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

Opus, you just destroyed that guy LOL

thanks for your informative post

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka +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.

Excuse me, Rummy-lover, but it doesn't take a fucking genius to see how swell things are going right now. Perhaps that's why Bush will likely send in more troops - for a big celebration party being thrown in Baghdad.

Jesus, come back to earth just this once.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i wonder what Erdega thinks about Ethiopia pre-emptively invading and striking the Islamo-fascists in Somalia. Bravo for Ethiopia BTW. prolly nuthin...cause they're African and not white...and thats prolly just one of the many double standards he deals with on a daily basis...and prolly b/c Erdega knows he's about as intellectualy outgunned here as Rosie O'donnell at a MENSA seminar.

Hmmm, must be the same reason why the U.S. has led the charge in fighting all the genocide in Darfur and elsewhere in Africa, for humanitarian purposes in the same manner as invading Iraq, of course.

Then again, let's keep in mind whose policy helped secretly fund and arm those Somali warlords:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1601625_pf.html

However, short-term military victories do not necessarily equate with long-term democracy and stability:

quote:

"The feelings are very bad, very confusing -- everywhere, it's confusing," said a businessman in Mogadishu who did not want to be identified. "I didn't expect this scale of war, but most Somalis, even if they were fighting each other before on a clan basis, they are united now against Ethiopia. And there's a feeling that the international community is not helping." ... Analysts believe that Ethiopia's offensive is intended to force the movement back into negotiations by changing the situation on the ground. But some analysts have expressed fear that ... even if its superior military initially routs the Islamic movement, the ideologically driven militias will become only more motivated to pursue a guerrilla-style war or terrorist attacks across the region. ... "Hasn't anyone heard of Iraq?" said John Prendergast, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group in Washington. "A military strategy of 'countering terrorism' never works and will likely blow up in their faces." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2500154_pf.html

It's also interesting to note that by us backing Ethiopia, we are backing an "increasingly authoritarian leader":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2500154_pf.html

who's tried to crush political opposition:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/12/ethiop12417.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/ethiop12308.htm

Oh well. The continually interesting web Bush weaves supporting dictators on the one hand while killing some in the other.

You have way too much time on your hands opus...
So you agree it takes time to have vehicles

ready for IEDs, so we should have waited years
before launching the invasion till we were perfectly
ready for it? And we'd still have casualities and
you'd still be whining about why they each don't
have a personal tank... So we wwent with what we
had. Throwing money at the problem and commitees
in congress squabling would have taken way too long
to appease you.

Man devildog, you really are showing your utter lack of understanding of some of the basics military strategy and theory.

You spout on about the TMTW doctrine like the country was ever, post vietnam draft years, ever able to put forth enough numbers to fullfill the basic tenets of said doctrine. A doctrine which Bush used as a campaign tool in 2000 saying we needed more troops. He then got into office and began putting into place a modified version of Gen Shinseki's "transformation" plan to make the military more flexible to smaller scale, flare-up style events which the TMTW doctrine is sorely inadequate in fighting (hello 10th Mountain Division being labelled "unprepared" because they carried out the majority of land operations in recent years and were overworked while several armor divisions were sitting on their laurels maintaining their M1-A2s stateside). I might add that Al Gore was a supporter of transformation and discounted the validity of TMTW.

The saddest thing about your comment about it being "one general" who said we needed more troop strength to secure Iraq is not that it was only one person. It is that the person you are obviously thinking of is the VERY person who spearheaded the transformation doctrine of a "lighter, faster, more flexible" military, Gen. Eric Shinseki. This is while the person who thought up the whole blitkrieg sans-occupation plan that the administration used was not even a general and had been pretty much ignored inside of the pentagon as being out of touch with reality for a long time. Shinseki made the political "mistake" of saying publicly to congress that which the vast majority of senior brass felt, and it effectively cost him his career.

The bottome line about the Iraq "strategy" was that the neo-conservative hawks spit in the face of the only member of the administration at the time who had any real military experience, Colin Powell, basically saying "yeah we know the Powell doctrine was all en vogue 10 years ago, but we really think your 30 years of military experience, including the time you spent on the ground in Vietnam disqualifies you from having a valid opinion. Go be a good team player and lie to the world to bolster our case. Thanks."

You spout on and on about these matters like you have some huge insight into them because you are "a marine" and have an avatar of a guy (possibly you) in class A's. Some people obviously think that gives you credibility.


MrS

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC so we should have waited years before launching the invasion till we were perfectly ready for it?

Makes sense from even basic a numbers point of view, if you take half of what you need to do a job like painting a house which might take 4 people 2 days and instead take 2 people it takes 4 days.

Keeping the train of thought that blundering in half prepared does make you a perfect candidate for management material one day though

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC You have way too much time on your hands opus... So you agree it takes time to have vehicles

I agree it takes time to assess the problem, but what follows in what I posted is inexcusable. Here it is again:

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=

Now take your hands away from your eyes and read that again - do any of those points demonstrate a difficulty with timeline of assessment?

quote:

ready for IEDs, so we should have waited years before launching the invasion till we were perfectly ready for it?

Who said having a post-war plan would have taken years?

Who said invading at all was a worthwhile and attainable act?

quote:

And we'd still have casualities and you'd still be whining about why they each don't have a personal tank... So we wwent with what we had.

Really, dipshit, can you cease with the "whining" bullshit anytime soon? My complaints have not been refuted by you as of yet, so do yourself a favor, get off your lazy fucking ass and try and address the criticisms with supporting evidence rather than sidestepping the issues and calling any dissenters as "whiners". Fucking sophmoric as hell.

quote:

Throwing money at the problem and commitees in congress squabling would have taken way too long to appease you.

Ahh, but throwing $ in the order of tens of billions to cronyism is just fine and fucking dandy with you?:

http://home.ourfuture.org/reports/r...-profiteers.pdf

Speaking of body armour, read that link above - it has nice juicy tidbits for ignorant fools such as yourself like this:

quote:

Roughly twenty U.S. companies can make the required vests, but David Brooks, CEO of Point Blank Body Armor, successfully lobbied for a contract to produce all the body armor –even though Point Blank alone could not possibly manufacture enough to satisfy the full demand in time. The Brooks bottleneck created a shortage that kept soldiers and marines out of modern armor for months, at a literal cost of lives and limbs. � After securing the exclusive contract, Brooks’ personal compensation rocketed from $525,000 in 2001 to more than $70 million in 2004.17 To celebrate, he spent $10 million on a party in New York City’s Rainbow Room, featuring music by Aerosmith rockers and Brooks himself reportedly cavorting in a hot pink, metal-studded suede pantsuit.18 � The price of Brook’s additional salary could have manufactured 63,000 new interceptor vests – enough to fill the entire shortfall.19 � Not until eight months after combat operations were declared over, did all military in Iraq have appropriate body armor.

Now if this is too difficult a reading level for you, let us know and I'll try and break it down in laymen's terms if you like.

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