Originally posted by SkyRock
Lazs, I don't have time to edit, but if you are implying that I want a higher death toll for US troops, then you obviously are doing exactly what the lefties are doing, except on the other side. I have always thought IRAQ was a bunk idea and was pushed down our throats with lies and propaganda, and I do not expect you to see it that way. I do not think there will be a positive outcome in that country because of it's history and culture, it has nothing to do with what we do. I hate to see us lose any soldier, it makes me sick to my stomach to watch those videos of young men being blown up by ied's, but I know casualty's are a part of war. So, that leaves the burden to the ones in power that decide when and where we fight, in this case as in all wars, the burden is placed on the soldiers and the families of the soldiers with the rest of us hoping for a positive outcome. Wars are pretty much ineviteble, but when, where, and why we "start" a war is soley up to us.
Nobody wants to see a higher death toll for troops.
But the time for arguing over if we should have gone in there is long since passed
Arguing about if we should still be there is moot because there are no other options.
We cant just pull out just like that. Its just not that simple.
Success wont be properly measured until 20-30 years from now.
A positive outcome cant and wont be measured by our American standards.
Fact of the matter is we are there and we cant leave until the mission is accomplished.
the mission in my eyes is to have a relatively stable Iraq that can govern themselves and adequately protect themselves from potentially invading countries.
It doesn't have to be a Utopia Or a mirror image of the US. (which can be argued is also only relatively stable)
It just has to meet the criteria outlined above.
Fact of the matter is we cant just pick up and leave until that is accomplished no matter who is in charge.
That being the case. As a people our only option is to support the troops AND their mission.
Because you cant support the troops without supporting the mission.
to tell them, "Your mission is wrong but I support you as a soldier" is nothing more them lip service.
And the troops see it for the simple rhetoric it is. "bovine scat" Otherwise known as BS
You cant support your troops and not support them in accomplishing their mission.
by telling them their mission is wrong. You are also telling them they are wrong for taking part in it.
Some weeks ago there was a discussion about the Nazis and German soldiers just following their orders.
Some made the argument that if it was wrong. then the soldiers were wrong for following those orders.
Same principle applies here. You cant have it both ways. Only seeing one groups as being wrong so long as it isn't your group.
In our case and regardless of anyone's position on going into this endeavor. at this point we can only support the troops and want them to accomplish their mission so that they can come home.
Regardless of reason a 70% drop is good news. It is a measure of success. And something to be applauded and hope we can build on.
Not something to be critical of. That is counter productive.
Look. Regardless of anyone's position of should we have gone/should we be there.
The bottom line is we are there. And are going to be there until the mission is accomplished.
I felt like many feel about Iraq when it came to Bosnia.
We had no business being there. BUT, once we were.
Then lets damn well accomplish the mission then so they can come home.
THAT is how you support the troops.
Now is not the time to argue if we should be there or not. If one wants to argue about it one can argue how its being conducted. What should be done differently to accomplish the mission. That can be both healthy and productive.
But arguing at this point if we should be there is not. and only hurts our troops by sending them a message that they are wrong.
