Do you read the bible dude? It is going to be fighting in the middle east if we stay or if we leave. This hasn't just started since the neocons took over. The neocons has just stirred a hornets nest. We took our eyes off the ball, Bin Laden is our target and Al Queda.
I know how you feel, to invade Iraq, now we have a battefield to fight Al Queda on. They move around. Again, they was not in Iraq untill we invaded. Now they are. It is many groups trying to get a foot hold on Iraq. Many, not just Al Queda.
The enemy was pouring from countries and places our own government told the generals and they told the troops, do notttttttttttttt cross certains places or lines or go into other countries. This was Vietnam dude. In war it is ugly and you let the troops have a fair shake and do what they can and you do not limit them, by telling them go to sleep now but tomorrow we will walk around and kick up the enemy in these fields and jungles and us get shot at. Then go back and do this again tomorrow as they come in. If you go to war, you go to win but they put to many restrictions on our guys. I know someone that was shot and he ran a boat up and down this river, he was shot in the back and he thought he would never walk again but he did and even fought more. He was always patrolling up and down this river on a boat. He said once he was so happy and proud as all his men was on the boat because they could see where the enemy was running to and hiding. It was a place they was not allowed to cross but from high up, he was told one night at midnight, he could cross that line and chase them and get them with some more boats that would be with him. About 2 hours before midnight he was called on the radio and said no. You have orders to not cross that line, it is called off. He was so let down, because he said it was the same cat and mouse thing, clearing them out to that line as they ran and hid where he could not go. As soon as we left, they came back across. Vietnam was politcal and it was wrong if they wanted our troops there, they should have turned us loose. They had to many restrictions on us.
Reaction to Bush's speech on Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070822/...blhgMIalSyFz4D
Reaction to President Bush's speech on Iraq at the Veterans of Foreign Wars' convention Wednesday in Kansas City, Mo.
"The president's surge was supposed to create the political space for national reconciliation. Instead the politics have reached total gridlock, while the security situation remains essentially unchanged. By the President's own measures the surge has failed." — Ilan Goldenberg, policy director of National Security Network in Washington.
"The speech was an act of desperation to scare the American people into staying the course in Iraq. He's distorted the facts, painting all of the people in Iraq as being on the same side which is simply not the case. Iraq is a religious civil war." — Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under President Reagan and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington.
"Bush is cherry-picking history to support his case for staying the course. What I learned in Vietnam is that U.S. forces could not conduct a counterinsurgency operation. The longer we stay there, the worse it's going to get." — Ret. Army Brig. Gen. John Johns, a counterinsurgency expert who served in Vietnam.
"The president emphasized the violence in the wake of American withdrawal from Vietnam. But this happened because the United States left too late, not too early. It was the expansion of the war that opened the door to Pol Pot and the genocide of the Khmer Rouge. The longer you stay the worse it gets." — Steven Simon, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
"President Johnson said in 1966, `The solution to Vietnam is patience.' President Nixon said in 1969, 'As our commanders in the field determine that the South Vietnamese are able to assume a greater portion of the responsibility for the defense of their own territory, troops will come back.' Today, we hear the same misleading rhetoric coming from this administration. In Vietnam, we were talking about 10 years of patience and, in the end, a U.S. military solution did not work. Now, five year's into the war in Iraq, the president continues to seek a U.S. military solution to an Iraqi civil war. The American people will not accept patience as a strategy while the Iraqi Government continues to ignore key political and economic benchmarks." — Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations' subcommittee on defense.
"Whatever improvements in security that may have resulted from the efforts of our troops since the surge began, Iraqi leaders have not done the hard political work on which the future of their country depends. And therefore, the purpose of the surge — to enable the Iraqis to produce political reconciliation has not been accomplished. That is the standard against which Congress and the American people will judge the White House report of September 15." — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.