Man blames lack of support at home for Iraq problems. My reply.

[Shipwack]

Salon has an article in their "WarRoom" that discusses Condileezza Rice's comparison of Iraq war critics to those who would have been willing to let the South keep slaves if it meant an end to the American Civil War. In the discussion, one person posting as "joe" keeps posting defending her words. At one point he said:

Iraq would be in better shape if we were only fighting the insurgents and not the added fifth columnists here and in Europe.

I wonder how much better things would have gone in Iraq if there was support at home.

I replied that he was 100% correct... At least about one thing.

Things would be going much better with better support from home. If only...

... Rumsfeld had listened to General Shinseki and went in with enough troops to maintain order instead of openly mocking his general and trying to do it on the cheap.

... the Administration had given authorization to the HumVee armor manufacturer to ramp up production so our troops would have safer vehicles.

...Rumsfeld had given orders to station troops at weapon stockpiles instead of having them guard the Oil Ministry, then insurgents wouldn't have been able to drive away with several semi-trailers full of military explosives, which are probably being put to use in IEDs.

... the budget for research into head injuries from explosives (such as IEDs) hadn't been cut so our troops would have better treatment for one of the most common injuries suffered.

... the Veteran's Administration budget wasn't being cut at a time when we have more soldiers needing help with their injuries incurred while serving in the military.

... Cheney's old (and future?) employer Haliburton wasn't allowed to defraud the government with impunity, overcharging and providing insufficient services to our troops.

... Army, Marine, and National Guard units weren't being sent back to Iraq for second, third, and fourth tours of duty.

... President Bush proved that the war in Iraq was important enough for 2600+ men to have died for by having his daughters enlist and go serve in Iraq. I know, I know, it's unfair to ask him to make that sacrifice without asking Cheney to send his daughter Mary, but the Pentagon has made it abundantly clear that it is more important to keep gays out of the military than to let them help fight the "war on terror".

Yep, if we had more support for the troops at home... Hmmm... let me rephrase that.

If this Republican administration actually supported our troops, things would be better in Iraq.

[eleny]

1. Excellent response

I would add that things would be better in Iraq if we never invaded the nation.

[Monkeyman]

2. Great reply you can add

Maybe if they would support the returning troops. Like taken care of them at the VA . Stop cutting funding like to brain injury research. Stop DOD from cutting Tri-Care. Help the troops there and here with PTSD instead of doing false studies. Just a vet hitting back

[gratuitous]

3. Terrific reply

And it will elicit a humorous torrent of non sequiturs from "joe" you can be sure. Copy-and-paste as hilarity sees fit.

I would also add that what kind of training are our star-spangled, freckle-faced boys and girls in uniform getting that they could so monumentally fuck things up just because I personally am not beaming my happiest, bestest thoughts to them 24-7? I thought we had the best trained, best equipped, certainly the most expensive military the planet has ever seen. Yet it can be so horribly derailed because someone back home isn't clapping hard enough or loud enough? What are they, the Tinker Bell Battalion?

[FuzzyDicePHL]

4. Excellent response by OP

and excellent question by you, gratuitous. I wondered the same thing.

[GeorgeGist]

5. Nonsense...

the War in Iraq is responsible for the lack of support at home.

[PoiBoy]

6. Excellent post and comments...

thanks to all for your insights... :hi:

[Gregorian]

7. I don't use those arguments. It's not a war. It never was a war.

They were a sovereign nation. They were not an imminent threat.

I won't go down one inch of their talking points road.

Otherwise, your points are valid.

We're in an insidious position. The president and those surrounding him have committed crimes which are being ignored, and it makes it impossible to use those crimes in arguments. Although I'm using them anyways.

[Canuckistanian]

8. Who is this "we" he's talking about?

Are the soldiers fighting "the fifth columnists"? Seems to me like they're busy enough fighting insurgents.

This is the Chickenhawk's cry ,"We're fighting for freedom" - all the while not getting up off their butts and signing up for the actual fighting.

To them, being WATBs is their way of "supporting the troops".

[KurtNYC]

9. I agree with Condi Rice -- when there is no more slavery in Iraq

then end the occupation.

Honestly, what a stupid analogy on her part but I do like your response.

[OnionPatch]

10. My reply to this nonsense is this:

Maybe the Chimp should have made sure there was support for his war at home BEFORE he dove in head first. He knew there wasn't widespread support and he knew that if he hadn't LIED to us, there would have been even less.