TCUnation
social network for conservatives
"Giving Up On Iraq?" - or - "America Chickens Our after Winning Again?" WHY WE HAVE LOST FATH!
Your ask us to Fight these Wars, We Fight, We Die, We Are Wounded, We Give Up a Normal Home Life, NOW FOR GODS SAKE LET US WIN.
I'm not going to debate or argue "Why we got into these Wars?", or "Who's Fault They Are" etc, etc, etc. but After getting us into these wars LET US WIN.
I fought in Korea and Vietnam and in both those Wars Our Leaders Chickened out for what ever reason and after we had bled and died and were winning they Shamed us by Surrendering/Deserting at the very point when "WE HAD WON", I repeat "WE HAD WON, DAMN IT! ! !'
Now our Islamic Chairman, Obama, his Obamanation Administration and the Progressive/Marxist Congress are prepared to Surrender with the Desertion of Iraq to the likes of Iran and the other Islamic Nations at War with America and the World.
Next Year our Islamic Chairman, Obama, his Obamanation Administration, and the Progressive/Marxist Controlled Congress are planning on the Surrender and Desertion of Afghanistan.
Don't Shame another Generation of American Warriors, like my Son, like my Grandson that You Sent To War!
THEY ARE WINNING, THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WIN, THEY HAVE PAID FOR IT! ! ! !
TSGT Clough, USAF, (Ret)
Source: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/543643/20100812190...
IBD Editorials
Giving Up On Iraq?
Posted 08/12/2010 07:04 PM ET
U.S. Army soldiers from 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division are seen aboard a C-17 aircraft at Baghdad International Airport as they begin their... View Enlarged Image
War On Terror: America's victories in Iraq since 2003 have been hard-won. Now, after claiming credit for the successes of President Bush's surge, the Obama administration is in danger of giving it all back.
Some 90,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq today. President Obama wants that down to 50,000 by month's end, and by the end of next year he wants virtually all our troops out. The situation on the ground, however, is not looking good.
Britain's Guardian newspaper, quoting two U.S.-backed militia leaders, reports that "al-Qaida is attempting to make a comeback in Iraq by paying them more than the monthly salary they currently receive from the government."
"Al-Qaida has made a big comeback here," said Sheikh Sabah al-Janabi, a leader of the Awakening Council. He said as many as 100 of his 1,800 men under arms have defected to the terrorist group.
Worse, Obama seems to be going forward with the withdrawal despite an explicit request from the Iraq army's chief of staff that U.S. troops stay there at least another decade.
"At this point, the withdrawal (of U.S. troops) is going well, because they are still here," said Lt. Gen. Babakir Zebari, the chief of staff. "But the problem will start after 2011. The politicians must find other ways to fill the void after 2011, because the (Iraqi) army will be fully ready in 2020."
As always, the troop drawdown is complicated by politics. Iraq held inconclusive national elections just five months ago, and since then no party has been able to form a government. Without a stable government in Baghdad, it'll be hard to withdraw our fighting troops without creating instability.
In a recent letter, Obama essentially begged Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, perhaps the most influential person in all of Iraq, to "use his influence with Shiite groups and get them to compromise," according to Foreign Policy Magazine.
It's not clear that al-Sistani — or any other politician in Iraq, for that matter — listens anymore when Obama speaks. They know he was foursquare against the Iraq War and the surge that won it. They question his commitment.
Yet today he wants to have it both ways — taking credit for the victory that Bush's surge brought, while endangering Iraq's future stability by walking away at a critical time in its history.
Suddenly, the withdrawal of U.S. troops is a White House priority, and the reason — sad to say — is election politics. Obama is under pressure from those on his party's far left, which happens to be his voting base.
They're angry not only because the president has yet to draw down troops in Iraq, but also because he seems in no hurry to close Guantanamo — a pet national security fetish of the left.
Midterm elections loom. To pacify the left, Obama has committed to a troop drawdown that looks increasingly foolish and risky as it emboldens the enemy and weakens Iraq's nascent democracy.
The president needs to look in the mirror. He's not Democrat in chief; he's commander in chief. In war, strategy must trump politics. Better to lose an election than to squander the blood and treasure we've already spent in the sands of Iraq.
I'm not going to debate or argue "Why we got into these Wars?", or "Who's Fault They Are" etc, etc, etc. but After getting us into these wars LET US WIN.
I fought in Korea and Vietnam and in both those Wars Our Leaders Chickened out for what ever reason and after we had bled and died and were winning they Shamed us by Surrendering/Deserting at the very point when "WE HAD WON", I repeat "WE HAD WON, DAMN IT! ! !'
Now our Islamic Chairman, Obama, his Obamanation Administration and the Progressive/Marxist Congress are prepared to Surrender with the Desertion of Iraq to the likes of Iran and the other Islamic Nations at War with America and the World.
Next Year our Islamic Chairman, Obama, his Obamanation Administration, and the Progressive/Marxist Controlled Congress are planning on the Surrender and Desertion of Afghanistan.
Don't Shame another Generation of American Warriors, like my Son, like my Grandson that You Sent To War!
THEY ARE WINNING, THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WIN, THEY HAVE PAID FOR IT! ! ! !
TSGT Clough, USAF, (Ret)
Source: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/543643/20100812190...
IBD Editorials
Giving Up On Iraq?
Posted 08/12/2010 07:04 PM ET
U.S. Army soldiers from 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division are seen aboard a C-17 aircraft at Baghdad International Airport as they begin their... View Enlarged Image
War On Terror: America's victories in Iraq since 2003 have been hard-won. Now, after claiming credit for the successes of President Bush's surge, the Obama administration is in danger of giving it all back.
Some 90,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq today. President Obama wants that down to 50,000 by month's end, and by the end of next year he wants virtually all our troops out. The situation on the ground, however, is not looking good.
Britain's Guardian newspaper, quoting two U.S.-backed militia leaders, reports that "al-Qaida is attempting to make a comeback in Iraq by paying them more than the monthly salary they currently receive from the government."
"Al-Qaida has made a big comeback here," said Sheikh Sabah al-Janabi, a leader of the Awakening Council. He said as many as 100 of his 1,800 men under arms have defected to the terrorist group.
Worse, Obama seems to be going forward with the withdrawal despite an explicit request from the Iraq army's chief of staff that U.S. troops stay there at least another decade.
"At this point, the withdrawal (of U.S. troops) is going well, because they are still here," said Lt. Gen. Babakir Zebari, the chief of staff. "But the problem will start after 2011. The politicians must find other ways to fill the void after 2011, because the (Iraqi) army will be fully ready in 2020."
As always, the troop drawdown is complicated by politics. Iraq held inconclusive national elections just five months ago, and since then no party has been able to form a government. Without a stable government in Baghdad, it'll be hard to withdraw our fighting troops without creating instability.
In a recent letter, Obama essentially begged Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, perhaps the most influential person in all of Iraq, to "use his influence with Shiite groups and get them to compromise," according to Foreign Policy Magazine.
It's not clear that al-Sistani — or any other politician in Iraq, for that matter — listens anymore when Obama speaks. They know he was foursquare against the Iraq War and the surge that won it. They question his commitment.
Yet today he wants to have it both ways — taking credit for the victory that Bush's surge brought, while endangering Iraq's future stability by walking away at a critical time in its history.
Suddenly, the withdrawal of U.S. troops is a White House priority, and the reason — sad to say — is election politics. Obama is under pressure from those on his party's far left, which happens to be his voting base.
They're angry not only because the president has yet to draw down troops in Iraq, but also because he seems in no hurry to close Guantanamo — a pet national security fetish of the left.
Midterm elections loom. To pacify the left, Obama has committed to a troop drawdown that looks increasingly foolish and risky as it emboldens the enemy and weakens Iraq's nascent democracy.
The president needs to look in the mirror. He's not Democrat in chief; he's commander in chief. In war, strategy must trump politics. Better to lose an election than to squander the blood and treasure we've already spent in the sands of Iraq.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Troy Cross on -
Couldn't agree more sir (should I call you "sir"?). I think the Korean War gives us the best example of why we should have continued to fight that war, kill as many Chinese and North Koreans as possible and win. Sixty years later, in lieu of restarting the war, our government goes through these endless and meaningless sanctions as the North Koreans continue to give nuclear and missile technology to folks who shouldn't have it. If we had fought and won, problem solved. Winning is always the best policy outcome.
-
Permalink Reply by Uvin A. Clough JR., TSGT, USAF, RET. on
-
Hey, TSGT, or Uvin or Sir! its upto you.
-
Permalink Reply by Troy Cross on
-
What does this mean? If Congress doesn't give legislative consent we are prohibited from winning?
-
Permalink Reply by Troy Cross on
-
This may come as a surprise to you Mr. Mullen but quoting the Constitution in this regard sheds no light on the political spinelessness that shorted us victories in Korea and Vietnam. And, you are incorrect....the Iraq War Resolution (H.J. Res. 114) is a congressionally sanctioned action. What is your thesis about that? This means that it is absolutely a coincidence that we won World War II and simply withdrew from Korea and Vietnam and they had their corresponding legislative efforts behind them. I could quote you the language of the Iraq War Resolution but I have this strange feeling that you, despite your illogical theses, is going to argue that the Iraq War is illegal. Prove me wrong my friend.
-
Permalink Reply by Uvin A. Clough JR., TSGT, USAF, RET. on
-
Thought I jump in here. That Congress "Sanctioned the Action" is a totally different thing from a "Declaration of War". Hell congress "Sanctions" a lot of things.
Be advised that we did not Win WW II by a "coincidence" All of us including the Congress "WANTED TO WIN THAT WAR". That doesn't happen to be the case in Korea, Vietnam, or in Iraq and Afghanistan Today It wouldn't at All surprise me that the Progressives/Marxist in congress along with too many Progressive 'p'residents actually supported the Communist take over in Korea and Vietnam just as this 'p'resident and Congress obviously support Islam in the Mid-East - and don't forget that most of the Islamic Nations are big Buddies with Russia, China, North Korea, etc.
The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are Legal - so what's your point in this attack.? ? ?
-
Permalink Reply by Troy Cross on
-
Mr. Mullen's response below demonstrates the point of my attack.
-
Permalink Reply by Troy Cross on
-
That's a non-sensical argument; "legal but not constitutional"? Having read the joint resolution giving President Bush authority to wage war in Iraq, Congress fulfilled their constitutional responsibility of oversight of the executive. What's more, at any point subsequent to the passage of that joint resolution, if the executive is exceeding the parameters of the congressional mandate, Congress can, but isn't necessarily constitutionally compelled to, write more laws mandating new parameters. Really, I'm not getting your point. The legality and constitutionality of Iraq is a non-issue. Trying to create a causal relationship between formal declarations of war and winning is side-stepping the orginal point. Why don't we discuss the effects of progressive/communist politicians on our military objectives and what, if any, are the long term effecs of that kind of compromise? Honestly, it would be a far better conversation if we discuss the ineffectiveness of President Johnson and his personal bombing picks of North Vietnamese targets...for years. Since his goal was to simply force the Communists to negotiate, and since that never happened, many military/political targets were left in tact which allowed the war to linger instead of us just preparing to win both politically and militarily. War over more quickly, far less Americans dead and we have prevented the future slaughter of over 2 million South Vietnamese at the hands of the Communist butchers.
-
Permalink Reply by Troy Cross on
-
To the contrary. I had a pre-law minor in college, have studied the Constitution extensively and am a conservative Christian. Be very careful before you start calling me names....you don't know me and you are defaulting to name-calling rather than addressing the argument you and I were having and not posting in the spirit of the orginial question. So, let's try again....the war in Iraq is legal and constitutional because of the joint resolution giving the President authority to do so. What about that resolution don't you get? Congress authorized a declaration of war. What about that don't you get? In the larger sense though, even if Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon did not have a congressional decree to wage war in Vietnam, was it the right thing to do (in the natural law sense of right and wrong)? Or are you insulating yourself from such ethical exercises because of the constitutional argument?
-
Permalink Reply by Uvin A. Clough JR., TSGT, USAF, RET. on
-
I agree with both you and Mr. Troy Cross on some subjects as I do with Ron Paul. Ron Paul is an isolationist, which is Suicidal in today's world where the Reach of Arms is World Wide.
We must take back our Constitutional America.
We must be the most powerful nation on earth.
We must return all major industry back to America.
We must rid ourselves of the Progressive/Marxist and Islamic Diseases that have infected our nation.
We must forever ban the use of any and all foreign law that is not American and recover from all the Progressive/Marxist Laws and Dictates that have been enacted to date.
There is more of course and do feel free to add to this list, which we can debate if necessary.
Take Care,
TSGT Clough
-
Permalink Reply by Troy Cross on
-
Sounds good to me. As a guiding principle though, I want us to win the wars we fight. Measured responses are for sissies and Communist sympathizers.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Di on -
AMEN, AMEN AMEN !!!
Uvin,
And how we do all of those things???
Love of GOD #1
Love of Country #2 -
-
Permalink Reply by Troy Cross on
-
You didn't give me props either...you fulfilled my prediction. :->
© 2013 Created by Earl B.
