Comments on: 4 U.S. Soldiers Killed In Diyala Province

Explosion Near Vehicle Claims Troops In Volatile Region; Truck Bomb Kills 18 In Baghdad

[radiob-2009]

Since the end of the war in Iraq, thousands of civilians have died in violence on the streets. Support for the coalition forces based in Iraq is low - with 82% expressing a lack of confidence in them and 69% thinking they had made the security situation worse.

51% support attacks on coalition forces as compared to 2004 when only 17% did.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6451841.stm


How much longer will this fiasco continue? Until 2012 as suggested by the British? What presidential candiate has a detailed plan to end this war? How much longer will congress keep playing games with this war. Fund it or do not fund it, anything else is political grandstanding.

[formrusmcsgt]

He was a very popular governor in Texas and was considered the "reluctant president."
Posted by tuckerndfw at 07:46 AM : Apr 08, 2007

Bro, I lived in Texas during his governorship and he was viewed as more of a joke than anything else.

Ann Richards stated "Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth".

A good many of us agreed.

[formrusmcsgt]

In my view, this administration is not fighting for any victory. Rather its strategy is "hang-on and handover." Someone else will sort out the mess this administration has created. If a few thousand more US troops are slaughtered between now and then, so what?
Posted by heetseeker at 07:33 AM : Apr 08, 2007

Agreed. In my opinion, this is percisely why Bush vows he'll veto any funding authorization with a time-table attached.

He claims that to do so will help our adversaries. The fact of the matter is that Bush is trying desperately to avoid the legacy of an idiot. If he can pass on the war to his successor, he feels he can pass on some of the blame as well.

And the Dems aren't having any of it. They want to see Dubya alone take the fall for his boondoggle. And so do I.

[tuckerndfw]

there's never any mention of his seeking the White House.

Posted by formrusmcsgt at 07:27 AM : Apr 08, 2007

That's the same tactic used by George Bush.

He was a very popular governor in Texas and was considered the "reluctant president."

He only ran because God told him to do so, not because he wanted to be a power mad dictator.

Don't be fooled by the Bush crime family's charades. They have been master liars and manipulators for nearly 100 years (at a minimum).

Grandpa (Prescott) Bush was a Senator from Connecticut who was investigated for supporting German Nazis. War profiteering, lying and treason run in the Bush family blood.

[heetseeker]

"Hang-on & Handover"

I think it was Eleanor Clift that described the US as being in a holding pattern in Iraq. I disagree with a lot of what Miss Clift has to say on a lot of things, but on Iraq and with regard to this statement in particular, she is right on the money.

It really does not matter what happens, how many US troops are killed, how many are maimed & wounded or how many more are sent in to replace them. I do not believe this is about victory. What victory? Even General Petraeus states that we cannot win a military victory in Iraq. So what exactly is the victory we are fighting for?

Is it to support Iraq to become a nation that can "govern itself, defend itself, sustain itself and be an ally in the war on terror." If so, then we are nowhere nearer to achieving that vision than whe we arrived.in fact we are further from it.

Much of the country including Baghdad is ungovernable, Iraq is incapable of defending itself, is in economic free-fall and far from being an ally in the war on terror it is a training ground and mass exporter of it.

In my view, this administration is not fighting for any victory. Rather its strategy is "hang-on and handover." Someone else will sort out the mess this administration has created. If a few thousand more US troops are slaughtered between now and then, so what?

[tuckerndfw]

The Iraqi people did not attack the US.

Why are US forces attempting to "pacify" the Iraqi people? What purpose is being served by US forces losing life and limb playing bomb detector the Iraqi people?

Obviusly, the Iraqi people have rejected the US's version of a government.

It is time to acknowledge the obvious and remove US combat forces from Iraq. Other than those required to protect the US civil affairs units and contractors who will have to remain behind to clean up the mess George Bush made, there is no reason for US combat forces to be in Iraq.

There is no reason whatsoever for US forces to be "patrolling" in Iraq. Nor is there any reason for them to be protecting the US installed government.

If the US imposed government cannot defend itself against the Iraqi people, that is their problem, not mine. Or any other US taxpayer.

Time to bring the forces home from George Bush's quagmire.

And, to begin Bush & Cheney's impeachments. They are al qaida's top recruiters and supporters.

[formrusmcsgt]

I was thinking about Jeb Bush yesterday. Bush, of course, was a very well liked two-term governor of the state of Florida yet there's never any mention of his seeking the White House.

The reason, of course, is that he doesn't have a prayer of getting elected after his brother's stinking up the place so badly.

I imagine #41 would have loved to see Jeb succeed #43 but must, in the final analysis, recognize that Dubya's ineptness, arrogance, and stubborness have precluded any chance of that happening.

[formrusmcsgt]

Day after day, month after month, year after year it's the same story. More dead American warriors and not a single city block in Iraq is controlled for more than a few minutes at a time.

How would you fell as an American warrior if you had tour after tour in Iraq and had to retake and purge ares that you had retaken and purged previously?

I think you'd be asking yourself "What am I doing here?"

We're getting nowhere fast.

[radiob-2009]

Five more years in Iraq, say defence papers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq08.xml