....wow just imagine how the world would be different if we'd dumped half a trillion dollars on actually fighting terrorism...
well you got me there.
I'm not a fan of the pres. right now, and may never be again.
You may have missed the part where Rumsfeld left, and 2 top Generals
were removed.
I have heard what the new/current General has said though, and he hasn't
had his chance totally yet.
long before Gen Pertaeus was put it his current position, when I first thought
it looked like civil war, I said I thought a withdrawal back to secure the borders
was needed. Didn't happen, and the insurgents got way worse.
That was then. Now it's a totally different situation.
A new plan was voted on, and approved, overwhelmingly. Now halfway through,
some people and the congress want to give up on it.
I did too, before I had more facts. Mainly about time-lines.
I, as many, maybe most, were fed-up with the lack of progress, but
what I didn't factor in was intelligence that I'm not privy to, and what
Gen Pertaeus believes can be done, and the best way to do it.
your comment was proximate to "something worthwhile" so i done thought that's what you meant.
okay. i suppose WW2 had a point.
2minkey said:one could even suggest that "containing communism" was a more coherent goal than that of the current endeavor. i mean, gee, at least where we went they HAD COMMIES BEFORE WE GOT THERE. in iraq the real international terrorists (as opposed to local thugs) showed up AFTER we did.
and of course it has everything to do with media misinformation.
2minkey said:while you couch commandos chart the destiny of western civilization, i'm going to go take a nice, fluffy dump.
let me know when you're done and we'll compare our findings.
Iraq-staging base against terrorism. I guess 9-11 never happened.
I personally will be voicing my support for the generals on the ground, not
the politicians.
Bush doesn't seem to like to listen to the generals on the ground.
http://www.votevets.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=289&Itemid=102
I'm talking about the "currently Active" top gens.
Clark is a quack.
When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against.
Bush talks frequently of his disdain for micromanaging the war effort and for second-guessing his commanders. "It's important to trust the judgment of the military when they're making military plans," he told The Washington Post in an interview last month. "I'm a strict adherer to the command structure."
But over the past two months, as the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated and U.S. public support for the war has dropped, Bush has pushed back against his top military advisers and the commanders in Iraq: He has fashioned a plan to add up to 20,000 troops to the 132,000 U.S. service members already on the ground. As Bush plans it, the military will soon be "surging" in Iraq two months after an election that many Democrats interpreted as a mandate to begin withdrawing troops.
Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.