Operation Swarmer is a ruse!

[strummer]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
"Operation Swarmer is a ruse!"

Yep, another glowing example of the fringe type's psychosis.

Everything is a ploy and a ruse by the evil Bush, Rove, and the military. :roll:

It was a training exercise for the Iraqi forces. Just call it that. Enough of the misleading and half-truths already. We know they need the training, and this is a positive action. They would've received an attaboy just for the training execise in itself, but BushCo got greedy and looked for more political points. Now this is going to blow up on them and further weaken themselves and our standing in country. They literally can do nothing right at this moment in time.

Iraqi forces will never be able to be fully capable of defending the country themselves if they are not outfitted with heavier fire power and better equipment. They will not be able to secure urban areas after we leave without having armor capable of sustaining IED and RPG attacks. We have been reticent (and rightfully so) about giving them the latest top shelf stuff for fear that we might have to face our own weapons at some point in the future. It is a Catch 22 problem that will require us to be in country for quite some time. The alternative, a US pull out, would mean a full out fixed piece battle with the superior leadership and military skills residing on the side of the bad guys (former Baathist officers of the Republican Guard, now part of the insurgency). Undoubtedly we would provide close air support in this scenario, but history has shown us that air support will not be enough to decide the battle on the ground.

There really are no good outcomes at this point in time. A really enormous mistake was the dissolution of the Iraqi Army after the fall of Baghdad. We also got unlucky with the sandstorm that blew up and delayed the taking of Baghdad by a couple of days. We were going to take Baghdad no matter what, the sandstorm prevented us from really working over the Republican Guard and the other remnants of Saddam's loyal forces. When the sand storm lifted, the oppostion on the southern approaches had vanished like farts in the wind. These loyal forces are the backbone of the insurgency.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: strummer
The alternative, a US pull out, would mean a full out fixed piece battle with the superior leadership and military skills residing on the side of the bad guys (former Baathist officers of the Republican Guard, now part of the insurgency).

We were going to take Baghdad no matter what, the sandstorm prevented us from really working over the Republican Guard and the other remnants of Saddam's loyal forces. When the sand storm lifted, the oppostion on the southern approaches had vanished like farts in the wind. These loyal forces are the backbone of the insurgency.

Alot of these guys are commanding the Iraqi forces now too. I wonder when it comes down to it, what side they will take in the end

Former Baathist army officers are to be incorporated into a new Iraqi army

Ex-Republican Guard general takes new role

 

[Tab]

Oy my gawd! It's a conspriacy! We all gunna die!

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: strummer

We also got unlucky with the sandstorm that blew up and delayed the taking of Baghdad by a couple of days. We were going to take Baghdad no matter what, the sandstorm prevented us from really working over the Republican Guard and the other remnants of Saddam's loyal forces. When the sand storm lifted, the oppostion on the southern approaches had vanished like farts in the wind. These loyal forces are the backbone of the insurgency.

The Republican guard never was a factor in the battle, our troops never fought them during the 'Rush' sandstorm or not.
They dissapeared into the underground movement so they could regroup and fight on their terms, not ours.
The major resistance during the 'Rush' was the Fedayeen, who we ignored and pushed past in Rumsfelds
glory run to Baghdad, which is now recognized as the biggest single failure in the opening moves of the war.
That continued forward press and avoidance of the Fedayeen combatants is what sparked the formation of the
core of the Iraqi resistance and the birth of the insurgency jointly led by the invisible troops.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: strummer

We also got unlucky with the sandstorm that blew up and delayed the taking of Baghdad by a couple of days. We were going to take Baghdad no matter what, the sandstorm prevented us from really working over the Republican Guard and the other remnants of Saddam's loyal forces. When the sand storm lifted, the oppostion on the southern approaches had vanished like farts in the wind. These loyal forces are the backbone of the insurgency.

The Republican guard never was a factor in the battle, our troops never fought them during the 'Rush' sandstorm or not.
They dissapeared into the underground movement so they could regroup and fight on their terms, not ours.
The major resistance durint the 'Rush' was the Fedayeen, who we ignored and pushed past in Rumsfelds
glory run to Baghdad, which is now recognized as the biggest single failure in the opening moves of the war.
That continued forqward press and avoidance of the Fedayeen combatants is what sparked the formation of the
core of the Iraqi resistance and the birth of the insurgency jointly led by the invisible troops.

Always cover your rear.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: smashp

Always cover your rear.

Combat Veterans, Military Leaders know that . . . Tommy Franks saw Shinseki get fired and forced out
for bringing that up to RumDummy, so Franks flipped to align with the task at hand under Rumsfeld
ignoring for the timebeing what the cost would be in the long run, and orchestrated the 'Quick and Cheap'
Rumsfeld Method - it cost many more lives in the 3 years since than it would have done to do it right.

Why doesn't Bush fire Rumsfeld ? Because Rummy was loyal to the Bush Machine, and getting rid of him
would put Bush in a position where there is not scapegoat to align the blame of failure to, complacent responsibility.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: smashp

Always cover your rear.

Combat Veterans, Military Leaders know that . . . Tommy Franks saw Shinseki get fired and forced out
for bringing that up to RumDummy, so Franks flipped to align with the task at hand under Rumsfeld
ignoring for the timebeing what the cost would be in the long run, and orchestrated the 'Quick and Cheap'
Rumsfeld Method - it cost many more lives in the 3 years since than it would have done to do it right.

Why doesn't Bush fire Rumsfeld ? Because Rummy was loyal to the Bush Machine, and getting rid of him
would put Bush in a position where there is not scapegoat to align the blame of failure to, complacent responsibility.

Shinseki was not "fired", but despite the facts I'm sure people like you will continue to believe in that conspiracy BS.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey


Shinseki was not "fired", but despite the facts I'm sure people like you will continue to believe in that conspiracy BS.

So then, pray tell, what DO you consider being forced out of his position for telling it like it really was
instead of kissing the ass of pompus Mr. 'Know-it-all' Rumsfeld to be ?

A warm welcoming with kisses and rose-pedals ?

Rumsfeld screwed the pooch, so you just keep right on making up excuses for his ignorance and incompetence 'till the cows come home.

Either you're a paid shill who is hired to blitz the forum with propaganda, or you're one of the most ignorant people in the country.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey


Shinseki was not "fired", but despite the facts I'm sure people like you will continue to believe in that conspiracy BS.

So then, pray tell, what DO you consider being forced out of his position for telling it like it really was
instead of kissing the ass of pompus Mr. 'Know-it-all' Rumsfeld to be ?

A warm welcoming with kisses and rose-pedals ?

Rumsfeld screwed the pooch, so you just keep right on making up excuses for his ignorance and incompetence 'till the cows come home.

Either you're a paid shill who is hired to blitz the forum with propaganda, or you're one of the most ignorant people in the country.

You can continue to believe in your little conspiracy BS, but if you weren't so ignorant about the situation you'd understand he wasn't fired. I know it's tough for your types to deal with reality so you make up your own, but don't blame me because I call your BS - BS.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey


Shinseki was not "fired", but despite the facts I'm sure people like you will continue to believe in that conspiracy BS.

So then, pray tell, what DO you consider being forced out of his position for telling it like it really was
instead of kissing the ass of pompus Mr. 'Know-it-all' Rumsfeld to be ?

A warm welcoming with kisses and rose-pedals ?

Rumsfeld screwed the pooch, so you just keep right on making up excuses for his ignorance and incompetence 'till the cows come home.

Either you're a paid shill who is hired to blitz the forum with propaganda, or you're one of the most ignorant people in the country.

You can continue to believe in your little conspiracy BS, but if you weren't so ignorant about the situation you'd understand he wasn't fired. I know it's tough for your types to deal with reality so you make up your own, but don't blame me because I call your BS - BS.

As I said - YOU'RE A KISS ASS SHILL

NOW GO AWAY !

I know the semantics of the game, he had planned to retire, and had said so a year earlier.
They just accelerated his departure since he differed with what they wanted to hear.
Rumsfeld is a pinheaded micro-manager who beats down anyone who can still think.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey


Shinseki was not "fired", but despite the facts I'm sure people like you will continue to believe in that conspiracy BS.

So then, pray tell, what DO you consider being forced out of his position for telling it like it really was
instead of kissing the ass of pompus Mr. 'Know-it-all' Rumsfeld to be ?

A warm welcoming with kisses and rose-pedals ?

Rumsfeld screwed the pooch, so you just keep right on making up excuses for his ignorance and incompetence 'till the cows come home.

Either you're a paid shill who is hired to blitz the forum with propaganda, or you're one of the most ignorant people in the country.

You can continue to believe in your little conspiracy BS, but if you weren't so ignorant about the situation you'd understand he wasn't fired. I know it's tough for your types to deal with reality so you make up your own, but don't blame me because I call your BS - BS.

As I said - YOU'RE A KISS ASS SHILL

NOW GO AWAY !

As I said, you're a conspiracy minded fringe type. You don't seem to understand that there were other things going on besides the opinions he had on Iraq. But that is all you fringe types care about because it's the only thing that allows you to piece together your little conspiracy theories.

A huffer link that might set you straight. or maybe you'll continue to repeat the lie as your types have done for a while now.

 

[Red Dawn]

So Shineski wasn't fired, he was still right about Iraq and Herr Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were wrong.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So Shineski wasn't fired, he was still right about Iraq and Herr Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were wrong.

You don't know how his scenario would have played out so you can't say he was right, you can only speculate using hindsight and your bias against the current Administration.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So Shineski wasn't fired, he was still right about Iraq and Herr Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were wrong.

You don't know how his scenario would have played out so you can't say he was right, you can only speculate using hindsight and your bias against the current Administration.

I admit to having a bias against those who mislead us and it seems to most that Herr Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were wrong.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So Shineski wasn't fired, he was still right about Iraq and Herr Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were wrong.

You don't know how his scenario would have played out so you can't say he was right, you can only speculate using hindsight and your bias against the current Administration.

The whole world can see how it played out - tomorrow is the 3rd anniversity of a month long war - 'Mishun Komplished'.

They blew it, everyone knows it, some are smart enough to recognize it, and others keep their heads neck deep in sand.

You know, when over 65% of the people say something is wrong, those less than 35% should listen up . .

. . instead of makiing up excuse after excuse.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So Shineski wasn't fired, he was still right about Iraq and Herr Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were wrong.

You don't know how his scenario would have played out so you can't say he was right, you can only speculate using hindsight and your bias against the current Administration.

I admit to having a bias against those who mislead us and it seems to most that Herr Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were wrong.

And yet just because you or others think they were wrong, doesn't automatically mean that you little hero Shinseki was right.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So Shineski wasn't fired, he was still right about Iraq and Herr Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were wrong.

You don't know how his scenario would have played out so you can't say he was right, you can only speculate using hindsight and your bias against the current Administration.

I admit to having a bias against those who mislead us and it seems to most that Herr Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were wrong.

And yet just because you or others think they were wrong, doesn't automatically mean that you little hero Shinseki was right.

My little Hero?? How old are you?:roll:

He might not have been right but it's pretty damn obvious that Rummy and Wolfiwitz were wrong.

 

[palehorse]

UPDATE (2:55 PM): To answer progdem's question -- the Joint Chiefs serve fixed, four-year terms. Shinseki was sworn in as Army chief in June of 1999 and retired in June of 2003. He served his full term.

end of story.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So Shineski wasn't fired, he was still right about Iraq and Herr Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were wrong.

You don't know how his scenario would have played out so you can't say he was right, you can only speculate using hindsight and your bias against the current Administration.

I admit to having a bias against those who mislead us and it seems to most that Herr Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were wrong.

And yet just because you or others think they were wrong, doesn't automatically mean that you little hero Shinseki was right.

My little Hero?? How old are you?:roll:

He might not have been right but it's pretty damn obvious that Rummy and Wolfiwitz were wrong.

Sorry, but you said "So Shineski wasn't fired, he was still right about Iraq and Herr Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were wrong."
You stated he was right, which is pure speculation. You also then derided Wolf and Rums and stated they were wrong. Your opinions on Rumsfeld being wrong are noted and you are entitled to think that but you also need to realize that their plan was the only one implemented. The other plans or opinions may have suffered from similar or maybe even worse problems.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

UPDATE (2:55 PM): To answer progdem's question -- the Joint Chiefs serve fixed, four-year terms. Shinseki was sworn in as Army chief in June of 1999 and retired in June of 2003. He served his full term.

end of story.

He was FIRED! He was pushed out you "KISS ASS SHILL"!
:laugh:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So Shineski wasn't fired, he was still right about Iraq and Herr Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were wrong.

You don't know how his scenario would have played out so you can't say he was right, you can only speculate using hindsight and your bias against the current Administration.

I admit to having a bias against those who mislead us and it seems to most that Herr Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were wrong.

And yet just because you or others think they were wrong, doesn't automatically mean that you little hero Shinseki was right.

My little Hero?? How old are you?:roll:

He might not have been right but it's pretty damn obvious that Rummy and Wolfiwitz were wrong.

Sorry, but you said "So Shineski wasn't fired, he was still right about Iraq and Herr Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were wrong."
You stated he was right, which is pure speculation. You also then derided Wolf and Rums and stated they were wrong. Your opinions on Rumsfeld being wrong are noted and you are entitled to think that but you also need to realize that their plan was the only one implemented. The other plans or opinions may have suffered from similar or maybe even worse problems.

Hmm I thought I acknowledged that I was speculating that Sheniski was right in my previous post. Well let me say that yes, I was speculating about Sheniski's plan. Who knows, maybe there is/was no way for us to be successful in Iraq. I believe that what wee are doing now is just a waste of American Servicemens lives and a waste of taxpayers money. Maybe we should have done what Reagan did and just bribed Hussien.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: palehorse74

UPDATE (2:55 PM): To answer progdem's question -- the Joint Chiefs serve fixed, four-year terms. Shinseki was sworn in as Army chief in June of 1999 and retired in June of 2003. He served his full term.

end of story.

He was FIRED! He was pushed out you "KISS ASS SHILL"!
:laugh:

lol! out of all the things ive seen "them" call people around here, that one is my new favorite!

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

lol! out of all the things ive seen the "them" call people around here, that one is my new favorite!

If the shoe fits . . .


'Them !'

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: palehorse74

UPDATE (2:55 PM): To answer progdem's question -- the Joint Chiefs serve fixed, four-year terms. Shinseki was sworn in as Army chief in June of 1999 and retired in June of 2003. He served his full term.

end of story.

He was FIRED! He was pushed out you "KISS ASS SHILL"!
:laugh:

So was Gen. Shalikashvili.

Palehorse claims to be well-read but I think that's just another one of his own ruses.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: palehorse74

lol! out of all the things ive seen the "them" call people around here, that one is my new favorite!

If the shoe fits . . .


'Them !'

If the shoe fits . . .

"I just call them for what the prove themselves to be in their banter..."