Since when did "not being in charge" stop these folks from interferring in the situation over there? For the past 2-1/2 years you haven't been able to turn on a television or radio or pick up a newspaper without finding one of them condemning the handling of this war or the troops serving over there. They sure have a sick way of supporting our troops.

I sincerely hate to say this but in this war I think we should be more like Sherman and less like Forrest

Lookagain, true. But I think a 200,000 to 300,000 troop surge would be a little hard to miss. Personally, I think that a surge of this type would send a huge message. That message. We are not going to f..... around with this and anyone who gets in our way is dead.

__________________

Fear leads to Anger...Anger leads to Hate...Hate leads to Suffering.

Then perhaps it's time that the American people let Reid, Pelosi and Kennedy know that this is what it is going to take, and we won't take no for an answer. I know that a lot of people feel that the dems won because they want out of this war, but I don't see that. I think the American people would be more for this plan, than they would be for only 20,000 more troops. 20,000 more troops is just more of the same.

I think the Dems won the last election because the people got tired of having Democrat Lite in power and decided to go for the real thing. I think if you look at who actually won it was all moderate Dems who were trying to out conservative the conservatives.

I believe the people don't want us to just pull out, I think, if the truth be told, the people would not flinch if we nuked Baghdad tomorrow. I think we are still waiting for the shock and awe we were promised when this all began. What we got was a Harley Davidson, all show and no go!

William Sherman burned down every plantation, field, house and barn between Atlanta and Savannah. Within a year the War of Northern Agression was over. Perhaps we need another Sherman in Iraq

And Kix, none of the squaking on the tv radio or in the newspapers has stopped Bush from doing anything he has wanted. I believe I support our troops, but I don't agree with the handling of this war either. After the first shock and awe, we should have gone in with the 2nd shock and awe (major troops) and kicked some ass. Nothing, absolutely nothing stopped Bush and Co. from doing this. Now we have some pussy-footin dems (and I don't believe they are the majority) that want to spout off at the mouth. You know what, they won't cut funding, because it will make them look very bad, especially if things go sour in Iraq, and it's only 2 years tell elections.

Nathan, I agree with you wholeheartedly. People talk about winning the hearts and minds, and that you can't do that if you fight this war with full force. We want them to be our allies when we're done. Fine. We bombed the shit out of Japan and the last time I checked they are our staunch allies.

Hi freedomlover. I have some military background/knowledge....so, I'll way in on your ideas.

Certainly, a good idea, but very, very hard to do. Those borders are very porous and remote in some areas. We don't have the manpower nor the assets to really shut down the borders. Pulling out of Baghdad, Al Anbar, etc. might make it easier, but I'm not sure we can pull out of those places right now.

We could try to do that, but I'm not sure what effects threats and actual strikes will have. It could just inflame people and exacerbate the problem. We certainly can't put boots on the ground in either country and both know this.

We have tried this, both diplomacy and harsh dealings......neither seem to work. Part of the problem is that there are so many factions within the factions that it's hard to come to a consensus. Then you have the Al Qaeda types constantly blowing up the Shiites, it's hard to keep the diplomacy ball rolling.

I agree, but, first, you must quell the violence.

Those would be good notes to leave on.

We just don't have those numbers of combat troops available for a surge. I don't know how many we have, but I believe a massive surge will break the bank so to speak.

They certainly could. Don't know what the threshold for quelling the violence is for them to come in.

Yep. The original plan in 2003 was that Iraqi oil would pay for most of the US occupation (which was supposed to end by December 2003). This war has cost us a lot of money. If we are successful in quelling the violence, keeping outside influences to a minimum, and creating a unified Iraqi nation, we might as well go the extra mile.

One of the things we did after nuking Japan was to stick around and rebuild the country. We eliminated the warlords, stablized the economy and protected them from outside influences. I think this is what our mission is in Iraq at the present. We have "won" the first battle, we have toppled Saddam, we have seen a democratic government installed, we have seen an improvement in the general lives of the population. What we need to do now is to insure those gains are not lost and occupation is the only way to do that.

One of the differences between WW2 and this one is that when it was over it was over. Iraq is just the first battle in a long and protracted war between Middle Eastern and Western civilization. If we now lose Iraq back to anti American insurgents all will have been for naught and while we may not have to fight Syria or Iran this year before the end of this decade we will.

This is not going away just because a very vocal group hates George Bush and are willing to undermine him at every step. Radical Islam is on the march and we had better do everything in our power to stop it