By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - USA: Wounded soldiers back on dury in Iraq...

Sqrl on 20 January 2008
Parokki said:
I still don't see how you're getting politicians into this. The army needs to send more troops to the field, but doesn't have enough unwounded, and is thus forced to send the least wounded. It's a military issue.

Are you seriously implying they're sending wounded troops because the public would consider sending ones that "can stand on their feet" as worse? I really can't say I agree with you here.

As a war protest and an attempt to pander to their base Democrats in congress have been less than cooperative in getting the funding, equipment, and personnel needed to support the war effort. This last year they were basically playing chicken with the administration over the war budget. Thats the politics he was talking about.

I know they have issues with the administration and I agree with a lot of them, but when it comes to troop funds I would like to see them show a bit of hussle to get the job done. And more over I would like to see a "Whatever it takes to keep them safe." attitude.

edit: links

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/23/a_dangerous_game_of_chicken_for_democrats/

http://thehill.com/john-fortier/playing-chicken-on-war-funding-2007-03-27.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1687160,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics

 
To Each Man, Responsibility
Around the Network
dabaus513 on 20 January 2008

I blame democrats.



 

 

 

Galaki on 20 January 2008

I blame WiiFit.



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

Rath on 20 January 2008
Zucas said:
Parokki said:
Zucas said:
Ah well that's not good. This is what happens when politics gets involved with military operations.

Politics has nothing to do with it. The US army needs to get more feet on the ground, which ultimately means forcing the least incapable back to the field. In the end it's stupid politicians who get them there, but the army would work the same in this situation no matter who was in charge.

Not saying I accept what's going on, but that's how it works. The army is a shitty organization with a shitty job it needs to do, and it does it with the least shitty methods available. Sometimes the least shitty is still extremely shitty.


What do you live under a rock. We sent those boys into that country to do a job. Then the media got involved and deemed everything going bad which caused a public uproar. Thus of course politicians had to get involved to lean either way to either make themselves look better or stay with a strong posistion. Thus now we can't send out troops who can stand on their feet, without the public or media stating its a bad thing or we are losing the war. As soon as media got involved, the public got bias reports, which forced the politicians to get involved. Its a mess. Wars just can't be fought by simple military means anymore, cause you have to fight the damn people back at home why your doing it.


 No I think the problem is that you have already sent all the troops that can stand on their feet.

The US has over stretched its military as its extremely difficult to occupy a country that doesn't want to be occupied. 



Ickalanda on 20 January 2008

Democrats want the U.S. to lose the war because if we win they (Democrats) will look bad. They are purposefully attempting to sabatoge the whole war effort since they have taken the side against it.



PC Gamer
Around the Network
MrMafoo on 20 January 2008
Ickalanda said:
Democrats want the U.S. to lose the war because if we win they (Democrats) will look bad. They are purposefully attempting to sabatoge the whole war effort since they have taken the side against it.

 No, Dems are patriots, they are just idiots. I don't think they would purposely try and lose the war.

They had the chance, all they had to do is not fund the war, and we would of pulled out with a loss. The Dems funded it because when push comes to shove, leaving would be a bad idea.

They say we should get out of the war to win votes because everyone against it, but they know what we need to do. 



Ickalanda on 20 January 2008
MrMafoo said:
Ickalanda said:
Democrats want the U.S. to lose the war because if we win they (Democrats) will look bad. They are purposefully attempting to sabatoge the whole war effort since they have taken the side against it.

No, Dems are patriots, they are just idiots. I don't think they would purposely try and lose the war.

They had the chance, all they had to do is not fund the war, and we would of pulled out with a loss. The Dems funded it because when push comes to shove, leaving would be a bad idea.

They say we should get out of the war to win votes because everyone against it, but they know what we need to do.

Correct they know what we need to do.  They want to try and push us to losing the war without making it completely obvious thats what their doing though.

 



PC Gamer
MrMafoo on 20 January 2008
Ickalanda said:
MrMafoo said:
Ickalanda said:
Democrats want the U.S. to lose the war because if we win they (Democrats) will look bad. They are purposefully attempting to sabatoge the whole war effort since they have taken the side against it.

No, Dems are patriots, they are just idiots. I don't think they would purposely try and lose the war.

They had the chance, all they had to do is not fund the war, and we would of pulled out with a loss. The Dems funded it because when push comes to shove, leaving would be a bad idea.

They say we should get out of the war to win votes because everyone against it, but they know what we need to do.

Correct they know what we need to do.  They want to try and push us to losing the war without making it completely obvious thats what their doing though.

 


 I am not sure how going down the best posable path to win the war does that, but ok.



Rath on 20 January 2008

I blame the republicans, they started the war afterall.

See what I did there?

Anyway, no point bickering about whose fault it is, the Americans are bogged down in Iraq and somebody really should do something about it. Preferably something that doesn't involve Iraq splitting into three countries, Iranian and Turkish Kurds revolting and the entire middle just generally falling into pieces.



IllegalPaladin on 20 January 2008

I'd rather not get into the political area of this, but I've heard on a few occasions (one from somebody from my high school who went off to Iraq upon graduating) that the funding and stuff for protection was in conflict by politics.

Like what's going on with the war or not, I'm not exactly a fan of cutting support to the troops.