Sorrry to jump back in so late...but I have to respond to Irwin..
much like the intel used to justify starting this war, your facts on the Iraqi military are very old...lets have a look..
quote:
Iraq - the battle is not against an army, but small groups of lightly armed men with no air power and no ground armor
You obviously don't know sh1t.
Iraq had the fourth largest standing army in the world. The Republican Guard (120,000) were consdiered to be the most experienced and one of the most dangerous forces in the world. Iraq had more armor and artillary than all of Europe combined.
Some tiny army. The fact that a lot of them did not fight is a testament to 1) planning, 2) deal brokering before the conflict started - two full armies sat the fight out, and 3) planning.
For all those idiots that say Bush didn't have a plan, well you are just that, idiots. I recall hearing Bush tell us three or four times what we were doing over there, how long it was going to take, and what the general process was to be. Add to that the most successful ground war in the history of the world and there most obviously was a damn plan. Democrats are just so damn bitter over this success that they cannot take it.
It's funny that when Kerry gives his plan (not that he has) it is remarkably similar to Bush's. But Kerry claims that he would have the UNs help. It is easier said than done. Bush ahs asked for the UNs help, the UN was there, the UN ran after a sigle bombing. Kerry's plan revolves around his idea of a perfect world that will cooperate totally with him because of his super Ego.
The fact of the matter is this has been the most successful modern war ever, as well as the most successful occupation. Tell the 10,000 US troops that died in Germany after WWII that this is going poorly. How about the 10,000 more that died in Japan after the war due to insurrection. If the liberal media would open their eyes (and actually leave their hotels which they have not done for months) they could possibly report on the 15,000 public works projects that have been completed. But no, they sit back and reprint hateful Al Jazeera news wires as if they are doing their own reporting. If anything is screwed up over there it is the fact that the media seems to be ignoring their jobs and plagerizing hate speech off of the Arabs.
In reality, nearly 10 full years of containment policy left the Iraqi troops poorly trained, equiped, or motivated to fight...again, a quick search finds things like this
"It is estimated that the Iraqi military is just a small fraction of it?s pre-Gulf war size and quality" This was from an article written just before the war started.
.Iraq had more armor and artillery than all of Europe? Um...no, and in fact, how many tanks actually fired on US troops in this war? Look that up and get back to me, would you?
Ok, I'll save you some time...read this about great strength of the Iraqi army...
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/sunday_review/5190402.htm?1c
Two full armies sat it out - was that the great plan of GW, or was that a large group of Iraq men who didn't want to get the S bombed out of them? If this thing was so well planned, and, as you and your idol Sean Hannity say, the most successful war of all time, then why have we continued to have so many problems there? Why have hundreds of US soldiers died in ambush/guerrilla style attacks?
My favorite "comeback" was this one though: "The attacks against 4 US contractors in Fallujah was thought to be a well setup booby trap involving blockades and fake Iraqi policemen." Let me get this straight. You are using an attack on 4 US contractors as proof of the quality of the enemy? Is that the same enemy that allowed one of those contractors to escape? Please. They are looking for lightly, or completely non-defended targets. Otherwise, their attacks consist of bombs planted in roads, sniping attacks, or mortar launches from far away....or, planting bombs on donkeys....are you going to tell us that these are no ordinary donkeys? And by the way, Passions, how dare you question a Vietnam vet when he talks about this war compared to Vietnam - you read about it, he lived it - if you are going to question it, at least be respectful of that...
and finally, Nightcrawler, please check your stats...a quick search came up with this:
58,169 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.59 million who served
and that was from the first link I followed...how could more people be wounded that the number of people that served, according to you?
My work here is done.
Facebook
Twitter