5,700 Troops Home for Christmas

[amicus]

President Bush addressed the nation this evening supporting the recommendations made by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, who appeared before the Congress of the United States.

Military personnel from 36 nations around the world are on the ground in Iraq combating terrorism in a distant nation so that violence does not visit their homelands.

This should be accepted as good news, a withdrawal of troops and partial success in the formation of a democratic Iraqi government.

Will it be?

Amicus...

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I'll believe it when I see it, Ami. Personally, I feel another "surge" coming on.

 

[sister76]

Well, of course any troops being relieved of duty is awesome news, but I did find it to be an awful coincidence that George Dubya announced it on 9/11.

 

[amicus]

Sister, it was General Petraeus who broke that news and he was summoned by Congress to speak before them on that date. Now just why that date was chosen by Congress I cannot answer.

Amicus

 

[shereads]

3,774

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, of course any troops being relieved of duty is awesome news, but I did find it to be an awful coincidence that George Dubya announced it on 9/11.

Actually, this is 9/13

 

[amicus]

3,774

~~~

Tarawa in 76 hours: Total casualties: 3,407.


9/11 casualties in two hours 2,819

 

[Emperor_Nero]

~~~

Tarawa in 76 hours: Total casualties: 3,407.


9/11 casualties in two hours 2,819

And the link between either of those and the current Iraq war is???

 

[amicus]

And the link between either of those and the current Iraq war is???

~~~

The link, Emperor, is tenuous at best and first to confront Shereads posting of the number of casualties in Iraq. Only 22 American soldiers were lost before Baghdad was taken, an amazingly low number.

Secondly, I served eight years active military service, knowing full well that at any moment I might be called upon to serve my country and perhaps put my life in danger, as does each member of our current military.

Reminding people of the number of war casualties is done with a purpose and one should not use those statistics to make a political point, in my opinion.

War is not a pretty thing. This nation decided that our national interest would be best served by the current course of action in the Middle East, it was a political decision, formally arrived at by established means and procedures with both long and short term goals in mind, the best minds available at the time to make those decisions, as was the case in the Pacific Theatre of ww2, and lives were lost there also, many of them.

Those lost on 9/11 in the twin towers, were innocent civilian lives destroyed by a terrorist act against this nation. The US did not lash out in righteous anger, but carefully weighed the present and future threats and chose this line of action.

Freedom is not free, it costs lives to achieve and maintain and while one may not agree with each step of that acquisition and defense of freedom, Iraqi or American, one should at least understand the concept.

Amicus...

 

[Belegon]

Tarawa in 76 hours: Total casualties: 3,407.


9/11 casualties in two hours 2,819

Union losses in the Battle of the Wilderness, May 5-7 1864.
17,666
Confederate losses are unknown, most say around 7,500


That number has as much to do with Iraq as what you posted does...

ETA:

This nation decided that our national interest would be best served by the current course of action in the Middle East, it was a political decision, formally arrived at by established means and procedures with both long and short term goals in mind, the best minds available at the time to make those decisions, as was the case in the Pacific Theatre of ww2, and lives were lost there also, many of them.

No, this administration decided that, not this nation. I'm sorry, I must have missed the formal Declaration of War.

WW2 is not even close to the same situation, and you do far more of a disservice than shereads does by quoting numbers. I most especially disagree with the part I put in bold.

Both of my grandfathers served during WW2. My father did a tour and 1/2 in Nam. My brother served with Special forces out of Fort Bragg until he messed up his back and was told not to jump out of perfectly good airplanes. I have four cousins currently in the service, and I grew up in San Diego, a huge military town.

I say that simply to pre-empt the "you didn't serve, college boy!" attitude...

 

[Somme]

3,774

(and rising)

 

[JamesSD]

5700 is a start.

 

[Pure]

Ami: 5700 home for Xmas.

James: 5700 is a start.

Ummm, weren't 30,000 sent earlier this year as part of a surge?

My prediction is that by summer 2008, before elections will be further reductions of 10-15,000.

More reductions in the fall bring Xmas 2008 levels back to Xmas 2006 levels. [/i]

So there's no 'start' yet; it's a cynical con game. A man takes your wallet; you demand it back. He takes your watch also, and after a few minutes gives it back, saying "See, you're starting to get stuff back."
But the wallet is still missing!




The surge was designed to 'buy' a year. Had there been effective intervention before, the year would help. But it hasn't.

The plan for an initial 10 year commitment to Iraq is now floated, according to a bizarre Korean analogy---Korea, where US troops are still there after 50 years.

 

[amicus]

Pure, I am going to use your rant for my own devices and I Grantsay it up front.

In WW2, with the Allied invasion of North Africa, French soldiers went into combat against American soldiers for reasons I am yet to fully comprehend. Lives were lost for reasons that escape me.

Grant me an hypothetical here, just for the sake of argument, a what if?

Americans are no doubt, somewhat naive. I think, mind you, think, I cannot know, but as American's were greeted as Liberator's in Paris, I 'think' we expected to be greeted likewise in Baghdad and Iraq in general.

Suppose that had happened? The 'shock and awe', the lightning fast precision, incisive drive to the capitol city of the nation; what if we had been welcomed with open arms?

What if the Iraqi people were so happy and ecstatic that they went to work rebuilding the ruins that Saddam Hussein left and were over joyous with their newfound freedom?

It is, perhaps, a 'what if' scenario that few can even envision, but what if, those were the best case scenario expectations of those best and brightest that formulated the drive for liberation?

Something to think about...


Amicus...

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

~~~

Tarawa in 76 hours: Total casualties: 3,407.

9/11 casualties in two hours 2,819

The Battle of Antietam (09/17/1862)
KIA (both sides) in twelve hours: 3654

The problem for Bush isn't the total, but the way US deaths have been coming at the public like some unending Chinese water-torture. Now, after four years of demonstrated incompetence as a commander-in-chief, America's favorite Vietnam draft dodger is calling for more time, money, and US lives. It's going to be a tough sale.

What I really hate is the realization that if Bush gets his "withdrawl" plan, he'll walk away from the White House, and the Iraq quagmire he lead this country into, in a postion to claim the credit if things don't go totally to shit in the end, yet able to argue, albeit implausable, that it's not his fault if they do.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[amicus]

Your anti-Bush, or anti-republican slip is showing, Rumple and that saddens me somewhat.

With both Iran, and just today, with North Korean help, Syria, exhibiting a desire for Nuclear weapons, the existence of Israel, the only semi-democracy in the middle east, becomes more in jeopardy.

You seem to display a lack of interest in the long term wide aspects of a militant Islamic Middle East, as if the threat did not exist.

But if you could be convinced that it does exist, fueled by the oil revenues an oil hungry world is more than willing to finance, then, what...would you advise?

Amicus...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Your anti-Bush, or anti-republican slip is showing, Rumple and that saddens me somewhat.

With both Iran, and just today, with North Korean help, Syria, exhibiting a desire for Nuclear weapons, the existence of Israel, the only semi-democracy in the middle east, becomes more in jeopardy.

You seem to display a lack of interest in the long term wide aspects of a militant Islamic Middle East, as if the threat did not exist.

But if you could be convinced that it does exist, fueled by the oil revenues an oil hungry world is more than willing to finance, then, what...would you advise?

Amicus...

If Syria does start to develop nuclear weapons, I believe Israeli bombs will make short work of it. Actually, they would be American bombs dropped from American planes flown by Israeli pilots. Or American supplied missles launched by Israelis. They would never allow Syria to develop weapons like that.

The reason that there was fighting between American and French soldiers after D-Day is that the puppet government of France ordered its soldiers to fight. One hopes that most of the French surrendered, deserted and joined the allies in fighting the Axis.

The first time there was a fanatic Islamic Middle East, they conquered about a fourth of the populated part of the Eastern Hemisphere. I don't think anybody wants that again.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Nice try at changing the subject, Ami. But to follow your thought--a strong arugument can, and has, been made that tieing down US forces in Iraq has weakened, not enhanced, our military posture world-wide, and hampered the war against terrorism (see Afghanistan).

I'm not anti-Republican or anti-Bush. George H.W. Bush was/is a fine man who served this country in many ways. However, I am, and have been for many years, anti-Shrub. After nearly seven years in office, there's been precious little to convince me I'm wrong.

Polemics aside, the heart of the problem, IMHO, is that Bush insists there be no set timetable for withdrawl. Along with many others who actually know what they're talking about, I believe a fixed timetable would force the factions in Iraq to stop jockeying for position and make the political deals needed to take over.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[FallenMorgan]

They want to make a draft so that they can get revenge on us by causing another "baby boom" thus wreaking havoc on the nation. lol.

 

[matriarch]

...........the best minds available at the time to make those decisions......................................

Amicus...

Exactly.

 

[amicus]

Rumple...I did not knowingly change subjects...however...

We still have troops in Japan and in surrounding Island bases a half century and more following the resolution of WW2, as we do in Korea, and still a strong military presence in Germany.

Anyone who cares to look ahead knows that we will maintain a strong military presence in Iraq for the next half century if not more.

Perhaps people in general do not wish to acknowledge that, as I suppose they did not in 1945, or 53, but it was planned then and is planned now, like it or not.

Vietnam is not an enigma nor an anomaly, merely logistics, we were a long, long way from home in Southeast Asia. And Handprints and others, notwithstanding, Vietnam has a longer way to go to achieve freedom than it would have had, had we had the fortitude and courage to stay.

Amicus...

 

[shereads]

"There must be a pony here someplace."

 

[Boxlicker101]

Rumple...I did not knowingly change subjects...however...

We still have troops in Japan and in surrounding Island bases a half century and more following the resolution of WW2, as we do in Korea, and still a strong military presence in Germany.

Anyone who cares to look ahead knows that we will maintain a strong military presence in Iraq for the next half century if not more.

Perhaps people in general do not wish to acknowledge that, as I suppose they did not in 1945, or 53, but it was planned then and is planned now, like it or not.

Vietnam is not an enigma nor an anomaly, merely logistics, we were a long, long way from home in Southeast Asia. And Handprints and others, notwithstanding, Vietnam has a longer way to go to achieve freedom than it would have had, had we had the fortitude and courage to stay.

Amicus...

I think it's almost a certainty there will be an American military presence in Iraq for the forseeable future. The American forces in Japan are there in case of Chinese aggression against Taiwan or other nations in the area. Those in S. Korea are to dissuade N. Korea from launching another invasion. American forces in Europe were mostly there to counter Russian forces, and that is still their mission.

In Iraq, they will be there to help prevent a quick invasion and conquest by Iran/Syria, which would probably be aided by a large fifth column that is already in place.

 

[amicus]

The black pony is off somewhere procreating no doubt...


Ami

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Sorry, Ami,

But I have personal knowlege that the "best minds available" in 2001 and 2002 told Buch and told the NSA exactly what would happen if the U.S. invaded Iraq. In addition, elements inside the CIA told Bush the same thing.

Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld all thought they were smarter than everyone and dragged us into this mess, which no he's planning on leaving for someone else to clean up.

The only good thing that will come out of this is the election of 2008 when the Republican Party will again lose between 15 and 22 seats in both houses and not regain their insane control again in my lifetime.