If you support our troops we must bring an end to continuing the failed policy of becoming involved in the Iraq Civil War. No one fought our civil war for us and we should not be fighting the civil war for the Iraqi’s.

Pathetic.

IslandDog

You certainly are Pathetic. Supporting a failed policy that will continue killing Americans is WRONG!

As usual...personal attack based on emotion.

The democrats plan to vote against supporting our troops will backfire as usual.  Unbelieve that people would advocate leaving before the mission is completed.  Clinton did that and it showed our weakness and lack of resolve to the terrorists....the democrats are DOING IT AGAIN!

Right now the US military is turning over many locations to NATO in Afghanistan.  Eventually NATO will run it all.  But since the US is part of NATO we will continue to have troops there.

My husband is working NATO in Afghanistan right now and actively turning over several US held places to NATO.

I asked him if NATO was asking for more US troops.  He said, "no, we have plenty now."  So could you list your source please?

Also, just an FYI.  Currently the other NATO countries send very few troops compared to the US.  They could certainly send many more but there are political reasons in their countries which inhibit it right now (read...no one wants to be under the US's thumb).  The only way to get more troops from more nations involved is to turn it over to NATO, then let NATO deal with manning.

We are headed in that direction right now.

 

The pathetic part is the people there keep saying it was better under the Taliban. They don't bother to mention that it is the Taliban that keeps blowing up their power and water supply, who keep kidnapping and killing people trying to fix stuff, and generally making the place worse.

So it would be better under the people who are doing all the stuff making it worse. That's our problem in Afghanistan. It's full of people with the same political eccentricities as Col. Gene.

IslandDog

I would suggest you read the proposed resolution. It starts out by supporting our troops. What it does not support is the Surge that will place MORE of our troops in danger with no prospect of settling then civil war that rages in Iraq. Anyone that supports what Bush wants to do does NOT SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. Placing them in danger by invading a country that was no threat to the U.S. did not support our troops!!! Prolonging that mistake DOES NOT SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!!

You cannot have a resolution that opposes what Bush is doing, and then at the same time telling the troops "we support you".  Democrats could care less if we win this war, and this is just another example of them trying to undermine our troops.  It's pathetic.

I would suggest you read the proposed resolution. It does, basically, nothing. Don't you feel the least bit betrayed?

IslandDog

"You cannot have a resolution that opposes what Bush is doing, and then at the same time telling the troops we support you "

That is PURE BS. We can support our troops and oppose the President's policy. The truth is that sending more American Troops into a war that should NEVER have been fought in the first place is NOT IN ANY WAY SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS! Sending them off to be killed and injured in a war against a country that did not pose any danger to the U.S. and getting them in the middle of a Civil War is NOT supporting the troops.

The best way to support our troops is Impeach Bush and Cheney and given them a new Commander-in-Chief.

Wrong.  Only liberal logic believes that you can call the Commander-in-Chief a liar, vote against support for troops, rally against troops, try to hurt our troops by cutting off funding, and then say....."WE SUPPORT YOU". 

Your whole "Iraq was not a danger" is just rhetoric.  19 people with box cutters were not a threat either col!




And that is never going to happen.  There is absolutely NO REASON to impeach either!

This is for you, Col Gene, and it is you to a "T" . . .


toothpastefordinner.com

LOL

"You cannot have a resolution that opposes what Bush is doing, and then at the same time telling the troops "we support you". Democrats could care less if we win this war, and this is just another example of them trying to undermine our troops. It's pathetic."

Actually apparently the resolution does just that. Says they disapprove of the war handling by the President while authorizing additional troops.

Democrats are weaker then straw.

The only way to end this before 2008 is to cut off funding of the troops. Though I am not in favor of that, it is the only sure fire way to get us the hell out. I'm in favor of a scaled draw down, and re-deployment back to the States. Iraq is an Iraqi problem, Iran is our problem, and so is North Korea, as well as AQ.

If we removed the troops from Iraq, we could remove the focus of Iraq from the war on terror. The Iraqis who want freedom if that is true must stand and fight for it.

No amount of assistance from us, though we have given way more then a generous amount, way beyond that actually, deep into sacrifice to delineate the cost as best I can, still hasn't completed the job in Iraq, it has been almost 5 years now, with no military solution and agreement that a political solution is what will reduce the insurgency and also that reducing the violence is the goal.

Not democracy, not stopping the violence, not rebuilding the country. We cannot accomplish those things, until Iraqi's come together and fight for their own freedom, and achieve their own goals, modest as they are, "reducing the violence" and working through their problems not fighting through them.

You can no more force them to submit then you can expect them to comply. You have to hope for the best and allow them to choose what they want. If they want a war that will destroy their country, and then come to the table and figure out how to work together so be it. If they want to fore go a war and work together indefinetly as we have decided to do in our own country then all the better.

The point is we don't have the control to make that decision for them.

IslandDog

OUR Commander-in-Chief is a liar. He sent our military into a country that was not a danger to America and has gotten them bogged down in the middle of a Civil War. He has caused the death of 3,100 and injured 23,000. He has spent 3/4 of a Trillion dollars to destabilized Iraq and create millions of new enemies for our country. If you position is we should support this Commander-in-Chief --you are crazy.

I would suggest you read your own words. You scream that we did not have enough troops to quell the violence. Now that the President is sending in more troops that were asked for by the commanders on the ground, who have a plan to use them in a way that will make up for the sort fall in the beginning. The plan so far is working since the "Civil warrories" are running for cover in Iran before the troops have arrived. Orders have already been published that when the troops arrive and start to enforce the laws they are to run and hide until they leave. The so called civil war that had the opposition force walking the streets with guns have left the weapons at home. Gee if they are not walking the streets with guns won't less people be at risk? Won't it be hard to fight a "Civil War" if the people won't fight?

In Afghanistan you have the bad guys losing support as they fight only in good weather. The President sees this and wants to increase troops to meet the enemy as they come out of their winter vacation caves. I think that is a smart idea.