you cannot back someone up on something that is a proven fact. :2 cents:

and what proven fact would that be?

Was that supposed to be scathing? I'm boiling in my skin.

Naive in what way? We have a mission in Iraq, more troops are needed, or the ones there will be in peril. It's been asked for by the top brass, so the "faux fact" that it's only Bush wanting this is wrong.

I've never said I was for this war, but we are in there, and we need to support the troops with whatever is needed till it's end.

precisely

What is our mission? I am curious to know this. You say we have it, well, what is it?

You should put Military Analysis on your resume'

Everyone in Iraq is in peril.

Which ones asked for it? I know some said it might work, I also know some who said it was a bad idea (they were just replaced, however), but I don't know of any who came right out and asked for more troops, enlighten me.

Who said only Bush is wanting it? Again, for the very few people who can't seem to get this thru their brains (or half of brain), this thread is not about whether or not more troops are needed in Iraq, it's about our President who replaces people who disagree with him, or don't see his "vision".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070106/..._pr_wh/us_iraq

...Bush also reshuffled his war commanders, installing a new team to support the policies he will announce next week. Democrats and Republicans alike took aim at the expected increase in U.S. forces...

It has been stated that we are now in Iraq for transition to self governing. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be in this debate.

I haven't had to write up a resume in a decade, but when I did, it had my years in the Military. How about you?

Absolutely, but you started this thread, and it's about the troop and how stupid Bush is to send more.

Why is it that I have to do your research for you? There are senators, generals, USCENTCOM himself who said who agree that sending more troops right now is needed. Look it up yourself. Until we have the Iraquis self sufficient, it is the only recourse.


You said Bush wanted it and was willing to replace people for it. Take your meds, you need it.

By the powers vested in me by myself, I hereby nominate you for Gullible Fool of the Year.

Can you make up your mind?

Is it about Bush wanting to put more troops in there or replacing staff so that he can put more troops in there?

Jesus Ke-Rist! Get your head out of your ass.

Thanks, give the HOA and the Electric Company hell for shutting off your power!

No, I did well in highschool & I didn't need to join the military to pay for my college.

That's nice, but, answer the question asked if that's not too difficult for you: who said ONLY Bush wants it? That was, afterall, your "faux fact".

I guess the bolding of the text wasn't enough emphasis for your half of a brain. I'll try to give it color and stars next time.

Sending more troops over is just going to give them more targets.

Bottom line, Bush is going to find ways to do what he and the Bush crew want to do. No other way around it. You have 2 more years to put up with him. Enjoy it.

Wow. So now it's only people who can't pay for their college who go to the military. You are truly ignorant. There are plenty of people who already have college degrees who join the military, majority of them are Officers, plenty of them enlisted. Some of us join to make a difference, something you have no clue about.

Only idiots start a thread who have absolutely ZERO knowledge about the subject, other than emotional response.

You started this thread about how BUSH wants this, by saying he's firing Generals to bolster this. If you had any idea about leadership, you would know having dissent is counterproductive to any goal. But you have no clue, and it shows in your original post.

So basically you are saying you can't answer the question, wow, big surprise there.

I just said I didn't need the money for College, I am in no means the representative for the rest of the World, but I am glad you think so. See, I speak for myself, I am not speaking for others.

Only one getting emotional here is you. I'd ask you to point out my "emotional responses", but we already know your record for backing up your "facts".

LMAO. You got all that out of that one sentence... maybe that's because it's in fact what you think. I said nothing of the sort.

oh, I am sorry, are you taking this personally? Shouldn't do that, you'll get all emotional.

It's funny watching you backtrack after stepping on your dick with your mouth Aico.

Ok, here we go again, where did I backtrack?

Are you really this dense? You post one thing and forget about it the next minute?

How's your prescription on ritalin? Out?

Well this has been fun, passed the time after training.

I'm dead tired after doing level changes for shots for over an hour.

You enjoy your weekend Aico, I'm out.

Why are US troops in Iraq in the first instance??

Why is the US constructing their largest "embassy" in Iraq??

Doubt there were, at least originally, any plans to get the hell out of Iraq. The excuse for invading was a fabrication and the "embassy" infrastucture also indicates little intention of leaving (tho that may vary now... depending)

Dump another 500,000 troops there and it won't make any difference (other than more bodybags being flown home). The insanity of what was "shock and awe" is very fucking stupid and naive - it's clear some take time to learn from history.

PS Odds on, that "embassy" will be a pile of rubble within 10 years.

LOL, you simply can't do it. Maybe because it's impossible to do. I'd call you an idiot but that would be giving you the benefit of the doubt.

In Vietnam the US kept increasing troops and spending.

Until the electorate realised it was a war they would never win. They got out with a face saving deal.

When will the US get out of Iraq?

When the politicians learn they will lose elections by staying in Iraq.

It's all down to staying in power and selling arms, sad but true.

Let Anthony attack this point by point, with naturally nothing ( links, actual quotes ) to backup him up, as all other answers he made.

The more troops in Iraq is not for Iraq, it is positionning for Iran.
Bush's balls are acking for this guy, in the " good ol'e texan style ", and he definitively wants to teach him a lesson .. before he leaves office.
If it means more body bags, so be it ... because Bush doesn't care for the troops or respect them...

If he would, he would take every steps to protect them, starting by body armor and shutting his big idiot mouth..

After all, BRING THEM ON ! ...

The reason we lost in Vietnam was because the war was fought from Washington. Too many restrictions and lines we could not cross.

Unlike the Iraq war which is being fought where?

With no restrictions and lines?

Like I said the US will pull out when the electorate decide it's time.

I am drunk,now is the time to attack me.

aico you are not the only one conserned.

Sometimes it is pointless to argue with people who are confrintational and can only see down one path.

Iraq is not the agenda any more it is a tactical point. there are other countries that are more of a consern. Location is always a big key in domination. The war in Iraq has become a reason to locate forces there.
People have a tendency to miss motive when there is a lot of underlying issues.
The end result of all of this will be devistating.. not good

which won't happen until the draft is reinstated

So are you saying the troops are there to keep Iran under check?

Saddam was doing that a lot more effectively than the US will. And the "Nuclear threat" from Iran is also countered by Israel.

There to defend/control the oil?

Oil is important, but whether the coalition comes out of this with a steady supply of Iraqi oil is a gamble. Don't think it's working out that way and I personally do not see some Iraqis allowing it.

Let's face it Bush and Blair thought this was going to be a lot easier than it is. Should they have realised they would be taking on such a big task? Yes, as leaders, eager to go to war, that is their job.

Should they have realised the hatred that would be engineered against the West for invading a country on false reasons? Yes, again that is their jobs.

One President had a plaque on his desk that said "The buck stops here." It still applies.

There might be other reasons for the invasion that will come out in 50 years time, such as Saudi Arabia. But on what we know today it was a big mistake and continues to be a big mistake that gets worse.

Can someone else please tell me where I backtracked, or contradicted myself? Cuz I honestly don't see it, but I am one sided, so I might be missing it. Either I am crazy or there is another aico posting and I have him/her on ignore. I am serious, point it out to me if you see it.