Another Certified Military EXPERT for the Liberals to attack speaks.

[darin]

COL Townsend. I drive by his (now mostly empty) HQ Building twice a day.


FORT LEWIS, Wash. -- A key commander from Fort Lewis said the U.S. should not be in too much of a hurry to bring the troops home from Iraq.

Colonel Steve Townsend of the 3rd Stryker brigade spoke with KOMO 4 News via satellite from Iraq on Wednesday just as Congress is calling for a quicker withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

The 4,000 members of the 3rd brigade spent 15 months in Iraq after their normal year-long tour was extended as a part of the president's troop-buildup plan. Some have already come home and others are soon due home, but Townsend believes it may be too soon.

"I think bottom line, my own personal opinion, is we need to stay with this effort with whatever force it requires to get the job done," he said.

Townsend spoke with KOMO 4 News candidly after spending times in the front lines of Iraq. He has seen his Stryker brigade not only handle the tough fighting in the streets, but also building bridges, schools, hospitals and relationships with the Iraqi people.

"And I think that if, my own view is, if we leave too abruptly, we'll have problems here in Iraq that we can avoid if we stick with it a bit longer," he said. "That's my own view. How long that is, i don't know."

Sticking with the mission has cost the brigade dearly so far with 49 soldiers dead. Fort Lewis has lost soldiers from almost every unit.

More:

http://www.komotv.com/news/9749302.html


Okay Liberals. Reply! Tell us ALL how he's wrong. Tell us how he's a Liar. Maybe some of you can dig up some dirt on him; Did he shoplift as a todler? Did he kick his dog?

I KNOW you can do it, Liberals. GW-Ohio...PLEASE Bless us with your 'knowledge'. Tell us all how misguided this Colonel is. Truthmatters - Reply with your opinion about the war, then post a wikipedia link saying KOMO-TV is funded by Hate groups.

[retiredman]

I appreciate his opinion.

I have a question: If we stay "with this effort with whatever force it requires to get the job done" and that takes us... oh... twelve years... and 25K dead Americans and five trillion dollars.... and then we leave.... and Iraq's well trained army devolves into two well trained sectarian militias and Iraq crumbles into bloody civil war.... do we get to actually HANG any of the damned bullheaded neocons that kept trying to use an occupying military force to cram a political solution down the throats of a country full of resentful muslims?

Do we?

[Dilloduck]

I appreciate his opinion.

I have a question: If we stay "with this effort with whatever force it requires to get the job done" and that takes us... oh... twelve years... and 25K dead Americans and five trillion dollars.... and then we leave.... and Iraq's well trained army devolves into two well trained sectarian militias and Iraq crumbles into bloody civil war.... do we get to actually HANG any of the damned bullheaded neocons that kept trying to use an occupying military force to cram a political solution down the throats of a country full of resentful muslims?

Do we?

Sure--if you can find something to charge them with and a jury to convict them.

[retiredman]

treason

[darin]

MFM - Hyperbole won't win a debate.

[retiredman]

MFM - Hyperbole won't win a debate.

but thanks dmp, for the kindly advice. How "moderate"... how avuncular!

ok... so answer the question:

If we stay "with this effort with whatever force it requires to get the job done" and that takes us... oh... twelve years... and 25K dead Americans and five trillion dollars.... and then we leave.... and Iraq's well trained army quickly devolves into two well trained sectarian militias and Iraq crumbles into bloody civil war... do you think we will be safer? And what in the world gives you any reason to believe that that is not exactly what will happen the moment we leave, whenever that is?

[avatar4321]

treason

I think you are confusing the troops with Democrat politicians.

[retiredman]

well...if you could find anywhere in my comments where I mentioned "the TROOPS", that would be neat. Let me know how that search goes.

[Gunny]

I appreciate his opinion.

I have a question: If we stay "with this effort with whatever force it requires to get the job done" and that takes us... oh... twelve years... and 25K dead Americans and five trillion dollars.... and then we leave.... and Iraq's well trained army devolves into two well trained sectarian militias and Iraq crumbles into bloody civil war.... do we get to actually HANG any of the damned bullheaded neocons that kept trying to use an occupying military force to cram a political solution down the throats of a country full of resentful muslims?

Do we?

Do we get to hang bullheaded libs who have done everything they possibly can every step of the way to ensure that we fail in Iraq? How about those who have insisted on accusing the President and/or some in his administration of treason with absolutely NO evidence to back such a charge?

[Gunny]

treason

I guess I should say I rest my case, huh?

[retiredman]

Do we get to hang bullheaded libs who have done everything they possibly can every step of the way to ensure that we fail in Iraq? How about those who have insisted on accusing the President and/or some in his administration of treason with absolutely NO evidence to back such a charge?

how does debating the wisdom of the administration's foreign policy ensure that we fail in Iraq?

And why, rather than answering a question with a question, don't you address MY question honestly?

If we stay "with this effort with whatever force it requires to get the job done" and that takes us... oh... twelve years... and 25K dead Americans and five trillion dollars.... and then we leave.... and Iraq's well trained army quickly devolves into two well trained sectarian militias and Iraq crumbles into bloody civil war... do you think we will be safer? And what in the world gives you any reason to believe that that is not exactly what will happen the moment we leave, whenever that is?

[retiredman]

and if it could be proven that the continued prosecution of this war in Iraq was, in fact, giving aid and comfort to our real enemies....if it could be proven that our actions in Iraq were a great morale boost to AQ and a great recruiting tool that significantly increased the size of their fighting force, and increased the negative feelings towards us in the arab world and the positive feelings towards AQ.... would not the elements of TREASON have, in fact, been met?

[Gaffer]

how does debating the wisdom of the administration's foreign policy ensure that we fail in Iraq?

And why, rather than answering a question with a question, don't you address MY question honestly?

If we stay "with this effort with whatever force it requires to get the job done" and that takes us... oh... twelve years... and 25K dead Americans and five trillion dollars.... and then we leave.... and Iraq's well trained army quickly devolves into two well trained sectarian militias and Iraq crumbles into bloody civil war... do you think we will be safer? And what in the world gives you any reason to believe that that is not exactly what will happen the moment we leave, whenever that is?

If we stay. We will have the country secure in about a year. The iraqi's will take over the security part with us there to back them when necessary. The government can then and should begin working together to get the political end of things up and running, something they have been lacking in so far. And finally the economic end of things can get reestablished and the country can begin to grow and improve. After 12 years we would have a base or two there to cover the region.

There won't be 25K dead.

Now to address how to prevent AQ from recruiting. First is for the libs to stop politicizing the war. They and the media need to take a firm stand behind our military and show support. Keep the politics on a purely domestic level and show complete support for the war effort. The media needs to show positive reports and talk about the enemy casualties instead of ours. The more we appear divided the more it encourages the enemy and boosts their recruitment. They are growing because America appears divided and weak which drags out the war. They watch our media, they use that. bin laden proved it with his last video. Want to end the war and bring the troops home. Stop with the anti-America anti-war bullshit. That, more than anything else is their best recruiting tool.

[manu1959]

I appreciate his opinion.

I have a question: If we stay "with this effort with whatever force it requires to get the job done" and that takes us... oh... twelve years... and 25K dead Americans and five trillion dollars.... and then we leave.... and Iraq's well trained army devolves into two well trained sectarian militias and Iraq crumbles into bloody civil war.... do we get to actually HANG any of the damned bullheaded neocons that kept trying to use an occupying military force to cram a political solution down the throats of a country full of resentful muslims?

Do we?

have faith....when O'Billary gets elected you all can withdraw and let the Rawanda Plan get under way .... then you can send the military to darfur to get in the middle of that civil war and save them folk....

[retiredman]

"If we stay. We will have the country secure in about a year. The iraqi's will take over the security part with us there to back them when necessary. The government can then and should begin working together to get the political end of things up and running, something they have been lacking in so far. And finally the economic end of things can get reestablished and the country can begin to grow and improve. After 12 years we would have a base or two there to cover the region.


Now to address how to prevent AQ from recruiting. First is for the libs to stop politicizing the war. They and the media need to take a firm stand behind our military and show support. Keep the politics on a purely domestic level and show complete support for the war effort. The media needs to show positive reports and talk about the enemy casualties instead of ours. The more we appear divided the more it encourages the enemy and boosts their recruitment. They are growing because America appears divided and weak which drags out the war. They watch our media, they use that. bin laden proved it with his last video. Want to end the war and bring the troops home. Stop with the anti-America anti-war bullshit. That, more than anything else is their best recruiting tool."


to address the bolded comments:

1. And what if it isn't? I asked again...what will all you pompom waving chickenhawks DO if we stay there and get the security forces trained only to watch the country split apart the instant we leave? And just blithely tossing out an unproven " they should be able to...." doesn't cut it

2. I think the war in Iraq is the stupidest most counter-productive foreign policy decision in our country's history. I am supposed to be QUIET about that? Do I really need to go back and dig up all the incredibly critical and negative stuff that republicans said about Clinton's excusion into Bosnia? Why, pray tell, is it perfectly acceptable for republicans to criticize military endeavors when troops are on the ground and yet democrats have to shut the fuck up and talk only about DOMESTIC issues?? get real!

3. You have no proof of that at all. I would contend that young angry arabs join islamic extremist movements because of what we are DOING in Iraq and that the content of the political dialog at home is of little concern to ANY of those young recruits

4. Being anti-war is not being anti-American. And again... do you honestly think that some 19 year old unemployed Iraqi KID is encouraged to join an insurgency because of the political dialog in America....or because his uncle was killed by an American GI?

[Gaffer]

1. And what if it isn't? I asked again...what will all you pompom waving chickenhawks DO if we stay there and get the security forces trained only to watch the country split apart the instant we leave? And just blithely tossing out an unproven " they should be able to...." doesn't cut it

2. I think the war in Iraq is the stupidest most counter-productive foreign policy decision in our country's history. I am supposed to be QUIET about that? Do I really need to go back and dig up all the incredibly critical and negative stuff that republicans said about Clinton's excusion into Bosnia? Why, pray tell, is it perfectly acceptable for republicans to criticize military endeavors when troops are on the ground and yet democrats have to shut the fuck up and talk only about DOMESTIC issues?? get real!

3. You have no proof of that at all. I would contend that young angry arabs join islamic extremist movements because of what we are DOING in Iraq and that the content of the political dialog at home is of little concern to ANY of those young recruits

4. Being anti-war is not being anti-American. And again... do you honestly think that some 19 year old unemployed Iraqi KID is encouraged to join an insurgency because of the political dialog in America....or because his uncle was killed by an American GI?[/I]

1. You asked a hypothetical question. I gave you a hypothetical answer.

2.As I said if we all show a united front we can end the war a lot sooner. There are plenty of domestic issues that could be talked about. As for Bosnia, I was on clintons side for actually taking action. It was the only time in his presidency he actually did something. Since I'm not a republican I guess that doesn't count.

3. Young angry arabs go to madrases and listen to imams tell them how terrible America is. They watch TV that teaches them to hate and despise western cultures. And their imams tell them that America is weak and divided because of the news reports that are broadcast all over the world. And al queda recruiters come to them with promises of paradise and that America is weakening and soon will give up in defeat if they just keep fighting. If we were not in iraq they would all be going to Afghanistan.

4. Being anti-war and attempting to undermine the war effort is un-American. And that is what most of the left is doing. It encourages our enemies and extends the war. A 19 year old, who has already been brainwashed in the madrases is a prime recruit with the encouragement that America is divided and ready to run away in defeat. You know perfectly well how they think over there and they only respect strength. If America appears weak and divided the recruiters will play on that and increase their numbers easily.

[bullypulpit]

Do we get to hang bullheaded libs who have done everything they possibly can every step of the way to ensure that we fail in Iraq? How about those who have insisted on accusing the President and/or some in his administration of treason with absolutely NO evidence to back such a charge?

Any "failure in Iraq lies solely with President Bush and his administration. It was their decision to take the eye off of the real enemy, Al Qaeda, and go through the <i>sturm und drang</i> which is Iraq. It was the BUSH administration that dismissed all realistic estimates of the troop levels needed to occupy Iraq, firing those general officers who refused to give them answers to their liking. It was the BUSH administration that dismissed plans for the occupation of Iraq prepared by the State Department and failed to implement plan in any realistic way for the aftermath of the invasion.. It was, is, and has been, the failure of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION...not the Democrats...not the anti-war protesters...not anyone else...that gave us Iraq.

The continued apologia coming from the remaining supporters of this misguided, ill-conceived military adventurism is utterly unconscionable. It means that those supporters have no qualms at all about the continued sacrifice of our troops on the bloody altar of George W. Bush's ego. It is the banality of evil which springs to mind here. Where otherwise decent people accept the flawed, failed premises offered up by the Bush administration, and continue on as if nothing is wrong...nothing at all.

Wake up!

[darin]

Any "failure in Iraq lies solely with President Bush and his administration. It was their decision to take the eye off of the real enemy, Al Qaeda,


Who are we killing, DAILY, in Iraq? Al Qaeda. (shrug). Seems we DO have our eyes on the real enemy. :)

Your speculation otherwise is pretty weird.

[Gunny]

how does debating the wisdom of the administration's foreign policy ensure that we fail in Iraq?

And why, rather than answering a question with a question, don't you address MY question honestly?

If we stay "with this effort with whatever force it requires to get the job done" and that takes us... oh... twelve years... and 25K dead Americans and five trillion dollars.... and then we leave.... and Iraq's well trained army quickly devolves into two well trained sectarian militias and Iraq crumbles into bloody civil war... do you think we will be safer? And what in the world gives you any reason to believe that that is not exactly what will happen the moment we leave, whenever that is?

There's a difference between debating an administration's foreign policy and continually making baseless accusations and undermining the will of a Nation.

I always answer questions honestly. Yours is based on a defeatist, anti-administration opinion. One which I do not share.

We could easily secure Iraq and YOU of all people know it. We're just not going to because if we took the steps necessary, you and the rest of the left would be up in arms about THAT.

[darin]

There's a difference between debating an administration's foreign policy and continually making baseless accusations and undermining the will of a Nation.

I always answer questions honestly. Yours is based on a defeatist, anti-administration opinion. One which I do not share.

We could easily secure Iraq and YOU of all people know it. We're just not going to because if we took the steps necessary, you and the rest of the left would be up in arms about THAT.

You absolutely nailed it. Spot-on.

[retiredman]

There's a difference between debating an administration's foreign policy and continually making baseless accusations and undermining the will of a Nation.

I always answer questions honestly. Yours is based on a defeatist, anti-administration opinion. One which I do not share.

We could easily secure Iraq and YOU of all people know it. We're just not going to because if we took the steps necessary, you and the rest of the left would be up in arms about THAT.

Of COURSE we could easily secure Iraq militarily. I have NEVER suggested anything to the contrary. What I have always said was that our ability to secure Iraq MILITARILY will only last as long as we stay and keep it secure. And our efforts militarily will have little effect on the absolutely necessary political reconciliation which I, quite frankly, do not see happening anytime this century.

We can lock down the country of Iraq, but the minute we leave - whether that is in ten months or ten years - the enmity between sunnis and shiites that has existed in that country for a millenium and which has been brutally exacerbated over the last 30 years will rapidly boil over as we depart.

We can never win a political battle with an occupying armed force.

[darin]

Dude - MFM - serioulsy - you change 'what you meant' almost EVERY TIME you're confronted.

You say something...you are called on it...your next reply will amount to "...that's not what I meant!"

[retiredman]

Dude - MFM - serioulsy - you change 'what you meant' almost EVERY TIME you're confronted.

You say something...you are called on it...your next reply will amount to "...that's not what I meant!"

dude...seriously.... put up or shut up... show me one thread where I have ever suggested that our military force was not the finest in the world....show me one quote where I have ever suggested that we were incapable of militarily securing Iraq.

I'll wait...dude

seriously.

fer sure...



dude

[darin]

dude...seriously.... put up or shut up... show me one thread where I have ever suggested that our military force was not the finest in the world....show me one quote where I have ever suggested that we were incapable of militarily securing Iraq.

I'll wait...dude

seriously.

fer sure...



dude

That right there is what i'm talking about. You are the KING...the literal KING of the Strawman.

Somebody posts something.

You create something else in an attempt to draw them into your little game. When they refuse to 'play' with your strawman, you proudly proclaim yourself the 'victor'.

Man - something's fishy here...you say you are a retired Navy O5 - yet you fluster about and have countless penis-measuring contests on the board. You 'call people out' and are full of bravado and puffiness.

I would NOT be surprised ONE MINUTE if you're actually a former Navy E3..E4, tops. That's not a slight on Navy E3s and E4s, but I seriously have a hard time believing one could get to a mid-level officer in a military career and yet get his rocks off building strawmen on a Forums, then calling-people-out for not playing along.

[retiredman]

Dude - MFM - serioulsy - you change 'what you meant' almost EVERY TIME you're confronted.

You say something...you are called on it...your next reply will amount to "...that's not what I meant!"

you did say this, didn't you? I am asking you to explain what the hell you mean by this...because I do not think that I change my position every time I am confronted...in fact, I rarely, if every change my position. what do you have here?

[retiredman]

I would NOT be surprised ONE MINUTE if you're actually a former Navy E3..E4, tops. That's not a slight on Navy E3s and E4s, but I seriously have a hard time believing one could get to a mid-level officer in a military career and yet get his rocks off building strawmen on a Forums, then calling-people-out for not playing along.


more personal attacks. pretty sad. When did you serve, by the way? branch? rate?

[darin]

Lookit this - He replies...then replies again when he thinks of something else "cool" to say.

Personal attacks? You think it's an 'attack' that I compared you to a lower-enlisted? You arrogant bastard. Calling you an E3 would be a COMPLIMENT. The point - gawd you miss more points than shaq at the free-throw line - is...the point IS...I suspect you're lying about your military service. I think you're making up the whole 'retired O5' thing. If you are NOT lying about it, you'd be the first 'absolutely, completely clueless' O5 I've ever met.

[retiredman]

I am curious as to why you think that my opinions about the conflict in Iraq, and the intractability of the sunnis and shiites there are somehow an indication that I am "clueless".

Care to explain that, dude?