More Troops, Less Troops, or.... Both?

[maineman]

duh...we're having a discussion here dixie...not writing OP Plans for crissakes!

I have already come out and said that I could support your plan. We all want to find a way out of Iraq....

 

[maineman]

you don't expect Dixie to have read anything that Feingold put out, do you? He gets all his talking points from talk radio.

 

[uscitizen]

Re: Vietnam.... what sort of alternate ending would the neocons have wanted and how many more americans were they willing to sacrifice to get it? Here we have a neocon president pressing hard for fully normalized trade relations with Vietnam.... what more could they possibly want? What would the outcome of their alternate vision of "victory" have looked like and would it be any better than what exists today?

From my perspective, Vietnam, today, is in a relatively good place and the war protesters who were successful in stopping that hideous conflict and saving tens of thousands of American lives really created no signficant "downside".

I actually agree with Dixie's original premise that we might want to ramp up troop strength with a total focus on TRAINING and do so for a very very limited period of time....time measured in weeks and months, not years. But after that allotted time has passed, if Iraqis aren't willing to stand up for their own united sovereignty, we should admit that the entire affair was a terrible foolish mistake on the part of the Bush administration and leave Iraq to the Iraqis to solve. Thinking that a crusader christian army is going to create peace in a muslim arab nation is pure folly and we need to realize that ASAP. At this point, there are many worse outcomes than an Iraq divided into Sunni-stan, Shia-stan and Kurdistan, even if Turkey isn't particularly fond of that option. At least that way, only part of Iraq will fall under the control of the wacky theocratic shia persians in Iran.

Why train more troops that we will quite possibly have to fight in the future ?
Ohh I see like we did with AQ

 

[Cypress]

I've not heard any "progressive" argue for any kind of redeployment except getting completely the hell out of Iraq.



FEINGOLD CONTINUES PUSH FOR A TIMETABLE FOR IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT

Feingold Introduces Measure Requiring Vast Majority of U.S. Troops to Redeploy from Iraq by Mid-2007

November 14, 2006

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold today introduced legislation requiring U.S. forces to redeploy from Iraq by July 1, 2007. The legislation, which builds on an amendment Feingold authored earlier this year, would allow for a minimal number of U.S. forces to remain in Iraq for targeted counter-terrorism activities, training of Iraqi security forces, and the protection of U.S. infrastructure and personnel.

“Redeploying our troops will pressure the Iraqi government to get its political house in order while allowing us to re-focus on global terrorist organizations and trouble spots that threaten our national security,” Feingold said. “It simply doesn't make sense to continue devoting so much of our resources to one country while ignoring the growing threats we face around the world.”

In August 2005, Feingold became the first U.S. Senator to propose a target date for the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. Earlier this year, Feingold cosponsored an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that would have required the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007. In September, Feingold also introduced a resolution addressing the need to strengthen our efforts in Afghanistan so as to prevent that country from again becoming a key staging ground for terrorists.

**********************************************************


I don't know if deploying US troops on the syrian border is neccessary. Maybe, maybe not. The fact is, our own military says only 2-3% of the insurgents are foreign fighters. I'm open-minded to experts to hash that out.

The point is, to redeploy our troops out of the urban areas, to neighboring countries, to northern kurdistan, and most importantly out of the middle of a civil war in iraq. They have no business fighting Iraqi's civil war for them. We need to focus on terrorism.

As feingold suggests, I'm open to leaving force protection and counter terrorism units, and trainers in Iraq if neccessary. That's just arguing about the margins of the issue. The basic strategy of strategic redeployment - on a timetable - makes sense to me.

 

[Battleborne]

Lol...

you get borne ten yards from the goal line and think you are a football star?Don't stick your nose into something about which you know next to nothing.

Dixie and I go way back...and we have a rather acrimonious history... I would recommend that, unless you wish for you and me to develop such a history , you just keep your fucking nose out of this...mmmmmk?

great.

Borne ten yards from the goaline...that was a cute cliche'...however I am a little older and equally experienced in this field as you...and by the way I was a 'Football Star' back in the day!
Like you said to someone else...this is just a internet message board...don't get your panties in a wad...polywog!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

it has been painful to watch....

and the way that idiots like Dixie and SR continue even to this day to glorify this terrible president and his terrible foreign policy and his even more inept execution OF that policy is shameful.

Yah Yah Yah... do you ever go out of hate-Bush mode? I've said all along, there are things Bush and Rumy have done wrong, there have been tactical mistakes made, things could have been handled differently, and it's a shame we don't have the luxury of hindsight, when planning a war. The bottom line is, there is no such thing as a perfect war plan.

We've argued this point before, the original idea to replace Saddam with Democracy in Iraq, became a part of US Foreign Policy under Clinton. Yeah, I know, the original plan was to fund insurgent groups within Iraq to accomplish this, but we tried it and it didn't work. That doesn't change or alter the original idea that replacing Saddam with Democracy was a good idea. It's important to understand, I am not making this point to justify the war, just the foreign policy. The war is justified on a host of other issues, such as disregarding repeated final warnings from the UN.

When we talk about mistakes Bush has made, the very first mistake he made, was selling the war heavily, on the WMD issue. In my opinion, and based on information I have seen, the connection between his regime and alQaeda was a much more viable issue, and should have been the primary focus instead of the WMD's. The second big mistake was going to the UN and expecting them to do the right thing. Bush should have done as Clinton did, and just started bombing. I would have started with his presidential palaces first.

The thing is, we can talk about 'what if' all day long, we can re-debate every issue again and again, we can continue to dwell on the past and condemn Bush, but it does absolutely nothing to help solve the current problem. In order to do that, we have to set the past aside for a moment, and focus on the present and future. Leaving Iraq unfinished and unable to stand on her own, would be an even bigger blunder than anything you have suggested regarding the decisions to go to war in the first place. We simply can't afford to drop the ball here, too many people have put their faith in us, and are trusting that we will see this through, and if we fail them, we'll have sealed our fate with them forever.

 

[Battleborne]

Re: Vietnam.... what sort of alternate ending would the neocons have wanted and how many more americans were they willing to sacrifice to get it? Here we have a neocon president pressing hard for fully normalized trade relations with Vietnam.... what more could they possibly want? What would the outcome of their alternate vision of "victory" have looked like and would it be any better than what exists today?

From my perspective, Vietnam, today, is in a relatively good place and the war protesters who were successful in stopping that hideous conflict and saving tens of thousands of American lives really created no signficant "downside".


First and foremost...we were within three months of total victory in VN ie 75'
Where the war went wrong is when the MSN made a total error reporting on the TET offensive ie..1968 it was a total blunder on the part of the NVA we kicked their collective asses...even the General in charge of the NVA has stated this...and when Jane (Hanoi)Fonda went to N/VN and slept with the enemy it gave them the boost they needed to continue the fight!Alot of young lives were lost via Janes loving support...and then we have Lt.Kerry the self appointed war hero...who told outright lies of what went on in VN...as if this idiot really saw what he said was going on..This also gave the NVA the boost it needed to continue the fight causing numerous casualties of our young troops...and for the record had we finished the fight VN would have been united and would have prospered all these years as South Korea has...

 

[Cypress]

Yah Yah Yah... do you ever go out of hate-Bush mode? I've said all along, there are things Bush and Rumy have done wrong, there have been tactical mistakes made, things could have been handled differently, and it's a shame we don't have the luxury of hindsight, when planning a war. The bottom line is, there is no such thing as a perfect war plan.

We've argued this point before, the original idea to replace Saddam with Democracy in Iraq, became a part of US Foreign Policy under Clinton. Yeah, I know, the original plan was to fund insurgent groups within Iraq to accomplish this, but we tried it and it didn't work. That doesn't change or alter the original idea that replacing Saddam with Democracy was a good idea. It's important to understand, I am not making this point to justify the war, just the foreign policy. The war is justified on a host of other issues, such as disregarding repeated final warnings from the UN.

When we talk about mistakes Bush has made, the very first mistake he made, was selling the war heavily, on the WMD issue. In my opinion, and based on information I have seen, the connection between his regime and alQaeda was a much more viable issue, and should have been the primary focus instead of the WMD's. The second big mistake was going to the UN and expecting them to do the right thing. Bush should have done as Clinton did, and just started bombing. I would have started with his presidential palaces first.

snip

"When we talk about mistakes Bush has made, the very first mistake he made, was selling the war heavily, on the WMD issue. In my opinion, and based on information I have seen, the connection between his regime and alQaeda was a much more viable issue, and should have been the primary focus instead of the WMD's.


United States Senate Bipartisan Iraq Intelligence Investigation - Phase 2

Released September 8 2006

-Conclusion : "Postwar finding indicate that the CIA assessment that the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda resembled "two independent actors trying to exploit each other," accurately characterized bin Ladin's actions, but not those of Saddam Hussein. Postwar finding indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of Al Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from Al Qaeda to provide material or operations support.

-Conclusion: "Postwar findings indicate Zarqawi was in Bagdad from May 2002 until late November 2003. Postwar assessment indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfuly to locate and capture Zarqawi and that the regime DID NOT have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. "

 

[Cypress]

Re: Vietnam.... what sort of alternate ending would the neocons have wanted and how many more americans were they willing to sacrifice to get it? Here we have a neocon president pressing hard for fully normalized trade relations with Vietnam.... what more could they possibly want? What would the outcome of their alternate vision of "victory" have looked like and would it be any better than what exists today?

From my perspective, Vietnam, today, is in a relatively good place and the war protesters who were successful in stopping that hideous conflict and saving tens of thousands of American lives really created no signficant "downside".


First and foremost...we were within three months of total victory in VN ie 75'
Where the war went wrong is when the MSN made a total erronious era reporting on the TET offensive ie..1968 it was a total blunder on the part of the NVA we kicked their collective asses...even the General in charge of the NVA has stated this...and when Jane (Hanoi)Fonda went to N/VN and slept with the enemy it gave them the boost they needed to continue the fight!Alot of young lives were lost via Janes loving support...and then we have Lt.Kerry the self appointed war hero...who told outright lies of what went on in VN...as if this idiot really saw what he said was going on..This also gave the NVA the boost it needed to continue the fight causing numerous casualties of our young troops...and for the record had we finished the fight VN would have been united and would have prospered all these years as South Korea has...

First and foremost...we were within three months of total victory in VN ie 75'


As a vietnam vet, you should know that there weren't any american combat forces in Vietnam in 1975.

 

[Battleborne]

Thats true...

First and foremost...we were within three months of total victory in VN ie 75'


As a vietnam vet, you should know that there weren't any american combat forces in Vietnam in 1975.

The pull out was in 74...I made the point ie 75' as the starting point of VN victory party!

 

[Cypress]

The pull out was in 74...I made the point ie 75' as the starting point of VN victory party!

BB: "First and foremost...we were within three months of total victory in VN ie 75'"

LOL. Some Vietnam Vet you are! I know more about the history of the war, than you do.

You said WE were within three months of victory in 1975. A year in which there were no american combat troops in Nam, and the ARVN were throwing down their rifles and running away from the NVA. The NVA rolled over the ARVN in 1975


American's role in the war was OVER in January 1973. And america hadn't played a major ground combat role in Vietnam since 1971 or 72 at the latest. The 1972 Easter offensive was fought mostly by the ARVN.


LOL

Some "vietnam vet" you are!

 

[Battleborne]

Excuse me....

BB: "First and foremost...we were within three months of total victory in VN ie 75'"

LOL. Some Vietnam Vet you are! I know more about the history of the war, than you do.

You said WE were within three months of victory in 1975. A year in which there were no american combat troops in Nam, and the ARVN were throwing down their rifles and running away from the NVA. The NVA rolled over the ARVN in 1975


American's role in the war was OVER in January 1973. And america hadn't played a major ground combat role in Vietnam since 1971 or 72 at the latest. The 1972 Easter offensive was fought mostly by the ARVN.


LOL

Some "vietnam vet" you are!

I ets'd in 1968...what you stated above was taken from a google search...and what you stated above about the ARVN is true via 1975...as you also stated we were no longer in the pic...thanks to y'all libs...ya caused alot of death among the South Vietnamese people in the Norths takeover...Again check your dates and compare them to the Jane Fonda and Lt.Kerry fisacos of being (imho) traitors! Libs and protestors caused the downfall...not the soldiers on the ground...!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"When we talk about mistakes Bush has made, the very first mistake he made, was selling the war heavily, on the WMD issue. In my opinion, and based on information I have seen, the connection between his regime and alQaeda was a much more viable issue, and should have been the primary focus instead of the WMD's.


United States Senate Bipartisan Iraq Intelligence Investigation - Phase 2

Released September 8 2006

-Conclusion : "Postwar finding indicate that the CIA assessment that the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda resembled "two independent actors trying to exploit each other," accurately characterized bin Ladin's actions, but not those of Saddam Hussein. Postwar finding indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of Al Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from Al Qaeda to provide material or operations support.

-Conclusion: "Postwar findings indicate Zarqawi was in Bagdad from May 2002 until late November 2003. Postwar assessment indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfuly to locate and capture Zarqawi and that the regime DID NOT have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. "

I understand what a bunch of politicians in Washington determined, but that doesn't discount the intelligence information, or the connection between alQaeda and Saddam's regime. You seem to continue making the mistake of assuming, when pinheads in D.C. can't "find credible evidence" of something, it doesn't just automatically mean that it doesn't exist and never did.

I'm not the smartest man in the world or anything, but I can reasonably assume that if a deceptive and lying megalomaniac and a deceitful international terror organization DID have any dealings, they probably didn't keep a whole lot of records and documents of it. Particularly, if the plan included giving alQaeda WMD technology, it would be advantageous to not leave a paper trail. In fact, the whole story about Saddam trying to capture Zarqawi, could be a complete cover for what was really happening. After all, capturing Zarqawi would have been fairly easy for Saddam, since he was being treated in a hospital run by Saddam's own son!

 

[Cypress]

BB: "First and foremost...we were within three months of total victory in VN ie 75'"

LOL. Some Vietnam Vet you are! I know more about the history of the war, than you do.

You said WE were within three months of victory in 1975. A year in which there were no american combat troops in Nam, and the ARVN were throwing down their rifles and running away from the NVA. The NVA rolled over the ARVN in 1975


American's role in the war was OVER in January 1973. And america hadn't played a major ground combat role in Vietnam since 1971 or 72 at the latest. The 1972 Easter offensive was fought mostly by the ARVN.


LOL

Some "vietnam vet" you are!

Long pause, as BB the heroic 7th Cav veteren of the 1965 vietnam A valley campaign, googles to learn about the Vietnam war, after his facts he asserted about the war were shown to be wildly incorrect.

 

[maineman]

Borne ten yards from the goaline...that was a cute cliche'...however I am a little older and equally experienced in this field as you...and by the way I was a 'Football Star' back in the day!
Like you said to someone else...this is just a internet message board...don't get your panties in a wad...polywog!

if you ARE experienced in the maineman-dixie duels, then why get YOUR panties in a bunch when I give him shit about living in a trailer park, asshole?

 

[Cypress]

I ets'd in 1968...what you stated above was taken from a google search...and what you stated above about the ARVN is true via 1975...as you also stated we were no longer in the pic...thanks to y'all libs...ya caused alot of death among the South Vietnamese people in the Norths takeover...Again check your dates and compare them to the Jane Fonda and Lt.Kerry fisacos of being (imho) traitors! Libs and protestors caused the downfall...not the soldiers on the ground...!

How is it that a heroic vietnam veteran, like yourself, thinks we were three months away from victory in 1975, when there weren't even any american combat forces in Nam in 1975 and the NVA was rolling over a frightened and demoralized ARVN in 1975?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How is it that a heroic vietnam veteran, like yourself, thinks we were three months away from victory in 1975, when there weren't even any american combat forces in Nam in 1975 and the NVA was rolling over a frightened and demoralized ARVN in 1975

Maybe because you ignorantly took what he said out of context, and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that?

"ie 75" indicates this was when BB anticipated we would have won, had we not withdrawn. You are correct, we weren't there in '75, which is why we didn't win in '75, as we should have, had we not 'redeployed'.

 

[maineman]

Dixie...since you agree that AQ's strategic mission is to destroy secular governments that exist in the territory comprising the former Islamic caliphate...can you please give me one good reason why Saddam would give WMD's (even if he had them, which we now know he did not) to an organization whose mission was the destruction of his government?

Regardless of the fact that both Saddam and Osama had "axes to grind" with the United States, why would Saddam give a loaded gun to a guy whose primary mission was to shoot him, even if another goal of the guy was to shoot one of Saddam's enemies?

 

[Battleborne]

No it wasn't...

Long pause, as BB the heroic 7th Cav veteren of the 1965 vietnam A valley campaign, googles to learn about the Vietnam war, after his facts he asserted about the war were shown to be wildly incorrect.

You are the one who googled the war history and threw out dates...I did not state the war ended in 75' reread...the ie75' comment...the pullout was 74 as I stated(when you challenged me)...the dates 71-73 you threw out were not mentioned by me in my original post...but I then answered you stating you should check the Jane Foinda and Lt.Kerry dates and compare...I gave a general overview...and you googled to try to trap me...so kiss my vets ass hippie draft dodger...aka politician! and I did not pause I was busy with something else...cypo man!

 

[maineman]

How is it that a heroic vietnam veteran, like yourself, thinks we were three months away from victory in 1975, when there weren't even any american combat forces in Nam in 1975 and the NVA was rolling over a frightened and demoralized ARVN in 1975

Maybe because you ignorantly took what he said out of context, and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that?

"ie 75" indicates this was when BB anticipated we would have won, had we not withdrawn. You are correct, we weren't there in '75, which is why we didn't win in '75, as we should have, had we not 'redeployed'.

Dixie.... do you have any reputable sources, besides you and battleweary, that would support this claim that we WOULD have been a few months away from victory if we had continued to pour young american cannon fodder into Vietnam?