[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

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.

Who the HELL do you think is attacking US and the Iraqis in Iraq BUT Al Queda. Who has been using suicide bombers to instigate the sectarian violence IN iraq?
Why do you think that Anbar province and much of the baghdad belts are not safer than before?? It's because ourselves and the Iraqi's are now targeting...AL QUEDA.

What does the bible have to do with this? Are you saying that this is armaggedon or something? That Bin Laden is the anti-christ? The middle-east has been in turmoil ever since the caliphate was beaten out of europe. If you are saying that this is a "religious" war then it's a war between christianity and islam. AS WELL as tribes and factions within the middle east.

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.

You don't know squat about how I feel about this. I would much,much rather have had Al Queda stay out of iraq. That country would probably be relatively stable by now imo. Our leaving certainly wouldn't have the impact that it would now.

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.

This i agree with. However form what I understand, the S. Vietnamese had gotten to the point where they were beginning to stand up. But we bailed on them, not only militarily but the democrats wouldn't even provide our ally with financial aid. Pathetic and disgusting.

Pathetic Democrat Reaction to Bush's speech on Iraq

"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.