PUKE!!!!!!!

[Bossdawg]

Wanting more troops in Iraq does not mean she is Pro-War. What she is saying that, if we MUST go to war, we need to send over as many troops as necessary. What she is saying, is that Bush decided to send over as few troops as possible, as well as diverting troops from current anti-terror actions in Afghanistan. So while she is Anti-War, when war happens anyways, you want to make damned sure that your troops are as safe as possible. And by trying to run these 2 wars at the same time, Bush has put troops at a severe risk by not supplying more help.

I think things would be different if Commanders were forced to be in the front lines like in the old days. It's real easy for Bush to be a "hero" and send troops to die in Iraq when he's at no risk himslef. Were he leading in the front lines, I can gurantee, there would be a much greater number of troops over there.

Then clinton really underestimated what we needed in Somalia and Kosovo.

Yeah, probably.

[CARTEK]

Wanting more troops in Iraq does not mean she is Pro-War. What she is saying that, if we MUST go to war, we need to send over as many troops as necessary. What she is saying, is that Bush decided to send over as few troops as possible, as well as diverting troops from current anti-terror actions in Afghanistan. So while she is Anti-War, when war happens anyways, you want to make damned sure that your troops are as safe as possible. And by trying to run these 2 wars at the same time, Bush has put troops at a severe risk by not supplying more help.

I think things would be different if Commanders were forced to be in the front lines like in the old days. It's real easy for Bush to be a "hero" and send troops to die in Iraq when he's at no risk himslef. Were he leading in the front lines, I can gurantee, there would be a much greater number of troops over there.

WADR, your post is total bovine scatum! There are plenty of troops on the ground in both theatres, and Democrats know it. They have to have an issue, and this is it. Hell, Democrats were the chief proponents of incrementalism...the method of fighting a war that made it appear on the evening news that we were losing in Vietnam. Remember the Tet offensive? More troops will not stop hit-and-run operations by the enemy; it will give them more targets though. What an oxymoron: liberal twerps second-guessing the military planners!

As far as commanders being at the front lines, I don't believe a sitting President has ever led the troops in battle. Of course, I'm certain if the Fornicator-in-Chief were still in office, he'd be right there leading the charge and feeling their pain!

[Dawgbitten]

You are correct, Cartek. There are plenty of boots on the ground.

My brother-in-law came in this weekend. He is a 2lt. in the 4th ID just back from Iraq. From what he told me they were up against day to day, more troops aren't going to do a bit of good. And people like Hillary who doesn't know her head from an M16 should shut her pie hole. She is stil pissed that Bush upstaged her visit to Iraq several months back.