http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqDTJNF_yf0

We should send these people to visit every member of Congress who voted to stop funding the troops and to set a withdrawal deadline.

They voted to fund the troops.

They passed the budget.

They wanted to vote to defund them but the American public would have been up in arms had they done so.

As per usual the Democrats are a bunch of Surrender Monkeys.

They wanted to vote to defund them but the American public would have been up in arms had they done so.

That is merely your unsubstantiated opinion.



As per usual the Democrats are a bunch of Surrender Monkeys.

This isn't even opinion. This is just parroting of Fox/GOP talking points with no basis in reality.

They wanted to vote to defund them but the American public would have been up in arms had they done so.

So are you saying they were wrong for wanting to pass their bill or were they wrong to modify it so it wouldn't be vetoed?


As per usual the Democrats are a bunch of Surrender Monkeys.

I'm not sure why an intelligent man like you would deliberately undermine their own credibility by posting a comment like that. It's a shame.

As per usual the Democrats are a bunch of Surrender Monkeys.Sometimes surrendering is more prudent than continually pursuing an impossible victory. I don't think we've reached that point yet in Iraq, but if failure there should ever become inevitable I would absolutely support withdrawal. However, it seems that some people would want to keep plugging away at it just to avoid admitting defeat.

Sometimes surrendering is more prudent than continually pursuing an impossible victory. I don't think we've reached that point yet in Iraq, but if failure there should ever become inevitable I would absolutely support withdrawal. However, it seems that some people would want to keep plugging away at it just to avoid admitting defeat.
no victory is imposable if you have the will to win along with the ability.

it can be done, but we lack the will to do it.

no victory is imposable if you have the will to win along with the ability.

Agreed.


it can be done, but we lack the will to do it.

Specifically how?

It seems to me that history is replete with examples of small guerrilla-type forces evading destruction by empires bent on eradicating them.

Specifically how?

It seems to me that history is replete with examples of small guerrilla-type forces evading destruction by empires bent on eradicating them.
killing the enemy is a good start.

start at one corner of a town, and clear it. enforce road blocks religiously. once pacified, move on to the next town, leaving an Iraqi garrison behind. seal the borders and kill anything moving across it at night or trying to evade check points.

in short, treat it like a war and not a bad weekend in L.A.

killing the enemy is a good start.

start at one corner of a town, and clear it. enforce road blocks religiously. once pacified, move on to the next town, leaving an Iraqi garrison behind. seal the borders and kill anything moving across it at night or trying to evade check points.

in short, treat it like a war and not a bad weekend in L.A.That's what we're doing now. The question is, what if it doesn't work? What's Plan B?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070409/ts_nm/iraq_dc_33

If the Iraqi truely want our troops out, its time to pack them, and all their equipment up, and bring them, and it, back into the U.S.
There is no point in staying where you are not wanted.

no victory is imposable if you have the will to win along with the ability.

it can be done, but we lack the will to do it.

Victory is not possible when it cannot be defined in any realistic way.

killing the enemy is a good start.

Define "the enemy".

All Iraqis?
Only Iraqis that look at you funny?
All Arabs?
Only Arabs that look at you funny?
Insurgents?
What about Iraqis fighting Iraqis?
Whos side do you pick?


start at one corner of a town, and clear it. enforce road blocks religiously. once pacified, move on to the next town, leaving an Iraqi garrison behind. seal the borders and kill anything moving across it at night or trying to evade check points.

And how is any of that going to quell the sectarian violence between Shites and Sunnis?


in short, treat it like a war and not a bad weekend in L.A.

Thats the problem, it is not a war. The "war" ended back in 2003 when Bush declared the "Mission Accomplished".

This is an occupation now.

Continuing to treat an occupation like it was a war has been part of the problem.

killing the enemy is a good start.

Our armed forces are quite adept at that.


start at one corner of a town, and clear it. enforce road blocks religiously. once pacified, move on to the next town, leaving an Iraqi garrison behind.

Ok. First I'd say that this will take a lot of troops. I suspect that even with the "surge" there may be a bare minimum to even effect the manuevers you describe. Second, how do you know that everybody you leave alive in the "cleared" areas has been "pacified"? It can be very difficult to tell a temporarily unarmed insurgent from a civilian.


seal the borders and kill anything moving across it at night or trying to evade check points.

Well Mike, that's easier to suggest than it is to effect.


in short, treat it like a war and not a bad weekend in L.A.

Are you suggesting the troops have been taking it easy?

Sometimes surrendering is more prudent than continually pursuing an impossible victory.........it seems that some people would want to keep plugging away at it just to avoid admitting defeat.

Exactly. Well spoken.

Those **some people** being the sort of ignoramuses who use the juvenile term "Surrender Monkeys" to describe those in the political realm who have taken a long hard look at the current situation and concluded that it would be in this country's best interests to withdraw the troops.

Our armed forces are quite adept at that.

they're complaining to anyone that will listen that the rules of engagement are leaving their hands tied.


Ok. First I'd say that this will take a lot of troops. I suspect that even with the "surge" there may be a bare minimum to even effect the manuevers you describe. Second, how do you know that everybody you leave alive in the "cleared" areas has been "pacified"? It can be very difficult to tell a temporarily unarmed insurgent from a civilian.

that's what happens when you go to war on the cheap...the will to win hasn't been there from the start.

Well Mike, that's easier to suggest than it is to effect.

FLIR-forward looking infra-red. a helicopter and a .30, and humans stand out like a road flare in the desert at night...just a press release here and there will do more to stop infilteration than operations will..

Are you suggesting the troops have been taking it easy?

not them, they're doing everything they're allowed to, it's the suits in D.C. that are the problem.

they're complaining to anyone that will listen that the rules of engagement are leaving their hands tied.

In what way?


that's what happens when you go to war on the cheap...the will to win hasn't been there from the start.

On the cheap? How does this relate to the difficulties in identifying the enemy?


FLIR-forward looking infra-red. a helicopter and a .30, and humans stand out like a road flare in the desert at night...just a press release here and there will do more to stop infilteration than operations will..

Nice thought, but it doesn't begin to address the problem. The borders you want to secure are largely mountainous, not desert, and they are a bit too long to secure with a few helicopters.


not them, they're doing everything they're allowed to, it's the suits in D.C. that are the problem.

That's a common complaint, but what would you change?

that's what happens when you go to war on the cheap...
ROFL!

Vilepagan


So are you saying they were wrong for wanting to pass their bill or were they wrong to modify it so it wouldn't be vetoed?

I am saying they are wrong on both counts. They were initially wrong for wanting to tie the hands of the troops fighting the war and they were then wrong for submitting a modified bill that still had the same general purpose.

I am saying they are wrong on both counts. They were initially wrong for wanting to tie the hands of the troops fighting the war and they were then wrong for submitting a modified bill that still had the same general purpose.


How does bringing them home tie their hands?

Keeping them there endlessly and without a good plan isn't doing anything except getting people killed.