Troop Increase - Realistic or Capitol Hill talk?

[Lawman]

Few would argue this point I think Lawman... we've all essentially agreed that comparing the two conflicts is a night & day type deal. There are many factors as you say, and this a completely different type of war.

If few would argue the point you wouldnt hear people yelling about it on the news as to "the ____ year anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war."

 

[invertedflyer]

I meant here in the forums... not the liberally-slanted media ...Heck if you go outside of this forum its mayhem out there... and most don't look at the big picture.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

If that was his point, it is not a very good one. Very little violence met the occupying troops in both defeated countries, the same cannot be said for Iraq.

She explicitly referenced "since 9/11". Are we fighting the same people in Iraq that attacked us on 9/11? For that matter, are the insurgents we're fighting in Iraq right now the same forces we fought when we initially invaded that country?

The liberals try very hard to point out (with some justification) that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Yet once it's convenient to their political ends, they choose to forget that and lump them all into one war which has lasted.... gasssssppp... longer than our involvement in the Pacific in WWII!!!

It's every bit as ridiculous as the idea that Korea was a continuation of our conflict in the Pacific theater. In a vague way it represented a continuation of our involvements in regional interests and one probably wouldn't not have happened without the other... but different actors, different goals, different places, different degrees of success...

 

[invertedflyer]

For that matter, are the insurgents we're fighting in Iraq right now the same forces we fought when we initially invaded that country?

From what I heard 5th Marines ran into a camp of foreign fighters on their way up the SE route to Baghdad, but outside of that we were primarily fighting the fedayeen and the Iraqi military. Its good to point out that we are now fighting insurgents, Al Qaeda, as well as foreign fighters. If we didn't take the war to the terrorists, the terrorists definitely took it to us. Regardless of liberal vs. conservative... Iraq is NOW a vital part of the war on terror... especially with Iran footing the bill for some of the Shi'ite Militias.

 

[Flash]

She explicitly referenced "since 9/11". Are we fighting the same people in Iraq that attacked us on 9/11? For that matter, are the insurgents we're fighting in Iraq right now the same forces we fought when we initially invaded that country?

The liberals try very hard to point out (with some justification) that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Yet once it's convenient to their political ends, they choose to forget that and lump them all into one war which has lasted.... gasssssppp... longer than our involvement in the Pacific in WWII!!!

It's every bit as ridiculous as the idea that Korea was a continuation of our conflict in the Pacific theater. In a vague way it represented a continuation of our involvements in regional interests and one probably wouldn't not have happened without the other... but different actors, different goals, different places, different degrees of success...

All right, I get your point. Wasn't very clear to me before......

 

[Flash]

Yes but by your reasoning then all the comparisons of "Well we were only in WWII for 4 years and we're still in Iraq" go right out the window because of the differnt status's and danger levels in the conflict. And thats the point Im trying to make. Everybody seems hell bent on making this a strict arguement of time of involvement no matter the conditions of that involvement.

People wanna say "well we still have troops over there" yes we do. But we still had troops over in Germany and Japan well after that conflict. You could make the arguement that its a hell of a lot more dangerous in Iraq then it was after the fact in Germany and Japan but you could also make the arguement that it was a hell of a lot more dangerous in WWII during the conflict then it was/is in Iraq.

This isnt a war anymore, its an occupation when it comes to Iraq and Afganistan. The war on terror is a much further wider spectrum. And until people quit trying of time I will evolve the arguement of "but we were still in _____."

Basically Im playing devils advocate to point out the ignorance of compairing a conventional conflict between Military powers to that of an asymetric conflict between an insurgency and an occupying force solely on the variable of how long each took.

I agree with most of your points but the highlighted one. I think the current conflict fits the definition of a war (everyone in government/media/public calls it that), not just an occupation. Either that or it is the bloodiest occuation in a long time.......

 

[Brett327]

For anyone that thinks its not a war anymore.... you're very, very wrong.

That's alright, Flash is used to hearing that phrase over and over.

Brett