[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

"ToMh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> I'm supporting the Pres this time. First time I felt that they are
> being upfront about things and are finally willing to admit mistakes
> and change the course. We can't let Iraq slip into Iranian and Syrian
> control.
> Having Iran control the 2nd largest oil reserve would be devastating.
> Even though I feel they probably screwed it up beyond repair, we should
> support this last effort.
>
> They need to have more troops to be able to actually keep the
> insurgents out. The way it's been is just like VietNam. They chase the
> enemy away, then move on, only to have them come right back. The other
> thing they need to do is to actually build back up the infrustructure,
> so that people can have services, safety and not feel the need to join
> these millitias for protection.
>


The Iraqi army is a disaster, according to all sources, and I do mean *ALL*.

The Iraqi police have been infiltrated by every form of rat imaginable.
Nobody trusts them.

Insurgents seem to have found a new weapon: 13 year old kids loaded with
explosives. No more pictures of American soldiers being friendly with kids.
That's over.

We just pissed off the Kurds, our only sorta kinda ally in the country.

Got a plan?

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] "JoeSpareBedroom" writes:

> We just pissed off the Kurds, our only sorta kinda ally in the
> country.

You could have included words to the effect "kind of Iraqi ally".
OTOH, the US's non-Iraqi allies are so easy to overlook. And, if
they too get pissed off, whattheheck. Overlooking foreigners and
their feelings can become an expensive habit. A wee thought. ;-)
--
Andrew Stephenson

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

" dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected].
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "ToMh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > I'm supporting the Pres this time. First time I felt that they are
>> > being upfront about things and are finally willing to admit mistakes
>> > and change the course. We can't let Iraq slip into Iranian and Syrian
>> > control.
>> > Having Iran control the 2nd largest oil reserve would be devastating.
>> > Even though I feel they probably screwed it up beyond repair, we should
>> > support this last effort.
>> >
>> > They need to have more troops to be able to actually keep the
>> > insurgents out. The way it's been is just like VietNam. They chase the
>> > enemy away, then move on, only to have them come right back. The other
>> > thing they need to do is to actually build back up the infrustructure,
>> > so that people can have services, safety and not feel the need to join
>> > these millitias for protection.
>> >
>>
>>
>> The Iraqi army is a disaster, according to all sources, and I do mean
>> *ALL*.
>>
>> The Iraqi police have been infiltrated by every form of rat imaginable.
>> Nobody trusts them.
>>
>> Insurgents seem to have found a new weapon: 13 year old kids loaded with
>> explosives. No more pictures of American soldiers being friendly with
>> kids.
>> That's over.
>>
>> We just pissed off the Kurds, our only sorta kinda ally in the country.
>>
>> Got a plan?
>
> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
> in.

Or to not get embroiled in
less-than-well-thought-out-missions-which-are-virtually-guaranteed-to-turn-into-disasters
to begin with.

Cathy

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

dbu, wrote:

> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
> in.

22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.

The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
an unjustified war.

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

dbu, wrote:

> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
> in.

22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.

The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
an unjustified war.

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

In article <[email protected]>,
"larry moe 'n curly" <[email protected]> wrote:

> dbu, wrote:
>
> > This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
> > in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
> > then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
> > be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
> > in.
>
> 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
> positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
> about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
> war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
> because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
> invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.
>
> The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
> an unjustified war.

The ground troops are going to secure Bagdad. The Navy will take care
of the rest. Watch and see.

The other nations don't get it enough yet. Let them have more terrorist
attacks and they will get the message, maybe.
--

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

"JoeSpareBedroom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>" dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected].
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "ToMh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>> > I'm supporting the Pres this time. First time I felt that they are
>>> > being upfront about things and are finally willing to admit mistakes
>>> > and change the course. We can't let Iraq slip into Iranian and Syrian
>>> > control.
>>> > Having Iran control the 2nd largest oil reserve would be devastating.
>>> > Even though I feel they probably screwed it up beyond repair, we
>>> > should
>>> > support this last effort.
>>> >
>>> > They need to have more troops to be able to actually keep the
>>> > insurgents out. The way it's been is just like VietNam. They chase the
>>> > enemy away, then move on, only to have them come right back. The other
>>> > thing they need to do is to actually build back up the infrustructure,
>>> > so that people can have services, safety and not feel the need to join
>>> > these millitias for protection.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> The Iraqi army is a disaster, according to all sources, and I do mean
>>> *ALL*.
>>>
>>> The Iraqi police have been infiltrated by every form of rat imaginable.
>>> Nobody trusts them.
>>>
>>> Insurgents seem to have found a new weapon: 13 year old kids loaded with
>>> explosives. No more pictures of American soldiers being friendly with
>>> kids.
>>> That's over.
>>>
>>> We just pissed off the Kurds, our only sorta kinda ally in the country.
>>>
>>> Got a plan?
>>
>> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
>> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
>> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
>> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
>> in.
>
>
> Considering that after 9/11, other terrorist attacks have been in London,
> Spain and Indonesia, I think it's not worth a try. We've already seen that
> our presence in Iraq does not necessarily stop terrorist attacks.
>

I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with you. While the exact
words you spout here are accurate, I can't help but wonder if you understand
what they mean.

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STOP ANY AND ALL TERRORIST ATTACKS FROM EVER
HAPPENING. Not possible. Ever. At all.

The reason is, to stop any and all terrorists attacks that might ever
happen, we have to be 100% right every minute of every day, forever. If you
really want to be free of any terrorist attack, then you are living in a
dream world. It is impossible to protect against terrorist atttack. The very
best we can hope for is to derail a few attacks on occasion, and to respond
better to any attack once it has happened.

While our presence in Iraq might not foil all terrorist attacks, there is
every reason to believe that our absence from Iraq would likely lead to more
attacks.

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

"larry moe 'n curly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> dbu, wrote:
>
>> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
>> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
>> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
>> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
>> in.
>
> 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
> positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
> about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
> war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
> because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
> invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.
>
> The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
> an unjustified war.
>

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that Clueless George
knows more about war than you will ever know. That's E-V-E-R.

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:16:28 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"larry moe 'n curly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>>
>> dbu, wrote:
>>
>>> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
>>> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
>>> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
>>> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
>>> in.
>>
>> 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
>> positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
>> about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
>> war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
>> because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
>> invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.
>>
>> The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
>> an unjustified war.
>>
>
>I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that Clueless George
>knows more about war than you will ever know. That's E-V-E-R.
>
For sure!

Moe will be singing a different tune when a terrorist attack occurs in
his neighborhood....



--

Scott in Florida

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>" dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news[email protected].
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "ToMh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> > I'm supporting the Pres this time. First time I felt that they are
>>>> > being upfront about things and are finally willing to admit mistakes
>>>> > and change the course. We can't let Iraq slip into Iranian and Syrian
>>>> > control.
>>>> > Having Iran control the 2nd largest oil reserve would be devastating.
>>>> > Even though I feel they probably screwed it up beyond repair, we
>>>> > should
>>>> > support this last effort.
>>>> >
>>>> > They need to have more troops to be able to actually keep the
>>>> > insurgents out. The way it's been is just like VietNam. They chase
>>>> > the
>>>> > enemy away, then move on, only to have them come right back. The
>>>> > other
>>>> > thing they need to do is to actually build back up the
>>>> > infrustructure,
>>>> > so that people can have services, safety and not feel the need to
>>>> > join
>>>> > these millitias for protection.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Iraqi army is a disaster, according to all sources, and I do mean
>>>> *ALL*.
>>>>
>>>> The Iraqi police have been infiltrated by every form of rat imaginable.
>>>> Nobody trusts them.
>>>>
>>>> Insurgents seem to have found a new weapon: 13 year old kids loaded
>>>> with
>>>> explosives. No more pictures of American soldiers being friendly with
>>>> kids.
>>>> That's over.
>>>>
>>>> We just pissed off the Kurds, our only sorta kinda ally in the country.
>>>>
>>>> Got a plan?
>>>
>>> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
>>> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
>>> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
>>> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
>>> in.
>>
>>
>> Considering that after 9/11, other terrorist attacks have been in London,
>> Spain and Indonesia, I think it's not worth a try. We've already seen
>> that our presence in Iraq does not necessarily stop terrorist attacks.
>>
>
> I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with you. While the exact
> words you spout here are accurate, I can't help but wonder if you
> understand what they mean.
>
> IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STOP ANY AND ALL TERRORIST ATTACKS FROM EVER
> HAPPENING. Not possible. Ever. At all.
>
> The reason is, to stop any and all terrorists attacks that might ever
> happen, we have to be 100% right every minute of every day, forever. If
> you really want to be free of any terrorist attack, then you are living in
> a dream world. It is impossible to protect against terrorist atttack. The
> very best we can hope for is to derail a few attacks on occasion, and to
> respond better to any attack once it has happened.
>
> While our presence in Iraq might not foil all terrorist attacks, there is
> every reason to believe that our absence from Iraq would likely lead to
> more attacks.


Which "every reason", Jeff? How many people does it take to carry out a
sophisticated attack? 5? 10? 15? We have not, and cannot seal the borders
or Iraq, nor have we tried. If a group wants out, they'll get out.
Hopefully, they will have a harder time getting INTO this country than OUT
of Iraq.

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "larry moe 'n curly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> dbu, wrote:
>>
>>> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
>>> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
>>> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
>>> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
>>> in.
>>
>> 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
>> positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
>> about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
>> war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
>> because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
>> invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.
>>
>> The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
>> an unjustified war.
>>
>
> I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that Clueless
> George knows more about war than you will ever know. That's E-V-E-R.


Jeff, the only reason that would be true is that he's got a little bit of a
head start with CERTAIN kinds of knowledge - the kind you get from
professional advisors, like generals. However, according to his own
admissions, he was way behind some of us on day #1 of his presidency. He
explicitly stated that he doesn't read much, and that is why he is failing
now. That saying about being doomed to repeat history if you are ignorant of
it - it's true, and he is demonstrating that right now.

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

" dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected].
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "larry moe 'n curly" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> dbu, wrote:
>>
>> > This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
>> > in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
>> > then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
>> > be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to
>> > pitch
>> > in.
>>
>> 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
>> positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
>> about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
>> war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
>> because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
>> invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.
>>
>> The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
>> an unjustified war.
>
> The ground troops are going to secure Bagdad. The Navy will take care
> of the rest. Watch and see.


Do you know why, in the past, our troops did not remain in Sadr City?

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

Jeff Strickland wrote:

> IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STOP ANY AND ALL TERRORIST ATTACKS FROM EVER
> HAPPENING. Not possible. Ever. At all.

"Any and all" or just "all"? Because what you wrote means that every
attack will succeed, which hasn't been the track record.

> The reason is, to stop any and all terrorists attacks that might ever
> happen, we have to be 100% right every minute of every day, forever.

Or just be perceived as too risky a target for the terrorists, as the
US has been since 9/11.

> If you really want to be free of any terrorist attack, then you are living in a
> dream world. It is impossible to protect against terrorist atttack. The very
> best we can hope for is to derail a few attacks on occasion, and to respond
> better to any attack once it has happened.
>
> While our presence in Iraq might not foil all terrorist attacks, there is
> every reason to believe that our absence from Iraq would likely lead to more
> attacks.

But we'd be even safer if we had never invaded Iraq because there
wouldn't be any terrorists in Iraq (except in the north, where our
"friends" the Kurds are in control), Iran would have a formidable enemy
next door, and every one of our enemies would still be in awe of our
invasion of Afghanistan.

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

In article <[email protected]>,
"larry moe 'n curly" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> > "larry moe 'n curly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
>
> > > 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
> > > positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
> > > about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win.
>
> > > The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
> > > an unjustified war.
> >
> > I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that Clueless George
> > knows more about war than you will ever know. That's E-V-E-R.
>
> Everybody knows more about the war than GW Bush does, even newborn
> squirrels.

Only in your own mind.
--

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

In article <[email protected]>,
"JoeSpareBedroom" <[email protected]> wrote:

> " dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected].
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "larry moe 'n curly" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> dbu, wrote:
> >>
> >> > This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
> >> > in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
> >> > then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
> >> > be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to
> >> > pitch
> >> > in.
> >>
> >> 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
> >> positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
> >> about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
> >> war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
> >> because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
> >> invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.
> >>
> >> The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
> >> an unjustified war.
> >
> > The ground troops are going to secure Bagdad. The Navy will take care
> > of the rest. Watch and see.
>
>
> Do you know why, in the past, our troops did not remain in Sadr City?

Do you? Please press me with your knowledge.
--

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

" dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected].
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> " dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news[email protected].
>> > In article <[email protected]googlegroups.com>,
>> > "larry moe 'n curly" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> dbu, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't
>> >> > happen
>> >> > in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the
>> >> > U.S.
>> >> > then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps
>> >> > will
>> >> > be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to
>> >> > pitch
>> >> > in.
>> >>
>> >> 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
>> >> positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
>> >> about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win.
>> >> This
>> >> war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
>> >> because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
>> >> invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.
>> >>
>> >> The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to
>> >> start
>> >> an unjustified war.
>> >
>> > The ground troops are going to secure Bagdad. The Navy will take care
>> > of the rest. Watch and see.
>>
>>
>> Do you know why, in the past, our troops did not remain in Sadr City?
>
> Do you? Please press me with your knowledge.
> --
>

I don't know. My theory is that the place is a shooting gallery. Controlling
it will require shooting anything that moves, including little kids,
especially since a 13 year old boy was used as a bomb carrier today or
yesterday. So, in order to control the area, we will be immediately
perceived as villains when we begin killing innocent people.

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

dbu, wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "larry moe 'n curly" <[email protected]> wrote:

> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will be a
> wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch in.
> >
> > 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
> > positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
> > about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win.

> > The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
> > an unjustified war.
>
> The ground troops are going to secure Bagdad. The Navy will take care
> of the rest. Watch and see.

Why do you think it will work when the original invasion plan called
for 380,000 soldiers?

And what will the navy do that they haven't done already with air
attacks?

> The other nations don't get it enough yet. Let them have more terrorist
> attacks and they will get the message, maybe.

Let no one experience terror attacks, except the terrorists themselves.

The people who don't get it are the ones that assumed Iraq under Saddam
was involved with international terrorism.

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

" dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected].

>
> The ground troops are going to secure Bagdad. The Navy will take care
> of the rest. Watch and see.
>


The navy? One of the biggest problems we need to deal with is Sadr City, a
tightly packed slum that's so dangerous, our soldiers prefer to avoid the
place. It's urban warfare at its worst, insurgents completely blended in
with the general population.

You sound pretty sure about the navy. What are they doing to do? At least
take a guess.

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> "ToMh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > I'm supporting the Pres this time. First time I felt that they are
> > being upfront about things and are finally willing to admit mistakes
> > and change the course. We can't let Iraq slip into Iranian and
> > Syrian control.
> > Having Iran control the 2nd largest oil reserve would be
> > devastating. Even though I feel they probably screwed it up beyond
> > repair, we should support this last effort.
> >
> > They need to have more troops to be able to actually keep the
> > insurgents out. The way it's been is just like VietNam. They chase
> > the enemy away, then move on, only to have them come right back.
> > The other thing they need to do is to actually build back up the
> > infrustructure, so that people can have services, safety and not
> > feel the need to join these millitias for protection.
> >
>
>
> The Iraqi army is a disaster, according to all sources, and I do mean
> ALL.
>
> The Iraqi police have been infiltrated by every form of rat
> imaginable. Nobody trusts them.
>
> Insurgents seem to have found a new weapon: 13 year old kids loaded
> with explosives. No more pictures of American soldiers being friendly
> with kids. That's over.
>
> We just pissed off the Kurds, our only sorta kinda ally in the
> country.
>
> Got a plan?

What is the Democratic leaderships plan to keep the Iraqi oil out of
Iran's hands? Talk nice to them and hope they play nice?

 

[Guest]

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

larry moe 'n curly wrote:

> 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
> positive in Iraq,

What will make a difference is a change in the rules of engagement.
The moment the handcuffs are taken off our soldier's hands they will be
able to ferret out these vermin and show them we mean business.
Nothing less than a total ass-kicking will be get their attention or
make any difference. LET THEM LOOSE!!!