lets here it for bush

moneyman

moneyman

Member
Originally Posted by team2jndd
I think if not for the war, nobody would question Bush as a president. He has done a great job with the economy. I have two brothers who each served two years in Iraq. One is still there and he supports this war so I have no reason not to. If your only reason for bashing him is that hes hurting our troops, yet all the troops seem to support him, whats the problem? I have hated this war all along because Ive seen my brothers once in the past two years but thats what the millitary does.
The ramp up of the military provided me with endless supply of defense related work. All my dot com laid-off friends are enjoying their fat wallets working as for defense contractors. I will thank Bush for that.
I never supported his policies on Iraq. There are massive killing daily yet we are as hated throughout the world. Our only true ally Tony Blair wont be in office comes Sept 2007. If the Brits do reduce force, our new fresh 20k troops will fill in that gap nicely. It is a fact that our military is stretched thin and asked to do the impossible.
Unfortunately for Bush, he wont go down in history as a great economist. He will go down the history as the President who started but can not finish the Iraq Conflict.
 
watson3

watson3

Active Member
Originally Posted by Sharkboy13
al qaeda is trying to say something.... i think theyre saying "GO AWAAAAY!".
This is a sign that we are doing the righ thing
 
sharkboy13

sharkboy13

Active Member
well i think if we r going to stay in iraq, which we have to anyway we should not send the whole 20k to iraq, maybe 5k and send more to pakistan and afghanistan to search for bin laden, more nets catch more fishes
 
f14peter

f14peter

Member
Without addressing the rightness/wrongness of the war, or the actions of politicians, I'll attempt to explain why more troops were sent.
It's not a case of merely throwing more people at the problem hoping to solve it by overwhelming it. At its very base level, it can be broken down into pure math along with the change in strategy. It takes X-number of troops to perform particular tasks and the stategy change demands new tasks.
There are many kinds of war . . . wars of conquest, wars of liberation, wars over geographical control, wars of attrition, and others. Up to now this has been a war of attrition, simply making the other side consume their resources until they're no longer able to continue. This usually requires no real control over specific geographical areas, and thus military units would conduct clearing operations in one area (Such as a district or neighborhood), and then move on to another when they were done. The downside of this type of operation means that the enemy can (And often did) move back in once you're gone. However, the new strategy is clearing and controlling, which means troops must stay in an area after it's cleared to prevent the "move-back" of enemy forces. That simply means that more troops are required to maintain physical control over cleared areas and continue clearing operations in others.
Again, not addressing anything other than the reasons behind troop increases, and not necessarily related to this particular situation, this is an age-old military approach.
 
watson3

watson3

Active Member
Originally Posted by Sharkboy13
well i think if we r going to stay in iraq, which we have to anyway we should not send the whole 20k to iraq, maybe 5k and send more to pakistan and afghanistan to search for bin laden, more nets catch more fishes
You have no idea how few 20k is..The original request and a fair number was closer to the 100s of thousands..Dynamite also catches fish
 
moneyman

moneyman

Member
Originally Posted by watson3
You have no idea how few 20k is..The original request and a fair number was closer to the 100s of thousands..Dynamite also catches fish
I wonder how many of those 20k are combat... and how many are logistics..
Originally Posted by watson3
What is it that you do?
I work with data networks.
 
sharkboy13

sharkboy13

Active Member
Originally Posted by watson3
You have no idea how few 20k is..The original request and a fair number was closer to the 100s of thousands..Dynamite also catches fish
well i figured it was fairly large since its more than evry town in my county combined
 
oceanists

oceanists

Active Member
Flame me all you want but ....
I support our soldiers.....
However I do not support the president....
The label of this war has been changed 3 times now, they might as well finalize it and call it Bush's civil war.
If I were asked to goto war, it wouldnt happen , I would rather die than fight for something I dont believe in..... I cant believe in what we are fighting for because at this point I dont KNOW what we are fighting for , and when asked this questioned nobody can seem to give a straight answer.
Is this war really that important.
I think not.
God bless the USA but we are playing world police and it will cost us at a later date.
 
nigerbang

nigerbang

Active Member
Watson..I thank you for all of your service...
Further more I stand behind my president fully...John Kerry voted for the war..
Then wanted to pull funding.."Let them fight a war..but dont give them any means to"..Great guy..Gas is the price it is..thats it..Call OPEC and tell them you are pissed..Supply-vs-Demand...Simple
We have seen a DT for the enemy its around 35,000..in 2005 our total is around 3600..Big difference..WMD..Come on now..We gave them 2-3 months warning..Mobilized..Syria doesnt want us at all..Something like Step across the border and get lit up...But I dont think they are hiding stuff...
As far as wars go..Lets remember Vietnam and how many troops we lost and WHO got us in that mess...
 
oceanists

oceanists

Active Member
Also I understand that Kerry wouldnt have been any better.... and its true that if we withdraw now there will probably be severe consequences this is the trouble Bush has gotten us into. As stated earlier by somebody else , Im paying more for gas now than I ever have.... I dont know if that can be blamed directly on the war but im sure it has something to do with it.
The only good thing is Bush cant be elected again.
So we just have to ride it out as a nation and the when the election comes we have somewhat of a clean slate. But even at that time this war wont be over and their will be tough decisions to be made with some tough consequences
 
reefreak29

reefreak29

Active Member
Originally Posted by Sharkboy13
i see what bush wanted to do in iraq, "help" the iraqis, but so far as i can tell we've just made it worse. i agree maybe if we hadnt gone over there al qaeda might be on our doorstep, but they havent been, they been killin our boys over there. frankly i think becuz we cant draw out (we could, but shouldnt becuz that will make matters worse since we've now become iraqs big brother) we should stay over there but it will definetely be a loong time since the iraqi "democracy" is a feeble embryo, not even a baby an embryo. im independant but i think that the war is a bit out of hand, we've lost like 3,000 troops? and there r even more dead iraqis. al qaeda is trying to say something.... i think theyre saying "GO AWAAAAY!". frankly the iraqis did live under a cruel dictator who did gas them, but i dont think he had done it for years so what was the point? its like going after ophiura or somebody experienced and insulting them for being a newbie at one point, it just doesnt make much sense
we might always be there just like korea, and the war wasnt just to help the iraqis it is to help protect the usa, why do people forget 911
 
oceanists

oceanists

Active Member
Originally Posted by NigerBang
Watson..I thank you for all of your service...
Further more I stand behind my president fully...John Kerry voted for the war..
Then wanted to pull funding.."Let them fight a war..but dont give them any means to"..Great guy..Gas is the price it is..thats it..Call OPEC and tell them you are pissed..Supply-vs-Demand...Simple
We have seen a DT for the enemy its around 35,000..in 2005 our total is around 3600..Big difference..WMD..Come on now..We gave them 2-3 months warning..Mobilized..Syria doesnt want us at all..Something like Step across the border and get lit up...But I dont think they are hiding stuff...
As far as wars go..Lets remember Vietnam and how many troops we lost and WHO got us in that mess...

When does UN come in and start doing their job .... this isnt our job
 
reefreak29

reefreak29

Active Member
Originally Posted by Oceanists
Also I understand that Kerry wouldnt have been any better.... and its true that if we withdraw now there will probably be severe consequences this is the trouble Bush has gotten us into. As stated earlier by somebody else , Im paying more for gas now than I ever have.... I dont know if that can be blamed directly on the war but im sure it has something to do with it.
The only good thing is Bush cant be elected again.
So we just have to ride it out as a nation and the when the election comes we have somewhat of a clean slate. But even at that time this war wont be over and their will be tough decisions to be made with some tough consequences
u think were paying alot for gas now just wait till the democrats use more ethanol in are gasoline , not only will gas go up but watch out for food prices
 
reefreak29

reefreak29

Active Member
Originally Posted by Oceanists
When does UN come in and start doing their job .... this isnt our job
when did the un ever do anything , they rely on use to do stuff
 
johnny84

johnny84

Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
u think were paying alot for gas now just wait till the democrats use more ethanol in are gasoline , not only will gas go up but watch out for food prices
Oh come one, our cheapest gas prices were when a democrat was in office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top