US Sending 300 Newly Returned Troops Back to Iraq

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Deptacon

From a tactical standpoint, the latest and greatest tech is a wonderful idea, with many demonstrated beneifts.

Thousands of years of fighting though have shown that for a protracted fight, the stratigic answer is to occupy ground in sufficient force to deny the enemy use of the territory for: refuge, transport, survailance, recruiting, etc., and to prevent any recources from falling to the ememy. The alternative is to either kill EVERYONE in the area, as the Romans often did, or use a "scorched earth" policy as the Russians did against Napolean and Hitler, that leaves nothing of value and nobody in an area.

Vietnam proved the folly of superior firepower and technology in a stratigic sense, and Iraq is proving it again for those who cannot learn from history. Instead of blindly accepting the hype from the Pentagon, you should study the history of war and do your own thinking.

Ok that ahs nothing to do with what I said. You cant critcize the new "Modular Army system", IE the smaller forces system, without knowing hoqw it works, what it curtails etc. Your making assumptyions and going off of the "this is how it has always been done" philosophy.

The new system, is going to take over 10 years to implement, and we happen to be involved throughout the world at the momement, so that makes things even more diffucult, and more compliciated. are thier hiccups? Yes. Are we going to run into some problems , uhhh yes... but if we uysed the old Cold War Military system, we would get less doen, with more tropps, and have more casualites.... thats justa simple fact.

The military was bloated from the Cold wAr, this new system streamlines it, makes more units more effective, and more versitle, more well equpied, fatser deploying, and more informed.

Honestly this change should have happened i nthe 90's, not now i nthe 21st century.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Whoozyerdaddy

I am now on a second extension. I extended one, and the Army extended that. I sympathize, but the Army is paying a thousand per month as a "SORRY" payment. BCT's are tight at the moment, and to risk the crews with cherries added in is not protecting those soldiers. I would HATE to have new blood added to my team at the moment. It would take months to get them up to speed.

It does suck to be involuntarily extended, but LOTS of soldiers are either stip lossed or involuntarily extended. It's part of he game that is the armed forces.

well said.... I doubt they know what a BCT is though....

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: maluckey
The war was won, and brilliantly at that...

Fair enough. I see your viewpoint but I'm not sure I agree this war was ever won let alone won brilliantly. The vast majority of the opposition faded away into the population and put up, relatively, very little resistance in the initial invasion. This was apparently their plan... why engage the superpower toe-to-toe and get annihilated (Gulf War 1) when said superpower has shown it can be beaten by guerrilla warfare (Vietnam).

What did we really win? The removal of a dictator that was actually doing the job we needed to be done... keeping Iraq calm and, most importantly, quite secular in nature as opposed to the hotbeds of radical Islam like Iran.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: maluckey
The war was won, and brilliantly at that...

Fair enough. I see your viewpoint but I'm not sure I agree this war was ever won let alone won brilliantly. The vast majority of the opposition faded away into the population and put up, relatively, very little resistance in the initial invasion. This was apparently their plan... why engage the superpower toe-to-toe and get annihilated (Gulf War 1) when said superpower has shown it can be beaten by guerrilla warfare (Vietnam).

What did we really win? The removal of a dictator that was actually doing the job we needed to be done... keeping Iraq calm and, most importantly, quite secular in nature as opposed to the hotbeds of radical Islam like Iran.

Yeah becuase every war and military action goes flawlessy and everything comes out peachy clean, come on man, seriously. Was the planning poor yes, did we make mistakes, yeah every military does.

Mission Accomplished referes to MAJOR MILIARTY OPERATIONS IE, DIVISIONS, MOVING THOUGH TERRITORY, IN AN OFFENSIVE MANNER. All that Mission accomplished mean was that was over, we have moved in, eliminated any MAJOR resistance (IE Battalions, Brigades, Divisions, of regualr troops).

How mnay times I have to say this, i dont know.

Stop taking things out of context, and putting your own spin on things. Everyone understands this as to what that speech/publicyty stunt meant, but everyone likes to turnit aound and be like, what , a shot was fired in IRAQ!?!?>!?! he said Mission accomplished though! its should be a utopia! please come on....

 

[tommywishbone]

Perhaps those troops will be used here:


In western Iraq, insurgency is gaining By ANTONIO CASTANEDA, Associated Press Writer, Wed Aug 16, 9:47 AM ET

HADITHA, Iraq - In the dusty plains of western Iraq, al-Qaida is gaining strength. Daily attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces are on the rise, and there is little sign of progress in persuading the population to support the national government. U.S. commanders acknowledge they are locked in struggle with insurgents for the allegiance of Iraq's youth.

"We're in a recruiting war with the insurgency," said Brig. Gen. Robert Neller, the deputy Marine commander in western Iraq.

U.S. commanders have said privately that a military solution to the insurgency in Anbar is impossible, and what's needed is a political deal between the Sunni Arabs and the other religious and ethnic communities.

"This country needs a political solution ? not a military solution," one government worker told Marines who stopped by his home in Haditha. "Are we going to stay in this situation where you shoot them, they shoot you? We are the victims."

American attention has shifted in recent weeks to Baghdad, where violence between Sunni and Shiite extremists is on the rise. The U.S. is sending nearly 12,000 U.S. and Iraqi forces to the capital to curb the violence.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has said tbat sectarian violence in the capital is now a greater threat to Iraq's stability than the Sunni Arab insurgency, which is entrenched in western Iraq.

Nevertheless, of the 23 U.S. troops who have died this month in Iraq, 16 were in Anbar.

The situation in Anbar, with its heavily Sunni population, is a barometer for the entire Sunni Arab minority, which lost its favored position to the majority Shiites and the Kurds when Saddam Hussein's regime collapsed in 2003.

As long as the insurgency rages here, it is unlikely that Sunni Arab politicians in Baghdad can win over significant numbers of Sunnis to support the government of national unity, which took office May 20.

Some areas in Anbar have shown significant progress, such as the border city of Qaim, once an al-Qaida stronghold. Trouble has increased in other areas, like the rural stretch between Ramadi and Fallujah.

In Baghdad, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said Wednesday that al-Qaida was making a concerted effort to gain legitimacy by promoting itself as a credible organization.

The terror network "appeals to Iraqis in desperate social and economic situations while projecting a civic-minded image," he said, adding that al-Qaida was seeking to build support "from whole tribes rather than individual Iraqi citizens."

On the other hand, U.S. commanders say few insurgents have shown a willingness to meet with them, much less hold meaningful talks.

The top U.S. commander in Haditha went so far as to ask local leaders to spread the word that Marines wanted to know which reconstruction projects would be safe from sabotage. But insurgents never responded.

"We asked, 'Is there anything we can allow the community to do that won't hurt their political cause?'" Lt. Col. Norm Cooling, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 3rd Regiment, said.

U.S. troops face similar problems elsewhere in Anbar, a North Carolina-sized province that extends from the western edge of Baghdad to the borders with Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

In Ramadi, the largest city and provincial capital, several prominent tribal leaders who had approached the military earlier this year were promptly slain. Commanders say several key Sunni leaders have fled to Jordan, Syria, and Egypt.

Even in calmer Fallujah, which remains under tight U.S. and Iraqi control, several prominent leaders have been killed ? including the city council chief, a senior cleric and the deputy police chief. The mayor also recently fled the city.

The war has eroded the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs, many of whom have been steadily abandoning the area. In the cluster of riverside homes that make up Haditha, Haqlaniyah and Parwana, U.S. commanders estimate that about two-thirds of the population have fled their homes since the war began in March 2003.

One government official in Haditha, who asked that his name not be used for fear of reprisal, said the situation was only getting worse. City council members here won't admit to being part of the government, and officials frequently resign after insurgent threats.

The majority of Iraqi soldiers are Shiite or Kurdish, while young Sunni Arabs make up most of the insurgency. The Americans would like to redress that imbalance and bring more Sunnis into the ranks. But efforts to recruit more Anbar Sunnis into the army have faltered, either because of intimidation by insurgents or genuine support for their cause.

The death last June of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi appears to have made little dent in support for the terror group. Most of al-Qaida's fighters are Iraqis rather than foreign fighters, U.S. officials say.

In Ramadi, for example, U.S. commanders estimate that a quarter of the fighters are al-Qaida members. In Haditha, Cooling called al-Qaida the most prominent insurgent group in "influence and resources."

Some commanders said the insurgents have grown adept at shifting away from areas targeted by U.S. troops, turning up elsewhere. For example, some Marines attributed a recent spike across the region to increased U.S. military operations in Ramadi.

"It's like pushing on a water balloon, if you will. When you apply pressure to Fallujah, they squirt elsewhere," Cooling said. "Wherever you do not apply a significant amount of pressure, that's where the enemy is going to go."

The U.S. military has pinned its hopes on the development of Iraqi forces. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers have flowed into Anbar over the past year and are expected to soon take over key terrain such as Fallujah.

But commanders say it's a struggle to keep soldiers stationed in Anbar: Thousands have deserted after being given orders here or shortly after arriving.
---------------------

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: maluckey
The war was won, and brilliantly at that...

Fair enough. I see your viewpoint but I'm not sure I agree this war was ever won let alone won brilliantly. The vast majority of the opposition faded away into the population and put up, relatively, very little resistance in the initial invasion. This was apparently their plan... why engage the superpower toe-to-toe and get annihilated (Gulf War 1) when said superpower has shown it can be beaten by guerrilla warfare (Vietnam).

What did we really win? The removal of a dictator that was actually doing the job we needed to be done... keeping Iraq calm and, most importantly, quite secular in nature as opposed to the hotbeds of radical Islam like Iran.

Yeah becuase every war and military action goes flawlessy and everything comes out peachy clean, come on man, seriously. Was the planning poor yes, did we make mistakes, yeah every military does.

Mission Accomplished referes to MAJOR MILIARTY OPERATIONS IE, DIVISIONS, MOVING THOUGH TERRITORY, IN AN OFFENSIVE MANNER. All that Mission accomplished mean was that was over, we have moved in, eliminated any MAJOR resistance (IE Battalions, Brigades, Divisions, of regualr troops).

How mnay times I have to say this, i dont know.

Stop taking things out of context, and putting your own spin on things. Everyone understands this as to what that speech/publicyty stunt meant, but everyone likes to turnit aound and be like, what , a shot was fired in IRAQ!?!?>!?! he said Mission accomplished though! its should be a utopia! please come on....

Do you understand the difference between tactical success and strategic success? Tactically, we won all of the battles with the Iraqi Army back in 2003. But strategically, our goal was to make Iraq a less useful place for terrorism training, and we have failed at that mission.

BY NO MEASURE is Iraq worse for terrorist training today than it was before we invaded.

That is why Iraq is a problem.

 

[GrGr]

"But strategically, our goal was to make Iraq a less useful place for terrorism training"

So that is why the US invaded and occupied Iraq? To put a stop to the terrorist training going on in Iraq in 2003?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Rummy doesn't believe in a large military. You go to war with the army you have. Then use them and abuse them till they are worn out or broken. Remember, technology is more important than boots.

No you obviously have no concept of the new 21st century modular army..... do a little research and read about it. Its a system that works, with less people ,is less bloated (like most govt activities) is more effective, more responsive, faster deploying, and ....dare isay it...cheaper for the taxpayers.....

LARGE COLD WAR ARMIES ARE INEFFECTIVE WItH TODAYS TECHNOLOGY.....but hey what do i know, im not in the army or anything....

While I have no idea what level of military experience you have (if you are some brand-new PFC that hardly makes you General Eisenhower), a lot of military brass with a lot of experience with operations like the occupation of Iraq have repeatedly suggested that a larger force in Iraq from day one would have done a great deal to improve the current situation.

Now perhaps IN GENERAL you are correct, everything I know suggests that you are, but there are military operations that our newfangled "modular army" can't quite deal with. An occupation of a fairly violent and fairly well populated country is simply something you need a lot of troops for. Many of the 21st century advances that are making military operations more streamlined do not translate well to an occupation. Of course this new concept offers some help, but experts seem to agree that more troops were necessary, 21st century army and all.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: maluckey
The war was won, and brilliantly at that...

Fair enough. I see your viewpoint but I'm not sure I agree this war was ever won let alone won brilliantly. The vast majority of the opposition faded away into the population and put up, relatively, very little resistance in the initial invasion. This was apparently their plan... why engage the superpower toe-to-toe and get annihilated (Gulf War 1) when said superpower has shown it can be beaten by guerrilla warfare (Vietnam).

What did we really win? The removal of a dictator that was actually doing the job we needed to be done... keeping Iraq calm and, most importantly, quite secular in nature as opposed to the hotbeds of radical Islam like Iran.

Yeah becuase every war and military action goes flawlessy and everything comes out peachy clean, come on man, seriously. Was the planning poor yes, did we make mistakes, yeah every military does.

Mission Accomplished referes to MAJOR MILIARTY OPERATIONS IE, DIVISIONS, MOVING THOUGH TERRITORY, IN AN OFFENSIVE MANNER. All that Mission accomplished mean was that was over, we have moved in, eliminated any MAJOR resistance (IE Battalions, Brigades, Divisions, of regualr troops).

How mnay times I have to say this, i dont know.

Stop taking things out of context, and putting your own spin on things. Everyone understands this as to what that speech/publicyty stunt meant, but everyone likes to turnit aound and be like, what , a shot was fired in IRAQ!?!?>!?! he said Mission accomplished though! its should be a utopia! please come on....

Even if that was made clear during the whole "landing on the aircraft carrier" photo-op (it wasn't), the fault would then be in stupidly defining "the Mission". The idea wasn't simply to defeat Saddam's military, it was to find WMDs and build Iraq into a bastion of freedom and democracy. By my count, 1 out of those 3 major objectives has been completed...and we're still there, and you guys are still dying over there. If that's what you want to call mission accomplished, fair enough, but I personally would rather you set your sights a little higher.

Also, you'll forgive me if I have a hard time believing you have served in the armed forces in Iraq...it's not like there is nothing more going on there than "a" shot being fired and everybody freaking out about it.

 

[maluckey]

What did we really win? The removal of a dictator that was actually doing the job we needed to be done... keeping Iraq calm and, most importantly, quite secular in nature as opposed to the hotbeds of radical Islam like Iran.

Exactly. the war was won, but nobody ever thought that the locals wouldn't WANT peace for everyone (just a select few). Who would think that the level of hatred would be WORSE after having an opportunity for self realization and freedom? Apparently the brutality kept a bigger brutality in check! Go figure that a Butcher kept the mini-Hitlers at bay.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: Deptacon
Mission Accomplished referes to MAJOR MILIARTY OPERATIONS IE, DIVISIONS, MOVING THOUGH TERRITORY, IN AN OFFENSIVE MANNER. All that Mission accomplished mean was that was over, we have moved in, eliminated any MAJOR resistance (IE Battalions, Brigades, Divisions, of regualr troops).

I'm not sure that's an 'accomplishment' to be heralding considering the vast majority of the initial resistance simply faded away and fell back into guerilla warfare mode where they now continue to kill us 3 full years after the 'mission' was 'accomplished'. 😕

Originally posted by: maluckey
Exactly. the war was won, but nobody ever thought that the locals wouldn't WANT peace for everyone (just a select few). Who would think that the level of hatred would be WORSE after having an opportunity for self realization and freedom? Apparently the brutality kept a bigger brutality in check! Go figure that a Butcher kept the mini-Hitlers at bay.

The problem is many people knew exactly would would happen and warned repeatedly of such consequences. Further to that, members of our own military (such as Gen Sinsheki) knew the results could be disasterous if adequate troop levels weren't used (and they weren't).

I cannot figure out how Rumsfield retains his job... it's shameful that there is ZERO accountability. He is either embarrassingly incompetent or criminally negligent IMHO.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Rummy doesn't believe in a large military. You go to war with the army you have. Then use them and abuse them till they are worn out or broken. Remember, technology is more important than boots.

No you obviously have no concept of the new 21st century modular army..... do a little research and read about it. Its a system that works, with less people ,is less bloated (like most govt activities) is more effective, more responsive, faster deploying, and ....dare isay it...cheaper for the taxpayers.....

LARGE COLD WAR ARMIES ARE INEFFECTIVE WItH TODAYS TECHNOLOGY.....but hey what do i know, im not in the army or anything....

While I have no idea what level of military experience you have (if you are some brand-new PFC that hardly makes you General Eisenhower), a lot of military brass with a lot of experience with operations like the occupation of Iraq have repeatedly suggested that a larger force in Iraq from day one would have done a great deal to improve the current situation.

Now perhaps IN GENERAL you are correct, everything I know suggests that you are, but there are military operations that our newfangled "modular army" can't quite deal with. An occupation of a fairly violent and fairly well populated country is simply something you need a lot of troops for. Many of the 21st century advances that are making military operations more streamlined do not translate well to an occupation. Of course this new concept offers some help, but experts seem to agree that more troops were necessary, 21st century army and all.

Oh I agree, the initial push into Iraq should have had more than 2 Divisions and a Marine Division, and maybe even more for the first year, but that is just becuase this transition had just srtaed then, but you have to understand sometimes less is more.

Less troops can be easier to manage, and be managed better, than more. It can really go either way, experts wil lalways have opinions, but how can an expert have an expert opinion on something, like the modular army system, when it hasn't been done before?

There wil lalways be critics, but from experiences of fellow soldiers of mine who have been more than once over the past years have both stated a smaller, more focused presenece, which they saw in thier 2nd deployment, was more successful then the broad "have a soldier on every street corner" approach that we had for the firstyear or so.

its all open to interpretation, but my opinion, being someone who is in the Army (and an Officer, not a PFC) is that the newer approach is better. We have more focused goals and missions, better planning, and commanders have more hands on becuase they have a less bloated force to manage.

I dont need a BN of intel guys to get me the data i need to do my mission, Now i have a raven UAV and a small team of BN intel guys that get me the same, but better and faster, intel.

Oh and Combat Troop levels in the new system arent being depleted, actually more combat units are being created, and LESS "in the rear with the gear" units. Its more the support structure that is being broken down than the combat arm. because with more and better technology, integration, and a networked battlefield, we dont need as much support units to get the job done.

Do you understand the difference between tactical success and strategic success? Tactically, we won all of the battles with the Iraqi Army back in 2003. But strategically, our goal was to make Iraq a less useful place for terrorism training, and we have failed at that mission.

Look at it this way, the terrorists are coming at us in Iraq, and dieing there, not coming at us here, even though they may be trying. The entire Iraq operation has shifted thier focus back to thier home, the middle east, and not ours.

Yesi ts direct now at the troops , the people, we hwo volunteer to kill these Pieces of Sh!t, so honestly, from that stand point, its been extremely successful "stratgically". Not to mention, we now have over 100,000 troops right next store to probably the biggest source of all radical problems.... Iran.....

But, Im sure you guys already realized that.:roll:

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

I cannot figure out how Rumsfield retains his job... it's shameful that there is ZERO accountability. He is either embarrassingly incompetent or criminally negligent IMHO.

Hell after the crap the CLinton admininstration left the military in, I love Rummy.

 

[straightalker]

Love the one hurting you?

Where have i heard that before?

Oh yeah. The book '1984'.

No offense Deptacon. It's not meant to be personal.

I just had to make the comparison in light of your profound statement.

"Rummy" can't explain what happened to the trillion+ dollars the Government Accounting Office can't find any trace of at the Pentagon. It's in the news and not theory.

Where did it all go? Why is there no cash left to patch up blown apart USA soldiers?

Why are some wounded soldiers stacked like sardines in hot unairconditioned barracks waiting to see doctors.

Why the crap armor for our soldiers and humvees. Soldiers had to visit scrap yards in Iraq and weld pieces of armor onto their humvees and transport trucks.

The list goes on. I support the troops but not the neocons. No way. They're the crazzies.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: straightalker
Love the one hurting you?

Where have i heard that before?

Oh yeah. The book '1984'.

No offense Deptacon. It's not meant to be personal.

I just had to make the comparison in light of your profound statement.

"Rummy" can't explain what happened to the trillion+ dollars the Government Accounting Office can't find any trace of at the Pentagon. It's in the news and not theory.

Where did it all go? Why is there no cash left to patch up blown apart USA soldiers?

Why are some wounded soldiers stacked like sardines in hot unairconditioned barracks waiting to see doctors.

Why the crap armor for our soldiers and humvees. Soldiers had to visit scrap yards in Iraq and weld pieces of armor onto their humvees and transport trucks.

The list goes on. I support the troops but not the neocons. No way. They're the crazzies.

Wow thats just an excellent piec eof crap you posted....

the armor isnt crap, if you want, I have a few dozen direct hit photos for you showing how it works.... Yeah when we first went in we didint have uparmored humvees everywhere, now we do. Hell, most of the time you cant go outside the wire now unless your in a an uparmored vehicle...

Money missing or unaccounted for in the pentagon,thats nothing new, been going on for decades, its called classified, thats where all the news toys for me at work come from....Toliet seats dont cost 600 doallrs, we all know that..... but the new tech we dont mention on the books is like that for a reason....we dont want anyone to know we have it.


Why are some wounded soldiers stacked like sardines in hot unairconditioned barracks waiting to see doctors.

i have no idea where you got that from, besides your backside....

Everything isnt a conspriacy man, stop watching XFiles....

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: straightalker
Love the one hurting you?

Bigger paychecks, more equpiment, better equipment, better training, more funding, better orgainization....

If it was a corporate job, you would want it, goes the same on the military side...

 

[tommywishbone]

I guess the fact that the Iraqis were guilty of nothing, means nothing. More troops... less troops... troops from the 25th century with Buck Rodgers in charge; who cares. We are guilty of mass murder and the systematic destruction of an entire country. A proud moment indeed.

"We'll fight'em over there, so we don't have to fight'em over here." -The Chimp

... one problem; there weren't any over there, until we destroyed the countries ability to defend & police itself.

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: Deptacon


Ok that ahs nothing to do with what I said. You cant critcize the new "Modular Army system", IE the smaller forces system, without knowing hoqw it works, what it curtails etc. Your making assumptyions and going off of the "this is how it has always been done" philosophy.

The new system, is going to take over 10 years to implement, and we happen to be involved throughout the world at the momement, so that makes things even more diffucult, and more compliciated. are thier hiccups? Yes. Are we going to run into some problems , uhhh yes... but if we uysed the old Cold War Military system, we would get less doen, with more tropps, and have more casualites.... thats justa simple fact.

The military was bloated from the Cold wAr, this new system streamlines it, makes more units more effective, and more versitle, more well equpied, fatser deploying, and more informed.

Honestly this change should have happened i nthe 90's, not now i nthe 21st century.

As much as I despise OT-ness, does the bolded comment mean you support(ed) Clinton's reduction of the military in the 90's?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Deptacon

I think you got 2 ladels of the kool aid.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
I guess the fact that the Iraqis were guilty of nothing, means nothing. More troops... less troops... troops from the 25th century with Buck Rodgers in charge; who cares. We are guilty of mass murder and the systematic destruction of an entire country. A proud moment indeed.

"We'll fight'em over there, so we don't have to fight'em over here." -The Chimp

... one problem; there weren't any over there, until we destroyed the countries ability to defend & police itself.

I guess its not even worth mentioning that 70-80% of those causing trouble in IRaq arent from there, they are foreign fightersbut based on your other ranting, I guess you wouldnt know that.

Werent any over there, Syria, Iran? they are all overe there, if you dont count Pakistan, 95% of em are from there, that region, and now we have 100,000 troops in thier god damn back yard, and can roll into either one, and we couldnt do that before..

You totally missed the whople freaking point.... No, there were no nutt jobs attacking Iraq befoe, Nuttjobs dont wannt to attack the master nutjobs house (Saddam).... they are a attacking us overthere.... do you prefere your back yard.... put a sign up then, attack my house instead of Iraq....The whole point is that the attention of the radicals is NOW ON IRAQ, and THE MIDDLE EAST, So they are putting resources into attacking us there AND NOT HERE. Why is that so freaking hard to understand...

No the Iraqi's werent guility of anytyhing, Saddams Administration was... Kind of like how you blame bush for everything over here and bash him all day, Your not held accountable for what he doesm and you can bash hi mall day. except you get to keep you hands and toes, and your balls dont get wired up to a car batteries for calling him a chimp...

you dont get beaten tortured etc.....we wetn after saddam, not the shopkeepr on 8th and walnut in baghdad. I feel like im tlaking to a 12 year trying to explain this cause it is such elementry stuff

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: Deptacon


Ok that ahs nothing to do with what I said. You cant critcize the new "Modular Army system", IE the smaller forces system, without knowing hoqw it works, what it curtails etc. Your making assumptyions and going off of the "this is how it has always been done" philosophy.

The new system, is going to take over 10 years to implement, and we happen to be involved throughout the world at the momement, so that makes things even more diffucult, and more compliciated. are thier hiccups? Yes. Are we going to run into some problems , uhhh yes... but if we uysed the old Cold War Military system, we would get less doen, with more tropps, and have more casualites.... thats justa simple fact.

The military was bloated from the Cold wAr, this new system streamlines it, makes more units more effective, and more versitle, more well equpied, fatser deploying, and more informed.

Honestly this change should have happened i nthe 90's, not now i nthe 21st century.

As much as I despise OT-ness, does the bolded comment mean you support(ed) Clinton's reduction of the military in the 90's?

Yes and no, but yes, but that was a flat out base closing, not a policy and/or orgainization and structural change which is taking place now. He closed bases and reduced numbers, but did push andy sort of policy shift away from the cold war, not to m mention the the poor state of readiness and, orgainization, and direction he left the the military in. Not so much his fault, but, the attitude of the admininisatrion was exactly a postive one for taking care of a the military.

The things being done fro structural and orgainizational change, should have been done i nthe 90's

I think you got 2 ladels of the kool aid.

WTF is that suppose to mean, espeically since 90% of what I said has nothing to do with politics and is just pure informational fact, unless, you drank som much of that kool aid (also know as Leftwing Bullsh!T) that you cant even seperate from right and wrong.

Or is it that you have no knowledge of what I posted, so cant comment, but beucause i didnt bash a neo-con, bush or cheney, you fear I may not be a liberal, and must make a snide remark just in case? is it jackshmit doesnt know jack sh!t on military programs and policy, but thinks it wasnt a liberals plan, so muct be bad????

 

[jackschmittusa]

Deptacon

What is supposed to mean is that you seem to have bought the party BS, hook, line, and sinker.

You made a smartass remark in response to the mention of how vets are currently being treated. If you follow the news, you'd know it is true.

Your statement that we are fighting them over there and not here is nothing short of silly. Our actions over there have created untold legions of new terrrorists, hardly a good thing.

Claiming that 70-80% of the insurgents are foreign to Iraq is ludicrus. That lie was abandoned even by the administration long ago. You must have missed the memo.

After the collapse of the Soviet union, there was a great hue and cry for a "piece dividend". Yes, there was a demand for cutbacks in the military, but no one believed that we would be fighting any protracted wars of adventure either. Your true colors came out when you made your cracks about liberals. Your arguments about military effectiveness are a smoke screen for political comment.

And yes, I do know something about the military. I know that much of the money being spent on tech for the army is geared toward small unit and individual enhancement in the field. Considered something of a force multiplier of light infantry. This would have limited usefulness in the current situation in Iraq. Rummy is a big fan of this type of thing despite the fact that Iraq has shown that high tech cannot secure large boarders and and large numbers of facilities that have value to the enemy.

My contention was that all of the BS put out by this administration constituted the kool aid, and that you had sucked it up without a chaser. IMHO, you have ignored inconvient facts and presented some that have already been disproven.

 

[maluckey]

jackschmittusa

What is supposed to mean is that you seem to have bought the party BS, hook, line, and sinker......

What the hell are you trying to say in the post above?? I don't get anything...From what I read of your post, it appears that BBond hijacked your icon and name. From what I read...It appears that you are anti-military and pro Liberal. Good for you! At least you are honest.

War is not Liberal or Conservative. It is the ultimate economic tool. For every armchair general out there in AT land, there are several REAL commanders in the REAL war who differ from the armchair POV.

As far as the howling from some in this thread that more troops are needed...NOT!! more troops cause more friction, more chances for more crimes by the soldiers, more resentment by the Iraqi (the radicalized Muslims seem to hate everyone). More troops cannot change beliefs of a nation. More troops cannot secure freedom after it is already won. More troops cannot accomplish the rebuilding of infrastructure or of attitudes. More troops cannot stop Sunnis from hating Shia. I can go on about what troops cannot do, but nobody is listening.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Deptacon

What is supposed to mean is that you seem to have bought the party BS, hook, line, and sinker.

You made a smartass remark in response to the mention of how vets are currently being treated. If you follow the news, you'd know it is true.

Your statement that we are fighting them over there and not here is nothing short of silly. Our actions over there have created untold legions of new terrrorists, hardly a good thing.

Claiming that 70-80% of the insurgents are foreign to Iraq is ludicrus. That lie was abandoned even by the administration long ago. You must have missed the memo.

After the collapse of the Soviet union, there was a great hue and cry for a "piece dividend". Yes, there was a demand for cutbacks in the military, but no one believed that we would be fighting any protracted wars of adventure either. Your true colors came out when you made your cracks about liberals. Your arguments about military effectiveness are a smoke screen for political comment.

And yes, I do know something about the military. I know that much of the money being spent on tech for the army is geared toward small unit and individual enhancement in the field. Considered something of a force multiplier of light infantry. This would have limited usefulness in the current situation in Iraq. Rummy is a big fan of this type of thing despite the fact that Iraq has shown that high tech cannot secure large boarders and and large numbers of facilities that have value to the enemy.

My contention was that all of the BS put out by this administration constituted the kool aid, and that you had sucked it up without a chaser. IMHO, you have ignored inconvient facts and presented some that have already been disproven.

I didnt buy into anything from the administration, which i dont even like very much anymore, my commentsd were soloey from a military perspective, and have nothing to do with who is in office or in power.

I dont need to watch TV to see how vets are treated, I serve with them, know those who have served, etc...Unfortuntely your only source of info is the TV...

 

[tommywishbone]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

I guess its not even worth mentioning that 70-80% of those causing trouble in IRaq arent from there, they are foreign fightersbut based on your other ranting, I guess you wouldnt know that.

Werent any over there, Syria, Iran? they are all overe there, if you dont count Pakistan, 95% of em are from there, that region, and now we have 100,000 troops in thier god damn back yard, and can roll into either one, and we couldnt do that before..

You totally missed the whople freaking point.... No, there were no nutt jobs attacking Iraq befoe, Nuttjobs dont wannt to attack the master nutjobs house (Saddam).... they are a attacking us overthere.... do you prefere your back yard.... put a sign up then, attack my house instead of Iraq....The whole point is that the attention of the radicals is NOW ON IRAQ, and THE MIDDLE EAST, So they are putting resources into attacking us there AND NOT HERE. Why is that so freaking hard to understand...

No the Iraqi's werent guility of anytyhing, Saddams Administration was... Kind of like how you blame bush for everything over here and bash him all day, Your not held accountable for what he doesm and you can bash hi mall day. except you get to keep you hands and toes, and your balls dont get wired up to a car batteries for calling him a chimp...

you dont get beaten tortured etc.....we wetn after saddam, not the shopkeepr on 8th and walnut in baghdad. I feel like im tlaking to a 12 year trying to explain this cause it is such elementry stuff

Wow. We seem to have no common ground at all.

* 70-80% of the insurgents are from countries other than Iraq?
* Syrians & Iranians were killing Americans before bush invaded?
* Why do we want to "roll into" Syria's & Iran "backyard"? What's in their backyard?
* Saddam's administration is long gone... why aren't we long gone?
* Beaten & tourtured & killed with car batteries... like we did to the detaines at Abu Gharib prison?

I think you might be backing a losing horse in this race. But it's your money, so good luck in the derby.