Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Feb 14, 2007.
continuation of the same email:
Gotta love marines. :rocker:
an excellent piece... i will say that, as much as i hate this war, and enraged by seeing the indescribable grief of American families' needless anguish (i lost my cousin there in 2003), i do so very very much LOATHE the tactics of the enemy ... they are both cowardly and insane at the same time...
but then i remember that their tactics were widely predicted, and the post-Saddam fallout was widely predicted in early 2003 (despite Rumsfeld playing dumb), and that's why it's all so pointless...
the well-spoken Marine here seems to forget Vietnam, because he mentions he's baffled by reports that we might be "losing" despite a 20:1 kill ratio... in the grand scheme of things, the kill ratio is not really the point at all... especially when he underscores the fact that the enemy is endlessly funnelling into the game from Iran, Chechnya, Europe, Africa, Pakistan and on and on and on; and doing so while hiding behind civilians and in hospitals and mosques, etc. ... their numbers will never end, their tactics will never change, their insanity will never satiate... and that's why 21,500 additional troops is going to do absolutely nothing in a city of 11,000,000 in complete and utter chaos...
my question is simple... why AREN'T the borders to Iraq on complete lockdown? why weren't they on complete lockdown from Day 1? why wasn't abosolutely everything done to hinder Jihadists from entering from all sides into this "war canvass" we've created? if the logistics were simply impossible, someone please explain that one to me... ... especially when the generals all wanted MUCH higher troop numbers when this thing started...
3.5 years later, and we could have largely dried up resistance by now if we locked the doors....
Seen the lockdown argument before, from a geographical point of view, this is pretty hard.. look at the Mexican border in the US.. we are even supposed to be using force, there they can pretty much do as they want. I suspect with the focus in the cities, they are spread pretty thin on the borders.
Well I was in the military during Viet Nam, the loss there was a political defeat not a military defeat (although tactics weren't very good on the part of the military). General Giap said in his memoirs that after the military defeat in the Tet offensive NV was ready to sue for peace , but because of the reaction of the press and anti war movement they decided to hang in feeling the American would eventually quit because of internal politics. He proved to be correct in his assessment.
IMO our current opponents are also aware of our history in Viet Nam and are counting on the anti war movement and the democrats to secure a victory they can't win on their own.
I don't think the supply of terrorist is endless. I would also ask the question of the tens of thousands who we've killed and are killing. How many would have been available for attacks IN America? We had read for years about all the Jihadist who were trained in Afghanistan who weren't accounted for.
IMO a lot of them went to Iraq and got their virgins. Better than fighting them there than fighting them here. I would also note that they appear according to this Marine to be running short on vets and are sending in the third team.
We can't secure our own border and you wonder why we can't secure a foreign border??? That would require more troops than we currently have. I wish we could though.
Dan Rather did the same thing in Viet Nam, he had footage of Marines teaching Viet kids how to play baseball and the Old Liberal Cronkite told CBS not to use it.
If we do win this war the Liberal Media will say we lost.
The NY Times has never forgiven us for winning WWII.
The NYT were OK with WW2 cause we were helping Uncle Joe Stalin
Good point GJA. We can't even secure our own border with 300 million people in our country, how is Iraq going to secure theirs with 25 million. I think people need a little common sense when it comes to this stuff. You obvioulsy try to secure the border as best you can, but when you see the terrain, and magnitude of the task, you have to be reasonable.
it's a little different dealing with an enemy carrying munitions along roads than it is coddling poor mexicans just looking for work in our country... sounds defeatest to me that we don't much TRY to stop killers at the Iraqi borders... say we stop 70 percent, 50? 30? .... how many lives does that save in Anbar province? etc.?
the Marine himself voiced frustration that more troops weren't present to do just that... sounds to me like if the generals go the troop numbers they wanted at the beginning, if would have been quite capable...
but, of course, Rumsfeld knew what he was doing... as did his boss...
I agree it would sppear we could have used more troops on the ground, well better late than never unless the dems block what the generals want.
Separate names with a comma.