A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You see, this is why I rely on people like Franks

Hasn't Franks said he got all the Troops he needed. Has he said that it would have turned out better if he had more troops? He is a private citizen now isn't he? If he is a private citizen then why hasn't he come out and said he should have had more troops? Am I confusing Franks with someone else?

Has Powell said we should have had more troops. That that would have made a difference. What has Powell said we should have done differently?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is not an analogy at all. You have no idea whether more troops would have helped then and you have no idea if they would help now. It is all guess work. The arrogant arm chair quaterbacking and second guessing on this war is amazing. Everyone is an expert.

The point is wanting to win. Wanting to create a stable Iraq. Invading Iraq was always a risk. It would have been a risk with 500,000 solider and support from every country on the planet.

But Iran and Syria were never going to help us.

Right now their own politicians in Iraq are complaining that we might leave. If the democratically elected representatives of the country don't want us to leave, then doesn't that show that the majority is with us and we can win?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....4da9y9bi.html

Why not throw in 500,000 troops to see if it would help? If we truly want to win this thing why not give this a try? Why is pulling out before the job is finished even an option if we want to win?

No one really knows, right? Historians will be arguing about this for years. But my point is that a certain number of troops might have kept a lid on things immediately after the invasion but might not suffice to restore order now that things have deteriorated.

If we could reasonably deploy enough troops that it would make a difference, I would be for it at this point. We don't have 500,000 troops, though, and I don't think we can enough troops in to make a material difference. It's not just about desire. There are limits to what we can do.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Hasn't Franks said he got all the Troops he needed. Has he said that it would have turned out better if he had more troops? He is a private citizen now isn't he? If he is a private citizen then why hasn't he come out and said he should have had more troops? Am I confusing Franks with someone else?

Has Powell said we should have had more troops. That that would have made a difference. What has Powell said we should have done differently?

What do you think Powell was talking about when he referred to Rummy and Wolfowitz as "fucking crazies"?

Franks will always be the good soldier and tow the line publicly, but many reports have come out, ranging from books by retired generals to articles in your favorite rag (the Times), detailing the disputes at the time. Franks started pushing hard for more troops, when he lost the fight, he pushed his generals hard to work with what they had and not ask for more.

And, by the way, my read is that you're one of the fucking crazies, too - in total denial and looking for rhetoric to save you where logic won't. That's what that ranting and raving "you want us to lose" is all about.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
A substantial majority of Iraqis want us gone now.

Can you cite that? I was not aware of that. If they do, their politicians are singing a different tune. They are saying they don't want us to leave and that it is illegal for us to leave.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
In earlier posts, you pissed on the idea of adding forces from other countries to meet this number (excepting the Brits).

So. Where will these extra 300,000 or so troops come from? If your answer is "active forces are about 540,000, so just flood them all in Iraq" my question becomes "what will you do in 12 months when you're supposed to rotate them all out?

That is how many we had in the Guld War isn't it? And why rotate them out? We didn't rotate troops out of WWII? We did in vietnam and there shouldn't didn't work out well.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
But not in the same demographic as those lost in the war (i.e. with most of their productive years ahead of them). It's not a reasonable comparison. It's like saying that infant mortality isn't a problem because x-times as many old people die every day.

OK. There are two million people in the military. This war has cost us .15% (that is 1/5 of one percent) of our people in uniform. In how many wars in the history of the world has a country in combat been able to claim that few casualties?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
Can you cite that? I was not aware of that. If they do, their politicians are singing a different tune. They are saying they don't want us to leave and that it is illegal for us to leave.

See, e.g.,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092601721.html

www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/27/iraq.poll/

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
This is a total crock of shit. Pull your head out of your ass if you want to have an intelligent discussion on this topic.

Ok. I should have phrased it: It is just not that important to you that we win. In addition, you have been subsribing to arguments put out by people who don't want us to win.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is how many we had in the Guld War isn't it? And why rotate them out? We didn't rotate troops out of WWII? We did in vietnam and there shouldn't didn't work out well.

As I recall,

* They weren't all our troops. Other nations contributed significant numbers of them (cue Slave to declare that they were worthless fuckers anyway).

* We weren't anticipating a multi-year occupation, so I don't think rotation of troops was in the plans.

* Everything I've heard about the rationale for rotating of troops is that you need to do this every X months in order to keep force morale high and for troops to continue operating well. If you want to throw 'em all in and keep 'em there, go for it, but I think you'll need to explain this to the military leadership that seems to consider the process a necessary one.

Gattigap

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Can you cite that? I was not aware of that. If they do, their politicians are singing a different tune. They are saying they don't want us to leave and that it is illegal for us to leave.

Start here , but if you google "poll Iraqi leave", you'll find a series of polls suggesting a majority have wanted us out for well over two years and that we are now at the point where a majority support armed action against US soldiers.

I'd also recommend to you Zogby's book on his detailed survey of Arab attitudes.

But, then, you really don't want to know about any of this, because if anyone has bad news, whether it's Baker, Powell or me, you and the rest of the fucking crazies know they just hate America.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK. There are two million people in the military. This war has cost us .15% (that is 1/5 of one percent) of our people in uniform. In how many wars in the history of the world has a country in combat been able to claim that few casualties?

19 US soldiers died in the Granada conflict.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ok. I should have phrased it: It is just not that important to you that we win. In addition, you have been subsribing to arguments put out by people who don't want us to win.

Translation: You don't actively hate America, G^3. Instead, you have a moderate dislike for America, and simply hang out with America-haters.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ok. I should have phrased it: It is just not that important to you that we win. In addition, you have been subsribing to arguments put out by people who don't want us to win.

You're still a fucking crazy.

Of course I'd love to see us win. I just want something winnable, and, from the outset, Bush and Company have not focused on that question. This is what the Powell doctrine was all about - winnable objectives approached with overwhelming force and adequate redundancy. If we keep doing it right, we'll get to start winning battles by waving our stick instead of using it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is how many we had in the Guld War isn't it? And why rotate them out? We didn't rotate troops out of WWII? We did in vietnam and there shouldn't didn't work out well.

Troops always get rotated in some way, shape or form. In WWII, where we didn't have the luxury of rotating them home, they got rotated between front and back lines. Fresh troops win battles.

It is possible to rotate troops in the Middle East by moving them to places like Italy or Qatar for two to three month stints between year long deployments. That's how you activate a greater percentage of your troops. However, moving to that system is likely to affect recruitment, and that's why the 1 yr/1 yr approach has been used.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Translation: You don't actively hate America, G^3. Instead, you have a moderate dislike for America, and simply hang out with America-haters.

Don't worry, Gatti, I'm not turning you in to the fucking crazies, you America-hater, you.