Did you just watch President Bush's speech?

[TheDudeDVant]

Originally posted by Bodhi
criticism is one thing, but when public opinion at home changes the way the troops fight, and deploy is a completely different thing.  All the liberal outcry has, and is continuing to hamper efforts to end the insurgency.  That kind of having to look over their shoulders (to liberal opinion at home) is exactly what is killing American soldiers.  Before you say I am advocating unrestrained violence, rethink it.  I am advocating that the commanders on the scene no more about what they need, then any of us back here.  So when they ask for 500 more tanks, and instead get 200 humvees (because the liberal public will cry and scream over the tanks), it is that kind of whining and thoughtlessness that kills our troops.

500 tanks turn to 200 humvess because of a liberal? Tell me bodhi, who was in charge of sending troops to iraqi? Who came up w/ the plan of what , who and how much we were sending? Who in our government said we had plenty of troops on the ground?

dude

[Sandman]

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
500 tanks turn to 200 humvess because of a liberal? Tell me bodhi, who was in charge of sending troops to iraqi? Who came up w/ the plan of what , who and how much we were sending? How in our government said we had plenty of troops on the ground?

dude

Blame Clinton.

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by Bodhi
Bush and the rest of the people with vision call it freeing a people from tyranny and removing a dangerous and rutheless dictator

That's what liberal presidents try to do with our military, maybe you weren't paying attention during the last century.

Saddam wasn't a threat to us.  He was a regional menace, and as long he was there we needed to keep troops in Saudi Arabia, which was destabilizing their Monarchy.   That was the real reason we went to war over there.  

If Kerry wins, we will stay in Iraq, we have to.  There is really no difference between Bush and Kerry on this issue.  

As far as burning in hell, maybe I'll make that my sig file.

[lazs2]

sclotz... I believe that it was not so much that we were sure that the sadman had WMD's as it was that he was not allowing us or the un to search for them which was a violation of the agreement that caused him to be invaded...    The more we learned about him tho... the more good reason to have him out of power..

small points I know but...  worth not losing sight of.

lazs

[TheDudeDVant]

Didnt America tell the inspectors to get the funk out cause we were bout to bomb iraqi? The inspectors were inspecting pre-war..


dude

[Charon]

   I am advocating that the commanders on the scene no more about what they need, then any of us back here. So when they ask for 500 more tanks, and instead get 200 humvees (because the liberal public will cry and scream over the tanks), it is that kind of whining and thoughtlessness that kills our troops.

That was absolutely, 100 percent Rumsfeld. He even sacked a general who disagreed with his "Iraq light" approach. [To me, this is far more significant as a reflection on his right to continue as SecDef than any links to the current prison scandal. One Macnamara was enough, now we have a whole cabinet full to contend with]

The indictment reads something like this: President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld were determined to prove that wars could be fought differently -- with fewer troops -- than in the past. They sent too few to Afghanistan, allowing Osama bin Laden to get away. When the new U.S.-supported leader in Afghanistan said his country needed more peacekeepers, the United States and its allies were slow and stingy in response. The administration then sent too few troops to Iraq, which allowed all kinds of bad things to happen: the postwar looting from which the U.S. occupation in some ways never recovered; the fading away of the Iraqi army; the borders and ammunition dumps and even nuclear sites left unguarded; and the steady strengthening of armed resistance. And rather than take responsibility for these decisions, Mr. Bush and his top leaders always claimed to be fulfilling their generals' requests -- but the generals had seen that officers who challenged the Bush ideology (see: former Army chief of staff Eric K. Shinseki) didn't last long.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19016-2004Apr16.html

By David H. Hackworth

Deploying without sufficient armor and then having to fly 70-ton Abrams tanks to Iraq is as flaky as almost everything else about a war where politicians were proclaiming just a year ago that once we drained the swamps, the rest would be rice and flowers.

If “Blood and Guts” Gen. George Patton had been running things, he’d have roared when told to deploy to a battlefield without all of his killing gear. Rest assured that the 1st Cavalry, 1st Infantry and 1st Marine Divisions would have shipped out with their full kit of heavy weapons instead of liberation light.

But there are few Pattons at the top of today’s military who know the fighting game and have the guts to tell Perfumed Prince superiors that their poor decisions could get soldiers killed. So now – according to the Pentagon’s Lt. Col. Diane Battaglia – our brilliant Brass are “repositioning assets” while our soldiers and Marines are absorbing rocket propelled grenades and road-side mines in thin-skinned vehicles far more fit for a vacation at Yosemite than for combat.

“Most of our tanks were left behind, and tankers, gun bunnies and ADA (Air Defense) guys became infantry,” says a 1st Cav leader in Iraq. “What we need are more tanks and tracked APCs (armored personnel carriers). We also need more Strykers (armored carrier vehicles), because tracks are no good for line-haul escort duty. However, the Strykers aren’t the end-all – they’re having problems maneuvering inside cities with RPG-proof cages. Bradleys can turn faster.”

Now we’re flying armor to these besieged outfits at about $200,000 a tank, and our seaports are on overtime loading ships with the track vehicles that were also left behind.

It’s no wonder that the Pentagon will soon ask we-the-people for additional billions of dollars to continue pursuing the greatest military miscalculation in our country’s history. Meanwhile, the meter’s already closing on $300 billion, 800 dead and more than 22,000 battle and non-battle casualties.

Central Command’s Maj. Gen. John Sattler says that based on the changing situation in Iraq, he requested more tanks and armored Bradley Fighting Vehicles.

Hello? What changing situation? During the months they were preparing to deploy, pals of mine in all three divisions have been groaning to me that they were parking their heavy stuff in the motor pool to go in light. These sergeants, lieutenants and captains already saw that the insurgency struggle in Iraq was getting worse daily, that improvised explosive devices and ambushes were the enemy’s weapons of choice, and that only armor would protect them while they tried to defeat a basically inept but fanatical foe.

But the high brass, from SecDef Donald Rumsfeld down, diligently ignored the fact that guerrilla resistance in Iraq was growing stronger and bolder with the passage of each bloody week.

It’s the type of foggy thinking that reminds me of early 1965, when my parachute brigade was alerted to deploy to Vietnam and we were told we had to take our Army dress uniforms. I yelled at the Pentagon staff officer who gave me the word, and he replied, “We're envisioning a short war.” Or the Pentagon's failure in 1993 to send requested tanks to Mogadishu. The result: “Black Hawk Down,” where a lot of good men died or got shot up.

Until Desert Storm, our military did a pretty good job profiting from the lessons of Vietnam. But then the brass became drunk on their splendid 100-hour victory and concluded that “Shock and Awe” with fewer ground troops and lighter equipment would do the whole trick in future conflicts.

So this time around we went into Iraq criminally short on boots and heavy gear. And one year later, our military’s senior commanders still don’t get what's going down in the killing fields of Iraq, nor are they listening to what their warriors are telling them.

Since the vast majority of the American people are not yet affected by the carnage, waste and stupidity, the death mill of Iraq will grind on until more and more of our sons’ and daughters’ bodies are flown into Dover Air Force Base at the dead of night to keep the photos off Page One.

Unless the people wake up quick smart and demand decent leadership from the top to the bottom of our armed forces, that sad day will come.

© 2004 David H. Hackworth.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=69&rnd=96.93470836053886

 
Charon

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Charon

The indictment reads something like this: President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld were determined to prove that wars could be fought differently -- with fewer troops -- than in the past. They sent too few to Afghanistan, allowing Osama bin Laden to get away. When the new U.S.-supported leader in Afghanistan said his country needed more peacekeepers, the United States and its allies were slow and stingy in response. The administration then sent too few troops to Iraq, which allowed all kinds of bad things to happen: the postwar looting from which the U.S. occupation in some ways never recovered; the fading away of the Iraqi army; the borders and ammunition dumps and even nuclear sites left unguarded; and the steady strengthening of armed resistance. And rather than take responsibility for these decisions, Mr. Bush and his top leaders always claimed to be fulfilling their generals' requests -- but the generals had seen that officers who challenged the Bush ideology (see: former Army chief of staff Eric K. Shinseki) didn't last long.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Apr16.html

 
 
Charon

LOL... that is an accusation, and an unfounded one at that.  Where is the proof, where are the quotes...  None, nadda... top it off with the source, and voila, there is your credibility...

As for the Hackworth article... he hits on one key note, a miscalculation.  That is true, but the miscalculation is more than a miltary necessity, it is a misacalculation of liberal public outcry, and at how effective the terrorist propaganda would be on our dimwitted liberals.  We cry for weeks over a few Iraqi terrorist prisoners being slapped around, and having photos taken of them... we cry for a day about Berg's beheading... how soon we forget the mistreatment dealed out by these extremists on a daily basis... thats the miscalculation, that our liberal public is really this stupid.

[StabbyTheIcePic]

Saddam was barely mayor of baghdad at the time of our invasion. The terrorists have won, we have fallen into the traps they laid out for us after 9/11.

[StabbyTheIcePic]

Hey eagler here is a pro bush website:

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html

They predict kerry in a landslide. Sorry but the majority of Americans do not like Bush.

[txmx]

Originally posted by Bodhi
LOL... that is an accusation, and an unfounded one at that.  Where is the proof, where are the quotes...  None, nadda... top it off with the source, and voila, there is your credibility...

As for the Hackworth article... he hits on one key note, a miscalculation.  That is true, but the miscalculation is more than a miltary necessity, it is a misacalculation of liberal public outcry, and at how effective the terrorist propaganda would be on our dimwitted liberals.  We cry for weeks over a few Iraqi terrorist prisoners being slapped around, and having photos taken of them... we cry for a day about Berg's beheading... how soon we forget the mistreatment dealed out by these extremists on a daily basis... thats the miscalculation, that our liberal public is really this stupid.

DAng!Aint Logic A biotch:eek:

[txmx]

Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Saddam was barely mayor of baghdad at the time of our invasion. The terrorists have won, we have fallen into the traps they laid out for us after 9/11.

Please put down the copy of spies monthly would you LOL.
Old saddumb was still large and in charge before we rolled in Go take a reality pill please.

[Charon]

It’s common knowledge, but be ignorant if you want Bodhi. It's that type of attitude that fills bodybags.

…White's departure and the coming retirements of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki and Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Keane will clear the way for Rumsfeld to install his own handpicked Army leaders and put his stamp on the Army's force structure, doctrine and training…

From the day he arrived in the Pentagon, Rumsfeld has been at war with the Army's top generals - veterans of combat in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Mogadishu, Haiti, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and with some of the top leadership of the other services, as well. Navy Secretary Gordon England has left to become deputy secretary of homeland security, and Air Force secretary James Roche has also had a number of bruising encounters with Rumsfeld, who Pentagon officials said has a habit of publicly ridiculing those who disagree with him…

Relations between Rumsfeld and the Army became even frostier in late February, when senators pressed Shinseki at a hearing to estimate how many soldiers he thought it would take to secure the peace in postwar Iraq. Shinseki reluctantly testified that he thought it might require "several hundred thousand," based on his experience as commander of peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz publicly called that estimate grossly exaggerated.

When White was asked about Shinseki's estimates, he cited the general's experience in such matters. Published reports at the time said Rumsfeld wanted to fire White on the spot for supporting the Army chief of staff…
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_042603,00.html

In his remarks yesterday, Rumsfeld acknowledged that the original battle plan to topple Hussein had been changed dramatically as the Bush administration developed its war strategy over the past year.

But, he said, that 1991 plan -- which envisioned a far larger, more heavily armored and conventional invasion force -- was "old and stale" and "didn't reflect any of the lessons from Afghanistan; it didn't reflect the current state of affairs in Iraq; and it didn't take into account the capabilities of the United States in terms of the shift away from dumb bombs to precision bombs."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6636-2003Apr1?language=printer

Gen. Shinseki's sins, according to Rumsfeld, involved continuing to present his and his staff's assessments, whether they agreed with Rumsfeld's or not. Gen. Shinseki has been the Army's prime advocate of transformation, changing the Army's fighting posture to meet the needs of a 2003 world. The most visible crunch came when, in a congressional hearing, Gen. Shinseki was asked how many troops he believed would be required to defeat and occupy Iraq. He replied that, based on his own experience as commander of U.S. forces in the postwar period in Bosnia-Herzegovina, he thought the Iraq project might require as many as several hundred thousand U.S. troops.

This response was at variance with Rumsfeld's own line at the time that it would take many fewer than that. Gen. Shinseki turned out to be right. There are now some 165,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the place is clearly not yet under U.S. control, and there is also no indication that the requirement for many U.S. troops is likely to change in the foreseeable future.

Another relevant piece for the rest of us in the Rumsfeld vs. Shinseki dispute -- the cynosure of the larger Rumsfeld vs. America's uniformed forces issue -- is the career of Gen. Shinseki himself, and what he stands for in the U.S. Army. Gen. Ric Shinseki is a Japanese-American from the Hawaiian island of Kauai. He was wounded once in Vietnam, stitched back together, and then sent there again for another combat tour. During the second tour he was wounded severely, losing most of a foot. He still didn't quit. He eventually reached the Army's highest post when he was named chief of staff in 1999.

When Gen. Shinseki reviewed the troops gathered for his retirement ceremony, on his last day in the Army, he walked across the field at Fort Myer with a limp from his old wound. He introduced himself with his signature line: "My name is Shinseki. I am a soldier." Gen. Shinseki and his wife, Patty, whom he said was the only person he loved more than the Army, personify the Army as it sees itself, as one family.
http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/20030615eddan156p2.asp

Pushed to the wall, Shinseki said his best estimate was "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers." He added: "We're talking about a post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems."

Two days later, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, appearing before the House Budget Committee, bluntly rejected Shinseki's estimates as "wildly off the mark" and added that it was "not a good time to publish highly suspect numbers."

He went on to suggest that other models weren't valid because Iraq did not feature the same kind of ethnic tensions as, say, Afghanistan.

Say what?

This ancient land almost invented the concept of revenge and payback, and virtually every family and clan in Iraq has been brutally whipped and beaten into submission by Saddam Hussein's Baathist Party thugs. Then there is the fact that the minority Sunni Muslims have ruled and terrorized the Shiite majority and for generations repressed the Kurds, Turkomen and others. Iraq is not a big Switzerland, it is a big Lebanon.

It's a relief to know that there won't be any ethnic or tribal or religious tensions when the sun rises over liberated Iraq. A force the size of, say, the Texas Highway Patrol should be sufficient to keep the peace in a country the size of California, feed and house its refugees and rebuild what's been destroyed in the coming war, the last war, and the war before that one.

Secretary Rumsfeld said that in his opinion, General Shinseki "misspoke."

Shinseki tried to do the Army commanders responsible for what comes next - and Rumsfeld and his political lieutenants - a favor by leaving them room to deal with a much tougher reality, should that materialize. But in the Pentagon today, no good deed goes unpunished.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5361364.htm?1c

Charon

[digaling]

Busch: We have to get the weapons of mass destruction!
There were none.
Just an excuse for the dweeb like always.

[txmx]

Originally posted by Charon
It’s common knowledge, but be ignorant if you want Bodhi. It that type of attitude that fills bodybags.









Charon

LOL and you attitude raises the demande for white flags.

[StabbyTheIcePic]

yes because we were in danger of being invaded by iraq. Yep they were massing at the borders.