[quote]Sloth wrote:
Duel by pistols to settle this? High noon ok with you?[/quote]
Good call man. Deal!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
On September 20, 2006, General Abizaid, the current Commander of U.S. Central Command, explained:
?[T]he tension in this mission has always been between how much we do and how much we ask the Iraqis to do. The longer we stay, the more we must ask the Iraqis to do. Putting another 100,000 American troops in Iraq is something that I don?t think would be good for the mission overall, because it would certainly cause Americans to go to the front, [cause] Americans to take responsibility. And we?re at the point in the mission where it?s got to fall upon the Iraqis. They know that; they want responsibility. The key question is having the right balance, and I believe we?re maintaining the right balance.?
On October 11, 2006, General Casey, the Commander of Multi-National Force ? Iraq, was asked whether he needed more troops in Iraq. He responded:
?I don?t ? right now, my answer is no. ? if I think I need more, I?ll ask for more and bring more in.?
These are the guys that have the say so.[/quote]
Yep, that’s right.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Well, they are no longer going to use the mantra “stay the course” apparently.
Pretty soon we’ll all forget they ever said that and then the next thing you know, when it is finally time to draw down or redeploy, the phrase “cut and run” will no longer be part of their mantra either.
Funny how that works. You know, I wish politics didn’t require so much by way of retarded word games. So much disinformation is actually harmful for the nation. It’s really too bad.[/quote]
mantras are very important in mind control.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
It is “git er’ done” and there is no such thing as a moronic Southern accent you POS!
Whatever mis-spelling you prefer to use…I don’t care. You understood the meaning.
And, yes all southern accents are moronic. I am entitled to say this becasue I had one. It is thru sheer determination of will not sound like an idiot that I have overcome it.[/quote]
Your self hate is the root of your ignorance.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
It is “git er’ done” and there is no such thing as a moronic Southern accent you POS!
Whatever mis-spelling you prefer to use…I don’t care. You understood the meaning.
And, yes all southern accents are moronic. I am entitled to say this becasue I had one. It is thru sheer determination of will not sound like an idiot that I have overcome it.
Funny that you mention mis-spelling. It’s moranic you moran.[/quote]
F U you cheese eating surrender money!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually, we went in to Iraq with the troop levels General Franks asked for.[/quote]
The original plans (drafted by other generals) called for 500,000 and later 400,000 men for the Iraq war.
That Franks eventually accepted/asked for/settled on/etc. 140,000 simply means he’ll be remembered by history as the second idiot responsible for the magnificient Iraqi debacle. The other being Rumsfeld, of course. He Who Cannot Ever Be Wrong.
Simply because Tommy Franks accepted Rumsfeld’s ideas doesn’t mean that you didn’t go in with too little troops. You did. That the two chiefs clowns thought 140,000 was enough doesn’t change the reality that 140,000 men doesn’t cut it. Proof? Read any news about Iraq. Notice how well the whole thing is going.
This is not a new issue; it has been discussed repeatedly during the last three years. Most military experts have said, repeatedly, that the number of boots on the ground was much to small to do the mission properly.
They’re shown to have been right nearly daily.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
They replaced it with: getting the job done. Whatever that means.
It means it’s time for a US regime change. After 8 years of bungling every issue, it’s time for the mop up crew to come in and repair the damages.[/quote]
When did you guys switch to talking about Canadian politics?
Sloth appears to have FACTS and administration quotes, while those arguing with him have their opinions.
Sloth is kicking your asses.
General Shinseki disagreed with the WH and Pentagon and he got S canned:
"The Army’s top general said Tuesday a military occupying force for a postwar Iraq could total several hundred thousand soldiers.
Iraq is “a piece of geography that’s fairly significant,” Gen. Eric K. Shinseki said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he said any postwar occupying force would have to be big enough to maintain safety in a country with “ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm
General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied
The Iraq war started in March 2003 and Shinseki is on the record for requesting more troops long before the start of the war.
Stick a fork in this thread because it is done!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sloth appears to have FACTS and administration quotes, while those arguing with him have their opinions.
Sloth is kicking your asses.[/quote]
Dream on. Too bad you never have anything to contribute except attempting to stir up shit with your ridiculous posts from Coulter or some other crackpot.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sloth appears to have FACTS and administration quotes, while those arguing with him have their opinions.
Sloth is kicking your asses.[/quote]
Ah, the backbenching pom-pom waving cheerleaders have arrived.
Where’s Jeffro the Clown? Has he been detained? Got his prejudices caught in his zipper maybe?
Will this be like those threads with Hedo, where you all come in and comment on the rigtheous ass-kicking being dealt; only for the thread to conclude a dozen post later in agreement with what I initially posted?
'Cause I really like those.
I miss Hedo, though. He’s able to actually make valid arguments, and not simply parrot the popular republican talking points of the month.
If he’s reading this, I’d be interested in his views on troops numbers in Iraq.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Sloth appears to have FACTS and administration quotes, while those arguing with him have their opinions.
Sloth is kicking your asses.
Ah, the backbenching pom-pom waving cheerleaders have arrived.
Where’s Jeffro the Clown? Has he been detained? Got his prejudices caught in his zipper maybe?
Will this be like those threads with Hedo, where you all come in and comment on the rigtheous ass-kicking being dealt; only for the thread to conclude a dozen post later in agreement with what I initially posted?
'Cause I really like those.
I miss Hedo, though. He’s able to actually make valid arguments, and not simply parrot the popular republican talking points of the month.
If he’s reading this, I’d be interested in his views on troops numbers in Iraq.
[/quote]
Shinseki was the top general up to and at the beginning of the invasion. Not Franks.
Shinseki asked from more troops and got fired. Franks kept his mouth shut to save his job. The rest is bad history.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
General Shinseki disagreed with the WH and Pentagon and he got S canned:
"The Army’s top general said Tuesday a military occupying force for a postwar Iraq could total several hundred thousand soldiers.
Iraq is “a piece of geography that’s fairly significant,” Gen. Eric K. Shinseki said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he said any postwar occupying force would have to be big enough to maintain safety in a country with “ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm
General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied
The Iraq war started in March 2003 and Shinseki is on the record for requesting more troops long before the start of the war.
Stick a fork in this thread because it is done![/quote]
The premise is false. Shinseki was not canned for his suggestion. His four year term was up. Only two have served longer than the four year term. Generals McArthur and Marshall. That’s over the entire 103 year history of the position.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
General Shinseki disagreed with the WH and Pentagon and he got S canned:
"The Army’s top general said Tuesday a military occupying force for a postwar Iraq could total several hundred thousand soldiers.
Iraq is “a piece of geography that’s fairly significant,” Gen. Eric K. Shinseki said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he said any postwar occupying force would have to be big enough to maintain safety in a country with “ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm
General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied
The Iraq war started in March 2003 and Shinseki is on the record for requesting more troops long before the start of the war.
Stick a fork in this thread because it is done!
The premise is false. Shinseki was not canned for his suggestion. His four year term was up. Only two have served longer than the four year term. Generals McArthur and Marshall. That’s over the entire 103 year history of the position.
[/quote]
The fact is Shinseki was the top general and Franks was not.
Shinseki is on the record stating that many more troops were needed and we did not send more troops.
Shinseki’s replacement (Keane) was announced 15 months before Shinseki’s term was up which is unprecedented.
Iraq was on the WH radar screen in January 2001 and Shinseki was telling Rumsfeld and anyone who would listen that 400K to 500K troops were needed.
Keane was touted as the go to guy after Rumsfeld announcement.
If that is not being fired than I don’t know what is.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Actually, we went in to Iraq with the troop levels General Franks asked for.
The original plans (drafted by other generals) called for 500,000 and later 400,000 men for the Iraq war.
That Franks eventually accepted/asked for/settled on/etc. 140,000 simply means he’ll be remembered by history as the second idiot responsible for the magnificient Iraqi debacle. The other being Rumsfeld, of course. He Who Cannot Ever Be Wrong.
Simply because Tommy Franks accepted Rumsfeld’s ideas doesn’t mean that you didn’t go in with too little troops. You did. That the two chiefs clowns thought 140,000 was enough doesn’t change the reality that 140,000 men doesn’t cut it. Proof? Read any news about Iraq. Notice how well the whole thing is going.
This is not a new issue; it has been discussed repeatedly during the last three years. Most military experts have said, repeatedly, that the number of boots on the ground was much to small to do the mission properly.
They’re shown to have been right nearly daily.
[/quote]
Actually, Gen. Franks himself writes in his memoirs that he dissaproved of the 500,000-400,000. He claims that Rumsfield was prepared to ok that, if Franks needed it.
But, Gen. Franks felt that a lighter quicker force would be able to do the job, and do it so fast Iraqi forces would be hard-pressed to redeploy positions. His stragety, basically, was to avoid larger battles, and a possible war of attrition.
I assume he figured Saddam knew he wouldn’t stay in power this time, and likewise, his Baathist party. I don’t think Gen. Franks expected a surrender this time. So, yeah, he wanted to skirt as much of the Iraqi Forces as possible and get to Baghdad fast, leaving Iraqi forces behind. It seems Gen. Franks reasoning was that this wouldn’t be a Gulf War 1. This could have been a fight all the way up to and through Baghdad, with little hope of Saddam surrender.
It’s speculation now, of course, but how many troops may have died in such a war? That is, if the US had to take the time to move in so many troops, position them, coordinate them through the drive, logistics to support them. Franks wanted to avoid that. He wanted to avoid giving Saddam time to reposition troops. Had he been able to, and had there been larger and more protracted battles, who knows how many soldiers would have died. I can’t honestly say if it would have been less, or more, than what we see now. But, his reasoning makes alot of sense to me.
As for post-war Iraq. I’m just not sure that more “Infidel” troops are a great idea. Most often, there’s not a large and visible enemy to put larger numbers of troops against. They’d do what they pretty much do now. Hide, plant IEDs, Snipe, take some shots and melt back into the population.
I believe Troops levels have been damn effective in what they’ve set out to do. Targeted patrols/raids, training, backing up Iraqi forces, leading Iraqi forces where the need still arises, etc.
Hell, as it is now, there’s a “Big US Bull in a china shop” outlook in many neighborhoods. It could be counter-productive to have even more US soldiers patrolling these neighborhoods. It’s a pretty damn big culture clash. Could be more antagonistic and intrusive. Which, over there, could be deadly. From what I’ve read, that reasoning there, has played a major factor in troop levels.
Right now, the vast majority of Iraq isn’t taking part in the fight against us, or against their fellow Iraqis. And while there is some intrusion and corruption in the Iraqi security forces, damn if those aren’t some brave folks. These guys are often running in pick up trucks to a fight! They pull comrades out of ditches, who’ve been tortured and executed. Yet, Iraqis keep signing up, and assuming more and more of the security responsibility.
It’s the Iraqi troop levels that we need to focus on. Rumsfield just ok’d another 100,000 troops for their forces. That’s what needs to be happening. We need to keep fading out of the scene, as we’ve gradually been doing, and let them assume the responsibility.
Iraqi troops are their fellow citizens (fathers, brothers, husbands, friends). The populace is going to be far less understanding and symathetic to the killing of Iraqi Soldiers.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Actually, we went in to Iraq with the troop levels General Franks asked for.
The original plans (drafted by other generals) called for 500,000 and later 400,000 men for the Iraq war.
That Franks eventually accepted/asked for/settled on/etc. 140,000 simply means he’ll be remembered by history as the second idiot responsible for the magnificient Iraqi debacle. The other being Rumsfeld, of course. He Who Cannot Ever Be Wrong.
Simply because Tommy Franks accepted Rumsfeld’s ideas doesn’t mean that you didn’t go in with too little troops. You did. That the two chiefs clowns thought 140,000 was enough doesn’t change the reality that 140,000 men doesn’t cut it. Proof? Read any news about Iraq. Notice how well the whole thing is going.
This is not a new issue; it has been discussed repeatedly during the last three years. Most military experts have said, repeatedly, that the number of boots on the ground was much to small to do the mission properly.
They’re shown to have been right nearly daily.
Actually, Gen. Franks himself writes in his memoirs that he dissaproved of the 500,000-400,000. He claims that Rumsfield was prepared to ok that, if Franks needed it.
But, Gen. Franks felt that a lighter quicker force would be able to do the job, and do it so fast Iraqi forces would be hard-pressed to redeploy positions. His stragety, basically, was to avoid larger battles, and a possible war of attrition.
I assume he figured Saddam knew he wouldn’t stay in power this time, and likewise, his Baathist party. I don’t think Gen. Franks expected a surrender this time. So, yeah, he wanted to skirt as much of the Iraqi Forces as possible and get to Baghdad fast, leaving Iraqi forces behind. It seems Gen. Franks reasoning was that this wouldn’t be a Gulf War 1. This could have been a fight all the way up to and through Baghdad, with little hope of Saddam surrender.
It’s speculation now, of course, but how many troops may have died in such a war? That is, if the US had to take the time to move in so many troops, position them, coordinate them through the drive, logistics to support them. Franks wanted to avoid that. He wanted to avoid giving Saddam time to reposition troops. Had he been able to, and had there been larger and more protracted battles, who knows how many soldiers would have died. I can’t honestly say if it would have been less, or more, than what we see now. But, his reasoning makes alot of sense to me.
As for post-war Iraq. I’m just not sure that more “Infidel” troops are a great idea. Most often, there’s not a large and visible enemy to put larger numbers of troops against. They’d do what they pretty much do now. Hide, plant IEDs, Snipe, take some shots and melt back into the population.
I believe Troops levels have been damn effective in what they’ve set out to do. Targeted patrols/raids, training, backing up Iraqi forces, leading Iraqi forces where the need still arises, etc.
Hell, as it is now, there’s a “Big US Bull in a china shop” outlook in many neighborhoods. It could be counter-productive to have even more US soldiers patrolling these neighborhoods. It’s a pretty damn big culture clash. Could be more antagonistic and intrusive. Which, over there, could be deadly. From what I’ve read, that reasoning there, has played a major factor in troop levels.
Right now, the vast majority of Iraq isn’t taking part in the fight against us, or against their fellow Iraqis. And while there is some intrusion and corruption in the Iraqi security forces, damn if those aren’t some brave folks. These guys are often running in pick up trucks to a fight! They pull comrades out of ditches, who’ve been tortured and executed. Yet, Iraqis keep signing up, and assuming more and more of the security responsibility.
It’s the Iraqi troop levels that we need to focus on. Rumsfield just ok’d another 100,000 troops for their forces. That’s what needs to be happening. We need to keep fading out of the scene, as we’ve gradually been doing, and let them assume the responsibility.
Iraqi troops are their fellow citizens (fathers, brothers, husbands, friends). The populace is going to be far less understanding and symathetic to the killing of Iraqi Soldiers.
[/quote]
Franks and Rumsfeld will be known as colossal Fk ups for eternity.
A larger presence was needed and the top generals were ignored.
Rumsfeld only listened to the people who were singing his tune.
That puts you on the wrong side of history along side Rummy and Franks.
Cheers!
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The fact is Shinseki was the top general and Franks was not.
Shinseki is on the record stating that many more troops were needed and we did not send more troops.
Shinseki’s replacement (Keane) was announced 15 months before Shinseki’s term was up which is unprecedented.
Iraq was on the WH radar screen in January 2001 and Shinseki was telling Rumsfeld and anyone who would listen that 400K to 500K troops were needed.
Keane was touted as the go to guy after Rumsfeld announcement.
If that is not being fired than I don’t know what is.[/quote]
From everything I’ve ever read, Gen. Franks was the top commander. My understanding is that Gen. Shinseki was US Army Chief of Staff. A specific branch. While, Gen Franks was the Commander-in-Chief of US Central Command. Leader of the Armed forces in total, during the war and post war. Note that the top commander of forces, General John Abizaid, succeeded him.
That has always been my understanding. Any military folk want to clear that up?
Now, as far as touting Keane to replace Shinseki. That came from the Washington post, which quoted “Pentagon Officials,” not named. It’s never been established where the information actually came from, or that it was factual. In the end, as it turned out, Keane wasn’t “tapped” for the job. Peter Shoomaker was, Keane wasn’t. General Shinseki finished his full term, and was succeeded. That is the overwhelming precedent for the position.
Yes, Shinseki did say that, but as I’ve already outlined General Franks reasoning, see above.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Actually, we went in to Iraq with the troop levels General Franks asked for.
The original plans (drafted by other generals) called for 500,000 and later 400,000 men for the Iraq war.
That Franks eventually accepted/asked for/settled on/etc. 140,000 simply means he’ll be remembered by history as the second idiot responsible for the magnificient Iraqi debacle. The other being Rumsfeld, of course. He Who Cannot Ever Be Wrong.
Simply because Tommy Franks accepted Rumsfeld’s ideas doesn’t mean that you didn’t go in with too little troops. You did. That the two chiefs clowns thought 140,000 was enough doesn’t change the reality that 140,000 men doesn’t cut it. Proof? Read any news about Iraq. Notice how well the whole thing is going.
This is not a new issue; it has been discussed repeatedly during the last three years. Most military experts have said, repeatedly, that the number of boots on the ground was much to small to do the mission properly.
They’re shown to have been right nearly daily.
Actually, Gen. Franks himself writes in his memoirs that he dissaproved of the 500,000-400,000. He claims that Rumsfield was prepared to ok that, if Franks needed it.
But, Gen. Franks felt that a lighter quicker force would be able to do the job, and do it so fast Iraqi forces would be hard-pressed to redeploy positions. His stragety, basically, was to avoid larger battles, and a possible war of attrition.
I assume he figured Saddam knew he wouldn’t stay in power this time, and likewise, his Baathist party. I don’t think Gen. Franks expected a surrender this time. So, yeah, he wanted to skirt as much of the Iraqi Forces as possible and get to Baghdad fast, leaving Iraqi forces behind. It seems Gen. Franks reasoning was that this wouldn’t be a Gulf War 1. This could have been a fight all the way up to and through Baghdad, with little hope of Saddam surrender.
It’s speculation now, of course, but how many troops may have died in such a war? That is, if the US had to take the time to move in so many troops, position them, coordinate them through the drive, logistics to support them. Franks wanted to avoid that. He wanted to avoid giving Saddam time to reposition troops. Had he been able to, and had there been larger and more protracted battles, who knows how many soldiers would have died. I can’t honestly say if it would have been less, or more, than what we see now. But, his reasoning makes alot of sense to me.
As for post-war Iraq. I’m just not sure that more “Infidel” troops are a great idea. Most often, there’s not a large and visible enemy to put larger numbers of troops against. They’d do what they pretty much do now. Hide, plant IEDs, Snipe, take some shots and melt back into the population.
I believe Troops levels have been damn effective in what they’ve set out to do. Targeted patrols/raids, training, backing up Iraqi forces, leading Iraqi forces where the need still arises, etc.
Hell, as it is now, there’s a “Big US Bull in a china shop” outlook in many neighborhoods. It could be counter-productive to have even more US soldiers patrolling these neighborhoods. It’s a pretty damn big culture clash. Could be more antagonistic and intrusive. Which, over there, could be deadly. From what I’ve read, that reasoning there, has played a major factor in troop levels.
Right now, the vast majority of Iraq isn’t taking part in the fight against us, or against their fellow Iraqis. And while there is some intrusion and corruption in the Iraqi security forces, damn if those aren’t some brave folks. These guys are often running in pick up trucks to a fight! They pull comrades out of ditches, who’ve been tortured and executed. Yet, Iraqis keep signing up, and assuming more and more of the security responsibility.
It’s the Iraqi troop levels that we need to focus on. Rumsfield just ok’d another 100,000 troops for their forces. That’s what needs to be happening. We need to keep fading out of the scene, as we’ve gradually been doing, and let them assume the responsibility.
Iraqi troops are their fellow citizens (fathers, brothers, husbands, friends). The populace is going to be far less understanding and symathetic to the killing of Iraqi Soldiers.
Franks and Rumsfeld will be known as colossal Fk ups for eternity.
A larger presence was needed and the top generals were ignored.
Rumsfeld only listened to the people who were singing his tune.
That puts you on the wrong side of history along side Rummy and Franks.
Cheers![/quote]
Top Generals suggestions were overturned, and top Generals suggestions werer adopted. Not all Generals are going to have the same plan. In the end, General Franks, the actual force commander, made the final cut on troop levels. I outlined the war he wanted to fight.
Seems rather harsh to assume the man is a liar, or a mere puppet. I was certainely respectful in my disagreeing with Tillman’s views, in a past post.
Wrong side of history? I’ve never understand that phrase, in the way you’ve used it. Did two sides of history actually transpire? From which a conclusion can be made on the validity of the oppossing approaches to the Iraq war?
You assume less soldiers and civilians would have died with a much larger troop level. There’s no way to know that’s the case. Not really a testable hypothesis. Unless someone loans us a time machine, I suppose.
I believe General Franks, and others, have made a reasonable case as to why it could have been just the oppossite, more deaths.
Anyways, Cheers to you too!
About the cheering. While I do appreciate if someone feels like I’ve made a good arguement, I’d rather attempt to stay more civil.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, as far as touting Keane to replace Shinseki. That came from the Washington post, which quoted “Pentagon Officials,” not named. It’s never been established where the information actually came from, or that it was factual. In the end, as it turned out, Keane wasn’t “tapped” for the job. Peter Shoomaker was, Keane wasn’t. General Shinseki finished his full term, and was succeeded. That is the overwhelming precedent for the position.
[/quote]
Dude, you need to understand a little bit more about power and politics before believing all the flat little reports that come out.
Of course everything will always supposedly be done “by the book”, that’s the way it works. There are statements backing up everything from the “person in charge” no matter how fucked up things are going with this situation or any other in the government.
It’s not a conspiracy theory, it is a reality of life. There is a difference. I’m just saying, try to consider the way people actually do things, not the way they try to present things.
The Bush administration has been very heavy fisted about silencing internal opposition and presenting a solid front, and people here and there with dissenting opinions have felt the consequences of that.