards for 6 or 7 years, so it should come as no surprise to you at this late date that Iraq is being run backwards. However better late than never.

we should be sweeping up and leaving...

This I can agree with.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by df1]

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:58 PM

Originally posted by RRconservative
You won't like this answer.

We need more troops to prevent your senario from happening. What we were doing before is cleaning out an area of insurgents. We did that, then after awhile they would come back. That is exactly why we need more troops! To have enough to leave behind to secure the area/

My question is...Why do Democrats and Al-Queda want the U.S. out of Iraq so quickly? Al-Queda wants the U.S. out of Iraq so they can claim victory, and laugh at a U.S. defeat. Is this the same thing Democrats want?

Once again I ask you "How does the Democrats wanting the U.S. to loose help them in any way?" I really want to know if you have some phantom image of Democrats sitting around with insurgent leaders smoking cigars and watching virgins dance around laughing that the U.S. has lost? I mean all I gather from what your saying is talking points from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity along with Mark Savage..? thats it? There is no reason that the Democratic party wants this country to fail. This is political pandering thats 2 years when were "still" in Iraq and elections are up again this is just to say "hey" we didn't vote to send in more troops.Yes it is a waste of time and tax dollars but thats all BOTH of these parties do is waste time and money. This war is nothing more than a gaint tax funnel. And I'm tired of paying 10 grand every quarter to fund a buncha morons who play monkey grab ass with my taxes so they can sit and point fingers at each other and play the blam game. It's getting old

posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:10 PM
Funny I had to go all the way to the BBC to find a link to it with our media

Original BBC
The US Senate has decided not to debate a resolution criticising President George W Bush's troop surge in Iraq.
The rare Saturday session followed a non-binding vote backing the resolution in the House of Representatives.

In the House, 17 Republicans had joined the majority Democrats to oppose the increase of 21,500 troops.


posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:50 PM
I believe I will chime in on this one:
Here is what I know:
The vote that was done in the House of Rep, is political posturing. It holds no real power, as it is non binding, but serves to let the public know that those who voted for it is listening to the polls and to let the President know that they are not approving of what is going on.
I also know that there is a definate need for more troops.
However, what I believe is that how the President is doing this war is going to cause more deaths and failures, as he is making the same mistakes that was made in Vietnam, which is that politics are directing the decisions of the military, to the point where they can not act freely. If the politians took a step back, blocked out all PC and told the US military to just pacify the area by any means necessary, it would have been over in a year.
From the begining of this entire fiasco, there has been too many goals to state the end of the war. The goal needs to be clear cut with direction as to let those who are actually fighting the war, and those at home who need to support those who are fighting.
And we are stuck in Iraq, weather we like it or not. We can not simply pull out as the moment we do all bets are off. There are at least 2 to three countries poised to cross the border and really rip the country into full chaos and we will end up going back in, to honor treaties that were signed long ago.
On the flip side of the coin, the military is stretched to thin. Those who want to kick us out all they have to do is simply maim and keep penny nickling down the troops there till the US population grows tired and demands the troops are brought home.
The boarders of the US, on the other side are not secure and that was just an issue to get someone elected, as nothing has been done, the boarder patrol is like a puppy, may bark, but will not bite, or do any real damage or threat and it is well known.
Things have to change and we need to lean more on congress to do something.
What I do not know is what it will take to either end the problems in Iraq or solve the border problems, well on the border problems, my idea would be considered a violation of human rights, but that is another topic.

Side note, I did 4 years in the US Navy.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in