• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

U.S. Orders 4-6 Day Pause in Iraq Advance (because of supply shortages) Dems this is your chance..

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LH

Golden Member
Feb 16, 2002
1,604
0
0
The vast majority of the military ARE republican. Almost all of the spec ops are republican.

The spec ops staunchly support Rumsfeild, while the higher up's in the general army are kinda irratated at Rumsfeild because he didnt want a 600,000 troop ground invasion.
 

AdmiralTiger

Member
Feb 17, 2003
119
0
0
sigh... Reps and Dems clash in a thread about a pause in the progress of Iraqi advance (there is no pause, really - they're still fighting and supplies are getting through to them.... they're just stopping to let the convoy lines catch up to them and refuel their vehicles and feed the batallions. This is normal procedures and there's nothing worth screaming over the "pause" in the campaign.

If there's more Reps/Dems bashing in here, I'm going to have to request that this thread gets locked... no offense, but I'm sick and tired of those bashings, and for those of you who care about political parties, I'm a democrat. Always have, Always will. If it makes you feel better, my mother is a Republican.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
154
106
Originally posted by: Tates
My problem is that I don't think we should be there in the first place. The fact that they are f*cking up is icing on the cake. I'm sure it will give Bush an oppurtunity to put more of our soldiers in harms way for the defense of America.
You're against the war. Fair enough.

The war is 8 days old. The troops are 350 miles deep into Iraq, the coalition controls 40% of a county the size of California, there is an established Nothern and Southern front, the Coalition owns the Skys, there are less than 35 Coalition KIA's vs. 25,000+ Iraqi KIA's....

How are they f*cking up?:disgust:
The war is 8 days old....and...although noone admits it, there are voices heard now talking about wrong strategies, underestimation of the iraqi guerila fighters, the weather seems to be a problem, and there are (for sure) not enough soldiers there to 'win' the war. Why do you think they want to stock up their contingent to 250.000 (double it) ???? This does NOT look like careful planning to me, sorry to say that !!!!!!!

And now they have logistics problems after only 8 days into the war....

Get serious...

 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
0
0
Originally posted by: flexy
Originally posted by: Tates
My problem is that I don't think we should be there in the first place. The fact that they are f*cking up is icing on the cake. I'm sure it will give Bush an oppurtunity to put more of our soldiers in harms way for the defense of America.
You're against the war. Fair enough.

The war is 8 days old. The troops are 350 miles deep into Iraq, the coalition controls 40% of a county the size of California, there is an established Nothern and Southern front, the Coalition owns the Skys, there are less than 35 Coalition KIA's vs. 25,000+ Iraqi KIA's....

How are they f*cking up?:disgust:
The war is 8 days old....and...although noone admits it, there are voices heard now talking about wrong strategies, underestimation of the iraqi guerila fighters, the weather seems to be a problem, and there are (for sure) not enough soldiers there to 'win' the war. Why do you think they want to stock up their contingent to 250.000 (double it) ???? This does NOT look like careful planning to me, sorry to say that !!!!!!!

And now they have logistics problems after only 8 days into the war....

Get serious...
Yet another clueless person.
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,731
1
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: flexy
Originally posted by: Tates
My problem is that I don't think we should be there in the first place. The fact that they are f*cking up is icing on the cake. I'm sure it will give Bush an oppurtunity to put more of our soldiers in harms way for the defense of America.
You're against the war. Fair enough.

The war is 8 days old. The troops are 350 miles deep into Iraq, the coalition controls 40% of a county the size of California, there is an established Nothern and Southern front, the Coalition owns the Skys, there are less than 35 Coalition KIA's vs. 25,000+ Iraqi KIA's....

How are they f*cking up?:disgust:
The war is 8 days old....and...although noone admits it, there are voices heard now talking about wrong strategies, underestimation of the iraqi guerila fighters, the weather seems to be a problem, and there are (for sure) not enough soldiers there to 'win' the war. Why do you think they want to stock up their contingent to 250.000 (double it) ???? This does NOT look like careful planning to me, sorry to say that !!!!!!!

And now they have logistics problems after only 8 days into the war....

Get serious...
Yet another clueless person.

I agree..look at it this way.

If an invading force landed on,our shores, say around Jacksonville FL.
In less than a week they made it within 50 miles of Washington and by then we only killed 40 of thier soldiers...I am pretty confident the majority of this country would be sh!tting thier pants.

I would say we are doing VERY well
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: flexy
Originally posted by: Tates
My problem is that I don't think we should be there in the first place. The fact that they are f*cking up is icing on the cake. I'm sure it will give Bush an oppurtunity to put more of our soldiers in harms way for the defense of America.
You're against the war. Fair enough.

The war is 8 days old. The troops are 350 miles deep into Iraq, the coalition controls 40% of a county the size of California, there is an established Nothern and Southern front, the Coalition owns the Skys, there are less than 35 Coalition KIA's vs. 25,000+ Iraqi KIA's....

How are they f*cking up?:disgust:
The war is 8 days old....and...although noone admits it, there are voices heard now talking about wrong strategies, underestimation of the iraqi guerila fighters, the weather seems to be a problem, and there are (for sure) not enough soldiers there to 'win' the war. Why do you think they want to stock up their contingent to 250.000 (double it) ???? This does NOT look like careful planning to me, sorry to say that !!!!!!!

And now they have logistics problems after only 8 days into the war....

Get serious...
Get real, you've obviously been playing to many Video War Games.Man it's a good thing American wasn't Populated by so many Nacyboys in WWII when things were really tough. The hand wringing and concern many of these Worry Warts are expressing after 8 days of war just demonstrates what a bunch of Softies we have in this country. Fat and Soft from the good life. When things get tough these Fat Softies start whining. Well things haven't even begun to get tough so stop your sobbing!
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: flexy
Originally posted by: Tates
My problem is that I don't think we should be there in the first place. The fact that they are f*cking up is icing on the cake. I'm sure it will give Bush an oppurtunity to put more of our soldiers in harms way for the defense of America.
You're against the war. Fair enough.

The war is 8 days old. The troops are 350 miles deep into Iraq, the coalition controls 40% of a county the size of California, there is an established Nothern and Southern front, the Coalition owns the Skys, there are less than 35 Coalition KIA's vs. 25,000+ Iraqi KIA's....

How are they f*cking up?:disgust:
The war is 8 days old....and...although noone admits it, there are voices heard now talking about wrong strategies, underestimation of the iraqi guerila fighters, the weather seems to be a problem, and there are (for sure) not enough soldiers there to 'win' the war. Why do you think they want to stock up their contingent to 250.000 (double it) ???? This does NOT look like careful planning to me, sorry to say that !!!!!!!

And now they have logistics problems after only 8 days into the war....

Get serious...
Get real, you've obviously been playing to many Video War Games.Man it's a good thing American wasn't Populated by so many Nacyboys in WWII when things were really tough. The hand wringing and concern many of these Worry Warts are expressing after 8 days of war just demonstrates what a bunch of Softies we have in this country. Fat and Soft from the good life. When things get tough these Fat Softies start whining. Well things haven't even begun to get tough so stop your sobbing!
Bravo Red....bravo!

 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
154
106
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: flexy
Originally posted by: Tates
My problem is that I don't think we should be there in the first place. The fact that they are f*cking up is icing on the cake. I'm sure it will give Bush an oppurtunity to put more of our soldiers in harms way for the defense of America.
You're against the war. Fair enough.

The war is 8 days old. The troops are 350 miles deep into Iraq, the coalition controls 40% of a county the size of California, there is an established Nothern and Southern front, the Coalition owns the Skys, there are less than 35 Coalition KIA's vs. 25,000+ Iraqi KIA's....

How are they f*cking up?:disgust:
The war is 8 days old....and...although noone admits it, there are voices heard now talking about wrong strategies, underestimation of the iraqi guerila fighters, the weather seems to be a problem, and there are (for sure) not enough soldiers there to 'win' the war. Why do you think they want to stock up their contingent to 250.000 (double it) ???? This does NOT look like careful planning to me, sorry to say that !!!!!!!

And now they have logistics problems after only 8 days into the war....

Get serious...
Yet another clueless person.
Yes, i know.

I am also brainwashed by the ultra left semi-communist news coverage on foxnews, cnn and msnbc :)

So, they do NOT have logistics problems, 90.000 soldiers are enough and (of course) they all knew about the guerilla attacks/suicide bombings of the iraqis in advance...

And..Red Dawn, i KNOW that things have not even begun to get tough (yet)......how long are they fighting now for this 5000 souls town Nasiryah ? Like 4 days ? Do they already have control over Umm Quasr ? Still some partisans left shooting from windows there? What will be if our troops are fighting for control in Baghdad ?

I mean, that's some concers which (imho) are totally legitimate !!!






 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
0
0
Originally posted by: flexy
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: flexy
Originally posted by: Tates
My problem is that I don't think we should be there in the first place. The fact that they are f*cking up is icing on the cake. I'm sure it will give Bush an oppurtunity to put more of our soldiers in harms way for the defense of America.
You're against the war. Fair enough.

The war is 8 days old. The troops are 350 miles deep into Iraq, the coalition controls 40% of a county the size of California, there is an established Nothern and Southern front, the Coalition owns the Skys, there are less than 35 Coalition KIA's vs. 25,000+ Iraqi KIA's....

How are they f*cking up?:disgust:
The war is 8 days old....and...although noone admits it, there are voices heard now talking about wrong strategies, underestimation of the iraqi guerila fighters, the weather seems to be a problem, and there are (for sure) not enough soldiers there to 'win' the war. Why do you think they want to stock up their contingent to 250.000 (double it) ???? This does NOT look like careful planning to me, sorry to say that !!!!!!!

And now they have logistics problems after only 8 days into the war....

Get serious...
Yet another clueless person.
Yes, i know.

I am also brainwashed by the ultra left semi-communist news coverage on foxnews, cnn and msnbc :)

So, they do NOT have logistics problems, 90.000 soldiers are enough and (of course) they all knew about the guerilla attacks/suicide bombings of the iraqis in advance...

And..Red Dawn, i KNOW that things have not even begun to get tough (yet)......how long are they fighting now for this 5000 souls town Nasiryah ? Like 4 days ? Do they already have control over Umm Quasr ? Still some partisans left shooting from windows there? What will be if our troops are fighting for control in Baghdad ?

I mean, that's some concers which (imho) are totally legitimate !!!
Ramsey.....is that you?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I just head on Fox news the military planner state that three Iraqi army corps (nine divisions) has turned up missing and we are using this delay to see if we can find them... least ways that is what I got out of the gibberish.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: HJD1
I just head on Fox news the military planner state that three Iraqi army corps (nine divisions) has turned up missing and we are using this delay to see if we can find them... least ways that is what I got out of the gibberish.
How did we lose 9 divisions?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,421
5,486
126
Originally posted by: flexy
Originally posted by: Tates
My problem is that I don't think we should be there in the first place. The fact that they are f*cking up is icing on the cake. I'm sure it will give Bush an oppurtunity to put more of our soldiers in harms way for the defense of America.
You're against the war. Fair enough.

The war is 8 days old. The troops are 350 miles deep into Iraq, the coalition controls 40% of a county the size of California, there is an established Nothern and Southern front, the Coalition owns the Skys, there are less than 35 Coalition KIA's vs. 25,000+ Iraqi KIA's....

How are they f*cking up?:disgust:
The war is 8 days old....and...although noone admits it, there are voices heard now talking about wrong strategies, underestimation of the iraqi guerila fighters, the weather seems to be a problem, and there are (for sure) not enough soldiers there to 'win' the war. Why do you think they want to stock up their contingent to 250.000 (double it) ???? This does NOT look like careful planning to me, sorry to say that !!!!!!!

And now they have logistics problems after only 8 days into the war....

Get serious...
you do know that it was PLANNED to send another 100,000 troops in quickly after the war started, right?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: HJD1
I just head on Fox news the military planner state that three Iraqi army corps (nine divisions) has turned up missing and we are using this delay to see if we can find them... least ways that is what I got out of the gibberish.
How did we lose 9 divisions?
I assume he was talking about Iraqi corps... cuz we only sent a brigade or so to shake the hands and establish a presence at the oil wells.

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Since bleep decided to send me nasty, insulting PM's and then put me on his ignore list, I will post this here. It is the pertinent quote from an article with the link to follow. There are several dozen articles written that reference it. Once again I will repeat for the cerebrally challenged --- I am in no way insulting, belitlling or dishonoring anyones service. I rendered an opinion based on anectodotal evidence and experience. These are just some facts to at least partially back it up.

The Triangle Institutes finding was not unexpected, as polls and anecdotal reports in recent years had anticipated it.3 What was surprising, however, was the strength of the officer corps affiliation with the GOP. Sixty-four percent of the officers responding to the survey identified with the Republicans, whereas only about 8 percent claimed to be Democrats. In contrast, civilian respondents gave the two parties roughly even support. Perhaps most surprising, only 17 percent of officers described themselves as Independents, traditionally the largest military voting group.
Link
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
Gulf Gen. Denies Asking for More Troops
  • Franks also rejected reports that his forces had engaged in an "operational pause" near the gates of Baghdad, stalled by supply problems and unable to press forward because of stiffer-than-expected Iraqi resistance.

    "There have been some pundits who have indicated we may be in an operational pause," Franks said. "This simply is not the case."
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: Ornery
Gulf Gen. Denies Asking for More Troops
  • Franks also rejected reports that his forces had engaged in an "operational pause" near the gates of Baghdad, stalled by supply problems and unable to press forward because of stiffer-than-expected Iraqi resistance.

    "There have been some pundits who have indicated we may be in an operational pause," Franks said. "This simply is not the case."
If I would expect anybody to follow the chain of command it would be a 4 Star General. That taken into consideration, why would anybody even think that Franks would answer that question anyway other that he did? Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that his answer was dishonest.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
Let's see, who do I believe, Franks or ??


Rumsfeld Defends War Plan; No Rush to Baghdad
  • Rumsfeld, facing scrutiny over his influence on a war plan that involves far fewer troops than the number used in the 1991 Gulf War, flatly denied reports that he had rejected advice from Pentagon planners for substantially more men and armor.

    "That is not true," Rumsfeld told "Fox News Sunday."

    "I think you'll find that if you ask anyone who's been involved in the process from the Central Command that every single thing they've requested has in fact happened."

    Rumsfeld also dismissed reports of a pause in fighting as a result of stretched supply lines and unexpected resistance from Iraqi fighters using guerrilla tactics.

    "We have no plans for pauses or cease-fires or anything else," Rumsfeld told ABC's "This Week" program.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,213
126
There was no reason to proceed in this war without the troops in the region being put into place. Someone care to explain why it was necessary to keep troops near Turkey when it was clear that they were useless there?

That said, no one is going to charge into Baghdad. The troops need to get resupplied and rest. They do have to sleep you know. As far as plans go, remember that there are contingencies for screwing up. Sending reinforcements is one such resolution. I cannot imagine why it is so hard for people to grasp that Rumsfeld can mess up. Nothing large it turns out, but fanatical devotion makes no sense. He wanted to do this "light" and was wrong. From a military point of view, the job is still going to get done. The problem is laying siege to Baghdad during summer. Those suits suck to fight in.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
The problem is laying siege to Baghdad during summer. Those suits suck to fight in.

Yeah, we REALLY screwed up letting the UN inspectors dick around for so long. I know hind sight is 20/20, but what good did that do us?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,213
126
Originally posted by: Ornery
The problem is laying siege to Baghdad during summer. Those suits suck to fight in.

Yeah, we REALLY screwed up letting the UN inspectors dick around for so long. I know hind sight is 20/20, but what good did that do us?
We could have waited till next winter ;)
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Yeah, we REALLY screwed up letting the UN inspectors dick around for so long. I know hind sight is 20/20, but what good did that do us?
Proved the U.N. is an inefficient, outdated and largely useless bureacracy for handling problems of this kind.
We could have waited till next winter
That would have put the date dangerously close to the next election cycle...plus the inspection process would have been more robust in a year and could very well have substantially disarmed Iraq again.
 

nergee

Senior member
Jan 25, 2000
843
0
0
Temperatures average ~104F during a typical day in Iraq but at night cool to
~68F. I see no problem with proceeding with armed conflict during the night-
time hours.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Yeah, we REALLY screwed up letting the UN inspectors dick around for so long. I know hind sight is 20/20, but what good did that do us?
Proved the U.N. is an inefficient, outdated and largely useless bureacracy for handling problems of this kind.
We could have waited till next winter
That would have put the date dangerously close to the next election cycle...plus the inspection process would have been more robust in a year and could very well have substantially disarmed Iraq again.

Jellybaby, interesting point on your last statement.

The inspection process worked and Iraq has rearmed in the last four years making it necessary to 'substantially diarm Iraq again'. By 'again' it means that no matter how well the inspectors did their job than Iraq would just rearm once they were out of country and the entire inspection process was futile and a complete waste of time while the Saddam regime was in power.

The other alternative is of course that the inspectors never found all that was hidden there and the only way to insure it's removal is a change in the Iraqi leadership.

They both point to the same end result. Saddam must go.




 

ASK THE COMMUNITY