TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Another American Massacre In Iraq
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well it obviously worked to a point. to the point that has brought our successes. to the point where we grossly underestimated the ruthlessness and savagery of a small group of fundies? to the point where we give the benefit of the doubt to violent interlopers and enablers like Iran and Syria (you got me here by the way there was and still is no excuse for that).

Surely you're not calling the insurgency which last I heard is comprised of something like 90-95% of Iraqi citizens and only 5-10% of foreign terrorists a "small ground of fundies"?

Aside of that, of course it worked to a point - invading and overthrowing Saddam was the "easy" part in contrast to rebuilding. Nevermind the fact that Bush mentioned in 2000 that he didn't want to nation build anywhere. Securing the borders and rebuilding the infrastructure was by all means the part that needed a great deal more attention - and this was the part that Rummy was deliberately dismissive of completely.

quote:

i know this is a shitty argument and being in a position defending warfare at all is almost indefencable from a pragmatic standpoint but look, if it wasn't for terror where would Iraq be right now? a better place right? we've been underestimating terror for decades on every level and will continue to do so. thats human. but we're not about just give up no matter who doesn't want to help us.

Well that's great, the next time someone attacks us I hope Australia will be quaking in their boots because we'll likely invade them next.

C'mon, terrorism was the least of concerns to us all for invading Iraq - WMDs were the rationale sold to us all. Terrorism was fought for Afghanistan, and rightfully so since it was the Taliban-sponsored al Qaeda nuts who brought this upon us. Sadly, we fight terrorism now in Iraq as it's become a haven for al Qaeda, but please don't sell us that rationale when our terrorist issues were clearly elsewhere at that time.

Wow. I just woke up and this thread goes to hell in a hand basket, LOL. Too many neocons running around I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX all the peace keeping lilith, Shaolin and I did last night all pissed away due to this retard. Why oh Why was he allowed back in??

You're also pretty good at undoing all of it dyde lol. Some people are too emotionally attached to murderous thugs/contracted killers of the state (i.e. soldiers, marines etc. ofcourse not all of them are smart enough to realize what the military really is, some of 'em are good people) and obsessed with "winning," like war (in this case invasion & aggression) is a football game or something. "Go team America!" LOL. I wouldn't blame Cyrus for you and Q5 flipping out .

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Those are not good words to be known for, just in case you forgot. It wasn't one of Rummy's bright spots, to be certain.

Gosh. You could make the argument that they were much more prepared for what they faced than, I dunno, say, every division that stormed the beaches at Normandy that promptly got mowed over and massacred by artillery and machine gun fire. Oh wait--I forgot--that was one of history's most brilliant military maneuvers. So no, I don't necessarily agree with you that they "aren't good words to be known for." They are true words spoken that have been twisted by the opposition to gain a political upper-hand.

As I've said many times before, a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow (not my quote, of course). To then use hindsight for political gain by criticizing imperfect planning is not honorable nor respectful. To use it for better future planning and constructive criticism, however, is. So please kindly shut the fuck up already. I'm not fooled by your antics and no 8 page reply by you citing every editorial you can get your hands on will change that, IMHO.

Happy New Year to you and the Mrs., by the way. Sincerely.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo

loooool

Good job America,good job for making another Iranian state.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX I work hard for my money.

But i thought you are one of those illegal Mexicans no?

I can def use someone to do some gardening around here in the summer if you like.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX p.s. I have noticed that Hardcore only gets stupid when Cyrus is around...

do you sit around like a loser all day to see who posts on TRANCEADDICT?? get a life man you are like 36 yrs old.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Gosh. You could make the argument that they were much more prepared for what they faced than, I dunno, say, every division that stormed the beaches at Normandy that promptly got mowed over and massacred by artillery and machine gun fire. Oh wait--I forgot--that was one of history's most brilliant military maneuvers. So no, I don't necessarily agree with you that they "aren't good words to be known for." They are true words spoken that have been twisted by the opposition to gain a political upper-hand. As I've said many times before, a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow (not my quote, of course). To then use hindsight for political gain by criticizing imperfect planning is not honorable nor respectful. To use it for better future planning and constructive criticism, however, is. So please kindly shut the fuck up already. I'm not fooled by your antics and no 8 page reply by you citing every editorial you can get your hands on will change that, IMHO. Happy New Year to you and the Mrs., by the way. Sincerely.

Good post. Too many people are playing monday quarterbackers.
Blabbing on and on and on and on and on like 'one general
said we needed more than 100k troops blah blah blah' then
say 'your military said not to go to war' from that ^^^ one
general making a suggestion.
And all of a sudden these people are experts on foreign
and military affairs lol.

Oh and if we did release figures on the amount of enemies
we kill and arrest, it would be MANY times more than the
amount of our casualties, so yes we're fucking 'Them' up.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Gosh. You could make the argument that they were much more prepared for what they faced than, I dunno, say, every division that stormed the beaches at Normandy that promptly got mowed over and massacred by artillery and machine gun fire. Oh wait--I forgot--that was one of history's most brilliant military maneuvers. So no, I don't necessarily agree with you that they "aren't good words to be known for." They are true words spoken that have been twisted by the opposition to gain a political upper-hand. As I've said many times before, a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow (not my quote, of course). To then use hindsight for political gain by criticizing imperfect planning is not honorable nor respectful. To use it for better future planning and constructive criticism, however, is. So please kindly shut the fuck up already. I'm not fooled by your antics and no 8 page reply by you citing every editorial you can get your hands on will change that, IMHO. Happy New Year to you and the Mrs., by the way. Sincerely.

yup.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Surely you're not calling the insurgency which last I heard is comprised of something like 90-95% of Iraqi citizens and only 5-10% of foreign terrorists a "small ground of fundies"?

in a country of 25 million given a insurgency strength of, say 60,000 i'd say less than a 1/4% is "a small group of fundies"

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer do you sit around like a loser all day to see who posts on TRANCEADDICT?? get a life man you are like 36 yrs old.

You are the one that is an idiot and can't add. I am 35 and if you knew so much about me, you would know why I am here all morning while you and Cyrus cuddle with eachother all night long.

:ignored

p.s. see, everytime Cyrus comes around, you do......


Seek some help fellas,

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Gosh. You could make the argument that they were much more prepared for what they faced than, I dunno, say, every division that stormed the beaches at Normandy that promptly got mowed over and massacred by artillery and machine gun fire. Oh wait--I forgot--that was one of history's most brilliant military maneuvers. So no, I don't necessarily agree with you that they "aren't good words to be known for." They are true words spoken that have been twisted by the opposition to gain a political upper-hand.

I was waiting so long for the WWII comparison, and lo and behold you didn't disappoint.

Are you wingers tired of trumping up that asinine comparison yet? Invading a hapless dictator by kicking out UN weapons inspectors doing their jobs, taking the eye off of Afghanistan and the ****** who attacked us, failure to secure the borders with much needed troops that was told to him by Generals who knew what the fuck they were talking about on troop numbers, and failure to give the needed armour when it was fucking begged for when our military and civilian heads SAT on their collective asses from those private manufactures waiting to make more armour when called upon while our military gets their fucking chests and limbs blown off,

and you want to continue the comparison to Pearl Harbor and our efforts to stop Hitler from further invasion. Got it, champ. Keep 'em comin.

quote:

As I've said many times before, a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow (not my quote, of course). To then use hindsight for political gain by criticizing imperfect planning is not honorable nor respectful. To use it for better future planning and constructive criticism, however, is. So please kindly shut the fuck up already. I'm not fooled by your antics and no 8 page reply by you citing every editorial you can get your hands on will change that, IMHO.

Jesus, was that necessary yet? Here, have another citation on the house:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=2

To wit:

quote:

� The Pentagon gave a contract for thousands of the ceramic plate inserts that make combat vests bulletproof to a former Army researcher who had never mass-produced anything. �He struggled for a year, then gave up entirely.� � In shipping plates from other companies, the Army�s equipment manager �effectively reduced the armor�s priority to the status of socks�.Some 10,000 plates were lost along the way, and the rest arrived late.� � Going into the war, the Pentagon decided against asking Detroit automakers like General Motors to start making armored Humvees because they would need too much time to set up new assembly lines. But the Pentagon originally under-ordered from its sole contractor, O�Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt, and the company is not expected to reach the Army�s current 550 per month demand for the vehicles until this spring. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/i...print&position=

So go ahead and keep quoting that dipshit for all I care. I'm sorry if it gets your panties all bunched up when I tend to disagree with citations such as these and for good fucking reason.

quote:

Happy New Year to you and the Mrs., by the way. Sincerely.

You and your family as well, despite our disagreements.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Good post. Too many people are playing monday quarterbackers. Blabbing on and on and on and on and on like 'one general said we needed more than 100k troops blah blah blah' then say 'your military said not to go to war' from that ^^^ one general making a suggestion. And all of a sudden these people are experts on foreign and military affairs lol.

Actually if I recall correctly it was more than just one general that made this suggestion. These suggestions were made consistently to Rummy about troop numbers and the need for firmly marked goals for post-war planning, and he continually dismissed them away:

quote:

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay." Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation. Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said. "I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today. "He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war." ...."In his own mind he thought we could go in and fight and take out the regime and come out. But a lot of us planners were having a real hard time with it because we were also thinking we can't do this. Once you tear up a country you have to stay and rebuild it. It was very challenging." http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-2...=dp-widget-news

More can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0228/dailyUpdate.html
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/...ion/9937387.htm
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm

quote:

Oh and if we did release figures on the amount of enemies we kill and arrest, it would be MANY times more than the amount of our casualties, so yes we're fucking 'Them' up.

And that somehow quells the civil war being created how again?

Wow. People are still defending Rummy to this day? Now that's commitment. There's hindsight vision and then there's incompetance. I would implore people to learn the difference. I doubt I need to resurrect past threads to emphasize the point.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And that somehow quells the civil war being created how again?

Muslims turning on each other killing muslims. You should
direct your bitching and crying to them to stop killing
each other. Oh and the other muslims like Iran and terrorists
formenting the violence...


"failure to give the armor"

Didn't you whine about republican spending? With the dems cutting
and cutting defense spending leading up to the war of course
the entire military wouldn't have fully armoured and upgraded
hummers and such. Plus stuff like that takes time like the new
vehicles to counter IEDs. You can complain and complaing about
lack of 'planning' for years but point is no one expected the
Iraqis to turn on each other and not be more tolerant of each
other's faith and be more responsible. That whining is 'monday
quarterbacking', "we shoulda did this, we shoulda did that", we
went with what we had and still overran the enemy. Of course
guerilla tactics hurt abit but wtf do you expect, us to drive
around in tanks everywhere all the time? It's improving out there
stop the crying and second guessing, saying the same line for
years, it's old man. Of course everything couldn't have been
perfect, quit nitpicking like a girl...

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Of course everything couldn't have been perfect, quit nitpicking like a girl...

Someone should just blow this thread away, all it's managed to do is display a massive lump of north american ignorance all in one spot. Though I must say, it has diverse scope of ignorance born from a life of luxury, isolation and having never really had to pick up arms to defend your homes or way of life.
I mean really?
When was the last time a north american had to pick up arms to stop their government or a foreign national power from trampling all over them, Mexican-American war of 1845 or the US civil war of 1861?
Shot up a couple of indian tribes once in awhile?

After that its been basically tourism with a gun and uniform, go overseas, shoot up a few people and bomb their stuff, go home again whinge about how the damn foreigners are out there buggering around and wouldnt know freedom if it bit them on the bottom.
Point being. Your personal threat, aside from the normal domestic trouble which is not exactly endemic to the north american countries is quite low and I hardly think Laz's cousins down south are going to muster a big army and annex Texas again any time soon now are they.
No.
Your chances of being electricuted by a lightning bolt are better than your chances of having some madmen in a plane crash a it into your house.
You die from heart disease, car accidents and work related injuries and should you go overseas to some warzone and get shot by someone then youre really not in the same position as a child soldier in Burundi or an arab conscript soldier who's forced by the state to take up arms against their will.
You have the luxury of choice to fight
You have the luxury of going home where things arent a burnt out wreck
You have the luxury of not having to live in the country which has been wracked by war after it all over
You have the luxury of not having to protect your family members directly from enemies in your own backyards.

You can sit there, in your nice house with the electricity on, running water, social services and public infrastructure and complain about how bad it is you look in the international eye of being in a war that doesnt make you "look good". God forbid, you dont "look good" in ugly wars now.
Or be a complete idiot spouting the popular anti-USA rhetoric from people in far off countries you've got about as much in common with as apples do to oranges while you go to a school that hasnt had the crap shot out of it by government forces and the teachers executed in front of you for teaching children like yourself an alternative textbook the state didnt want them doing.

All youre providing is philosophical examples of how you think you can fix reality along with a lot of back-biting, name calling and hair pulling so you think you can validate your point better by getting everyone else ever so angry with you.
How wonderful.
Tommorrow you'll wake up in a 1st world country that hasnt had a foreign weapon fired on it by a foreign enemy in well over 100 years and for all intents and purposes is unlikely during your lifetimes to ever have that happen to you.
Sadly this kind of complacency and luxury has created a wallowing mire of domestic self pity, messes overseas by your own hands you dont have to look at unless you dont turn on the TV and kids running around looking for some self identity with freedom fighters they have nothing in common with because they've never had to fight but think it might be 'cool' to do it one day. I mean really, just who the hell are you trying to impress, no one wants a spoilt rich kid from north america turning up on their doorstep to save their arses in the fight against north america! You're a joke to them like a cartoon on television!

Oh, how hard it all is...
Seriously, help all you want but dont pretend for a second you think you know what its 'all about' from someone elses perspective because you really dont have that luxury or any kind of comprehension.

^^well stated Lilith^^

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I was waiting so long for the WWII comparison, and lo and behold you didn't disappoint. Are you wingers tired of trumping up that asinine comparison yet?

But somehow playing the Vietnam card continues to be on the table. Beautiful.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC ... we went with what we had and still overran the enemy.

+1

And if there weren't a single coalition casualty in this whole multi-year operation, people like Opus would still call it a collossal failure.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka But somehow playing the Vietnam card continues to be on the table. Beautiful.

And how many times have I played that card? Moreover, how many times have I distinctly stated otherwise? If you do a search, you'll notice that I have deliberately made the distinction between the two. Although I do understand the similiarities, I will continue to make that distinction, so if you're going to make a point about any of my arguments, I would hope they would at least be correct.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC You can complain and complaing about lack of 'planning' for years but point is no one expected the Iraqis to turn on each other and not be more tolerant of each other's faith and be more responsible.

But there's the real crux of the problem we're having right now.
Saddam was the wedge between them, keeping them from continuing to do what they've been doing for hundreds of years before.
The unfortunate hope of replacing that wedge with human dignity and liberty didn't happen fast enough before their in-fighting continued like it always had.
Now we're left trying to hammer a new wedge back into place before they tear themselves apart.
That's not to say that they don't want to know peace, however, they've got nothing to compare to when it comes to tolerance, liberty OR human dignity...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r That's not to say that they don't want to know peace, however, they've got nothing to compare to when it comes to tolerance, liberty OR human dignity...

Intersting....

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo in a country of 25 million given a insurgency strength of, say 60,000 i'd say less than a 1/4% is "a small group of fundies"

Why havent you responded to my post about the figure of iraqi deaths that you think i pulled out of my ass?

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer do you sit around like a loser all day to see who posts on TRANCEADDICT?? get a life man you are like 36 yrs old.

HES 36????

ahaahahahaha holy fuck.. I truly thought he was in his early 20's after seeing how immature his posts were.

At least Opus resounds his maturity.. Laz is just a sad case

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Muslims turning on each other killing muslims. You should direct your bitching and crying to them to stop killing each other. Oh and the other muslims like Iran and terrorists formenting the violence...

I have and continue to do so. However, let's also keep in mind on who helped create the current state of affairs as they are now. How easily you have forgotten who destroyed the country in efforts to rebuild the infrastructure with too few a manpower in the process. Or have you forgotten that small point already.

quote:

"failure to give the armor" Didn't you whine about republican spending? With the dems cutting and cutting defense spending leading up to the war of course the entire military wouldn't have fully armoured and upgraded hummers and such.

Please. Do you need a fucking history lesson in the process? Trying to mix the two separate points up in the process? Here's a trip down memory lane for you - who was it that proposed cutting, actually gutting the fuck out of military spending back in the late 80's? I'll give you a hint - it was a Congressmen who's now the VP.

Who was it that closed down more military bases and cut military spending with a much greater proportion:

a) George Bush Sr.
b) Bill Clinton

(hint: it's not "b")

Try and do us all a favor and get your facts straight before you begin to create an argument first. You may be a bit new here, but this has been argued before by me and others. All you have to do is a bit of searching and you'll find the threads. And let's also keep something in mind here champ, who the hell controlled Congress during those Clinton years?:

http://www.okimc.org/newswire.php?s..._comments=false

Blame all you want on Clinton, but the cutting in defense was started in Reagan's second term, endorsed by the likes of Cheney, and continued through until 9/11.

And yes, I will continue to complain about the ridiculous budget policies of this Administration - cutting taxes WHILE increasing spending and borrowing with no end in sight DURING A FUCKING WAR is unheard of historically and completely insane. Bush Jr's. discretionary spending alone should have him bitchslapped.

Fuck, he even spent more than Carter. Here's an article from the libertarian Cato institute back in '03, and things have only gotten worse since then:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html

quote:

Plus stuff like that takes time like the new vehicles to counter IEDs.

Irrelevant. Granted it takes time, but that does not in any way excuse this:

quote:

� The Pentagon gave a contract for thousands of the ceramic plate inserts that make combat vests bulletproof to a former Army researcher who had never mass-produced anything. �He struggled for a year, then gave up entirely.� � In shipping plates from other companies, the Army�s equipment manager �effectively reduced the armor�s priority to the status of socks�.Some 10,000 plates were lost along the way, and the rest arrived late.� � Going into the war, the Pentagon decided against asking Detroit automakers like General Motors to start making armored Humvees because they would need too much time to set up new assembly lines. But the Pentagon originally under-ordered from its sole contractor, O�Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt, and the company is not expected to reach the Army�s current 550 per month demand for the vehicles until this spring. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/i...print&position=

Merely handwaving away something like this is not excusable or dismissed with the asinine rationale of "takes time". It's flagrant. And it's the epitomy of Rummy's post-war planning, or sincere lack thereof. Can you at least try to counter these posts with a stronger argument than that?

quote:

You can complain and complaing about lack of 'planning' for years but point is no one expected the Iraqis to turn on each other and not be more tolerant of each other's faith and be more responsible.

Bullshit. Pure and utter complete bullshit. How many Limbaugh talking points do you have down?

Here's a few of those predictions made "back in the day":

quote:

�The longer a U.S. occupation of Iraq continues, the more danger exists that elements of the Iraqi population will become impatient and take violent measures to hasten the departure of U.S. forces. � The impact of suicide bombing attacks in Israel goes beyond their numbers, and this fact will also capture the imagination of would-be Iraqi terrorists.� [Army War College, Feb. 2003] http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...ing.pdf#page=40 �But if we�re going to invade, we need to prepare for a worst-case scenario involving street-to-street fighting, with farmers like Mr. Khal taking potshots at our troops. Is America really prepared for hundreds of casualties, even thousands, in an invasion and subsequent occupation that could last many years?� [Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, Sept. 2002] http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280002 �We must be prepared to occupy the country and stay there for a very long time at very great expense in treasure but also in risk to lives. There can be no question that the military cost of this option will be enormous.� [Morton Halperin, Senior Fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations, July 2002] http://www.iraqwatch.org/government...02.htm#HALPERIN

Back in 2004, USA Today wrote this:

quote:

"[m]ilitary and civilian intelligence agencies repeatedly warned prior to the invasion that Iraqi insurgent forces were preparing to fight and that their ranks would grow as other Iraqis came to resent the U.S. occupation and organize guerrilla attacks." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...nce-intel_x.htm

Here's an interesting tidbit as well by Conrad C. Crane and W. Andrew Terrill from the Army War College:

quote:

The longer a U.S. occupation of Iraq continues, the more danger exists that elements of the Iraqi population will become impatient and take violent measures to hasten the departure of U.S. forces. At the same time, a premature withdrawal from Iraq could lead to instability and perhaps even civil war. By ousting the Saddam Hussein regime, the United States will have placed itself in the position where it will be held responsible by the world should anarchy and civil war develop in a post-Saddam era. Having entered into Iraq, the United States will find itself unable to leave rapidly, despite the many pressures to do so. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...ing.pdf#page=40

They also warned:

quote:

"The impact of suicide bombing attacks in Israel goes beyond their numbers, and this fact will also capture the imagination of would-be Iraqi terrorists." http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...ing.pdf#page=44

Also the CIA's National Intelligence Council in an August 14, 2003 article:

quote:

The intelligence community's doubts were fully aired to top Bush administration officials in the months before the war in multiple classified reports. The National Intelligence Council, which represents the consensus view of American spy agencies, reported to top policy makers at the start of the year [2003] that "what the administration was saying was a rosy picture," said a senior intelligence official who read the report and asked not to be named. "The report's conclusions were totally opposite." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0814-06.htm

That's from a Boston Globe article, BTW.

In May, 2002, the CIA began a series of war game exercises to assess the best and worst-case scenarios after Saddam being overthrown. These exercises assessed the civil disorder after the fall of Baghdad and led the CIA to this:

quote:

The CIA also considered whether a new Iraqi government could be put together through a process like the Bonn conference, which was then being used to devise a post-Taliban regime for Afghanistan. At the Bonn conference representatives of rival political and ethic groups agreed on the terms that established Hamid Karzai as the new Afghan President. The CIA believed that rivalries in Iraq were so deep, and the political culture so shallow, that a similarly quick transfer of sovereignty would only invite chaos. http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=185

That was a $5 million project that produced 13 volumes of reports on this issue. A NYTimes article mirrored their analysis:

quote:

Their findings included a much more dire assessment of Iraq's dilapidated electrical and water systems than many Pentagon officials assumed. They warned of a society so brutalized by Saddam Hussein's rule that many Iraqis might react coolly to Americans' notion of quickly rebuilding civil society. [...] The working group studying transitional justice was eerily prescient in forecasting the widespread looting in the aftermath of the fall of Mr. Hussein's government, caused in part by thousands of criminals set free from prison, and it recommended force to prevent the chaos. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/i...artner=USERLAND

These same analysis was what prevented Bush Sr. from invading in Gulf War I. James Baker stated as such back in 1999:

quote:

"Removing him [Hussein] from power might well have plunged Iraq into civil war, sucking U.S. forces in to preserve order," ....."Had we elected to march on Baghdad, our forces might still be there."

Interesting insight, ain't it?

And let's also keep in mind who said this:

quote:

I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We�d be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don�t think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn�t a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we�d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.

Guess who said that, champ? Tricky Dick Cheney after the first Gulf War. Funny how easily folks like him and yourself forget things like this.

There were criticisms, but you dipshits didn't listen. Instead, you had to pass muster with how you'll fucking vote instead:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1600193_pf.html

You didn't listen:

quote:

A half-dozen intelligence reports also warned that American troops could face significant postwar resistance. This foot-high stack of material was distributed at White House meetings of Bush's top foreign policy advisers, but there's no evidence that anyone ever acted on it. "It was disseminated. And ignored," said a former senior intelligence official. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm

So spare us your GOP talking points about how this never could have been predicted. You bull-headed dipshits just refused to listen to the intelligence analysis given.

quote:

That whining is 'monday quarterbacking', "we shoulda did this, we shoulda did that", we went with what we had and still overran the enemy.

From what I just gave you above, apparently it was a bit more than what you imagined.

quote:

Of course guerilla tactics hurt abit but wtf do you expect, us to drive around in tanks everywhere all the time?

Actually I expected Bush to keep his attention on al Qaeda and bin Laden rather than divert his attention elsewhere and give that job to the corrupt warlords, but I guess it's just wishful thinking anyway.

quote:

It's improving out there

Really? Wow, so "we're making progress", and it's business as usual? Hmmm, I guess I shouldn't listen to all those intelligence and analysis reports that clearly state otherwise:

quote:

�The Long Shot to Overcome Ethnic and Sectarian Politics� (most optimistic scenario): �This is an Iraq that slowly, in fits and starts, trudges down the difficult road of creating a functioning state.� �Lebanonization� (militias wage a civil war in the capital): �Unable to maintain control, the United States is itself a target when it becomes involved. � U.S. troops largely retreat behind fortifications, distant from population centers, and head north to Kurdistan.� �Descent Into Hell� (worst-case scenario): Most of Iraq�s neighbors are drawn into open regional warfare, and it ends with Iran conducting strikes against Saudi Arabia�s oil industry http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr174.pdf

That's a nonpartisan government agency, btw.

I guess "we're making progress" is also the reason why Bush is likely going to advance sending more troops as a last resort to help stabilize the region.

I also guess that we're making so much progress that Bush refuses to even state as such anymore.

Really, can you talk any further out of your ass for all to hear?

quote:

stop the crying and second guessing, saying the same line for years, it's old man.

Hey, I hear ya - who wants to hear the grim news of how bad this Administration fucked up so horribly! It's so unpatriotic, so unAmerican, ain't it?

quote:

Of course everything couldn't have been perfect, quit nitpicking like a girl...

Hey, I'm with ya! It's so girlish to live in the reality-based community, ain't it?

What's with you military boys calling out dissenters with feministic qualities? You and Q both have a propensity for that. Is there some sort of hidden feelings and projectionism going on here? I know there's quite a "don't ask don't tell" thing in the military and all, but you really don't have to hide your feelings to us if you choose not to. I really don't care what you are attracted to personally. As a librul, I fight and stand for your sexual preferences with consenting adults, so I'm always on your side, champ.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.