Thread: A letter on Iraq from my Congressman

In his defense, when we first invaded, Bush's approval rating was still sky high after 9/11. We would've invaded Mars if Bush asked us.

Originally Posted by goandykid

In his defense, when we first invaded, Bush's approval rating was still sky high after 9/11. We would've invaded Mars if Bush asked us.

In our Nations defense Bush put us in a no win situation that we will be stuck with for a very long time. It's going to drain our country...

Hawaii has one of my favorite Politicans. True Hero and Medal of Honor recipient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Inouye

Originally Posted by NordicNacho

Hawaii has one of my favorite Politicans. True Hero and Medal of Honor recipient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Inouye

He's a good friend of my GF's grandfather who knows him through WWII veterans functions and he and his wife took an orchid class taught by her grandfather. I've had the pleasure of meeting him before, very nice man and ultra intelligent. I told him I worked in the Solar Electric Division and he knew a lot about the technologies....

Originally Posted by maniclion

We are sending these "surge" troops into Iraq without the proper equipment they are going to have to borrow and shares with other units already involved in the conflict. And how many times have our objectives in Iraq flip-flopped? We don't even know why we are there except to make Bush look like he knows what he is doing. The other day I watched a video of Saddam that showed that he was arming civilian militias in the month's leading up to the invasion, we aren't up against a defined enemy there, we are fighting civilians who blend in with the rest of the population and set traps and ambushes much like the Vietnamese did. We can not win in this type of fight, it's like fighting crime in the US no matter how many criminals we put behind bars more keep popping up especially in the ghettos. And that is exactly what Iraq is a huge ghetto and all that our troops are doing is policing the area barely making a dent in the problem...

Can you tell me which Congressman wrote this above, or if there is a link.

This is very interesting.

Thanks, Manic.

1)Never commit forces unless the particular situation is vital to our national interest and that of our allies;
Check

2)If we're unwilling to commit the force or resources necessary to win, we should not commit them at all;
Unknown at this point

3)We should have clearly defined political and military objectives;
agree
4)The relationship between objectives and forces - size, composition and disposition - must be continually reassessed and adjusted;
I think it is
5)We must have the support of the American people and their representatives in Congress; and
you will always have whiney liberals who don't back anything.....run and hide
6)The commitment of U.S. troops to combat should be the last resort.
agree

Originally Posted by dg806

1)

you will always have whiney liberals who don't back anything.....run and hide

And you will always have war mongering conservatives who will go to war anytime for any reason with no provocation.

I think you and I, DG, are neither of these people. I think the majority of the country is also somewhere in between. I think the majority of this country was dupped into supporting this war by the POS republicans in power at the time.

Just as someone previously stated, after 9/11, were were united and would have done anything to help our out fellow American. We would have went to war against the rest of the world if we had to. That unity and patriotism was squandered by Bush and the rest of the republicans in power. Rather than using that unity constructively, we were taken advantage of. Bush used that support to rape out constitution, and steal our rights, waste a huge economical surplus, and put us into a conflict that we may never be able to truly get away from.

But yeah, you can blame the liberals. Its all their fault.

In my opinion the conservatives need to stop objectifying the war so much, and realize that real people are dieing. They glorify the fact that people are dieing in an preemptive attack on what could be a future threat. They say they want to make the country safe for "future" generations, but they don't take into account that we won't have a future after nuclear fall out which is where this is all headed. Have some faith people. If in 50 years it arises that we need to combat forces which threaten our national safety then we'll do it. At least at that point we'll have better intelligence and insight to the problem.

And the liberals need to understand that like it or not we are at war, and war is just that. Most liberals have no true agenda or any real morals. They're basically 2 faced, and will renege at any time on anything they've said for the benefit of saving face.

Both parties have their faults. So in conclusion don't trust a liberal as far as you can throw him, and don't let conservative "old money" predict our future for us. Everything in moderation.

Originally Posted by KelJu

And you will always have war mongering conservatives who will go to war anytime for any reason with no provocation.

I think you and I, DG, are neither of these people. I think the majority of the country is also somewhere in between. I think the majority of this country was dupped into supporting this war by the POS republicans in power at the time.

Just as someone previously stated, after 9/11, were were united and would have done anything to help our out fellow American. We would have went to war against the rest of the world if we had to. That unity and patriotism was squandered by Bush and the rest of the republicans in power. Rather than using that unity constructively, we were taken advantage of. Bush used that support to rape out constitution, and steal our rights, waste a huge economical surplus, and put us into a conflict that we may never be able to truly get away from.

But yeah, you can blame the liberals. Its all their fault.

Just look at History, like Nam. Any time the going gets tough, the liberals cry and want to pull out and quit. That's not the way to do it IMO. When it gets tough, you get tougher. If you don't you loose and we CANNOT IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM let that happen if you want this country to continue the way it has for over 200 years. I'm not saying the republicans are not to blame also, but we absolutely have to CONTROL terroism in the world today!

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Can you tell me which Congressman wrote this above, or if there is a link.

This is very interesting.

Thanks, Manic.

Neil Abercrombie, I'm on regular correspondecne with him and his office on Iraq and Solar Power issues...

We will win any war we ever fight. We just are not good at building nations. You know what the Nazi's did with a insurgency? When ever one of there guys got killed they would line up a 100 civilians and blow them away. Stops it real fast. But where building a democracy they have to want it. Same thing happened in Vietnam. We won the war just couldn't prop up a weak corrupt nation for ever.

Originally Posted by dg806

. . .5)We must have the support of the American people and their representatives in Congress; and
you will always have whiney liberals who don't back anything.....run and hide. . .

Whiny? You mean like when Clinton took on Kosovo? Is that whiny like this?:

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it." Sean Hannity, Fox News

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" Sean Hannity, Fox News

"You can support the troops but not the president." Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." Tony Snow, Fox News

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

Sending U.S. troops to Kosovo is fraught with serious pitfalls that the president has yet to acknowledge. The American people deserve a clear explanation of the risks and a vigorous congressional debate now over the wisdom of such a deployment. Once the troops are there, it'll be too late.Gary Dempsey, The CATO Institute

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ut_kosovo.html

It looks like the only time an ethical bone was apparent in the republican spine was when it came to piling on Bill Clinton.

Originally Posted by dg806

Just look at History, like Nam. Any time the going gets tough, the liberals cry and want to pull out and quit. That's not the way to do it IMO. When it gets tough, you get tougher. If you don't you loose and we CANNOT IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM let that happen if you want this country to continue the way it has for over 200 years. I'm not saying the republicans are not to blame also, but we absolutely have to CONTROL terroism in the world today!

Liberals didn't pull us out of 'Nam, that was completely under Republican need to make themselves look good after the Watergate fiasco, much like how Clinton didn't get the job done to kill Osama because of the Monicagate fiasco....if these politicians would stop letting image and reputation keep them from doing their jobs things would get finished and many of the further problems we face would lessen.

The thing that we have to realize now is that we are not in a war right now we are just policing a criminal activity. Terrorism is much the same as rape, robbery and murder. People all over the world are involved in terrorizing all of the time since the early days of man when one group of cave dwellers stood on the cliff over their enemy cave dwellers cave and dropped boulders on them when they walked out. The only way to win against it is to secure against it much like we put security systems in our homes, have guard dogs, carry mase and stun guns. We don't prevent criminal activity by going out and shooting anyone who looks like they may be a criminal, so why are we doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Originally Posted by maniclion

Liberals didn't pull us out of 'Nam, that was completely under Republican need to make themselves look good after the Watergate fiasco, much like how Clinton didn't get the job done to kill Osama because of the Monicagate fiasco....if these politicians would stop letting image and reputation keep them from doing their jobs things would get finished and many of the further problems we face would lessen.

The thing that we have to realize now is that we are not in a war right now we are just policing a criminal activity. Terrorism is much the same as rape, robbery and murder. People all over the world are involved in terrorizing all of the time since the early days of man when one group of cave dwellers stood on the cliff over their enemy cave dwellers cave and dropped boulders on them when they walked out. The only way to win against it is to secure against it much like we put security systems in our homes, have guard dogs, carry mase and stun guns. We don't prevent criminal activity by going out and shooting anyone who looks like they may be a criminal, so why are we doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Because we have to draw a line some where, and anyone or any group of people who step over that line have to be dealt with in a fashion which makes the anyone else think twice about crossing it. We're trying to set a standard for human behavior, but are we going about it ass backwards? I can't see another way. We're way past the point where love can change the world, and peace is an attainable goal. We have to try and find a comfortable medium, and that's where we're at during this point in time in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Brachiisaurus

Because we have to draw a line some where, and anyone or any group of people who step over that line have to be dealt with in a fashion which makes the anyone else think twice about crossing it. We're trying to set a standard for human behavior, but are we going about it ass backwards? I can't see another way. We're way past the point where love can change the world, and peace is an attainable goal. We have to try and find a comfortable medium, and that's where we're at during this point in time in my opinion.

It is bass ackwards because when thee FBI knows that an Organized Crime Ring is operating in a city they don't start arresting the whole city do they? No they lock in on exact targets and get the criminal. When we invaded Iraq we had some vague goal and then the goal switched half a dozen times and went after people who weren't even involved in terrorism against us. If the FBI came into a city harassed the population on the grounds that a prostitution ring may be operating in thee vicinity and then decided, no a drug cartel is operating in the city and continued to harass people, don't you think more and more people are going to take up arms because they are sick of it?

Originally Posted by dg806

1)Never commit forces unless the particular situation is vital to our national interest and that of our allies;
Check

I disagree.

2)If we're unwilling to commit the force or resources necessary to win, we should not commit them at all;
Unknown at this point

Gen. Eric Shinseki testified before a Congressional Committee that 300,000 troops were needed to keep order, security, and field off the coming insurgency in post-Saddam Iraq. He publicly ridiculed by Wolfawitz and Rumsfeld.

3)We should have clearly defined political and military objectives;
agree

How is supporting:

The Dawa Party of Nouri Al-Maliki
Sciri Party of Sayyid Abdul Azziz Al-Hakim
Sayyid Moqtada Al-Sadr

A "clearly defined political and military" objective?

Please explain.

4)The relationship between objectives and forces - size, composition and disposition - must be continually reassessed and adjusted;
I think it is

There is no "surge." The percentage increase is too low to qualify as a surge.

5)We must have the support of the American people and their representatives in Congress; and
you will always have whiney liberals who don't back anything.....run and hide

The disagreement about Iraq is not about partisanship, conservative, NeoCons, or Liberals.

The Iraq war is a continuation of American foreign policy that has been practiced since 1800 under Jefferson.

6)The commitment of U.S. troops to combat should be the last resort.
agree

Contradiction.