Murtha has completely lost his mind

[chomerics]

I think its funny you bring up ad hominem attacks, you call people dellusional and many other names constantly. Before you get on a high horse how about you act the part instead of just showing your glass jaw.

As too my post, I was just going off of your chomality of not needing boots on the ground to get zarqawi and trying to explain to you that boots on the ground is exactly what got saddam and zarqawi cause it didnt give the luxary of remaining fortified and safe. I also highlighted that one of the great assets we retrieved from the killing of zarqawi was the data in his personal belongings. I know in chomality the republican guard and saddam would have gladly turned it over to us, but I was just trying to shine a glimmer of reality into your chomality that it took boots on the ground to break down saddams regime and replace his security forces with organizations that would share that data with us. I know in chomality this is a little detail that can be over looked, cause in chomality everyone is our friend if we are obsequios to them even saddam.

I know that your not opposed to the war cause you hate greater America, its your obsessive hatred of Bush and Republicans that forces you to attempt to make this war effort a failure by at every turn in every fashion by attempting to humilate the US and underming homeland moral to every ear that will listen to you. Boots on the ground is nothing to you, its a failure of Bush that you savor to taste.

and no I dont think we have generated any more hate, people have a limit to the ammount they can hate you and the people over there that hate us reached that decades ago. sure maybe they holding up signs that you agree with and promote the message over iraq, but they would be holding up signs of something else we do(could be as simple of letting your precious gays hold office or marry) if we werent there. They hate every fabric of our being and way of life, so no I dont think being there has created any new hate just new phrases and hate topics but the level has plateaued long ago.

Paraphrasing here for the slow. . .

Wolf has no arguent to stand behind, so he uses a lot of words, and ad hominem attacks to try and make a point. In other words, he has not answered the question: if we needed US troops on the ground to bomb Zarqawi, because, of course, he knows the answer is a resounding no. So instead of actually debating facts, he ges off on a little story the try and obfuscate the waters. Unfortunately for him, most people can see right through his chrade and understand that he has failed to answer the questions I asked. But that is OK, nothing better is expected of a man who told someone who was depressed he should just kill himself and save society the burden.

[chomerics]

Do you even have any idea what I did and did not do? Do you realize that I have planned, participated in, and AAR'd more than one combat operation? Do you think that I have had access to the very best imagery our country has to offer, and still had to go out and verify exactly what it is we were looking at? I have no first hand knowledge of what goes on in the Pentagon on a daily basis. I do know that my boss was asking for reports all the time, because his boss was asking for reports, because his boss was asking(do we need to follow this all the way to the Pentagon). Now my commander from Afghanistan did work in J3-OIF in the Pentagon, he shared with me a little of what it was like. While nobody was "sitting on their ass" all day, they were waiting on reports from the people that were there.

You cite several examples of aerial bombardment. How many key leaders did we kill in Libya? How about how many times did we kill Saddam in the decapitation strike? How about how many of the cruise missiles we launched into Afghanistan actually killed Bin Laden in 98? How did the fight from the air approach work in killing Milosevic? You have cited several cases where we were NOT succesfull in eliminating a leadership target with air strikes alone.

I am not contending ground support is NOT needed, but we have the ground support we need in the Iraqi troops. This entire debate is about having US soldiers on the ground, but I contend we do not need to.

My ENTIRE PREMISE was that having US soldiers in Iraq causes more harm then good. Your argument was we couldn't get Zarqawi without gorund troops, while I stated we didn't use US forces to get him. THe Iraqis were the first to show up, and they provided the intel. Just because YOU were on the ground in Iraq does not mean NOW troops are needed. In fact they are exasberating the situation just by having a presence in Iraq.

Your first sentence here actually highlights your complete misunderstanding of how things work. It is easy to attack a country without people there. It is far more difficult to kill a specific person. Your claim, which was wrong, was not that we could attack a country without people on the ground...it was that we could kill Zarqawi.

You need INTEL to get sole individuals and to track them. Well, do you know what? It sure isn't Joe Soldier in a Humvee tracking mr terrorist, that is for sure. The troops do not track the people, command does through various techniques. We have a large flow of information from satelites all the way to drones. THe troops are NOT needed, as they are only causing MORE terrorism by being there. The Iraqis can suffice for the single attacks.

Or maybe, just maybe, it was a very different situation. Maybe someone chose speed and agility over mass in Afghanistan. Maybe there was a neighboring country that said "we will help...but you will not conduct combat operations within our borders". Maybe we decided to go with a Special Ops package vs. a conventional approach(how did that work for the Soviets). Please tell me how you would use our mechanized forces in the mountains of Afghanistan, I would be interested to hear that.

I would hve used US forces and surrounded the pass with at least three layers of forces. I would NOT have relied on the Northern alliance to get him like Bush & co. did. I would have surrounded him, and made damn sure he could not get out. We outsourced the work of capturig the mastermind behind 9-11, and people just say "oh well"

Of note, I disagree with the State Departments classification of a category of attacks that they classify as terrorism. I have stated this before, the last time you pulled up the charts.

So using YOUR classification of terrorism, has it increased, stayed the same, or decreased since Iraq?

I am glad Murtha is concerned about the world. In this case I am concerned about the place where my family and friends live. If other people's family and friends are protected also, great...as a Soldier they were not my concern.

Tthen why are the Iraqi's your concern? What does it matter what happened to the Iraqis if you don't care about those who are not around you?

It is not my contradiction. I said a decision was made to use a smaller contingent of forces. I never claimed to agree with it. What I can recognize, is that GEN Franks and the Special Ops community that made that decision were probably a little more qualified than I am.

You also fail to mention that other generals like Sinsheki were forced into retirement for saying this would NOT work, and other generals on the ground requested MORE troops then they got.

Your contention here, that I responded to was that we could do everything we are doing, without troops. That is wrong...very wrong.

What does a US troop provide to us that we cant outsource to Iraqi troops? Serious question, because from what I understand, they have over 200,000 troops right now, what can we do that they can not? I mean hell, we would eliminate the big target on the back of our soldiers if we got out, so why can't the Iraqis govern themselves?

Believe it or not I try to provide honest answers whenever I post. I realize that there are people that I may agree with on an issue, but disagree with their delivery. There are also people that I disagree with on an issue but can appreciate their delivery.

I did not ask your qualifications to be a *******, I did it because you are presenting ideas that are different than everything I have been taught, trained upon, and participated in. I challenge you to find me one respectable military mind that will say we could have gotten any leadership targets without boots on the ground.

Without "boots on the ground" or witout US boots on the ground? I contend the Iraqi boots on the ground can carry out most of our dutes, without placing our soldiers in harms way.

[Mad Mike]

Yes, I am calling you a LIAR, because you have FAILED to show your source. You have, yet AGAIN shown your true colors Mike, you L-I-E-D.

Here is your direct quote. . .

You were called on it, and you could not come up with ANY proof to back up your claims of a "fact". I challenged you to back up your assertion, and instead of showing me them, you called me a piss ant muther f***er? Maybe, just MAYBE people like yourself won't come out so quick and blatently LIE about what happened next time, but then again, your dense enough to try the same tactic over and over again.

BTW, where did you hear the "fact" (which really has another definition in your world) that US soldiers ON THE GROUND actually SAW HIM drive into the compound? Did the voices in your head tell you? Are they the same voices that tell you "in your gut" Saddam was behnd 9-11 :doh:

Man, you can't even admit you made something up, then you resort to threats and violence because you lack not only the intelligence, but also the FACTS to back up your POV. You try to ridicule any semblance of a debate, then when people actually call you on your ludicrous claims, you resort to things like calling people piss ant muther fu***rs. What a joke. :doh:

What, I never want to call you a liar to your face? Why, what are you going to do, bleed on me? :laugh: I call them as I see them Mike, you are a liar simple as that. If you "were just paraphrasing" what you saw in the news, why the caps Mike? huh? Did you think you could intimidate me with your CAPITOL letters? Just admit you lied to try and make a point while jumping on the bandwagon to attack me. It isn't that hard to admit a mistake, but unfortunately for you, your blunt wit had led you astray . . . yet again :doh:

And I'm calling you a POS. You are beyond a doubt the biggest ass I have ever come across on any message board. You're just too stupid to know what an ass you make of yourself. If I didn't despise you so much I would feel sorry for you, your pathetic attempts at logic and your delusions of expertise on subjects you know nothing about. F16s on carriers... what an idiot. :doh:

I stated exactly what I heard. I don't lie and I'm telling you now, you talk a big game behind your keyboard but you don't EVER want to meet me face to face.

[chomerics]

And I'm calling you a POS. You are beyond a doubt the biggest ass I have ever come across on any message board. You're just too stupid to know what an ass you make of yourself. If I didn't despise you so much I would feel sorry for you, your pathetic attempts at logic and your delusions of expertise on subjects you know nothing about. F16s on carriers... what an idiot. :doh:

I stated exactly what I heard. I don't lie and I'm telling you now, you talk a big game behind your keyboard but you don't EVER want to meet me face to face.

Chomerics

|

|

V

:laythehur

^

|

|

Mad Mike

:laugh:

Comedy at its finest, and predictable to say the least.

Mike, when you say something that isn't true. . . it is called a lie, not a fact. Reality, you should try it one of these times.

[Redskins Diehard]

I am not contending ground support is NOT needed, but we have the ground support we need in the Iraqi troops. This entire debate is about having US soldiers on the ground, but I contend we do not need to.

My ENTIRE PREMISE was that having US soldiers in Iraq causes more harm then good. Your argument was we couldn't get Zarqawi without gorund troops, while I stated we didn't use US forces to get him. THe Iraqis were the first to show up, and they provided the intel. Just because YOU were on the ground in Iraq does not mean NOW troops are needed. In fact they are exasberating the situation just by having a presence in Iraq.

If you seriously think that US forces and assets were not committed to eliminating HVT #1 in Iraq, you are absolutely clueless. I'm sorry, there is no other way to put it. If you really believe that US forces were not used then there is really no point in continuing this discussion. You could argue that the Iraqi could have done it and I would say that you are probably wrong, you say that the Iraqi's did do it, alone, and I will tell you you are foolish.

You need INTEL to get sole individuals and to track them. Well, do you know what? It sure isn't Joe Soldier in a Humvee tracking mr terrorist, that is for sure. The troops do not track the people, command does through various techniques. We have a large flow of information from satelites all the way to drones. THe troops are NOT needed, as they are only causing MORE terrorism by being there. The Iraqis can suffice for the single attacks.

Once again, you base this assessment on what? On your study, training, or experience? Or is it an uneducated hypothesis on your part. Read some assessments on why the intelligence community could not paint an accurate picture of what was going on over there prior to the invasion. The answer is because the HUMINT capability was virtually non-existent. And that is arguably the single most important component of an intelligence mission. Bottom line, your assessment here is wrong.

I would hve used US forces and surrounded the pass with at least three layers of forces. I would NOT have relied on the Northern alliance to get him like Bush & co. did. I would have surrounded him, and made damn sure he could not get out. We outsourced the work of capturig the mastermind behind 9-11, and people just say "oh well"

News flash for you. Bush and Co did not plan that mission. The blame for letting UBL escape rests solely on the military if anyone. I assume that is who you are talking about when you say the "& Co". Have you ever been to the mountains? Have you ever been to a mountain range like the one in Afghanistan? Do you have any idea what the terrain was like where Anaconda was fought? To think that that place could be completely sealed off is absolutely crazy.

So using YOUR classification of terrorism, has it increased, stayed the same, or decreased since Iraq?

Tthen why are the Iraqi's your concern? What does it matter what happened to the Iraqis if you don't care about those who are not around you?

Since GWOT started the terrorism that should be the priority of my government has decreased in my opinion. The Iraqis are not my primary concern...They are a concern, and if they can be helped while I am protecting my family and friends then I will absolutely help them in any way I can...it is the Christian thing to do.

You also fail to mention that other generals like Sinsheki were forced into retirement for saying this would NOT work, and other generals on the ground requested MORE troops then they got.

GEN Shinseki had a planned retirement date that he retired on. He left under less than celebratory condiitions...he was not forced out(I acknowledge that I thought he was forced out as well). Of note, the issue was not Afghanistan, it was Iraq. And it certainly wasn't less troops in Iraq.

What does a US troop provide to us that we cant outsource to Iraqi troops? Serious question, because from what I understand, they have over 200,000 troops right now, what can we do that they can not? I mean hell, we would eliminate the big target on the back of our soldiers if we got out, so why can't the Iraqis govern themselves?

Is that first question serious? Are you equating the capability and professionalism of the Iraqi Army with that of the US military? Do I really need to list ALL the things that our worst troops can do better than their best?

Without "boots on the ground" or witout US boots on the ground? I contend the Iraqi boots on the ground can carry out most of our dutes, without placing our soldiers in harms way.

Your contention is wrong. About as wrong as it could be. You would stand a better chance of convincing me that we should be out of there because it isn't worth it then to convince me that they are anywhere as capable.

[Seabee1973]

Ummm, are you telling me Iraqi's can't find a book? Really?

And when what does Saddam have to do with right here and now? Keep on bringing up straw man arguments which mean nothing to the case at hand. What does Saddam have to do with our troops now? Do you understand that our troops are nothing more then targets and training for the insurgence?

How about this Wolf, Iraq should not have happened!!! It should have followed no template, and only because of a naive public believed the propaganda being shoved down their throats, did it happen. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, or the GWOT until we started creating terrorists there. We have made them far FAR faster then we have killed them, and it has been an utter forign policy catastrophy.

Now, do we continue down the same path, or FINALLY give our soldiers a break? You seem to think only AMERICAN soldiers can do the work, well, I seem to think that we should let Iraq govern their OWN country. Their people want us out, our people want us out, it is time we got out. We have put these soldiers through enough paind and hardship, lets get them out of there before we lose another 500 young men and women.

What does our presence in Iraq do? Do you agree that it has created more hatred towards the US? Do you agree that terrorism has INCREASED since the invasion?

What do you have to back it up? Anything other then ad hominem attacks? Any links, or are you just as lost as the leader of our country when it comes to the actual facts in this war?

Uh The GWOT encompasses all terror not just Al-Queda How do you know there people want us out? You have friends that that just come back that tell you that? I have some friends that come back and said the iraqi people embraced them.

[Seabee1973]

I don't have anything against Murtha, but he seems like a person who has had a belly-full of war, and will object to it on those grounds alone. We need people like that in government, but we also need people like both George Bushes and JFK who will commit troops to a fight they believe in.

A quick note on budget surpluses: Clinton had budget surpluses of $39 billion in 1998, $99 billion in 1999, and $239 billion in 2000. It was projected that in 10 years, the surplus would be $4.56 trillion. Obviously, that figure will never be reached.

Oh yearly surplusses we have thos every once in awhile How could the surplus be 4.56 trillion when they were predicting it only to take 1 trillion of fthe national debt in 10 yrs?

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

[Seabee1973]

Al-Zarqawi, 39, gained notoriety in February 2003, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the U.N. Security Council to make his case supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Powell pointed to al-Zarqawi, then believed to have been in Baghdad, as evidence that al Qaeda had a presence in Iraq.

Correct me if im wrong but wasnt that before we began attacking Iraq?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/09/iraq.al.zarqawi/index.html

Make sure you read the part of the special ops forces

[flashback]

3 words:

Republican amdimistrations war

I like that. The Bush Amdimistration. Got a nice ring to it.

[dreamingwolf]

I like that. The Bush Amdimistration. Got a nice ring to it.

I have a question for you, did you oppose the action in Kosovo?

[dreamingwolf]

If I were you I would think long and hard about answering that, you might want to take longer than your taking since your here in the thread? I would suggest you answer no, you protested in the streets.

[flashback]

I have a question for you, did you oppose the action in Kosovo?

I didn't support or oppose the action in Kosovo. I'm certainly not a hawk, chicken or otherwise, but I'm also not a head in the clouds pacifist. I thought what happened in Yugoslavia was a **** sandwich, if you'll pardon my french, not unlike Rwanda or Somalia. I am respectful that our leaders bear a responsibility that is hard for most of us to imagine. War, however you define it, is full of suffering, innocent people losing their lives, tragedies, atrocities, and unintended consequences. You have to be aware of all of that before you commit the young men and women of this country to arms. The only thing I ask is you make damn sure you know what you're doing, and never stop seeking peace, even as you wage war.

I supported the war in Afghanistan. Hell, I supported a nuclear strike in Afghanistan, and anywhere else in the world that wanted some on September 12th. I have always been complementary of President Bush and this administration for their measured and appropriate response regarding Al-Qaida and the Taliban.

When Colin Powell gave his presentation to the UN, I watched every minute of it live. My stance in March of 2003 was that it sounded like we would be in armed conflict with Iraq sooner or later, and our troops would probably be safer and better off if it was sooner. However, I didn't have all the information, did I? It turns out Saddam didn't have active WMD programs. It turns out the sanctions and inspections were working. And that's just a sample of what this 'Amdimistration' got wrong before the invasion. The list of mistakes made after the first sorties were flown is long and jaw-dropping.

Let me ask you a question. Did you support or oppose action in Hungary in 1956?

[dreamingwolf]

I didn't support or oppose the action in Kosovo. I'm certainly not a hawk, chicken or otherwise, but I'm also not a head in the clouds pacifist. I thought what happened in Yugoslavia was a **** sandwich, if you'll pardon my french, not unlike Rwanda or Somalia. I am respectful that our leaders bear a responsibility that is hard for most of us to imagine. War, however you define it, is full of suffering, innocent people losing their lives, tragedies, atrocities, and unintended consequences. You have to be aware of all of that before you commit the young men and women of this country to arms. The only thing I ask is you make damn sure you know what you're doing, and never stop seeking peace, even as you wage war.

I supported the war in Afghanistan. Hell, I supported a nuclear strike in Afghanistan, and anywhere else in the world that wanted some on September 12th. I have always been complementary of President Bush and this administration for their measured and appropriate response regarding Al-Qaida and the Taliban.

When Colin Powell gave his presentation to the UN, I watched every minute of it live. My stance in March of 2003 was that it sounded like we would be in armed conflict with Iraq sooner or later, and our troops would probably be safer and better off if it was sooner. However, I didn't have all the information, did I? It turns out Saddam didn't have active WMD programs. It turns out the sanctions and inspections were working. And that's just a sample of what this 'Amdimistration' got wrong before the invasion. The list of mistakes made after the first sorties were flown is long and jaw-dropping.

Let me ask you a question. Did you support or oppose action in Hungary in 1956?

you all made fun of me when I made that thread, case in point. If Im wrong your an isolationist primarily unless your intrests are in danger.

[flashback]

you all made fun of me when I made that thread, case in point

Just for my own clarification, could you define "you all", "made fun" and "that thread?" Thanks.

[dreamingwolf]

Just for my own clarification, could you define "you all", "made fun" and "that thread?" Thanks.

your an isolationist come on admit it

[flashback]

your an isolationist come on admit it

I've recently begun to trend that way, sure. 2500+ casualties and $400,000,000,000.00 will do that to a man, dontcha think?

[Fred Jones]

I've recently begun to trend that way, sure. 2500+ casualties and $400,000,000,000.00 will do that to a man, dontcha think?

Unfortunately, isolationism really never worked. Bush is finding out that he needs help and can't go at it alone or we can keep putting the country in debt, the casualty rate will continue to increase and we can just write blogs on military.com that everything is ok and we are making great strides in Iraq.

[webnarc]

So I'm telling you that is what I saw reported on the news and you are straight up calling me a liar? You little piss-ant MF. Boy you are some piece of work. You sit at home safe with your bong in hand and talk to people the way you do knowing they cant touch you huh? Because here's a tip boy, you NEVER want to talk to me that way in person.

And I'm calling you a POS. You are beyond a doubt the biggest ass I have ever come across on any message board. You're just too stupid to know what an ass you make of yourself. If I didn't despise you so much I would feel sorry for you, your pathetic attempts at logic and your delusions of expertise on subjects you know nothing about. F16s on carriers... what an idiot. :doh:

I stated exactly what I heard. I don't lie and I'm telling you now, you talk a big game behind your keyboard but you don't EVER want to meet me face to face.

Are you the same person? If so, why do you have two accounts and why are you posting with BOTH of them in the same thread?

[Redskins Diehard]

Are you the same person? If so, why do you have two accounts and why are you posting with BOTH of them in the same thread?

Is this a necessary post?

[webnarc]

Is this a necessary post?

Yes, yes it is.

What do you think, is it the same person?

[Thiebear]

Does it not bother you in the slightest to be so easily and wilfully misled? People howl like wolves about a false quote and, when shown the falsehood, are not in the least angry about the deception. Its simply brushed off with the attitude that even if he didn't SAY it he really MEANT it.

As I said earlier, there was no such quote from Murtha even in the original, false Sun-Sentinel article. We should all know by now that a provocative paraphrase not backed up by a direct quote is almost always BS.

I removed the link to what was said giving him the benefit of the doubt...

But being misled vs. were talking about slight degrees of emphasis?

[nelms]

Yes, yes it is.

What do you think, is it the same person?

Good question. I don't know, but I do know that both of them are pissed at Chommie. :laugh: That hippie sure does rile people up with his lies.

[chomerics]

If you seriously think that US forces and assets were not committed to eliminating HVT #1 in Iraq, you are absolutely clueless. I'm sorry, there is no other way to put it. If you really believe that US forces were not used then there is really no point in continuing this discussion. You could argue that the Iraqi could have done it and I would say that you are probably wrong, you say that the Iraqi's did do it, alone, and I will tell you you are foolish.

That is NOT my argument, by a long shot. I have contended from the first instance US TROOPS are not needed. The Iraqis can carry out the job of BDAs and intel gathering after a strike just as well as we can, while saving OUR SOLDIERS LIVES!!!

You have continued to prop up a position for me which I do not agree with, so here it is again, for the FIFTH TIME. . . I do not think US troops are needed on the ground. The Iraqi troops can handle things such as intel gathering, BDAs and intel. In fact, they may be BETTER at it because they are Iraqis to begin with, and they have a lot more trust then we do in their country-men's eyes.

All our presence is doing in Iraq is fueling the insurgency, and creating MORE terrorists. We did not need American troops for Zarqawi, he was given up from inside and the Iraqis forwarded the information to us. The Iraqis were the first ones on the scene, and we soon followed. We went to the scene because we are there, but there is no reason all of the intel gathered, as well as the BDA photographs, and everything else could not have been conducted by the Iraqis solely. If you think different, I can understand that, because you look at yourself as better equipped for the situation. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I do contend that any positive gained by having more experience is lost in the fact that we are generating more terrorists by having boots on the ground.

Once again, you base this assessment on what? On your study, training, or experience? Or is it an uneducated hypothesis on your part. Read some assessments on why the intelligence community could not paint an accurate picture of what was going on over there prior to the invasion. The answer is because the HUMINT capability was virtually non-existent. And that is arguably the single most important component of an intelligence mission. Bottom line, your assessment here is wrong.

What can YOU do that the Iraqis can not? What makes your INTEL gathering techniques better then an Iraqis?

One more misled point on your part. HUMINT capability was just FINE before the war, lest you forget. Saddam had allowed the weapons inspectors back into the areas, and he allowed them access to anywhere they wanted. The HUMINT was great, and they said on numerous occasions they could not find any WMDs, and they reiterated the fact that they didn;t think they had any. Bush & co. decided then to attack. They told the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq because we were invading. They disagreed with the HUMINT which stated there was no signs of an active program, and instead told the world that Saddam was hiding them from everyone. Well, we now know the intel did not fail, our LEADERS did. They were the ones that IGNORED any and ALL intel which was contrary to their position, and cherry picked intel to suit their needs. To say intel failed is nefarious at best.

News flash for you. Bush and Co did not plan that mission. The blame for letting UBL escape rests solely on the military if anyone. I assume that is who you are talking about when you say the "& Co". Have you ever been to the mountains? Have you ever been to a mountain range like the one in Afghanistan? Do you have any idea what the terrain was like where Anaconda was fought? To think that that place could be completely sealed off is absolutely crazy.

So you are telling me that Tommy Franks decided to outsource the grunt work to the Northers Alliance? I find that VERY hard to believe. A man who is so accustomed to double crosses KNEW they could not be trusted, why would he allow them to be the ones to go into Tora Bora? I believe it was good old Donald Rumsfeld who was behind the invasion, the Sec. of Defense. He had both the ab8ility and the means to outsource the work, where Franks did not. That is what I mean by Bush and co.

Since GWOT started the terrorism that should be the priority of my government has decreased in my opinion.

Everyone in the entire world would disagree with you then. Terrorism, in the world, which is what the initial debate was has increased exponentially since the advent of the war in Iraq.

The Iraqis are not my primary concern...They are a concern, and if they can be helped while I am protecting my family and friends then I will absolutely help them in any way I can...it is the Christian thing to do.

Again, if they are not your primary concern, and there were no WMDs, were we wrong to invade? What have we accomplished other then giving Iran another ally, creating turmoil in the Middle East, and giving an entire generation of Muslims reason to hate the US? We did get rid of Saddam Hussen, but is replacing him with a theocracy really a good thing? Is Iraq now better off in terms of security? Conservatives want to sacrifice freedom for security, well they gave up security for freedom in Iraq. As long as you mind your business in a totalitarian regime, you will not be looked at. This is the position MANY on this board argue the US should chose, well why is freedom good for the Iraqis? Especially when they didn't ask for it themselves, we just forced it on them.

GEN Shinseki had a planned retirement date that he retired on. He left under less than celebratory condiitions...he was not forced out(I acknowledge that I thought he was forced out as well). Of note, the issue was not Afghanistan, it was Iraq. And it certainly wasn't less troops in Iraq.

He is but one example of a general who was "retired" for having opposing views. I also stated it was Iraq, and from what I understood, it was over not only the invasion, but also troop levels. He stated they needed several hundred thousand troops". He is but one example, and there are a LOT of others, people like Byrnes and Casey.

BTW, it WAS because of troop levels. Here is an basis on what happened from PBS. . .

Shinseki based the need for more troops in part on his experience in Kosovo and Bosnia. Explain how he extrapolated.

Shinseki had been in charge of occupation logistics in Kosovo in particular. He said when in the Pentagon, "Well, let's assume the world is linear. If we required a certain amount of troops per 25,000 population in the Balkans, [and] if the world is not radically different, something of the same extent is going to be needed in Iraq." When he used that kind of extrapolation logic, he got to a number much, much larger than Donald Rumsfeld was thinking of for the troop presence.

In the tensions existing between the Pentagon and the military, Shinseki seemed a particular target. Explain.

Shinseki's last, say, year and a half in office was a series of apparently calculated and intentional insults from the civilian leadership, especially Donald Rumsfeld. The episode that got the most public attention was when Rumsfeld announced Shinseki's successor as chief of staff, about a year and a half before his term was up. Usually this announcement is made right at the last minute to avoid turning the incumbent into a lame duck.

Three weeks before the war, Shinseki testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Describe what happened.

Shinseki has been, through his career, a real by-the-book guy. So he would not go out of his way to make public disagreements that were clearly going on inside the Pentagon. But in the hearing where Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan was sort of drawing him out on what he expected the troop levels to be, Shinseki finally said, based on his own past experience, that he thought it would be several hundred thousand troops. This became a real arcane term about, what did several hundred thousand mean? But let's say 300,000 and up. His real level, internally, had been in the 400,000 range.

Several days later, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, appeared before a different committee. [He] went out of his way essentially to slap Shinseki in the face, to say there had been some recent estimates that had been wildly off the mark -- using the term, "wildly off the mark." Then he went on to say that it was almost impossible to imagine that it would be harder, and take more troops, to occupy Iraq than it had taken to conquer them; whereas that point, that it would be harder to occupy than conquer, was in fact the central theme the Army had been advancing before the war.

Was this public rebuke surprising?

The public rebuke of Shinseki by Wolfowitz was probably the most direct public dressing-down of a military officer, a four-star general, by a civilian superior since Harry Truman and Douglas MacArthur, 50 years ago. This public confrontation between Wolfowitz and Shinseki must have reflected the really deep disagreements going on within the Pentagon then, and a sign of the civilian leadership's impatience with what they viewed as the lack of cooperation from the uniformed military.

A couple of days later, Paul Wolfowitz was testifying before another congressional committee. He went out of his way, in a gesture that everyone involved recognized as being directly addressed to Shinseki, to say, "Let me address some of the ideas that have been floating around recently." He went on to say there had been suggestions of the levels of troops that might be required that were, quote, "wildly off the mark."

This was not the way that generals and Pentagon superiors talked to each other.

What is his theory behind this, why he says this?

When Paul Wolfowitz was asked why he thought Shinseki's estimates were so wildly off the mark, first he used the sort of standard Pentagon line, especially under Donald Rumsfeld, which was really, "The future was unknowable." Of course the future is unknowable, although that line was used to excuse a failure to give any financial estimates, which was more irresponsible than it was unknowable.

Then he went on to say, first, he thought many things would go fairly easily. Countries like France were likely to help us in the reconstruction, that this was likely to go more easily than most people thought. Then he went on to make the crucial point that raised the main philosophical difference between the Army and the civilian leadership. Wolfowitz said he found it hard to conceive that it would be harder to occupy Iraq than it had been to conquer it. This was a thing that was difficult to imagine, he said.

Far from being an imaginary concept, this idea that the occupation was the hard part was the heart of the Army's prewar argument.

link

Your contention is wrong. About as wrong as it could be. You would stand a better chance of convincing me that we should be out of there because it isn't worth it then to convince me that they are anywhere as capable.

You are welcome to disagree with me, but you need to say what our troops can do, and tell me how their presence on the ground which causes terrorism is a net plus, because frankly, I don't see it at all.

Here is what I see, troops that are overworked, overburdened and stressed out beyond belief. They are fighting an enemy who is more concerned about causing mass casualties then his own life, and it wears thin. We are giving not only target practice and training to insurgence with our presence, but we are also giving them more recruits then they ever dreamed they could have. We gave Al Qaeda a big fat and wet kiss on the lips with our Iraqi invasion. We gave credence to their teachings, and made this into a holy war for them. OBL constantly stated the US's imperialistic presence in the ME, and he prophesied our invasion of Iraq. We played right into his hands, and gave him the greatest gift of all, an unlimited supply of troops who hate the US, and are willing to kill themselves just to cause harm to our country. Before Iraq, it was only Al Qaeda, now it is Iraqis too. Not good.

[Mad Mike]

Are you the same person? If so, why do you have two accounts and why are you posting with BOTH of them in the same thread?

Yes. I started another account at work one day because I wanted to post and I didnt have my account info handy.

[webnarc]

Yes. I started another account at work one day because I wanted to post and I didnt have my account info handy.

That clears it up, thank you for answering Mike . I thought it weird that you would be that angry at his comments to someone else.