140k US tropps in Iraq and our military is straining?

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,738
126
What happened to the doctrine of being able to win a two front war?!?!
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Wow, another thread talking about what a massive cockup Iraq was/is.

Do you also start threads announcing your discovery of a mysterious force that causes all unsupported objects to fall toward the center of the earth?;)
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
If we have effective leadership, then maybe. But when our leadership fails to listen to military advisors and makes up their own minds regarding things, then no. Basically, inefficiency and incompetence combined with deception has led to what we have today - Iraq in chaos and America's reputation weakening.
 

duragezic

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,234
4
81
Still, I bet it's hell for the troops out there everyday. One second you're driving, the next second a bomb could go off?! And a lot of other stuff. That really sucks for our soldiers, no matter what you have to say about the Iraq War.
 
Nov 3, 2004
10,491
22
81
Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S attacks countries that are easy to win ..

....

I should replace U.S with Bush

Which countries are hard to win against for the US?

I'm sure there's maybe one, or two.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
blah blah...

Iran? North Korea?

Both have always been more dangerous to the world than Iraq has ever been (following 1991).

Yet we went into Iraq.

Why did we go to Iraq when Iran is known to have chemical weapons and North Korea was known to have been days away from getting a nuclear bomb?
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S attacks countries that are easy to win ..

Vietnam?

It's a pretty stupid policy to attack countries that will cost you dearly, you know. Too bad we seem to do that, too.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S attacks countries that are easy to win ..

Vietnam?

It's a pretty stupid policy to attack countries that will cost you dearly, you know. Too bad we seem to do that, too.

My post was meant to attack Bush ....
 

JonTheBaller

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2002
1,916
0
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
blah blah...

Iran? North Korea?

Both have always been more dangerous to the world than Iraq has ever been (following 1991).

Yet we went into Iraq.

Why did we go to Iraq when Iran is known to have chemical weapons and North Korea was known to have been days away from getting a nuclear bomb?
Hey stupid, who said they Iran and North Korea aren't on the sh*tlist?
 

grrl

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
6,204
1
0
Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
Originally posted by: JEDI
What happened to the doctrine of being able to win a two front war?!?!

If we actually used our bombers more often we could.

And you base this on....???
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,749
6,319
126
The US could handle a 2 Front war, if they were fighting a WW2/Cold War scenario war. Guerilla Wars a completely different animal though and something the 2 Front idea doesn't apply to.
 

everman

Lifer
Nov 5, 2002
11,288
1
0
Skynet is behind schedule, once it's up and running we won't have anything to worry about ;)
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,749
6,319
126
Originally posted by: JonTheBaller
Originally posted by: Aimster
blah blah...

Iran? North Korea?

Both have always been more dangerous to the world than Iraq has ever been (following 1991).

Yet we went into Iraq.

Why did we go to Iraq when Iran is known to have chemical weapons and North Korea was known to have been days away from getting a nuclear bomb?
Hey stupid, who said they Iran and North Korea aren't on the sh*tlist?

Being on a list and having something done about it militarily are 2 different things.
 

JonTheBaller

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2002
1,916
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: JonTheBaller
Originally posted by: Aimster
blah blah...

Iran? North Korea?

Both have always been more dangerous to the world than Iraq has ever been (following 1991).

Yet we went into Iraq.

Why did we go to Iraq when Iran is known to have chemical weapons and North Korea was known to have been days away from getting a nuclear bomb?
Hey stupid, who said they Iran and North Korea aren't on the sh*tlist?

Being on a list and having something done about it militarily are 2 different things.
First you're on the sh*tlist, then you get attacked. That's how it works. Iraq is at Phase 2, Iran and NK are at Phase 1.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Occupation is hard...
Occupation is harder when the people you are occupying do not want you there.

Iraqis.. the majority.. wanted the U.S there.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,749
6,319
126
Originally posted by: JonTheBaller
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: JonTheBaller
Originally posted by: Aimster
blah blah...

Iran? North Korea?

Both have always been more dangerous to the world than Iraq has ever been (following 1991).

Yet we went into Iraq.

Why did we go to Iraq when Iran is known to have chemical weapons and North Korea was known to have been days away from getting a nuclear bomb?
Hey stupid, who said they Iran and North Korea aren't on the sh*tlist?

Being on a list and having something done about it militarily are 2 different things.
First you're on the sh*tlist, then you get attacked. That's how it works. Iraq is at Phase 2, Iran and NK are at Phase 1.

Ya, sure. NK will never be attacked, Iran possibly.
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Originally posted by: Aimster
Occupation is hard...
Occupation is harder when the people you are occupying do not want you there.

Iraqis.. the majority.. wanted the U.S there.

Yeah, after I read this article, I lost what little hope I might have had for a peaceful transition in that country.
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
Originally posted by: msparish
Originally posted by: JEDI
What happened to the doctrine of being able to win a two front war?!?!

We still could.

Pentagon has abandoned that. That's a Cold War doctrine that is outdated. We didnt even have that doctrine in WW2. We used a win-hold-win strategy in WW2 which is today's strategy. You go all out on one front while you hold your position/skirmish on the second front, which was what we did.. fight Germany and then hold off Japan and then once you're done in Europe, go back to Japan.
 

fire400

Diamond Member
Nov 21, 2005
5,204
21
81
the goal is to win the war.

it isn't as easy as you think.

--- example ---

report:

underground catacombs as large as cities, used for burial, very sacred. an enigma the enemy has mastered in the underground tunnel manuevering-capabilities. the tunnels' entrances are exposed to open ground, very easy to get into, very hard to get out of, plunging miles and miles inwards and outwards in very many direction beneath the surface with very little or no sunlight.

terrorists harbor in these kind of underground hide outs. they plan operations and carry out night raids by crawling and sneeking in and out of these tunnels, very hard to monitor at night, as there are thousands of these all over the desert.

troops that try to enter the areas to extract or eliminate the enemy within? very hard, rockets shoot out, sniper fire, gunfire, all sorts of stuff. how do you get in? shoot back? shoot at what? soldiers that attempt to run in will get lost, and most likely killed.

bomb the tunnels? not that easy. it's sacred to the people. how do you transform a catacomb into a bomb shelter? tanks? seeker missiles? these catacombs become as large as entire cities.

example 2:
terrorists are dressing up in women's clothing. Marines must police the streets, there are not enough special forces in the world to help accomplish this duty, they have more important missions to do. the "highly trained" marines are not as well trained in special ops forces, thus mistakes are bound to arise.

another vietnam, trained to kill, but not trained to police. lack of training, and don't mention equipment.

Rumsfeld: "You got to war with what you have." -I hate how he said this. Billions of dollars spent on a war, but lacking in various support aids? ==yeah we're gonna win the war, but at a cost.

if you look back at Desert Storm? hundreds of thousands of pounds of supplies was shipped to Iraq. where has it gone all these years...? you answer that guys, and tell me if you feel that the military is really getting the support it needs without political restraints as far as what the White House is trying to accomplish in both image and self-satisfaction.