Replies

I agree, let's fight to win and start getting payed back in oil. I ahve no problem with the war, I have a problem with the way we are fighting it. Let's fight to win, worry about the political correct after we win. And second, it is time for those countries over their whose freedom we are insurring give us oil, not sell it cheap, give it.

Use the force we have to win, stop worring aobut what others think and say, jsut fight to win. We were attackted, let's stop playing around with the likes of murtha and his ilk. Order the fighters to fight, and let the CIC cover their coolective butts.

didn't we learn anything about troop morale from Nam?

Agreed.

That is why I want John McCain to be our next Commander-in-Chief. Back when Rumsfeld was firing any General that wanted a Surge in Iraq and Bush was meekly going along with Rumsfeld's opinion that war can be fought on the cheap, McCain was adament about the need to fight the war to WIN.

Published December 27, 2006 ..... Novak: McCain's 'aggressive surge' stance backfiring ........ conservative columnist Robert Novak suggests that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) "aggressive" push for a U.S. troop expansion -- or "surge" -- in Iraq may be costing the top 2008 GOP contender in the polls, especially when matched against another presumed front-runner, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). "The decline in the polls of [McCain], as measured against [Clinton], reflects more than declining Republican popularity ......... "It connotes public disenchantment with McCain's aggressive advocacy of a 'surge' of up to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq

"I understand the polls show only 18 percent of the American people support my position. But I have to do what's right, what I believe is right and what my experience and knowledge and background tells me is the right thing to do in order to save this situation in Iraq ... In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose." - Sen. John McCain's reaction to the Iraq Study Group Report, 2006

And second, it is time for those countries over their whose freedom we are insurring give us oil, not sell it cheap, give it.

To be blunt about it, we are not in the Persian Gulf to bring "freedom" to Iraq. We are in the Persian Gulf to protect the lifeblood of modern Western civilization (a reliable supply of oil).

Even if Iraq were populated by nothing but sand fleas, we would still need to be there "protecting" it.

We control the sea lanes and we control whether or not Iran controls the oil supply. Once Iran is dealt with, the U.S. Navy could impose a surcharge on Western European oil tankers taking advantage of oil ports American military might has kept open for them.

What's "winning"? We already control the entire Iraqi countryside, for example. Now that everyone there is a subject, shall we murder them all?

You have to be able to rule the places, or get them to rule themselves, with governments you can live with succeeding with their own people.

Napoleon was frustrated in Spain, Talleyrand was trying to explain to him that a political solution was necessary. He said "You can do anything with bayonets, sire, except sit on them."