DO you hate that we are at war or that we will not do whats needed to bring it to an end .?

Question

Truman Knew that going from Island to Island would take the lives of many more Americans and made the hard decision to bring a quick end to the war in the pacific .
Germany was bombed into submission and the people knew better then to violate the rules of the occupation if they wanted to live . Hundreds of thousands of troops from Europe and the U.S.A. secured Germany .

SO why is it that we only have a handful of soldiers in Iraq when we need 5 times as many to maintain order .

Answer 1

I hate that we are at war. I'm not really sure what we could due to end it any quicker though. Bombing a nation that we liberated doesn't seem like a viable solution.

Answer 2

Oh, I hate both. I hate that there are enemies in this world that feel that killing us is an honorable dictum. I hate that in order to procure and sustain freedom, good people will die . . . I also hate that PC is holding our good people hostage to to those who come out to kill.

I don't want to see innocent people die, who would. But the soldiers are our good people and should be granted the right to do the job.

It further incenses me that the people for whom this is being done aren't showing the same amount of desire for freedom as they did when they braved the streets to vote! What brass they had that day! They showed such gumption that day!

Where is that resolve now? Why aren't they taking control of their communities and running the bad guys out?

Until that happens I fear we will be there a long time. If we are recalled before resolution, we here will likely suffer greater.

This engagement also requires a great amount of support from us. When we openly tear one-another down with hateful malice, we provide hope to the enemy. "Hope is a mainstay. Hope is everything." In order to starve that hope we must uphold our standards and stand united in the face of our enemies.

Answer 3

I think for the past few wars, we have had not only political interference, but a failure in military strategy and planning. I'm no general, but I just knew in my heart back in 2003 that we'd have insurgency problems once we conquered Iraq.

And the military's view that it only takes one jet to bomb a target, or just 500 soldiers to qualify as a "major troop reinforcement or move" is just silly. Not sure where our military leadership got off on assuming that a minimalist approach to combat is the way to go. Our military hasn't secured a stable front line since the Korean War, and yet the top brass wonders why insurgents are everywhere and why no ground is safe for our troops.

Answer 4

We set out to have a short victorious war. We were going to shock the terrorist and the countries that support them by showing we could eradicate a regime in a given week end and with little effort on our part. The trouble was that the government we removed was firm on its people and the government we tried to put in its place was not. We should have put a military governor in place and kept our civilians out until the place was stable. Instead we told people who had never lived in a democracy to create one overnight and make it work.
I think we had good reasons to invade but our leaders didn’t think well enough of us to tell us those reasons. Instead they fed us a line of crap about weapons of mass destruction and absolutely believed that we were stupid enough to buy it. Basically they decided to wing the whole occupation part and now were paying for it. We don’t have the money to put enough troops in Iraq to properly occupy unless we drastically change our recruiting policy and put soldiers at a pay scale equivalent to the Vietnam era. If we did that then what support we still have for the war would dry up to nothing.
Like I said we had good reasons but not good enough to justify a draft or mandatory enlistment. We moved the major threat of terrorism away from US soil, we tried to create a stable area in the largest hotspot for terrorist recruiting and training and we tried to improve the standard of living to make terrorism a less desirable occupation in that area. But we went in half ****** and didn’t follow through. There shouldn’t have been a war because we should have put a military governor with the resources needed to stabilize the country in place instead of trying to prop up an ineffective civilian government. We didn’t learn much from Vietnam or our successful occupation of Japan and Germany.

Answer 5

We have enough troops,hell,we don't need any.What is needed is to relax the rules of engagement.Get hit with an IED,level the closest house.Get hit with another,level the neighborhood.Another,flatten the city.The "war is unwinnable" is a close to treasonous statement.WTF the war is unwinnable???Withdraw the troops and bomb them from the air,day after day after day.The US cannot win in Iraq?That is just completely absurd. Civilians die in war,especially when civilians wage it. Bomb,bomb,bomb and don't stop until they wave the white flag.Screw em,this is a war.Little misguided liberals,parroting(SQUAWK)"unjust war(SQUAWK)Let's just shoot ourselves in the head because we feel so damn guilty.Ridiculous.Let's use our military might and beat them to submission.Won't happen though.The libs wanna sing "kumbaya"while holding hands with Bin Laden,because"all you need is love"Delusional people

Answer 6

At this point in the war, we're basically just a police force. There's no way to win a 'war' with religious fanatics. Even if we eradicate who we believe the enemy is today, there will be another one tomorrow. What we didn't do is overrun the country in the beginning. We needed to be more fanatical in our beliefs than those we oppose. In other words, they need to be more afraid of us than we are of them.

Answer 7

I do. Our solders in Iraq are not even allowed to fire on anyone until they are fired on first. They are not allowed to shoot at or capture people they know are cooperating with terrorist until they attempt to kill our troops. It is impossible to win a war fighting this way.

Answer 8

i dont think its a war worth fighting i mean do these people just think theyre superman saving the world from evildoers, if it was a war worth fighing we wouldnt need so much money, if the soldiers were truely motivated like in the alamo, or the revolutionary war, and the civil war, this would be more of a slap on the wrist than a head in the basket

Answer 9

Because they have refused to start up the draft - thanks to the Clinton Administration, our military was drastically down sized and now we are paying for it. Most people don't want to enlist right now as they know they will go to Afghanistan or Iraq. So, in order to get the troop levels we need, it's time to use the draft. If you are 42 or younger, the Army will take you as long as you meet their qualifications.

Answer 10

I agree , give the woman and children 48 hours to get out of Iran and Saudia Arabia , since these are the countries funding and harboring the terrorists . Then demolish them , this war will take about 2 weeks to end . Stick a fork in it and tell your children they will be safe now

Answer 11

What is needed to bring this war to an end is for Iraqis to cooperate in rebuilding their nation so we can leave. As long as the insurgents are fighting our troops, we aren't going to get to go anywhere.

As far as the troops levels necessary, I will leave that to the generals.