Bagdad security sure has tightened

[billvon 2,991]

>Would you honestly rather have some soldiers there fighting to make
>a difference or would you prefer that people be left to their fate?

If "making a difference" results in a thousand people a month dead and dozens of bombings, assassinations, torture sessions and mass executions in one city alone - then I'd prefer we didn't make a difference.

Perhaps it would be just as bad without us there. Or perhaps it would be worse if there was no one there to try to get between the warring sects, insurgents and terrorists. Or perhaps it would be better once the targets are removed, and the Iraqis realized that their future was up to them. But one thing is for damn sure, and that's that things are NOT anything like what the original plan called for - heck, things are not even like what the pro-war camp claims they are right now. That means we have to change the plan, not just pile more soldiers on the fire.

>Quit screaming about troops getting killed . . .

If you consider what I am doing "screaming" then I will decline your request. Protecting US troops should be a very high priority for us. They are one of our most important assets (as well as human beings with families and friends) and should not be wasted to make a bad mistake worse. Their deaths should not be ignored to make a president's mistake look better than it is.

>it's par for the course and in the end it's for a greater good.

I can think of several examples in US history where that was not the case - and it looks like history is repeating itself.

[FireMedicJumper 0]

Quote

>So how would billvon stop suicide bombers?

Remove their targets.

Oh, I like this theory. Maybe we should've blown up the twin towers and killed thousands of our own civilians. Therefore the targets would have been removed and 9/11 could've been avoided.

[billvon 2,991]

>Maybe we should've blown up the twin towers and killed thousands of our own civilians.

Wrong war. 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. It's errors like this that led us into this quagmire; I hope we can avoid them in the future.

[FireMedicJumper 0]

Wasn't saying it is the same war, just simply pointing out the flawed logic.

I believe your theory is akin to saying that muggings, robberies, and burglaries will stop when people don't own anything worth stealing.

[billvon 2,991]

> Wasn't saying it is the same war, just simply pointing out the flawed logic.

I think if you do that with a flawed example it sorta doesn't work.

But in any case, the next time we are at risk for a 9/11 style attack, would you rather our armed forces be in Iraq fighting the terrorist du jour or here defending the US from attackers?

[GQ_jumper 4]

If "making a difference" results in a thousand people a month dead and dozens of bombings, assassinations, torture sessions and mass executions in one city alone - then I'd prefer we didn't make a difference.

Quote

I know it is hard to see without being here but honestlyus being here is having an impact for the positive(without going into a debate on being here in the first place), the situation on the ground now is greatly improved by our pessence.

Quote

things are not even like what the pro-war camp claims they are right now. That means we have to change the plan, not just pile more soldiers on the fire.

Throwing more soldiers into the mix is a way to change the plan, that wasn't the ONLY fix that was put in place it was one of many. It just happens to be the most noticeable one. I can see tons of changes going on here int he way we are approachign this conflict, and the change in the number of soldier on the ground is the smallest of them it just happens to be the one getting the most media attention. No one back hame arguing this tactic is wrong, IMO. They just aren't privvy to the same info and insight you get form being here, that's the way the media works, they attempt to control what you see and how you react to things.

Quote

If you consider what I am doing "screaming" then I will decline your request. Protecting US troops should be a very high priority for us. They are one of our most important assets (as well as human beings with families and friends) and should not be wasted to make a bad mistake worse. Their deaths should not be ignored to make a president's mistake look better than it is.

This one is more of a general comment Bill, I apologize for wording it to look like I was shooting it straight at you, I respect your opinion and argument.

And although I agree that we need to keep the soldiers safe I stand by my opinion that a US soldier giving their life in a conflict that could result in a society being safer has done their part. I'm not trying to get into the left v right, we invaded for oil/money/Halliburton/because GWB is a war-monger argument, this is a statement geared towards the desired end result of the conflict.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[FireMedicJumper 0]

I think and hope we are keeping them too busy over there for them to attack again over here.

[Royd 0]

> I think we're fighting a losing battle.

Quote

Today 157 people were killed in Baghdad. On Saturday their parliament was bombed and one of the main Baghdad bridges was blown up; on Sunday at least 34 people died in six bombings. Around 35 people are dying in that city every day, averaging over the last year. (And of course that's not counting the handful of US soldiers killed every day in Iraq.)

On the bright side, sooner or later, they're either going to run out of ammo or people.

[GQ_jumper 4]

On the bright side, sooner or later, they're either going to run out of ammo or people.

Quote

That unfortunately will never be the case.


There is so many loose munitions floating around third world countries that no task force of any size could ever put a significant dent in it. And as for people, well, there will always be undeducated people who fall for the extremist propaganda and decide to give their life to the "greater good". The upside is that getting the resources and personnel to operate inside our borders is becoming increasingly more difficult. at a minimum we are at least keeping the fight elsewhere.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[billvon 2,991]

>Throwing more soldiers into the mix is a way to change the plan . . .

I see it as more of the same. Time and time again, troops have been called into hotspots to pacify them, only to see the insurgents hoof it to the next city to attack _there._ And when US troops go on to the next city, the recently-pacified city falls back into chaos. Nothing really new there; it's just Baghdad this time.

But for the sake of argument, let's say it is a big change. Admiral Fallon recently said that this "is the major and last opportunity to really take this ball forward. I can't imagine (them) being given another opportunity in the degree of magnitude they have been given." What happens when this one fails, as all the other new ways forward have? Do we just ignore what Fallon said, as we have ignored every "six month window" we've spoken about since the war began? How many failures have to accumulate before we make a _real_ change, like implementing the recommendations of the ISG? How many times are we going to "hand over" control of a city to local commanders, only to have them fall again when we leave?

At some point we need a leader with the courage to swallow his pride and fix the problem. I hope we find him or her.

> I stand by my opinion that a US soldier giving their life in a conflict that
> could result in a society being safer has done their part.

I think that US soldiers willing to do that are the reason we are able to _have_ these discussions. In the majority of cases, they gave their lives to protect us. In Iraq, though, they are giving their lives to prolong a war, not make us safer (at least by any metric I've seen.)

Vietnam did not make us safer, and indeed the smartest thing we did there was leave. I hope we don't have to see the death toll climb to Vietnam levels before we learn from that bit of history.

[Axe_Murderer 0]

I just find it amazing that the most powerful nation on Earth didn't have any plans in place (or foresee this would happen) for what would happen after they had got rid of Saddam

I think getting rid of saddam was the right thing to do, but serious questions should be asked about what has gone wrong afterwards.... somebody surely is responsible for the mess the country is now in?

[Axe_Murderer 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6567329.stm

crazy, just crazy

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Imagine what it's like to live in a city where the Virginia Tech massacre would represent a better than average day.

Quote

Don't have to imagine, I've lived there, which is exactly why I understand the troop surge.

It's a hard fact for some to accept but having the military there acting as a "buffer" between the battling groups truly does make a difference. Would you honestly rather have some soldiers there fighting to make a difference or would you prefer that people be left to their fate?

As much as people don't like to admit it the underlying job of the US soldier is to give their life for the safety of the innocent. We are an expendable asset, and as long as one of us dying saves the life of one single civilian than we have done our jobs. So many people sit in there nice safe homes and complains about how we don't need to be there because dispite the troop surge there are so mnay bombings, but without the troop surge it would be twice as bad. No amount of soldiers can stop the attacks on innocents, but more of us can at least make it harder for those that intend to kill innocents to do their job, and this is a small victory. No one single victory wins a war, it takes time, that's all we need, time, and lots of it. Quit screaming about troops getting killed, it's par for the course and in the end it's for a greater good.

I respect your courage and your service but I think due to, how shall I say, military training/brainwashing, you are a litte misguided in your beliefs. I used to think the same way in my younger days. I believe this war was a bad idea from the gitgo. We have no business over there messing in their affairs. Now we are stuck And no. I don't have any soulutions. Good luck my friend

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

• Quote

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Would you honestly rather have some soldiers there fighting to make a difference or would you prefer that people be left to their fate?

Fuck those people over in Iraq. They should take care of business on there own. This bullshit invasion of a country that did not threaten the US is a drain on every taxpayer. I sick and tired of being denied the benefits that I am entitled to so that this fucking douchebag president can freely invade countries and kill countless numbers of people solely to stoke his evil ego. Good, Saddam is dead, now time to get the fuck out. Exactly what good is the US doing in Iraq at this point. Absolutely none. 100 or more dead Iraqis daily. An ineffective puppet government. Civil war between factions that have been fighting for near 1000 years. Absolutely no chance of democracy in a country that prefers islamic law. You'd have a better chance knocking down a brick wall with a rubber mallet than you will convincing these people to be civilized. Iraq was far better off with Saddam in charge than they are with that fucking waste case Bush in charge.

Quote

As much as people don't like to admit it the underlying job of the US soldier is to give their life for the safety of the innocent

It is not the duty of our armed forces to die for people of other countries who refuse to do the job themselves. The millitary is for the defence of the US. The attack on Iraq was not to protect the US but to bolster the ego of a douchebag president.

Quote

We are an expendable asset, and as long as one of us dying saves the life of one single civilian than we have done our jobs.

Fine, if they are fighting to protect US citizens but, they are not. They are dying for what is already lost.

Quote

No amount of soldiers can stop the attacks on innocents, but more of us can at least make it harder for those that intend to kill innocents to do their job

The number of deaths prove your statement to be wrong. These people do not fear the surge and seem to welcome it.
Before you go off on me and call me an uninformed civilian who knows nothing about deployments, I did spend time off of Iran during the Iranian crisis and time off of Iraq while we supplied support for Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. What a waste of time and money that was.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[freethefly 6]

Quote

...a society being safer...

Are you refering to Iraq being safer? If so, it was much safer before the douche in charge decided to illegaly invade a country to stoke his twisted ego.
Iraq was a far better country under Saddam than it is now under Bush.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[billvon 2,991]

>Iraq was a far better country under Saddam than it is now under Bush.

It was a far _safer_ country. Whether it's better or not depends on your perspective. For the Kurds who can now practice their religion their way, it's probably better. For the millions of people who are now living in fear of kidnap, torture and execution, probably not better. For the tens of thousands of innocent civilians now dead, almost certainly not better.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

>Iraq was a far better country under Saddam than it is now under Bush.

It was a far _safer_ country. Whether it's better or not depends on your perspective. For the Kurds who can now practice their religion their way, it's probably better. For the millions of people who are now living in fear of kidnap, torture and execution, probably not better. For the tens of thousands of innocent civilians now dead, almost certainly not better.

I actually meant to say "safer country". I do agree that Saddam was an evil bastard and needed to be taken out but the aftermath of doing so only strengthen Al Quida and made the world a far more dangerous place. Prolonging what is already lost only makes more people turn against the US. We are not seen as "liberators" but invaders prone to attack any country at any time.
I do believe that the Iraqi people were much safer and happier with Saddam in charge. They knew the law and knew not to step out of line. Hell, they had schools, hospitals, water, electricity, food, medicine, jobs, money, security. Today, they have nothing but fear.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[GQ_jumper 4]

I think due to, how shall I say, military training/brainwashing, you are a litte misguided in your beliefs.

Quote

Coming from someone who has never met me in person, I'm pretty much the exact opposite of what some would call a misguided brainwashed soldier. I'm sorry but I didn't realize that anyone who had an opinion that differed from yours was brainwashed. the military has never done a single thing to brainwash anyone, I've never recieved an y training that was geared towards changing my opinion on a certain subject.

Quote

I believe this war was a bad idea from the gitgo.

Whether or not this war was a good idea to begin with we created a mess and need to fix it and take responsibility for our actions. And as for people saying fuck everyone else we're the US we only need to look out for ourselves, well, welcome to the world of being a super power, you are forced at times to do what others can't do for themselves and it comes at the cost of soldiers lives and taxpayers money.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Amazon 7]

Quote

And as for people saying fuck everyone else we're the US we only need to look out for ourselves, well, welcome to the world of being a super power, you are forced at times to do what others can't do for themselves and it comes at the cost of soldiers lives and taxpayers money.

I think most of the whiners also forget that we are indeed one of the few countries in the world that is composed from people from literally EVERY country on the planet...believe me somethimes I think...just pull all of our interests within.. and let everyone fuck themselves.. look at how good of a job they kept doing that for the entire existence of this country.. but after WWII... we have stayed engaged.. and geee... so far.. no more global wars in 60 years.

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

As much as people don't like to admit it the underlying job of the US soldier is to give their life for the safety of the innocent.

No that is not the underlying job of a U.S soldier. The job of a soldier is to kill. The job of a U.S soldier historicaly has been to give his life for the economic and power interests of his nation.

Quote

We are an expendable asset, and as long as one of us dying saves the life of one single civilian than we have done our jobs. So many people sit in there nice safe homes and complains about how we don't need to be there because dispite the troop surge there are so mnay bombings, but without the troop surge it would be twice as bad.

The aggressor in war is responsible for all subsequent events, you invaded a country and you are the reason all this is happening. On top of which it isn't up to you to decide what is right for the Iraqi people it is for them to decide and 70% want you out yesterday and 85% want you to set a date for withdrawel

Quote

No amount of soldiers can stop the attacks on innocents, but more of us can at least make it harder for those that intend to kill innocents to do their job, and this is a small victory. No one single victory wins a war, it takes time, that's all we need, time, and lots of it.

"Win" thats priceless

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Quote

>Iraq was a far better country under Saddam than it is now under Bush.

It was a far _safer_ country. Whether it's better or not depends on your perspective. For the Kurds who can now practice their religion their way, it's probably better. For the millions of people who are now living in fear of kidnap, torture and execution, probably not better. For the tens of thousands of innocent civilians now dead, almost certainly not better.

I actually meant to say "safer country". I do agree that Saddam was an evil bastard and needed to be taken out but the aftermath of doing so only strengthen Al Quida and made the world a far more dangerous place. Prolonging what is already lost only makes more people turn against the US. We are not seen as "liberators" but invaders prone to attack any country at any time.
I do believe that the Iraqi people were much safer and happier with Saddam in charge. They knew the law and knew not to step out of line. Hell, they had schools, hospitals, water, electricity, food, medicine, jobs, money, security. Today, they have nothing but fear.

It was also boarderline first world country, now its a third world battlefield

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Coming from someone who has never met me in person, I'm pretty much the exact opposite of what some would call a misguided brainwashed soldier. I'm sorry but I didn't realize that anyone who had an opinion that differed from yours was brainwashed. the military has never done a single thing to brainwash anyone, I've never recieved an y training that was geared towards changing my opinion on a certain subject.

The brainwashed claims come directly from everything you say

Being part of the military is conditioning in itself

You claim that soldiers know more about current world conflicts then people sitting at desks with objective observation - Not only is that completely wrong but military people ALWAYS say this, you are defiantly not an individual with this claim

You claim the extremist media are against you when the media and government action are so interlinked it is almost inseparable

But the number one telling bit of indoctrination is the fact you think the world's super power uses an army for the betterment of other people's lives out of the kindness of its own heart

I am not trying to troll you or personally attack you but you really need to sit back, hopefully quit the military and read some books about your role in the world

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Quote

And as for people saying fuck everyone else we're the US we only need to look out for ourselves, well, welcome to the world of being a super power, you are forced at times to do what others can't do for themselves and it comes at the cost of soldiers lives and taxpayers money.

I think most of the whiners also forget that we are indeed one of the few countries in the world that is composed from people from literally EVERY country on the planet...believe me somethimes I think...just pull all of our interests within.. and let everyone fuck themselves.. look at how good of a job they kept doing that for the entire existence of this country.. but after WWII... we have stayed engaged.. and geee... so far.. no more global wars in 60 years.

No global war? you have pretty much waged global warfare...

The U.S has been at war with one country or more at a time post-WW2.

[Amazon 7]

Tell me.. please.. have you ever served anything but yourself at ANY time in your life....Just curious.

[Axe_Murderer 0]

He served me a Big Mac once