Olbermann on Bush's plan to "Sacrifice" more troops in Iraq

[Tock]

Links to the video located at:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...-on-sacrifice/


Keith Olbermann stepped up and slapped Bush's plan to use the word "sacrifice" as an excuse to send more troops to Iraq. Bush needs a new catch phrase to try and deceive the nation with, but Republican talking points won't work on the people anymore. They are fed up with Bush and this war and sending more troops to die is not an answer. John McCain and Lieberman will now wear the McCain Doctrine around their necks—as Bill Kristol drools with glee as he'll finally get his wish.

------------------ Text follows: -----------------

Finally tonight, a Special Comment about "Sacrifice."

If in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American serviceman or woman, would you intervene?

Would you at least protest?

What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them?

What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them — and was then to announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?

This is where we stand tonight with the BBC report of President Bush's "new Iraq strategy" and his impending speech to the nation, which it quotes a senior American official, will be about troop increases and "sacrifice."

The President has delayed, dawdled, and deferred for the month since the release of the Iraq Study Group.

He has seemingly heard out everybody… and listened to none of them.

If the BBC is right — and we can only pray it is not — he has settled on the only solution all the true experts agree, cannot possibly work: more American personnel in Iraq, not as trainers for Iraqi troops, but as part of some flabby plan for "sacrifice."

Sacrifice!

More American servicemen and women will have their lives risked.

More American servicemen and women will have their lives ended.

More American families will have to bear the unbearable, and rationalize the unforgivable — "sacrifice" — sacrifice now, sacrifice tomorrow, sacrifice forever.

And more Americans — more even than the two-thirds who already believe we need fewer troops in Iraq, not more — will have to conclude the President does not have any idea what he's doing - and that other Americans will have to die for that reason.

It must now be branded as propaganda — for even the President cannot truly feel that very many people still believe him to be competent in this area, let alone "the decider."

But from our impeccable reporter at the Pentagon, Jim Miklaszewski, tonight comes confirmation of something called "surge and accelerate" — as many as 20-thousand additional troops — for "political purposes"…

This, in line with what we had previously heard, that this will be proclaimed a short-term measure, for the stated purpose of increasing security in and around Baghdad, and giving an Iraqi government a chance to establish some kind of order.

This is palpable nonsense, Mr. Bush.

If this is your intention — if the centerpiece of your announcement next week will be "sacrifice" — sacrifice your intention, not more American lives!

As Senator Biden has pointed out, the new troops might improve the ratio our forces, face relative to those living in Baghdad (friend and foe), from 200 to 1, to just 100 to 1.

"Sacrifice?"

No.

A drop in the bucket.

The additional men and women you have sentenced to go there, sir, will serve only as targets.

They will not be there "short-term," Mr. Bush; for many it will mean a year or more in death's shadow.

This is not temporary, Mr. Bush.

For the Americans who will die because of you… it will be as permanent as it gets.

The various rationales for what Mr. Bush will reportedly re-christen "sacrifice," constitute a very thin gruel, indeed.

The former Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, says Senator McCain told him that the "surge" would help the "morale" of the troops already in Iraq.

If Mr. McCain truly said that, and truly believes it, he has either forgotten completely his own experience in Vietnam… or he is unaware of the recent Military Times poll indicating only 38 percent of our active military want to see more troops sent… or Mr. McCain has departed from reality.

Then there is the argument that to take any steps towards reducing troop numbers would show weakness to the enemy in Iraq, or to the terrorists around the world.

This simplistic logic ignores the inescapable fact that we have indeed already showed weakness to the enemy, and to the terrorists.

We have shown them that we will let our own people be killed, for no good reason.

We have now shown them that we will continue to do so.

We have shown them our stupidity.

Mr. Bush, your judgment about Iraq — and now about "sacrifice" — is at variance with your people's, to the point of delusion.

Your most respected generals see no value in a "surge" — they could not possibly see it in this madness of "sacrifice."

The Iraq Study Group told you it would be a mistake.

Perhaps dozens more have told you it would be a mistake.

And you threw their wisdom back, until you finally heard what you wanted to hear, like some child drawing straws and then saying "best two out of three… best three out of five… Hundredth one counts."

Your citizens, the people for whom you work, have told you they do not want this, and more over, they do not want you to do this.

Yet once again, sir, you have ignored all of us.

Mr. Bush, you do not own this country!

To those Republicans who have not broken free from the slavery of partisanship — those bonded still, to this President and this Administration — and now bonded to this "sacrifice" — proceed at your own peril.

John McCain may still hear the applause of small crowds — he has somehow inured himself to the hypocrisy, and the tragedy, of a man who considers himself the ultimate realist, courting the votes of those who support the government telling visitors to the Grand Canyon that it was caused by the Great Flood.

That Mr. McCain is selling himself off to the irrational Right, parcel by parcel, like some great landowner facing bankruptcy, seems to be obvious to everybody but himself.

Or, maybe it is obvious to him — and he simply no longer cares.

But to the rest of you in the Republican Party.

We need you to speak up, right now, in defense of your country's most precious assets — the lives of its citizens who are in harm's way.

If you do not, you are not serving this nation's interests — nor your own.

Last November should have told you this.

The opening of the new Congress tomorrow and Thursday, should tell you this.

Next time, those missing Republicans, will be you.

And to the Democrats now yoked to the helm of this sinking ship, you proceed at your own peril, as well.

President Bush may not be very good at reality, but he and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rove are still gifted at letting American troops be killed, and then turning their deaths to their own political advantage.

The equation is simple. This country does not want more troops in Iraq.

It wants fewer.

Go and make it happen, or go and look for other work.

Yet you Democrats must assume that even if you take the most obvious of courses, and cut off funding for the war… Mr. Bush will ignore you as long as possible, or will find the money elsewhere, or will spend the money meant to protect the troops, and re-purpose it to keep as many troops there as long as he can keep them there.

Because that's what this is all about, is it not, Mr. Bush?

That is what this "sacrifice" has been for.

To continue this senseless, endless war.

You have dressed it up in the clothing, first of a hunt for weapons of mass destruction, then of liberation… then of regional imperative… then of oil prices… and now in these new terms of "sacrifice" — it's like a damned game of Colorforms, isn't it, sir?

This senseless, endless war.

But it has not been senseless in two ways.

It has succeeded, Mr. Bush, in enabling you to deaden the collective mind of this country to the pointlessness of endless war, against the wrong people, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

It has gotten many of us, used to the idea — the virtual "white noise" — of conflict far away, of the deaths of young Americans, of vague "sacrifice" for some fluid cause, too complicated to be interpreted except in terms of the very important sounding, but ultimately meaningless phrase, "the war on terror."

And the war's second accomplishment — your second accomplishment, sir - is to have taken money out of the pockets of every American, even out of the pockets of the dead soldiers on the battlefield, and their families, and to have given that money to the war profiteers.

Because if you sell the Army a thousand Humvees, you can't sell them any more, until the first thousand have been destroyed.

The service men and women are ancillary to the equation.

This is about the planned obsolescence of ordnance, isn't, Mr. Bush? And the building of detention centers? And the design of a 125-million dollar courtroom complex at Gitmo complete with restaurants.

At least the war profiteers have made their money, sir.

And we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.

You have insisted, Mr. Bush, that we must not lose in Iraq, that if we don't fight them there we will fight them here — as if the corollary were somehow true, that if by fighting them there we will not have to fight them here.

And yet you have re-made our country, and not re-made it for the better, on the premise that we need to be ready to "fight them here," anyway, and always.

In point of fact even if the Civil War in Iraq somehow ended tomorrow, and the risk to Americans there ended with it, we would have already suffered a defeat — not fatal, not world-changing, not, but for the lives lost, of enduring consequence.

But this country has already lost in Iraq, sir.

Your policy in Iraq has already had its crushing impact on our safety here.

You have already fomented new terrorism and new terrorists.

You have already stoked paranoia.

You have already pitted Americans, one against the other.

We… will have to live with it.

We… will have to live with what — of the fabric of our nation — you have already "sacrificed."

The only object still admissible in this debate, is the quickest and safest exit for our people there.

But you — and soon, Mr. Bush, it will be you and you alone – still insist otherwise.

And our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers will be sacrificed there tonight, Sir, so that you can say you did not "lose in Iraq."

Our policy in Iraq has been criticized for being indescribable, for being inscrutable, for being ineffable.

But it is all too easily understood now.

First, we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush.

Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego.

If what is reported is true — if your decision is made and the "sacrifice" is ordered — take a page instead from the man at whose funeral you so eloquently spoke this morning — Gerald Ford: Put pragmatism and the healing of a nation, ahead of some kind of misguided vision.

Atone.

Sacrifice, Mr. Bush?

No, sir, this is not "sacrifice." This has now become "human sacrifice."

And it must stop.

And you can stop it.

Next week, make us all look wrong.

Our meaningless sacrifice in Iraq must stop.

And you must stop it.

Newt Gingrich's head will certainly explode over this one. If you missed Newt's silly attempt to attack Keith because he has the audacity to think, click here. (h/t kevin2)

You can always ask Gen. Casey about his feelings on troop levels…

[chief_willie]

Owned!! Truth hurts, dont it georgie boy?

[WCW_Nostalgia]

We need a few fingers and some little red buttons! Also if we did do an Invasion on Iran, don't they make alot of gear there? Imagine all the troops comming back on test boning all the chicks in site, it would be like a super baby boom!

I am reminded of an ode to iran test that I recently wrote:

I ran Iran test, then I ran a test to test the Iran test to see if the Iran test I ran is the best test I've ever ran. And I attest that the Iran test I ran is the best test I've ever ran. So I ran to Iran to get more Iran test, and then I ran the Iran test again.

[Logan13]

Links to the video located at:

Funny how he took up so many paragraphs to critique but never once gave a solution to the problem. And if you think that pulling all troops out of Iraq will solve it, you really are living in another world.

[biglouie250]

Logan13 has a point. Bush is a tool and wrong but using the excuse that we shouldnt be there in the first place isnt going to get us out. my solution: pull out now and let chaos ensue or destroy the entire country leaving no one alive.

[singern]

Funny how he took up so many paragraphs to critique but never once gave a solution to the problem. And if you think that pulling all troops out of Iraq will solve it, you really are living in another world.

Agreed.
Pulling out will create the worlds richest and most deadly terrorist state. Islamic extremists will turn Iraq into a hell on earth financed by oil revenue.
We need only look at Afganastan, and its oppressive nature, its terrorist infrastructure and global reach, and all they had was the wealth from BinLaden. Imagen what a country with oil revenue and global terrorist infrastructure could do.

I just dont understand how spineless people are to stand by and propose such stupidity as to pull out, I am 45 and I would reenlist just to prevent that.

[biglouie250]

the thing is our only precedent that is close to our current situation is Nam. adding more troops only made things worse....i feel we are in a lose lose situation here.

[singern]

the thing is our only precedent that is close to our current situation is Nam. adding more troops only made things worse....i feel we are in a lose lose situation here.

I Disagree
The result of leaving Vietnam only effected Vietnam, and maybe the ego of the US.
Leaving Iraq will endanger the whole world. Just open any paper on any given day, and you will see some Islamic militant conflict on some part of the globe. Now add the shelter, finance, training, and global reach of an unrestricted Iraq and you find that the dangers of leaving Iraq at this point outweigh any risk.

[biglouie250]

like i said tho we are in a lose lose situation here. we arent going to level iraq and kill everything that moves like we should(along with the rest of the middle east) adding 20,000 troops isnt going to do anything. they are still more then 200,000 troops away from what pre-war stategists said we needed. we are putting a band aid on a broken bone.

[Prada]

We shouldnt have been there in the first place, IMO we would be better off leaving Saddam there(isolating even more however) versus the current state of affairs. Anyways thats the past.

I've pondered how to resolve the Iraq situation and I must admit it doesnt seem like a viable task. Do they divide the country? Do they create provinces? How does one reconcile these hard headed factions? Under any scenario what is to say that their wont be civil war or simply war. For some odd reason the situation reminds me like the one the British Empire had with India I believe in the late 1940s.

[chief_willie]

Iraqis Say They Were Better Off Under Hussein
January 3, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.
The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein's regime was launched in March 2003. At least 3,000 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and more than 22,500 troops have been wounded in action.

There has been no official inquiry on the actual number of Iraqi casualties. A volunteer group of British and U.S. academics and researchers—known as Iraq Body Count (IBC)—estimates that more than 52,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the military intervention.


In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May 2006, Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as prime minister.

The survey was conducted in November 2006, before the publication of the Iraq Study Group's findings in the United States, and Hussein's execution for crimes against humanity. Late last month, Al-Maliki called on the "followers of the ousted regime" to "reconsider their stance as the door is still open to anyone who has no innocent blood on his hands to help in rebuilding Iraq."


In conclussion:


BUCK FUSH and anyone who STILL supports him. If you do, YOU are a terrorist, just like him.

[biglouie250]

it was never about what the iraqi's thought willie. it unfortunatley never was about helping the iraqi's.

[Bigen12]

BUCK FUSH and anyone who STILL supports him. If you do, YOU are a terrorist, just like him.

Man,

What a Internet Tough Guy......

[singern]

Iraqis Say They Were Better Off Under Hussein
January 3, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.
The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein's regime was launched in March 2003. At least 3,000 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and more than 22,500 troops have been wounded in action.

There has been no official inquiry on the actual number of Iraqi casualties. A volunteer group of British and U.S. academics and researchers—known as Iraq Body Count (IBC)—estimates that more than 52,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the military intervention.


In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May 2006, Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as prime minister.

The survey was conducted in November 2006, before the publication of the Iraq Study Group's findings in the United States, and Hussein's execution for crimes against humanity. Late last month, Al-Maliki called on the "followers of the ousted regime" to "reconsider their stance as the door is still open to anyone who has no innocent blood on his hands to help in rebuilding Iraq."


In conclussion:


BUCK FUSH and anyone who STILL supports him. If you do, YOU are a terrorist, just like him.

Please dont pretend like you give a flying squirrel about the Iraqis, you only hate bush and obviously will use anything that fits your agenda.

Whether we were invited or not, hindsight is mute. We have a problem now and victory over the terrorist infrastructure, and insurgency is not an option.

[buff-man-22]

I like Olbermann he says what he wants and takes on big wigs in the radio world. He is an idealist, but he also makes good points

[chief_willie]

Please dont pretend like you give a flying squirrel about the Iraqis, you only hate bush and obviously will use anything that fits your agenda.

I care bout the human race.....over 100,000 civilians are dead, many being women and children...justify that, for a war that never should have been. A war started by lies told to the you/me/the world. Period. That is undebatable. you are right about one thing though. I fockin HATE "W".

[J.S.N.]

Agreed.
Pulling out will create the worlds richest and most deadly terrorist state. Islamic extremists will turn Iraq into a hell on earth financed by oil revenue.
We need only look at Afganastan, and its oppressive nature, its terrorist infrastructure and global reach, and all they had was the wealth from BinLaden. Imagen what a country with oil revenue and global terrorist infrastructure could do.

I just dont understand how spineless people are to stand by and propose such stupidity as to pull out, I am 45 and I would reenlist just to prevent that.

they were selling oil before the invasion.

they are too involved in a civil war between shiites and sunnis, with the friendly kurds controlling a huge chunk of oil territory and having the best fighting forces to start some massive terrorist campaign.

[chief_willie]

Man,

What a Internet Tough Guy......

yes, i was a lil harsh...calling W a terrorist sounds crazy to some, but he fits the definition to a tee.

[singern]

I care bout the human race.....over 100,000 civilians are dead, many being women and children...justify that,.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but almost never constructive or useful. I justify staying in Iraq by looking at the bigger picture. Pulling out now is absolutely ignorant and a danger to the entire world.

And those civilians dieing by the thousands are being murdered every single day by Iraqi militants, and foreign terrorists, not Americans troops, so lets keep the perspective honest.

And by the way its OK to hate Bush, thats the great thing about democracy.

[RA]

Putting more troops in was the right thing to do. They should have done it a long time ago.

You should hit em with everything you got and get it over with as quickly as possible.

[RA]

Iraqis Say They Were Better Off Under Hussein
January 3, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.
The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein's regime was launched in March 2003. At least 3,000 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and more than 22,500 troops have been wounded in action.

There has been no official inquiry on the actual number of Iraqi casualties. A volunteer group of British and U.S. academics and researchers—known as Iraq Body Count (IBC)—estimates that more than 52,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the military intervention.


In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May 2006, Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as prime minister.

The survey was conducted in November 2006, before the publication of the Iraq Study Group's findings in the United States, and Hussein's execution for crimes against humanity. Late last month, Al-Maliki called on the "followers of the ousted regime" to "reconsider their stance as the door is still open to anyone who has no innocent blood on his hands to help in rebuilding Iraq."


In conclussion:


BUCK FUSH and anyone who STILL supports him. If you do, YOU are a terrorist, just like him.

Yeah, everyone that responded had the last name hussein

cmon, even left wing wackos should know this story is bullshit

[Logan13]

I Disagree
The result of leaving Vietnam only effected Vietnam, and maybe the ego of the US.
Leaving Iraq will endanger the whole world. Just open any paper on any given day, and you will see some Islamic militant conflict on some part of the globe. Now add the shelter, finance, training, and global reach of an unrestricted Iraq and you find that the dangers of leaving Iraq at this point outweigh any risk.

I agree, comparing Vietnam to Iraq is easy, but the outcomes of each will effect us all much differently.

[biglouie250]

it seems as though every move we make is a mistake. now they are building monuments to saddam. its a pretty frustrating situation we are in.

[mcpeepants]

Agreed.
Pulling out will create the worlds richest and most deadly terrorist state. Islamic extremists will turn Iraq into a hell on earth financed by oil revenue.
We need only look at Afganastan, and its oppressive nature, its terrorist infrastructure and global reach, and all they had was the wealth from BinLaden. Imagen what a country with oil revenue and global terrorist infrastructure could do.

I just dont understand how spineless people are to stand by and propose such stupidity as to pull out, I am 45 and I would reenlist just to prevent that.

I've been hearing this a lot in the media but I don't buy that Iraq will turn into Afghanistan if we leave. There will definitely be killings and blood letting until either a political compromise or a strongman emerges. I think only a small number of Iraqis support fundamentalist terrorist like al qaeida and based on the secular nature of Saddams rule, I think Iraqis would not want to be ruled by fundamentalists.

[Logan13]

I've been hearing this a lot in the media but I don't buy that Iraq will turn into Afghanistan if we leave. There will definitely be killings and blood letting until either a political compromise or a strongman emerges. I think only a small number of Iraqis support fundamentalist terrorist like al qaeida and based on the secular nature of Saddams rule, I think Iraqis would not want to be ruled by fundamentalists.

Sunnis' are the minority in Iraq as well as Iran. We pull out and the Shiite's will want to take over, Sunni's will fight this, and than all hell will break loose.

[singern]

. I think only a small number of Iraqis support fundamentalist terrorist like al qaeida and based on the secular nature of Saddams rule, I think Iraqis would not want to be ruled by fundamentalists.

It would be great if you were right because our troops could then pack up and go home...but.....

The fact that the Iraq is pretty much in a civil war, due to the influence of the foreign insurgents and radical terrorist groups just does not support your opinion.

[J.S.N.]

Sunnis' are the minority in Iraq as well as Iran. We pull out and the Shiite's will want to take over, Sunni's will fight this, and than all hell will break loose.

it already has. there are hundreds of thousands dead. if you go by the 600,000 figure, it's the equivalent of over 7 million americans dying. i'd say that counts as as hell breaking loose. that doesn't even count the people maimed and displaced.

[eliteforce]

"creating a terrorist state that endangers the world" - therer are many places in the world where is no law and order, and Iraq already was "a terrorist state that endangers the world" before the invasion, now everyone wishes the invasion never happened and we could return to the situation we had before, there is no difference to American homeland security who-ever is in control in that country, 9/11 attacks originated from Saudi Aranbia and the 'students' were also planing it in Europe so being in Iraq makes no difference in preventing terrorist attacks.

what makes the world a much more dangerous place is the death of 600,000 people in Iraq on America watch, thats what really emboldens a possible wmd terrorist-the rage created by what many people consider a genocidal war-of-choice and the belief that attacking America is and eye-for-an-eye., or that Americans killed 100,000s arabs so it's ok to kill a few thousand in a terrorist attack, support for alcada has greatly increased since the Iraq war began.

[Logan13]

it already has. there are hundreds of thousands dead. if you go by the 600,000 figure, it's the equivalent of over 7 million americans dying. i'd say that counts as as hell breaking loose. that doesn't even count the people maimed and displaced.

Condemn the terrorists for these deaths, not the US.

[singern]

Condemn the terrorists for these deaths, not the US.

We all know it is the Islamic factions, foreign terrorists, and Sadam loyalists all killing each other.

The people who blame the US for all the killing do so on purpose, because denial and the need to divert blame is a way of life. Im surprised they haven't blamed the Jews yet.......

[Prada]

Indeed it is not the US who are doing all the killing per se but did they fail to comprehend that they have to have a hardline dictator like Saddam to keep peace? As much as it may sound oxymoronic.

As absurd as it may sound democracy will not work in all quasi-civilized states who also happen to be illiterate as well as deeply religious. The majority Shias were supressed for years, they had revenge written all over. The Kurds marginalized and the Sunnis going from "most favored status" to a mere minority.

[SurfJunkie]

Are any of you soldiers? Do any of you have first hand knowledge? Have you been to iraq or are you simply regurgitating the crap thats fed to you on the knews and calling it your own idea? You're not doing anything different than what he is by saying "no, we shouldn't do this.. its wrong, you suck and you're a terrorist president bush" Wow.. thats great. But how would YOU fix the problem. wait wait, let me guess... now you'll revert to the "well we never should have gone in the first place". Everyone is simply dodging the damn question be it the dems, the republicans, the president or people on a forum. You know why? Cause NOBODY KNOWS. If we knew, we'd already have done it. As sad as it is all you can do is try. Do I agree with everything Bush has done, nope. Not at all. But there's no way to know ahead of time what will work and what won't. All you can do is try. The democrats have no problems bashing the hell out of everything that bush has unsuccessfully tried... but thats just beating a dead horse. How bout you come up with your super duper plans and show me how they work based in theory. Then when they fail what will your excuse be. Will 20 thousand more troops fix it... me personally as a soldier, my opinion is hell no. you could put a million more troops over there tomorrow and it wouldn't fix a damn thing. Why? Cause you're just adding bodies, not changing doctrine. Its not the number of soldiers that is the problem with iraq, its that the soldiers there can't do thier job. Politics and whiney bitchy hippies have made it so that you can't fight. Tell me how you win a war that you can't fight in? Pull out, yea.. there's a great friggin idea. and piss on the 3003 soldiers that gave thier lives for this so far? As futile as it may be we owe it to those who gave all to do all we possibly can to make good by this war and those shitty ass people. I've been twice already. Do I want to go again, hell no. But if I don't then who will? Someone has to watch my buddies back so he can come home. You're taking the word "sacrifice" too literally. Sacrifices will be made, but lets hope its not in lives. 20k more troops, ok mr bush, how bout 20k chances to do what we're trained to do without nosey one sided news reports, twisted truths and blind falses. Thats all I want. I want to be able to do my job as I was trained to do it and as it can be done. Then and only then can soldiers be effective in Iraq. You could argue the ideas put forth by the bush administration till your blue in the face, point is... you'll never know what will work till you try. All we can do is hope for the best. Sucks... but thats war.

[Logan13]

Are any of you soldiers? Do any of you have first hand knowledge? Have you been to iraq or are you simply regurgitating the crap thats fed to you on the knews and calling it your own idea? You're not doing anything different than what he is by saying "no, we shouldn't do this.. its wrong, you suck and you're a terrorist president bush" Wow.. thats great. But how would YOU fix the problem. wait wait, let me guess... now you'll revert to the "well we never should have gone in the first place". Everyone is simply dodging the damn question be it the dems, the republicans, the president or people on a forum. You know why? Cause NOBODY KNOWS. If we knew, we'd already have done it. As sad as it is all you can do is try. Do I agree with everything Bush has done, nope. Not at all. But there's no way to know ahead of time what will work and what won't. All you can do is try. The democrats have no problems bashing the hell out of everything that bush has unsuccessfully tried... but thats just beating a dead horse. How bout you come up with your super duper plans and show me how they work based in theory. Then when they fail what will your excuse be. Will 20 thousand more troops fix it... me personally as a soldier, my opinion is hell no. you could put a million more troops over there tomorrow and it wouldn't fix a damn thing. Why? Cause you're just adding bodies, not changing doctrine. Its not the number of soldiers that is the problem with iraq, its that the soldiers there can't do thier job. Politics and whiney bitchy hippies have made it so that you can't fight. Tell me how you win a war that you can't fight in? Pull out, yea.. there's a great friggin idea. and piss on the 3003 soldiers that gave thier lives for this so far? As futile as it may be we owe it to those who gave all to do all we possibly can to make good by this war and those shitty ass people. I've been twice already. Do I want to go again, hell no. But if I don't then who will? Someone has to watch my buddies back so he can come home. You're taking the word "sacrifice" too literally. Sacrifices will be made, but lets hope its not in lives. 20k more troops, ok mr bush, how bout 20k chances to do what we're trained to do without nosey one sided news reports, twisted truths and blind falses. Thats all I want. I want to be able to do my job as I was trained to do it and as it can be done. Then and only then can soldiers be effective in Iraq. You could argue the ideas put forth by the bush administration till your blue in the face, point is... you'll never know what will work till you try. All we can do is hope for the best. Sucks... but thats war.

Damn! I could not have written a better reply, but be warned. Many in here and in the general public honestly think that they know better than someone who has actually stepped on Iraqi soil. I have been beating this same drum for 2 years now, and have run into one naive comment/idea after another. I have challenged people to put their mind to work on how to solve this issue, but to date no one has taken me up on it.

[Bigen12]

Are any of you soldiers? Do any of you have first hand knowledge? Have you been to iraq or are you simply regurgitating the crap thats fed to you on the knews and calling it your own idea? You're not doing anything different than what he is by saying "no, we shouldn't do this.. its wrong, you suck and you're a terrorist president bush" Wow.. thats great. But how would YOU fix the problem. wait wait, let me guess... now you'll revert to the "well we never should have gone in the first place". Everyone is simply dodging the damn question be it the dems, the republicans, the president or people on a forum. You know why? Cause NOBODY KNOWS. If we knew, we'd already have done it. As sad as it is all you can do is try. Do I agree with everything Bush has done, nope. Not at all. But there's no way to know ahead of time what will work and what won't. All you can do is try. The democrats have no problems bashing the hell out of everything that bush has unsuccessfully tried... but thats just beating a dead horse. How bout you come up with your super duper plans and show me how they work based in theory. Then when they fail what will your excuse be. Will 20 thousand more troops fix it... me personally as a soldier, my opinion is hell no. you could put a million more troops over there tomorrow and it wouldn't fix a damn thing. Why? Cause you're just adding bodies, not changing doctrine. Its not the number of soldiers that is the problem with iraq, its that the soldiers there can't do thier job. Politics and whiney bitchy hippies have made it so that you can't fight. Tell me how you win a war that you can't fight in? Pull out, yea.. there's a great friggin idea. and piss on the 3003 soldiers that gave thier lives for this so far? As futile as it may be we owe it to those who gave all to do all we possibly can to make good by this war and those shitty ass people. I've been twice already. Do I want to go again, hell no. But if I don't then who will? Someone has to watch my buddies back so he can come home. You're taking the word "sacrifice" too literally. Sacrifices will be made, but lets hope its not in lives. 20k more troops, ok mr bush, how bout 20k chances to do what we're trained to do without nosey one sided news reports, twisted truths and blind falses. Thats all I want. I want to be able to do my job as I was trained to do it and as it can be done. Then and only then can soldiers be effective in Iraq. You could argue the ideas put forth by the bush administration till your blue in the face, point is... you'll never know what will work till you try. All we can do is hope for the best. Sucks... but thats war.

Well put,

Run the news crews out of there and let the army do what they are trained to do.

[givemethejuice]

Are any of you soldiers? Do any of you have first hand knowledge? Have you been to iraq or are you simply regurgitating the crap thats fed to you on the knews and calling it your own idea? You're not doing anything different than what he is by saying "no, we shouldn't do this.. its wrong, you suck and you're a terrorist president bush" Wow.. thats great. But how would YOU fix the problem. wait wait, let me guess... now you'll revert to the "well we never should have gone in the first place". Everyone is simply dodging the damn question be it the dems, the republicans, the president or people on a forum. You know why? Cause NOBODY KNOWS. If we knew, we'd already have done it. As sad as it is all you can do is try. Do I agree with everything Bush has done, nope. Not at all. But there's no way to know ahead of time what will work and what won't. All you can do is try. The democrats have no problems bashing the hell out of everything that bush has unsuccessfully tried... but thats just beating a dead horse. How bout you come up with your super duper plans and show me how they work based in theory. Then when they fail what will your excuse be. Will 20 thousand more troops fix it... me personally as a soldier, my opinion is hell no. you could put a million more troops over there tomorrow and it wouldn't fix a damn thing. Why? Cause you're just adding bodies, not changing doctrine. Its not the number of soldiers that is the problem with iraq, its that the soldiers there can't do thier job. Politics and whiney bitchy hippies have made it so that you can't fight. Tell me how you win a war that you can't fight in? Pull out, yea.. there's a great friggin idea. and piss on the 3003 soldiers that gave thier lives for this so far? As futile as it may be we owe it to those who gave all to do all we possibly can to make good by this war and those shitty ass people. I've been twice already. Do I want to go again, hell no. But if I don't then who will? Someone has to watch my buddies back so he can come home. You're taking the word "sacrifice" too literally. Sacrifices will be made, but lets hope its not in lives. 20k more troops, ok mr bush, how bout 20k chances to do what we're trained to do without nosey one sided news reports, twisted truths and blind falses. Thats all I want. I want to be able to do my job as I was trained to do it and as it can be done. Then and only then can soldiers be effective in Iraq. You could argue the ideas put forth by the bush administration till your blue in the face, point is... you'll never know what will work till you try. All we can do is hope for the best. Sucks... but thats war.

Great post! And for your sake, I hope a solution is found quickly so you will not have to go back over there.

[mcpeepants]

Are any of you soldiers? Do any of you have first hand knowledge? Have you been to iraq or are you simply regurgitating the crap thats fed to you on the knews and calling it your own idea? You're not doing anything different than what he is by saying "no, we shouldn't do this.. its wrong, you suck and you're a terrorist president bush" Wow.. thats great. But how would YOU fix the problem. wait wait, let me guess... now you'll revert to the "well we never should have gone in the first place". Everyone is simply dodging the damn question be it the dems, the republicans, the president or people on a forum. You know why? Cause NOBODY KNOWS. If we knew, we'd already have done it. As sad as it is all you can do is try. Do I agree with everything Bush has done, nope. Not at all. But there's no way to know ahead of time what will work and what won't. All you can do is try. The democrats have no problems bashing the hell out of everything that bush has unsuccessfully tried... but thats just beating a dead horse. How bout you come up with your super duper plans and show me how they work based in theory. Then when they fail what will your excuse be. Will 20 thousand more troops fix it... me personally as a soldier, my opinion is hell no. you could put a million more troops over there tomorrow and it wouldn't fix a damn thing. Why? Cause you're just adding bodies, not changing doctrine. Its not the number of soldiers that is the problem with iraq, its that the soldiers there can't do thier job. Politics and whiney bitchy hippies have made it so that you can't fight. Tell me how you win a war that you can't fight in? Pull out, yea.. there's a great friggin idea. and piss on the 3003 soldiers that gave thier lives for this so far? As futile as it may be we owe it to those who gave all to do all we possibly can to make good by this war and those shitty ass people. I've been twice already. Do I want to go again, hell no. But if I don't then who will? Someone has to watch my buddies back so he can come home. You're taking the word "sacrifice" too literally. Sacrifices will be made, but lets hope its not in lives. 20k more troops, ok mr bush, how bout 20k chances to do what we're trained to do without nosey one sided news reports, twisted truths and blind falses. Thats all I want. I want to be able to do my job as I was trained to do it and as it can be done. Then and only then can soldiers be effective in Iraq. You could argue the ideas put forth by the bush administration till your blue in the face, point is... you'll never know what will work till you try. All we can do is hope for the best. Sucks... but thats war.

I'm not a soldier and I've never been in Iraq. How are the media or hippies preventing the military from the fighting the war effectively? You said that you didn't believe 20000 troops or 1 million troops would solve the problem because we're not changing the doctrine. What doctrine do you think we should have? How does pulling out piss on the dead soldiers? By that reason, we could potentially never leave. If a year from now, we find that there is no change or an increase in violence, would we have to stay still because several more hundred soldiers died in that year? More stay the course.

I agree with you that democrats are just complaining but not offering there own plan. I think it's just because they don't want to put their name on a plan because it might fail. They would rather stay the course.

I think we should withdraw now and start direct talks with Iran and Syria. I would cut war funding except the amount needed to withdraw the troops safely. I believe there will be a bloodbath in Iraq until there is a political comprise or a strong man comes to power. I think if the violence goes bad, Iraqs neighbor will come in and quell it because they don't want an unstable Iraq. I don't know if it will work but we're eventually leaving Iraq. We won't know until we try.

[SurfJunkie]

I'm sure you've seen and read many of the articles about the soldiers going to jail from the things they've done in iraq. First one that comes to mind is the marine sentenced to 20 years in a military prison for doing what he was trained... all because it was caught on camera and the world had a shitfit. Why? cause the whole story wasn't told. just the part that got peoples attention and ratings. As an infantryman, you are taught to "clear the objective". In this case, the marines had been pinned down by a sniper who had killed 2 marines already. They assaulted the building and upon entering, the marine did as he was trained, and "cleared the objective". By this, I mean, putting a controlled pair in the wounded Iraqi sniper to finish him off. Thats how its trained. Thats how its supposed to be done. But the media portrayed it as a senseless violent attack on a wounded man as if he were innocent... not that he had just killed two americans. Pressured by the american people and thier lack of understanding in this and many other situations, the government has answered the peoples cry by condemning soldiers who are fighting this war to go to jail after they've already risked thier lives and sacrificed a year of thier life doing it.

I've got people on the other side of the globe telling me how to fight a war based on their opinions of the country after 2 days of being in it. And mind you, they aren't just randomly hoping in a humvee and rollin out on a patrol.. no no, the area is secured, route clearance is performed for HOURS before they come out, the entire preplanned route is guarded by soldiers... these so called "advisors" don't see how it really is. Then they go and make decisions on how I should fight. I have to ask permission to shoot at a man who is trying to kill me. I have to signal and politely warn the driver of a VBIED to stop after he just blasted by 100 stopped vehicles, road cones, and 2 rolls of razor wire... wasting precious moments that could cost me and my squad thier life. I was personally investigated for not asking permission to shoot a man digging a hole in the side of the road at 2 in the morning in a high ied area and almost was put in jail because he was not armed. The only thing that kept me out is he was X-Sprayed and came up hot for chemical residue from home made explosive. an explosive that he could have placed in the hole and killed me or another soldier. Based on the rules of engagement anything I percieve as a hostile act, hostile intent or that could possibly cause harm to myself or fellow soldiers, it is my duty to remove that threat. but, everyone is so damn scared to pull the trigger over there cause they might go to jail. Thats what I mean by not allowed to fight. In WW2 we bombed the living piss out of entire cities killing thousands to try to break the back of the germans and crush morale. Now, when the people see the body of the man who threw a pipe bomb at me on television they have a shit fit. Why? cause of the media and the way they portray it.

As far as us staying.. I just think we need to establish some form of effective government and a stable economy so that the country can actually grow. If we leave before that, then those people die for nothing. If in a year we've accomplished that and a soldier dies the day before we leave... he still died for something we actually accomplished instead of just to destroy a country and roll out. We stayed in germany for how long after hitler killed himself? Shit we're still there! Same with Japan... and people are talking about a complete withdrawl from the entire country of iraq after 5 years. Thats dropping the ball. We need to come up with the political compromise that you suggested or find and appoint that strong man before we can leave and thats why we're still there. We've been asking other countries to help quell the violence in iraq and stabalize it since before we started the war... they didn't do it then, what makes you think they'll do it once we've left? The syrian and Iranian governments won't help to fix it... they're already helping to destroy it. Granted this is all my personal opinion and experience and I mean in no way to upset anyone by my posts. Thats the great thing about democracy.. you get to speak your opinion. And thats what we're trying to spread in iraq. Different peope have different ideas. Multiple ideas lead to multiple choices. The more options you have the better chance of success in the endeavor. If we stay, we have options.. if we leave... thats it.

[eliteforce]

In WW3 everyones got nukes, and 600,000 people over there are dead as the result of the invasion, thats why they want you to be very careful.
>In WW2 we bombed the living piss out of entire cities killing thousands to try to break the back of the germans and crush morale.

Your still in Japan and Germany because there is no insurgency there to get you out, your not occuping those countries, you just have an isolated base there because they are cool with it, you are not in Vietnam.

Your trying to despratly hold on to something and the people there want you out of their country, thats not freedom, it's oppresion..whats the difference between this and the Soviets in Afghanistan, or the mongols in baghdad, or the Romans in Palestine fighting Jesus Christ. What does spending billions there to maintain domination over a developing really do for America or it's debt saddled next generation. what difference if mqtdad alsadr or the Islamic Army in Iraq are running that country and not a puppet regime. it protects you from terorism when the death and destruction there has prompted neighboring nations to develope nukes at breaknek capacity, staying there just makes a bigger and bigger disaster, forget about the 600,000 and the 3000-their dead-iraq means nothing to them, if Bush send you back over and over again your gonna be one of them, why is a little forign country on the other side of the world worth the life and limbs of an american.

[singern]

Your trying to despratly hold on to something and the people there want you out of their country, thats not freedom, it's oppresion..whats the difference between this and the Soviets in Afghanistan, or the mongols in baghdad, or the Romans in Palestine fighting Jesus Christ. What does spending billions there to maintain domination over a developing really do for America or it's debt saddled next generation. what difference if mqtdad alsadr or the Islamic Army in Iraq are running that country and not a puppet regime. it protects you from terorism when the death and destruction there has prompted neighboring nations to develope nukes at breaknek capacity, staying there just makes a bigger and bigger disaster, forget about the 600,000 and the 3000-their dead-iraq means nothing to them, if Bush send you back over and over again your gonna be one of them, why is a little forign country on the other side of the world worth the life and limbs of an american.

You seem to be of the opinion the US wants to stay in Iraq, This alone is completely delusional since the president is fighting congress tooth and nail just to stay long enough to get the job done. How on earth do you propose any American politician would support or even consider a permanent presence.

The sovereign Iraqi government which you continually call invalid, was fairly and democratically elected by the Iraqi people, but this along with the ideology of the insurgency and the terrorists is bolstered and supported only by making people believe the Americans are there to permanently occupy Iraq, and it seems some people here are buying it as well.....