Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty0311
There you go again with the past. What we should have done is critisized by liberals who has no plan at the time of action yet they bash bush for his plans at the same time. The fact is at least bush had a plan. He doesent have the luxery of waiting untill something goes wrong before he derives his plans and actions and blames them on someone elts
. the fact that things have gone bad is irrelevent because the democrats did nothing then just like they are doing nothing now to ensure victory in iraq. They love to critisize the past where they also had no plan. I dont understand this
|
I think the old adage of “If you don’t learn from the mistakes of the past, you’re destine to repeat them” is never more pertinent than in this case.
All the Democrats could do is what they did, call for the ouster of Rumsfeld and hire someone with a new and better strategy. Those pleas were ignored. The administration ignored all those Generals who came out against the Presidents plan. The Democrats weren’t in any position to institute an alternative plan. It was GWB’s call, and he failed to make it.
Quote:
|
Terror percieves the US as weak because we are devided and both the terrorists and the liberals exploit this to their benifit. the way the enemy thinks we should fight this war is to be just as ruthless as they are whch isnt an option for us Grey now is it?
|
No it’s not an option for us, and I never said it was. Let me ask you this; what happened to, what was at the time, the sixth largest army in the world? Did they disappear into outer space? No, they took off their uniforms, buried their weapons, and faded into the background only to fight another day. We failed by letting this happen. We went cheap with a minimal amount of ground forces, and let our enemy go.
Quote:
|
Winning the war has always been number one on the forghin policy list. More troops can only help things in iraq. More raids, smaller areas of operation, more overwatch, less enemy traffick, more freedom to walk the streets for the iraqis, Less violence, more show of force presence, Less ied's, more detailed serches, less wepon cashaes, more detainees, less terrorist funding, etc etc etc.... I could go on all day. Just on company can help an entire city like ramadi. Bush is sending much more than that! You would need to understand how to combat terror to understand the reason for the troop surge. thoes who critisize this surge have no clue on militery operations on urban terrain in a terror enviroment. This includes you greay! I would have loved to have had more troops in ar ramadi when i was there!
|
Again, if we had gone into Iraq with an overwhelming force, and captured their army instead of letting them go, secured their munitions stockpiles instead of allowing them to use them on us at a future date, we wouldn’t still be fighting an Urban war. Had we sent an overwhelming force to Iraq and secured the country, there wouldn’t have been an influx of foreign combatants and Terrorists.
GWB and General Petraeus has asked us to give the President’s surge a chance to work…in essences, trust us…again. After this much time and this many failures, the question is: why should we trust him again. There have been at least five “surges” in the past four years, none have produced the expected results, what makes them think this one will work?