This Story is Archived
OP ED: Take Their Troop Surge In Iraq And SHOVE IT »
Posted by: Spadecaller 1 year, 8 months agoThey're trying to sell us on yet one more "surge" in Iraq, perhaps the one that will break our own backs. What Germany could not do in World War II, what Japan could not do, George Bush has single-handedly nearly accomplished already, the destruction of our armed forces. Send your personal message here and now on Christmas Day.
Read Full Story at peaceteam.net »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 360
-
-
mcgrievysr
Dec. 26, 2006, 7:44 a.m.DavidHalko----"making the lives of the boys and girls who died for this cause spent in vein."
Sorry, but it's too late for that. Unfortunately, it's only when our nation realizes that they've died in vain that we can rectify this mess by quitting Iraq. Excuse me, our nation already realize this. It's our leadership who is still in the dark, even though the electorate has sent a strong message.
-
not2needy
Dec. 26, 2006, 2:21 p.m.It's too late to worry about the ones that have been killed there, although none should have been as they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Bring our Americans home NOW!
Hurry up 2008!
-
kedirian
Dec. 26, 2006, 11:15 p.m.David,
the one who bears all the guilt for this useless loss of young men and women is our exalted Decider!
-
betruthful
Dec. 26, 2006, 12:02 p.m.Japan attacked our country- can a moron like you understand that Iraq never attacked us, never had the ability to attack us and never wanted to attack us. Name one way Clinton was corrupt with no B.J. crap. Thank God idiot,cowards like you are a tiny minority. Go pick up the Bush twins, Cheneys kids etc. etc. etc. and go to Iraq. How many little countries do we need to invade before your cowardly need for manliness is met? Grenada,Panama,Columbia,Viet Nam,Nigaraqua,Bosnia,Iraq NONE of these countries attacked us. You are a corporate dupe.
-
-
-
-
Amazing1
Dec. 25, 2006, 3:48 p.m.A surge is just doing more of the same, only harder. What a numbnuts idea. Have they ever heard of throwing good money after bad?
You cannot win an invasion and subsequent occupation. We don't even have a defined target of who we're fighting. The Taliban, the insurgents, the militias, Al Qaieda? Who? If you can't define an enemy, you can't win. Therefore, we should get out NOW.
-
-
-
betruthful
Dec. 26, 2006, 12:18 p.m.The cost of a few is ok with you and Bush because it is not you or yours. The corporate pimps can't have my kids and grand kids.
-
tonyh
Dec. 26, 2006, 1:02 p.m.anyone who believes that the War or Northern Agression was over slavery shouldnt attempt to point out the fantasies of others.
-
LeftTurn
Dec. 26, 2006, 1:37 p.m.Dave, since we have no real enemy to be seen in Iraq, most of our kids killed over there now are simply targets of snipers, they are just standing in the streets of Iraq helping or taking a break in their job with comrades, then in a tragic instant, their life ends. That's the war we are fighting now, mostly sniper fire from a silent and invisible enemy during the day. The goal of transition of power as you state clearly has been the objective since Saddam(Sunni) was ridden from power, but the Shia Iraqis are letting us down, they don't show up for work sometimes, and it's too hard for forces to accumulate, which a portion are probably killed before they even enlist. If we leave either now or later, al-Quada WILL claim leadership, and we'll have another mess on our hands. The majority of Shia are good people and don't believe in violence, Sunnis are opposite. Guess we have forgotten a past question if Saddam had ties with terrorism or al-Quada, guess we know the answer now.
-
betruthful
Dec. 26, 2006, 12:22 p.m.Everyone shoud simply never reply to ike. He is a little whimpy idiot - oh yea the confederates were liberals like the modern day southerners, you can tell because they fought change.
-
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 25, 2006, 4:11 p.m."It is astonishing to remember that a mere six years ago George Bush campaigned on the accusation that the Clinton administration had let the readiness of our military deteriorate. Today nearly all our military experts, even those speaking at peril to their careers, agree that our armed forces have been broken by the strategically idiotic occupation of Iraq. And yet the Bush administration has now coined a new slogan for "stay the course," in utter and diffident defiance of the will of American people. They are trying to sell us on yet one more "surge" in Iraq, perhaps the one that will finally break our own backs. What Germany could not do in World War II, what Japan could not do, George Bush has singlehandedly nearly accomplished already, the destruction of our armed forces."
PEACE NOW!
-
mcgrievysr
Dec. 26, 2006, 7:47 a.m.Clinton was smart enough to not get sucked into this mess and expend money and lives on such a Quixotic quest.
-
jehovahjones
Dec. 27, 2006, 12:44 a.m.> And this is precisely why Iraq was fought. The U.S. was attacked by terrorists, Iraq trained & supplied terrorists,
well, dave, for all your attempts to appear lucid and rational as compared to the rest of your idealogical cohort, you still betray yourself with delusions like this... (sigh)
-
betruthful
Dec. 26, 2006, 12:31 p.m.Ike I'll bet you are about 5ft.2in. and a total nerd.usually punk a$$ ******s are the ones acting tough. Fade away like most of the moron war supporters have.
-
betruthful
Dec. 26, 2006, 12:27 p.m.You are right!!! BTW at the time Cheney said the military cuts were correct and necessary. He cut fat out of the military-star war type B.S.-.
-
vor
Dec. 26, 2006, 9:09 a.m.Halko, you continue to wear your blinders and sip your Kool-Aid. You cannot help yourself and fall back into blaming Clinton. Our military was never designed to fight this type of war. Didn't work in Vietnam, didn't work in Lebanon (even under your God R.R.), didn't work at all in Somalia, isn't working in Iraq. If we sit still and don't fight, we lose. Yet you cannot meander blindly through the streets of Baghdad killing everyone who could potentially be the enemy. Even knowing that the battle for the
"hearts and minds" has long been lost.
Now we are trying to prop up a government that without our supervision would probably be just as ruthless as Saddam.
You say this war has not been a blip on our economy. I suggest that trillion dollars could have been used for some much more worthwhile endeavors. And I will remember your statement when they tell me I am not getting my SSI. I also suggest you brush up on your Chinese, could come in handy real soon.
-
-
Searchbeam
Dec. 25, 2006, 5:10 p.m.This must stop before it gets worst!
We are in the middle of a civil war that has been fought over hundreds and hundreds of years, with no end in sight!
This guy wants us to dig deeper to get out of the hellhole we are in!
Pure insanity!
Let us declare victory and get out of there on the first train out!!!!!!
We cannot afford the loss of our brave soldiers any more!
The Iraqis that we are training to be policemen and soldiers are turning their guns on each other, and are very close to turning them on us! THIS KIND OF WAR CANNOT BE WON! CHECK ANY ARMY TRAINING MANUAL AND HANDBOOK OF MILIOTARY STRATEGY!
Get our of Dodge!
Impeachment Now, Vigilance Forever!
Peace and Blessings!
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 25, 2006, 5:27 p.m.Any war that is not in response to an invasion or attack on a nation is an illegal war. Engaging in a war of aggression violates international law and is considered a war crime.
The guidelines that "govern" wars - were recently revisited in the Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfield.
On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfield that the Geneva Conventions apply to the United States, which protects the treatment of captured soldiers and in fact makes preemptive war a war crime.
Given Bush's defiance of the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of terror suspects, it is suggested that the "Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling by the Supreme Court ... may leave him [Bush] open to prosecution for war crimes."
MY pledge: "I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign."
-
-
Searchbeam
Dec. 25, 2006, 6:12 p.m.Sorry, I had to re-post because of spelling errors!
This must stop before it gets worst!
We are in the middle of a civil war that has been fought over hundreds and hundreds of years, with no end in sight!
This guy wants us to dig deeper to get out of the hellhole we are in!
Pure insanity!
Let us declare victory and get out of there on the first train out!!!!!!
We have lost 2980 of our brave soldiers so far; we cannot afford to lose any more!
The Iraqis that we are training to be policemen and soldiers are turning their guns on each other, and are very close to turning them on us! THIS KIND OF WAR CANNOT BE WON! CHECK ANY ARMY TRAINING MANUAL AND HANDBOOK OF MILITARY STRATEGY!
Get out of Dodge!
Impeachment Now, Vigilance Forever!
Peace and Blessings!
-
Tango57
Dec. 25, 2006, 6:52 p.m.If we get out now, as most of us would like, what will be the result? I don't support leaving without a plan in place for the Iraqi people. They have been through too much already. It's unbearable what this administration has done to our friends, to us and the world as a whole. We need a damage control expert, not a politician to handle this matter. I have yet to read any report where a good ending is possible.
-
ameliog
Dec. 25, 2006, 8:18 p.m.Throwing more resources at the problem. Always the choice when you don't know what to do. Will a country that views us as invadors settle down after we send more invaders? We're operating from the paradigm that the problem in Iraq is that we haven't killed enough people to stop the violence.
My issue is that we are still looking at only a military approach and ignoring all non-military options. We'll have as much success with this as the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike had with stopping the water.
-
mcgrievysr
Dec. 26, 2006, 7:50 a.m.ameliog----we haven't killed enough people to stop the violence.
Hence the bumper sticker from a couple of years back," Our enemies are multiplying faster than we can kill them". Sad.
-
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 25, 2006, 8:34 p.m.Ameliog,
"we haven't killed enough people to stop the violence."
If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny.
-
ind06
Dec. 25, 2006, 11:55 p.m.I'd just as soon not see us commit to greater strides down a path that has already proven unsucessful. The price is high, in lives and dollars.
To simply throw more troops into the fray seems wasteful; is there even a plan to go along with this increase? Are we choosing sides? Do we need the extra troops to help us win as we join in internecene warfare?
Or, (as I suspect) is this just a new tactic designed to foster the apearance that we're actualy doing something this time?
-
Beau7890
Dec. 26, 2006, 12:28 a.m.It's a political tactic, as are most of the policies in this administration.
There are those on the right who've said that if we were going to fight this war, we shouldn't have done it on the cheap, without adequate supplies or soldiers, as Rumsfeld ordered. And these folks, part of the Repub base, have been voicing their displeasure with the president.
(Of course, now that we're almost four years into it and the floodgates have opened to muckrakers from throughout the region, and the control Saddam had over those who would wage civil war has been romoved, and we're in a situation that NO ONE EXCEPT those millions who warned against invading in the first place and were ignored by a reactionary administration could have predicted, this "surge" is even more pointless and harmful than ever.)
-
-
contrast
Dec. 26, 2006, 12:19 a.m.First let it be known that I am not belittling our casualties in any way shape or form. I respect all those who serve and salute those who have fallen or been wounded. We owe them so much. With that said I cannot let this sentence go unabated
(George Bush has singlehandedly nearly accomplished already, the destruction of our armed forces.)
Our casualties are roughly 3,000 our armed forces are numbered well over 100,000 W (whom I disagree with) is NOT sending this army into its destruction. While great people die everyday there and they need not saying 3,000 is in anyway crippling our armed forces is bogus.
-
betruthful
Dec. 26, 2006, 12:54 p.m.Why do you think Cheney agreed with the Clinton cuts? I think because it was "waste" cuts. This is not sarcasm it is an honest queastion David
-
-
bcellboy
Dec. 26, 2006, 1:35 a.m.Beau7890,
The thought of using "support for the troops" as a catch-phrase for political gain disgusts me. I support each and every one of our troops, including the 2 cousins and brother-in-law that have served over there, but I do not support this administration nor any action it has taken and to say I'm unpatriotic because of that makes my blood boil.
-
Beau7890
Dec. 26, 2006, 1:48 a.m.That's my point. We all support the troops, and we all (well, the vast majority of us, anyway) are trying to do what we believe is best for the country. And to call anyone unpatriotic or even treasonous, as I've heard some say, for voicing an opposing opinion IS anti-American. Makes my blood boil too.
-
-
Gangrene
Dec. 26, 2006, 3:13 a.m.Yes the troops need to be there. But now that the foundation is in place for the Iraqi Government, it's time that the US took a more indirect role in the future of Iraq.
We should now be taking on the subtle role of political adviser to Iraq, but they should still be allowed to make their own decisions. If they fail to make the right decision, then it should be up to the Iraqi people to decide how best to fix the situation.
We, the US, need to remember what happened when we finally had our fill of another nation telling us how to live our lives.
-
mike532Comment has been removed: User banned.
-
gfarral
Dec. 26, 2006, 4:49 a.m.President Bush obviously did not study warfare during his tenure as a flight officer else he would not be in this mess. We have too few troops to fight in multiple countries simultaneously or to properly execute an anti-guerrila war. The president did not have a plan beyond toppling Saddam. One means of stopping this nonsense if for Congress to do their job and quit circumventing the constitution! If we are going to topple a governnment, there should be a formal declaration of war by congress not a resolution giving a President 'war powers'. That is pure manure!!! We do not have enough troops for a sustained surge. While we are meeting recruitment quota's we are not enlarging our force.
If this administration or any future administration expects to engage multiple states simultaneously, we need a larger volunteer force and/or a renewed draft. The only other option is to pull the troops out and conduct our own guerrilla war. We supposedly have enough spec ops forces to do that.
-
gfarral
Dec. 26, 2006, 5:05 a.m.I have sent several e-mails to the President. A couple of days prior to our invasion I asked him why we did not send in hit teams and be patient vs. wasting money on a large invasion. Then I asked him what is definition of victory was. Last I asked him if he had ever read Mao Tse Tung's book on Guerrila Warfare. I did not receive a reply to any epistle.
Silly me why would I expect one from a President who has all the answers, never discusses opinions different than his own, ignores criticism?
He has thrown out our civil liberties with his policies. We have no privacy any more. Even detainees should have the right to a lawyer, to see the charges against them, use of writ of habeas corpus, and the right to a speedy trial. What is happening is not only unconstitutional, but unconscionable. You deny one person their rights and you have denied us all. You want to tap wires, you go before a judge and show proof that you need it. We do not have a President, but a dictator in office.
-
gfarral
Dec. 26, 2006, 5:18 a.m.When you live in a democracy, you accept the risks that go with it such as personal safety. NO ONE IS 100% safe anywhere not even the President. Determination and patience accomplishes whatever detrimental task you wish to carry out which is why the 9/11 attack succeeded!
You do not make yourself safer by demanding background checks on everyone. This only puts you and themn at risk of identity theft!
One thing we should be doing is demanding an end to the use of our Social Security number for anything but social security transactions and an end to the use of our driver license number for anything but driving related items! These are key items in identity theft. Congress waited a whole two years after the creation of the Social Security Act before they started to expand access to the social security number. If the various governments wish to create a national identity card then do it and quit misusing our SSN and driver license.
-
mbkijb
Dec. 26, 2006, 7:23 a.m.SEND IN JENNA AND BARBARA!!!!! It should be manditory for the president and congress and the senate to send in their children to these wargames. I know I have likened this to ill played games of stratego, risk and battleship, but that is what it seems to be!
-
betruthful
Dec. 26, 2006, 1:06 p.m.The only politians kids that should be exempt are the ones that publicly voice their oppossition and vote against it.
-
Beau7890
Dec. 26, 2006, 1:15 p.m.The fear of our elected officials that their children might be conscripted into armed conflict is the REAL reason the draft will never be reinstated. Though there are many other valid arguments against reinstatement of the draft, this is the one no one in government talks about. They'd much prefer to have those who have no other option to escape their circumstances do their fighting for them, under the guise of "creating opportunity." It's one of the armed forces' biggest selling points.
-
-
brian-green
Dec. 26, 2006, 7:54 a.m.The issue of drawing down our military forces is still at work today. The Air Force is looking to reduce their size by around 30,000 personnel. It's irresponsible to reduce troop numbers in any force during war.
I'm against sending additional forces into Iraq, if for no other reason than that they will become even more lax in standing up for themselves in a responsible fashion. I know many troops out there fighting the fight and they all tell me the same thing, they want the time to make it work. I'm willing to give that to them, but I'm looking at Iraq wondering if they as a nation are willing and able to actually stand up for themselves and end the killing. Sooner or later, we'll have to see if they can do it on their own. We can't hold their hands forever. 2007 will be the year it all goes down. If it lasts longer than that, the Republicans may as well not even have a Presidential nominee.
-
Nowalive
Dec. 26, 2006, 8:44 a.m.Once again....a pro-terrorist/anti-American slap to the face and stab to the back of our brave men and women in uniform from Spade. Aside from Al-Jezeera, Spade puts out more anti-American propaganda than George Sorros. Stop trying to dehumanize and demoralize our fine soldiers. Be part of the solution Spade. Tell the politicians to get out of the way and let the troops do thier job. You can't declare victory OR defeat in the MIDDLE of a war. Stop with the defeatist postings, which you do on purpose, knowing that MANY of our troops see and hear the left's defeatist comments. This is akin to giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Stop helping to break the will of the troops. As a 2 service veteran it pains me to see just how far pasifists around the world and PARTICULARLY IN THIS COUNTRY will go to ensure America's defeat.
-
betruthful
Dec. 26, 2006, 1:11 p.m.Yea just like Viet Nam- we should have stayed and we could have gotten rid of 100,000 or 200,000 young Americans. Who knows? if we stay long enough we may be able to lose millions.
-
-
evolute50
Dec. 26, 2006, 8:46 a.m.The only way to correct the situation militarily is to send in such an overwhelming force that the country is in the entire control of a military. But it should not be American troops only. We should send in a force of 500,000 or a million troops from armies all over the world. An international force so compelling and directed by a coalition of nations with one purpose, to stabilize and manage the country. Of course, since George Bush and his arrogant backers (especially that evil man Dick Cheney) have alienated America from every country on this earth, it would take years to convince the world this is worth it. So lacking that, I say we send a force of three into Iraq: Bush, Cheney and Condoleeza. That would send the proper message to the world.
-
betruthful
Dec. 26, 2006, 1:13 p.m.just add Wolfowicts, Pearl and a couple more and you have the correct solution.
-
-
vor
Dec. 26, 2006, 8:49 a.m.I have said it a hundred times, it is the agenda laid out by the PNAC thinktank that is driving our actions. They aren't posting on the website anymore (these guys don't deal with failure well) but this surge, this push forward is driven by the objectives stated by this group. It isn't so much about Iraq itself as it is about regaining momentum, the miltary momemtum we had after the initial thrust to Baghdad. By their account we should be deep into Iran by now. Of course they blame this failure on the left and the lack of moral clarity of the American people.
Yet they have no solutions for the sectarian issues and no idea of how to secure a country the size of Iran much less Iraq. We kicked over this hornet's nest and we are too stupid to stop poking at it now. We need to get the troops out while we still can and remove this cabal from our government.
Baker Commission, Gates, it doesnt matter, still the same skipper (Cheney) at the helm.
-
jenorth
Dec. 26, 2006, 9:42 a.m.I want to know where you all were, when Congress and the clinton administration closed all those military bases, Cut funding for all the training the military does, and funding for new technology for the military.
I'm an ex-marine, and during my tour of duty, I know for a fact that the Marine Corp on it's very own was cut to under 100,000 persons world wide. We scheduled our training exercises around allotments of fuel and parts that were available to maintain our aircraft according to our budget.
Additionally, to maintain a higher flight readiness, at times, ALL our squadron chipped in out of our own meger wages to buy paper products like TIOLET paper so we didn't have to include that in our workable budget.
Now, everyone is screaming about manpower and the PROPER equipment. Where were you people when they were cutting the budgets ?
Part of the deal made was to include National guards and reserves into the military to supliment the military.
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 26, 2006, 10:04 a.m.jenorth,
Barring none, George W. Bush is the most incompetent Commander in Chief this nation has ever known.
Bringing up Clinton is irrelevant and it only shows that you prefer to politicize a debate due to your own partisan loyalties. Try putting your country first, for a change.
Nearly all our military experts, even those speaking at peril to their careers, agree that our armed forces have been broken by the strategically idiotic occupation of Iraq. Collin Powell is finally coming forward, as well.
And I too am X-SF...as if that changes reality today!
Vietnam Vet'68-'71
Sgt. 1st Class
Special Forces Intelligence Sergeant
2nd Bn
3rd Special Forces Group
-
vor
Dec. 26, 2006, 10:25 a.m.By your argument, as Rumsfeld said, "you go to war with the army you have". Wouldn't it then make sense to WAIT to go to war with the correct army? Iraq was not an imminent threat. Sure in Cheney's mind...but not in reality.
This was a foolish war, started for foolish reasons. You cannot even define (nor can the administration) what would define even a pyhhric victory! At this point the establishment of a duly elected Islamic theocracy that wasn't friendly with Tehran might be the best bet. Our troops died for this? Your pedigree regardless, this is a reckless course for our troops, our country, and the rest of the world.
Blame Clinton! That's just a talking point. There is so much waste in the military they just create budgets to cover it all, like covering garbage in a landfill. You should be talking about Defense Reform not crying about the lack of dollars. Something tells me you would not make this same argument regarding education.
-
bubba2
Dec. 26, 2006, 11:19 a.m.Do NOT put blame on Clinton for base closings in the 90s.
Congress has been REPUBLICAN controled for TWELVE years. If you want to blame 'someone', blame them.
Where were YOU when the REPUBLICANS were cutting the budgets? Again, look who has controled Congress since 1992.
-
betruthful
Dec. 26, 2006, 1:21 p.m.Most of us were speaking out about NOT INVADING IRAQ, I for one thought we were going to squash the ones that attacked us by going after them in Afghanistan. Bush giggled and followed his PFANAC agenda and went to Iraq.
-
RedstateLib
Dec. 26, 2006, 3:20 p.m.Didn't the current administration approve more base closings in 2004. Yes they did, Remember SD and the Airforce base they announced the closing of before the election, then ran a guy against Daschle who ran on the platform of keeping the base open. Then low and behold, presto once Daschle lost they took the base off the list. I remember other bases are still being closed by the current admin.
-
-
jenorth
Dec. 26, 2006, 9:46 a.m.Part 2
Military equipment was removed from active status, mothballed, or destroyed outright. The remaining equipment was distributed among the reserves and the national guards.
You want to have an active military, then ALL sections of the military will be involved, to include the Reserve units and National guard. Why, because they now have the equipment, and Because that's what Congress wanted under the Clinton administration.
Everyone allowed that to happen, so now that we actually need to have an active and capable military, you can all cry me a river and stop complaining. Do your duty for the HONOR of your country, and vote OUT the idiots that keep wanting to cut the militaries bugets.
The first 86 comments are shown. Show all 360 comments »
Submitted By:
Spadecaller
I'm an artist, poet, survivor, and a work in progress.
Also submitted:
- 9.3 - The Oil Crusades
