Murtha has completely lost his mind

[nelms]

Well what I think he is doing is speaking authoritatively about a subject in which he has no effing clue...but won't acknowledge that simple truth. Talk about philosophy and theoretical causes and effects, don't talk about tactics, techniques, and procedures.

He doesn't live in the real world. He smokes a couple of branches, then opines on subjects that he doesn't even have a freakin' clue about.

[chomerics]

Boots on the ground spoted him and directed the plane that dropped the bomb. Without boots on the ground we never would have had a clue where he was. So your point is?

Boots on the ground did not "spot" him, he was not near American soldiers, they saw him and we got him.

They got the information from one of his guys. . .

Ummm... F16 are air force. They cannot land on a carrier. The navy uses F14s and FA18s. Way to pretend to be an expert. :doh:

Yea, my bad.

See above general Chom and get back to me when you can explain how to find one man from 10,000 feet with no human intel.

The intel is not coming from American soldiers, we are not the ones who are ratting out these SOBs, we are just creating more SOBs by having our presence there.

You are telling somone else to try to be more informed after the ignorance you show in this post? All I can say is..... :rotflmao:

Yes, I am. So instead of debating if we can strike them without troops on the ground (which we can), you focus on an F-16 vs an F-14 on board a carrier and completely miss the point. You think a typo makes you right, well it doesnt.

Then to further dig your own hole, you falsely say that American troops on the ground is the reason we got Zarqawi, when it was because one of his advisors sold him out. We killed him from 1000's of miles away, and quick tactical strikes require no troop support.

[chomerics]

Go take a nap young man, your becoming delusional...

Really Bear? Why don;t you tell me how we got him then huh? We got him from an informant, not from American troops. We dropped a bomb on his sorry ass. So tell me again why we need troops to kill him?

What do out troops on the ground there accomplish in terms of the GWOT other then being a big freaking target?

[chomerics]

Come on people. Leave Chom alone. How is he supposed to know that the laser guided bombs actually require someone to place the laser on the target.

Are you telling me that every smart bomb we drop needs to have a laser on the target fired by a soldier?

[Redskins Diehard]

Are you telling me that every smart bomb we drop needs to have a laser on the target fired by a soldier?

I am telling you that every laser guided munition has a person "lasing" the target. And it isn't always a soldier, sometimes it is a airman, and even sometimes it is a sailor of the seal variety.

And we won't even address the fact that his people that "rat" him out, have to "rat" him out to someone. And that someone is usually an American of the HUMINT collector variety.

[Section106]

Why are you guys trumpeting the killing of Zarqawi? Don't you know that we had actionable intel on him and could've killed him at least once a day BEFORE the invasion? Bushco opted not to kill him because they wanted terrorist threats in Iraq to attract more countries to the "Coalition of the Willing". Instead of actually killing a suspected terrorist, Bushco let him go free to kill over 700 people.

And this should really piss you military types off - We actually protected Zarqawi from Saddam because he was in the No-fly Zone. Our Air Force could've reached out and touched the **** at anytime but Dubya needed material for his run-up-to-war propaganda.

Don't you realize yet that this is the most corrupt, incompetent, and apathetic administration in the history of the US? How you guys could defend a draft dodger and lambast a decorated war vet is beyond me. I have a suggestion, put down the kool-aid.

[Redskins Diehard]

Why are you guys trumpeting the killing of Zarqawi? Don't you know that we had actionable intel on him and could've killed him at least once a day BEFORE the invasion? Bushco opted not to kill him because they wanted terrorist threats in Iraq to attract more countries to the "Coalition of the Willing". Instead of actually killing a suspected terrorist, Bushco let him go free to kill over 700 people.

And this should really piss you military types off - We actually protected Zarqawi from Saddam because he was in the No-fly Zone. Our Air Force could've reached out and touched the **** at anytime but Dubya needed material for his run-up-to-war propaganda.

Don't you realize yet that this is the most corrupt, incompetent, and apathetic administration in the history of the US? How you guys could defend a draft dodger and lambast a decorated war vet is beyond me. I have a suggestion, put down the kool-aid.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

yeah right. I'll put down the kool-aid when you put down the crack pipe

[chomerics]

Well what I think he is doing is speaking authoritatively about a subject in which he has no effing clue...but won't acknowledge that simple truth.

Really? What part was not correct? Do we need troops on the ground to hit a target? Did we need a troop in the vicinity to hit Zarqawi? Did I proclaim myself an "expert" on the military?

Please point out what I said which is so outlandish? That we dont need tropops on the ground to hit a terrorist hiding in a building? That the BEST intel comes from the inside? That our troops are a target, and we are fueling terrorism by our mere presence?

Talk about philosophy and theoretical causes and effects, don't talk about tactics, techniques, and procedures.

Please, having worked at one point in my career on a few smart bombs, I know what they are capable of, and I also know that we don't need to be in Iraq to accomplish quick strike attacks with bombs, such as Zarqawis bomb.

[Section106]

:applause: :applause: :applause:

yeah right. I'll put down the kool-aid when you put down the crack pipe

What specifically do you find objectionable in the body of my post?

And if I was actually smoking crack I'm sure I would've pawned my computer by now.

[chomerics]

I am telling you that every laser guided munition has a person "lasing" the target. And it isn't always a soldier, sometimes it is a airman, and even sometimes it is a sailor of the seal variety.

In the majority of cases, from the ****pit of the plane.

And we won't even address the fact that his people that "rat" him out, have to "rat" him out to someone. And that someone is usually an American of the HUMINT collector variety.

Ever hear of a telephone? Do you actually think the informant went to the next Humvee raised his hands and said "hey Mr. Soldier, I know where Zarqawi is"

Hell no, it is all covert. Secret meetings, things of that nature.

Again, debate the issue. Does our troop presence there do more harm to the GWOT then good? All you need to do is look at the terrorism statistics from when we set foot in Iraq until now, and you will see that our presence there is FUELING the insurgency.

[Redskins Diehard]

Really? What part was not correct? Do we need troops on the ground to hit a target? Did we need a troop in the vicinity to hit Zarqawi? Did I proclaim myself an "expert" on the military?

Please point out what I said which is so outlandish? That we dont need tropops on the ground to hit a terrorist hiding in a building? That the BEST intel comes from the inside? That our troops are a target, and we are fueling terrorism by our mere presence?

Please, having worked at one point in my career on a few smart bombs, I know what they are capable of, and I also know that we don't need to be in Iraq to accomplish quick strike attacks with bombs, such as Zarqawis bomb.

What part was not correct? Pretty much the whole thing. Yes, we needed boots on the ground to hit that target. We needed boots on the ground to find out where that target was. We needed boots on the ground to push the button on the laser designator that illuminated the target. Did you proclaim yourself an expert? No, you just stated how it should be done.

Intel comes from those people...and it has to go somewhere. That somewhere is the people that are working the sources, that are finding the sources, that are delivering the sources. That can't be done by a pilot flying over head. Should the sources swim out to our fleet in the Persian Gulf?

I'm sure you are familiar with the capabilities of whatever system you worked on. You really should stick to discussing that.

[chomerics]

What part was not correct? Pretty much the whole thing. Yes, we needed boots on the ground to hit that target. We needed boots on the ground to find out where that target was. We needed boots on the ground to push the button on the laser designator that illuminated the target. Did you proclaim yourself an expert? No, you just stated how it should be done.

BullS*** Absolute bulls***. Listen to what you are saying, you are telling me that the entire military needs to have troops on the ground to get terrorists. Well then, why weren't our troops on the ground to get Al Qaeda? Why was it that we need 100,000 troops to go into Iraq and we didn't need more then 14K to get the **** that caused 9-11???

Please tell me that answer then, because OBVIOUSLY we need troops on the gorund to attack someone, well then, what is the excuse for not getting Bin Laden?

You see, you know damn well we don't need troops on the ground to pull a strike on a target, you are just arguing it for arguments sake.

Intel comes from those people...and it has to go somewhere. That somewhere is the people that are working the sources, that are finding the sources, that are delivering the sources. That can't be done by a pilot flying over head. Should the sources swim out to our fleet in the Persian Gulf?

You don't get it do you. We get p[eople working for us on the INSIDE. In the case of Zarqawi, it went to the IRAQIS!!! They were the ones that had the info on him, and you work with THEM!!! Hell, we are training over 200,000 Iraqi troops, why should they not be able to pass up the information? Are you going to tell me they can't be trusted? Well, if that is the case, why are we even training them?

I'm sure you are familiar with the capabilities of whatever system you worked on. You really should stick to discussing that.

And you are ignoring the obvious problem with your argument. You don;t need troops on the ground to carry out a strike, OR to gather intel.

The troops are nothing more then target practice for terrorists, and I am sick and tired of watching young Americans die and come back wounded every day when they don't need to be there.

[Redskins Diehard]

BullS*** Absolute bulls***. Listen to what you are saying, you are telling me that the entire military needs to have troops on the ground to get terrorists. Well then, why weren't our troops on the ground to get Al Qaeda? Why was it that we need 100,000 troops to go into Iraq and we didn;t need any to get the **** that caused 9-11???

Please tell me that answer then, because OBVIOUSLY we need troops on the gorund to attack someone, well then, what is the excuse for not getting Bin Laden?

You see, you know damn well we don't need troops on the ground to pull a strike on a target, you are just arguing it for arguments sake.

You don't get it do you. We get p[eople working for us on the INSIDE. In the case of Zarqawi, it went to the IRAQIS!!! They were the ones that had the info on him, and you work with THEM!!! Hell, we are training over 200,000 Iraqi troops, why should they not be able to pass up the information? Are you going to tell me they can't be trusted? Well, if that is the case, why are we even training them?

And you are ignoring the obvious problem with your argument. You don;t need troops on the ground to carry out a strike, OR to gather intel.

For the record. Please share your qualifications.

Your assessment of intelligence gathering, intelligence analysis, targetting, and mission execution is different to say the least. I would be interested in where you developed this expertise.

[chomerics]

For the record. Please share your qualifications.

Your assessment of intelligence gathering, intelligence analysis, targetting, and mission execution are different to say the least. I would be interested and where you developed this expertise.

Where did I EVER say I was an expert?

So again, why don't you answer the questions.

1. You contend the ONLY way to attack someone in a house is with troops on the ground. Using YOUR contention, why were there not more troops on the ground to go after the person who caused 9-11?

2. Do you think the presence of our troops on the ground in Iraq has

a.) Increased or

b.) Decreased terrorism?

3. Can our military attack a house with a bomb without troops on the ground near the target?

4. Where did the information come from, and what channels did it go through when we got Zarqawi?

If you want to discuss the issues, fine. If you want to sit back and ignore any relavent discussion about the issues, and instead start spewing party one liners, go right ahead. One way makes you more informed and a better citizen, the other makes you a lemming and part of the problem. The choice is up to you.

[Redskins Diehard]

Where did I EVER say I was an expert?

So again, why don't you answer the questions.

1. You contend the ONLY way to attack someone in a house is with troops on the ground.

2. Using YOUR contention, why were there not more troops on the ground to go after the person who caused 9-11?

3. Do you think terrorism has

a.) Increased or

b.) Decreased

since our invasion of Iraq?

If you want to discuss the issues, fine. If you want to sit back and ignore any relavent discussion about the issues, and instead start spewing party one liners, go right ahead. One way makes you more informed and a better citizen, the other makes you a lemming and part of the problem. The choice is up to you.

1. Is not a question. I contend that to kill AMQ, we used boots on the ground. I contend that in all my schooling and training that a way in which to locate, destroy, and verify destruction of a target there was never a troopless option presented.

2. I did not decide the troop array that went into Afghanistan. I did not decide the troop array that went into Tora Bora specifically. I can say that speed was of the essence, and that usually dictates a smaller force. Someone thought the light conventional, special ops focused approach into Afghanistan was the proper way to get UBL prior to his escape across the border into another soveriegn nation that maybe didn't want a large US presence operating in it. And we all know that the American public will not tolerate clandestine and covert operations.

3. A very vague question. We have had this discussion before. I want our policy to focus primarily on terrorism executed against US targets. If other countries benefit from that, fine. You have cited your studies that characterize all actions against US troops in Iraq as terrorism...I don't agree with. Terrorism has decreased here since 9-11.

4. Please locate my "party one liners" that peg me as a lemming. I have had meaningful debates on this board with many posters. There are plenty of people that spew talking points. I don't spend all day watching the news and reading the internet to find out what said talking points are.

You seem to completely contradict yourself here. You chastise the administration(which really means the Pentagon) for not having troops on the ground to get Bin Laden. That we diverted them to Iraq. And then you say that we don't need them in Iraq. So which is it? Do we need troops or do we not to target terrorist leaders?

[Seabee1973]

Really? It is actually pretty spot on, and you mischaracterized the quote by leaving out world peace.

Now, on the other hand, you have created instability in the middle of the worlds energy resources, and created a terrorist haven in Iraq. That IS hurting world peace.

Kilmer is right though, most people won;t even bother to try to understand the meaning of his words, and the lemmings will follow suit, such as the thread starter did.

The real terrorist went there after being chased out of afghanistan, The ones that didnt go stayed in afghanistan and hung out in the mountains.

[Seabee1973]

And where did the "troops" that killed Zarqawi come from? Oh yea, the troops didn't kill Zarqawi, a bomb did. . . Now why do we need troops to get him?

Ummm, are you telling me we don;t have any carriers in the Persian Gulf with F-16s right now :doh:

Come on now, at least use the brain you have, and state what he said. How would the lack of US troops have hampered getting Zarqawi? It wouldn't have, and we would not be sending home young men without limbs or in body bags. Something I though people would want.

QUOTE]

So instead of getting there in half an hour it takes three hours for the planes from the gulf to get there Now Zarqawi is gone again. Maybe its not that we could have use dthe troops to get Zarqawi but the followup raids from the place when we arrested over 100 insurgents from the information we gathered.

[Seabee1973]

How you guys could defend a draft dodger and lambast a decorated war vet is beyond me. I have a suggestion, put down the kool-aid.

When did Clinton become part of the conversation?

[nelms]

For the record. Please share your qualifications.

Your assessment of intelligence gathering, intelligence analysis, targetting, and mission execution is different to say the least. I would be interested in where you developed this expertise.

Private Chommie is a special ops expert? :laugh: :laugh: A military strategist? :laugh: :laugh: An expert in intelligence gathering? :laugh: :laugh:

[Seabee1973]

BullS*** Absolute bulls***. Listen to what you are saying, you are telling me that the entire military needs to have troops on the ground to get terrorists. Well then, why weren't our troops on the ground to get Al Qaeda? Why was it that we need 100,000 troops to go into Iraq and we didn't need more then 14K to get the **** that caused 9-11???

Please tell me that answer then, because OBVIOUSLY we need troops on the gorund to attack someone, well then, what is the excuse for not getting Bin Laden?

You see, you know damn well we don't need troops on the ground to pull a strike on a target, you are just arguing it for arguments sake.

You don't get it do you. We get p[eople working for us on the INSIDE. In the case of Zarqawi, it went to the IRAQIS!!! They were the ones that had the info on him, and you work with THEM!!! Hell, we are training over 200,000 Iraqi troops, why should they not be able to pass up the information? Are you going to tell me they can't be trusted? Well, if that is the case, why are we even training them?

And you are ignoring the obvious problem with your argument. You don;t need troops on the ground to carry out a strike, OR to gather intel.

The troops are nothing more then target practice for terrorists, and I am sick and tired of watching young Americans die and come back wounded every day when they don't need to be there.

I think you are missing the point. we did not need 100,000 troops in afganistan it was designed to be a special operations detail from the beginning meaning the very few troops there. Your special operations groups are designed for that where the regual troops are designed for more of a situation like Iraq It would help if you knew a little aboput the military before pretending to know everything.

[Section106]

When did Clinton become part of the conversation?

And here is where you show the double standard that extreme party loyalty will cause.

I think Clinton recieved one deferment for being enrolled at Oxford. I'm not sure of the specifics. After that he went on to become a great Pres. He left a $5 trillion budget surplus that Chimpy has turned into a $10 trillion deficit. You remember Chimpy right? Jumped 500+ places in line to join the champagne unit of the Texas Air National Guard then went AWOL. And 'ol Cheney recieved 5 deferments because he "had other priorities". You folks love to support the troops until one of 'em disagrees with Dear Leader.

Why would y'all denegrate Murtha's service to this country because of an expressed viewpoint? Do you really believe that BS talking point about dissention at home hurting the troops? The complete lack of support from the administration does more harm than any opinion ever could. How about someone at the WH coming up with an actionable plan to get our boys the heck out of there? How about defining success or our ultimate goal? Staying the course is not a plan. Ending terrorism is not a plan because terrorism is a tactic. I'm sick and tired of the endless sloganeering from the Reep side. Do something that works. They still haven't restored electricity to Baghdad, for ****'s sake. Stop making excuses for these corporatists and demand that they come up with a plan to end the deaths of our soldiers!

[Section106]

I'm gonna explain what Murtha meant for you guys. It's very simple.

Our endless slog in Iraq is more dangerous that Iran or NK because this needless conflict is breaking our military and leaving this country incapable of responding to a real threat from a country with real WMD. If you take the interest on the money borrowed to fund this war the total cost is around $1.27 TRILLION. In terms of today's dollars we're close to $500 BILLION. We have experienced 2500 dead and 20,000+ permanently wounded soldiers.

Murtha is taking reality and intel way above your paygrades into account when he says that our presence in Iraq is the biggest threat to our national security. However, you folks loyal to party only hear what Rove wants you to hear. My father works at FT Eustis and has over 40 years of military and civil service and he can tell you that this BS excursion is breaking the Army. The cost in equipment is tremendous. If we were to try and fight on another front we'd be screwed, kids and Iran and NK know it.

And as far as Iran is concerned, since the majority of our debt is now owned by China, thanks to Bushco, and China gets most of its oil from Iran there ain't no way Iran is going to listen to us. The idea that Bushco's foriegn policy is working is laughable.

[Redskins Diehard]

Why would y'all denegrate Murtha's service to this country because of an expressed viewpoint? Do you really believe that BS talking point about dissention at home hurting the troops? The complete lack of support from the administration does more harm than any opinion ever could. How about someone at the WH coming up with an actionable plan to get our boys the heck out of there? How about defining success or our ultimate goal? Staying the course is not a plan. Ending terrorism is not a plan because terrorism is a tactic. I'm sick and tired of the endless sloganeering from the Reep side. Do something that works. They still haven't restored electricity to Baghdad, for ****'s sake. Stop making excuses for these corporatists and demand that they come up with a plan to end the deaths of our soldiers!

I for one am not denigrating his service. I am saying his plan stinks. I am saying he is handling this poorly.

I was one of those troops that dissension at home bothered. And I wasn't alone. There is nothing like sweating your ****s off trying to complete a mission, trying to help the Iraqi people out, trying to do your duty only to hear that people think you are wasting your time, not providing any tangible benefit to the Iraqi people, and creating more terrorists.

I expect the WH to provide the endstate, I expect the Pentagon to come up with the plan.

[dreamingwolf]

And here is where you show the double standard that extreme party loyalty will cause.

section8 that is funny you said that

[skinz1972]

nelms, he makes an ass out of himself with this ****. No need to check himself into anywhere. The public who pays attention already knows he's nuts.

murtha is a vietnam vet,he has earned the right to say what he says,and i think there is a coverup as well.