Funny you should say that, the only governments opposed to what we are doing is Iran, France was against us but they elected a pro American president and that opposition is over, Germany was against us but they elected a pro American chancellor and that opposition is over, Russia was against us but have been quiet since they started having the same type of attacks we were suffering prior to 9/11 and Spain changed its mind and is still being attacked by home terrorist. Keep in mind that the leaders of France, Germany, and Russia were also receiving money from Iraq until the fall of that country then their opposition sort of died with the Iraqi leader.

What makes you say that? Did you talk to the terrorists? Did they tell you that the people who blew up the Golden Mosque were just "civilians" trying to "take their country back"?

How do you know the foreign terrorists are civilians trying to take their country back? Maybe the vast majority of Iraqis who are protesting the terror attacks, who are cooperating with the US, and who are voting for parties that want the US to stay are not the true Iraqis?

Do you even know anything about Iraq except what your stupid assumptions make you believe?

 

Anyway, this is what is going on in Iraq at the moment:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/04/builders-of-nat.php

 

"Benmeister", you are an idiot. "Civilians trying to take their country back"... these people are sending kids with bombs into marketplaces, killing Iraqis, NOT evil occupation troops, IRAQIs. Strange way to "take their country back", especially considering that the terrorists are mostly from Jordan and Saudi-Arabia.

 

The Lex Luthor approach - kill everyone and then buy up the land cheap.

Ok, well, apparently the Army Vice Chief of Staff and his Marine Counterpart (General Robert Magnus) must both be evil liberal scum, because they're both saying that the Army and Marines are hurting and not capable of sustaining the current tempo of operations without hurting the strategic situation abroad- as per that evil, evil liberal biased news site MSN (Ha!)

"An annual Pentagon report this year found there was a significant risk that the U.S. military could not quickly and fully respond to another outbreak elsewhere in the world. The classified risk assessment concluded that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, are to blame"

The whole article can be found here- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24036546

The last general who told it like it is- General Eric Shinseki, the former Chief of Staff of the Army, warned that this would happen. He also spoke about the fact that the army had been downsized from 12 to 10 divisions but many planners were still making their projections based on the 12 division model. Most pointedly, before the invasion of Iraq, he was asked by senior government officials about troop levels required in Iraq after the war. He openly stated that it would require several hundred thousand troops for several years (including the tens of thousands of "security contractors" aka mercenaries now employed in Iraq, his estimate proved to be right on the money) Rumsfeld and his aides (all civillians) called the commander of the Army's estimates to be "wildly off the mark" and basically fired him (technically, he retired early shortly after his testimony)

 

Yes, this is why all the other governments have sent their troops to Iraq to help (oh wait, sorry, got that wrong. Even the brits are trying to get out now) As I've said before, many nations are indeed happy that the U.S is in Iraq and Afghanistan. It means they're effectively tied down and unable to invade any other countries.

Well, we'll see when the next elections come about in October. IF all the insurgents really are foreign terrorists, then the U.S has gone the wrong way in defeating them. The only way that guerilla movements can survive against superior firepower (which the U.S forces possess in abundance) is with the support of the people. If the people do not support the insurgency, then they have nowhere to hide- people would be reporting their locations and identities, and the Iraqi army and U.S military would be easily able to hunt them down and take them out.

This is nothing new. The british learned this through many decades of "police" actions in various countries around the globe in which they were fighting various guerrilla groups. The truth is that if you can win the majority of the population to your side, the resistance movement will die. The whole hearts and minds thing, right? Well, if the U.S really had the support of the people there would be no insurgency right now. The fighting in Basra would have been short lived and Al Sadr's movement would be nonexistent.

Well, if the goal was to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, we sure are going about it the wrong way- U.S aircraft dropped more than 222,000 pounds of munitions in Iraq in 2007, almost 4 times the amount of aerial munitions dropped in 2006. The argument that all of these air-strikes have been pin-pointed on insurgents is also bunk.

In a raid in May 2007 on Sadr City, in eastern Baghdad, "American forces called in an air strike on nine cars that were seen positioning themselves to ambush the American and Iraqi troops on the raid . . . and five people suspected of being 'terrorists' . . . were killed in the attack. But an Interior Ministry official and residents of Sadr City said the cars were parked in a line of vehicles waiting at a gas station"

The counter-argument to this is that this was an unfortunate, but isolated incident. Collateral dammage. Most of the bombs fall on the bad guys, right? Saddly, there is no such thing as a true smart bomb that will only hit the bad guys, especially in a dense urban environment. These "incidents" are anything but isolated, and only contribute to the dissent against the U.S occupation.

Leauki, I respect your input especially because you grew up in West Germany- but please answer me this-

five years after the end of the war, were the U.S troops dropping hundreds of thousands of pounds of bombs inside populated West German cities?

How many of your friends had their doors kicked down in the middle of the night by American troops, who then threw a black bag over the fathers head and dragged him out with no explanation, maybe to come home weeks or months later with no charges against him and the only rationale for his arrest that someone had told them he might be a terrorist?

How often did West German civillians lose their lives because they drove too close to an American convoy, who was only practicing their policy of "force protection" and opening fire on cars that got too close?

As long as the U.S has the mistaken belief that terrorism can be defeated from 30,000 feet, America will be stuck in Iraq. 

 

Ok. I'm game. How have bush's policies been so damaging? Be specific.

Also, "take back their country"?  You mean, to where it was under Saddam? You think Iraqi's are wishing for those days back?

Yes. I think a lot of liberals are anti-American or at the very least, incredibly dumb.

Oh please. This is such simplistic thinking.  Iraq has 3 different groups with very divergent goals and that doesn't count Al Qaeda. 

You're exactly right. But so many folks seem to equate the situation in Iraq as the even simpler "Good Guys vs Terrorists". When dealing with that kind of mentality you have to speak in generalities. In truth Iraq has many, many different groups and tribal sects right now, so much so that saying "Sunni, Shiite and Kurd" would be innacurate as there are significant disagreements within each of those groups.

BUT at the beginning of the occupation these divisions were not nearly as stark as they are today. This was not caused by the U.S invasion- but what hapenned after. The most destructive thing that happened to Iraq were not the bombs dropped on it, but the first two policies enacted by Paul Bremmer, the first "ruler" of Iraq after the invasion. His orders number 1 and 2-

Abolished the Iraqi army- this turned several hundred thousand young men with military training into several hundred thousand unemployed and disenfranchised men who would prove to be very open to several different resistance groups down the road. Had Bremmer kept the Iraqi army intact and on the payroll there probably wouldn't still be 158,000 U.S troops in Iraq today.

De-baathification- This essentially shattered the core operations of the country. The order specified that anyone who was a member of the Ba'ath party could not be employed by the government. Well, under Saddam if you wanted to be anything you needed to be a member of the Ba'ath party. So this meant that most of the teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, power plant managers, civil servants etc were suddenly out of a job- most of the professional class of the country were suddenly cut out of the loop, so people looked to the American occupation to provide these services. Bremmer, the oh so intelligent fellow that he is, thought that "the free market" would magically swoop in and take over and make everything better.

So, after smashing the country to pieces with a giant hammer, people still needed to live. This was where much of the sectarian division we see today started up- neighbourhoods and tribes banding together to look out for each other because public institutions no longer could.... because the state no longer existed, and the occupier in charge had an ideological dream that free market policies would magically sort everything out regardless of the reality on the street!

Ok, so you blindly believe a far left propaganda machine like MSNBC but you don’t believe the president or his staff or other public statements to the contrary. Allow me to clue you in on a few things that are left out of that article. During a war it is customary for the troops to stay in country until the war is over. Only in Afghanistan and Iraq have we rotated our troops. In Vietnam you fought for 13 months and then you were released from active duty. As stated before we have 60 thousand troops in Japan and 120 thousand troops in the states, with 40 thousand troops in reserve that is just the USMC. The army is much larger. To keep to our policy and strategy of fighting two major wars and one bush war like Iraq or Afghanistan we have to end one or the other in order to fight the soviet union and china while still fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan we are not equipped to fight all four at the same time. This means we are hurting if not Russia but a Soviet Union sized nation and China both declares war on us at the same time. At one time our strength was so low that we could only fight one major war and two bush wars. During WWII the Army fought Germany and Italy while the Marines fought Japan. I bring this up because Japan had more troops than the marines did. And Germany and Italy had more troops than the American army. Yes, we had help then as we do now but the point is still valid. That is the concern that you are reading about from the army and marines. So yes, they are crying in their beer about how hurt they are but only if we have to fight a major war not bush wars like Afghanistan. You see it is all in the context and understanding the goals they are trying to achieve.



Yup slow as hell by military standards. Do you know what those standards are?

The army once alerted to the fact that they are going to war need a minimum of 60 to 90 days to put the first elements in a foreign country. From there they will build until they are ready to attack.

The Marines has a different idea of rapid deployment. Their game plan calls for the first elements in country within 24 hours with the entire MEF in country within 30 days with the ability to sustain offensive fighting for 90 days at which time they run out of fuel, food, and bullets and need resupply.

Because of the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq both Army and Marine Corps can not meet those goals. It will take the Army 75 to 80 days to get in country in force and the Marines will take roughly 48 to 50 hours to be in country. The point is that the army will still be able to support the marines as policy dictates prior to the 90th day but with the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq it will take longer to do it. Most of the delay is because the Air Force will have to change gears and stop supporting Afghanistan and Iraq in order to support the next war at least until the initial elements are put in place. The delay is the shortage of aircraft. The navy will still be able to move the bulk of the army and marine gear and the marines have their own aircraft to move their troops around. Yup we are in deep do do. Sure hope the Soviet Union does not reconstitute and then attack Germany and China does not choose at the same time to attack South Korea and or Japan. Did I mention that there are three MEF’s in the world one in Japan and two in the states with the contingency of them to support the marines if the Army can’t? at least on paper that is the unclassified version you don’t need to know the other stuff.



The congress would not increase troops or funding because there were not threats that warranted the increase. The funny thing was that on September 11 2001 at 0700 Secretary Rumsfeld asked the congressional leaders for more troops and more funds and they said there was no justification for it. A few hours later the Secretary had to come up with a way to fight a war with less than he felt he needed. He did not cry that congress screwed his nation or that the previous administrations messed over the country with shortsightedness. What he did was put together a plan of action to do what was needed while everyone else was saying it could not be done at all. Remember the ten thousand casualties we were supposed to have the first day because we did not have enough troops? Well after five years we have lost less than half that number and those same people are still screaming that we are losing. My point is that Secretary Rumsfeld did the best he could with what he had and rather than failing or giving up he made it work. The military planners took up the job and put people in place to do the job and it worked. The screw-ups happened after we won the war. The troops did their job and did it well, the politicians of the opposition have weakened our nation and our troops for years and then demand perfection.



The Brits did a wonderful job and there is little for them to do so they are going home. I thank and wish them well. Lets see, in the last century America had saved Europe three times and did not ask for anything in return, France still owes us billions from WWI, and even more for WWII, Germany owes us bunches of bucks we have yet to ask them to repay it even when we were almost bankrupt in the late 70’s. Only one time in our recent history has the United States asked for military help that was Afghanistan, we got lip service from those grateful nations yet others did help. Even after an article 5 was made by Great Briton to NATO, you know that NATO is supposed to help other NATO nations when attacked. But seeing as it had nothing to do with Europe they are not happy to help us. A trillion dollars was spent to rebuild Europe and protect it from the Soviet Union for 40 years and we ask for help and get the cold shoulder from everyone except the UK. Yup the protected will never know how sweet freedom really is. as it stands right now we can fight and beat any nation in the world but we waste our time, money and treasure on other nations knowing that we will still be hated by those we willingly help. Iraq will do the same once they are on their feet again.

I think the implied ending to that statement was "from the Americans and their puppet Iraqi government", rather than implying some sort of time travel-like 'then is now' adventure.



That doesn't change the fact that in trying to maintain its strength worldwide the US is forced to scale up the number of deployments. Sure it could drop its Japan base or European forces to go into Iraq, but the policymakers don't consider that a good idea.

So it's perfectly feasible for the US Army and Marine corps to be overstretched while still having enough manpower to significantly outnumber every adult man of fighting age in Iraq.

If you resent the freedoms Iraqis have in voting and deciding the future of their country, then you don't deserve your own!

Right which is why they say they are hurting when they are not really hurting they are uncomfortable because people are already committed and the threats are still out there. In the worse case it could take months to marshal our forces to attack abroad. Rarely have we seen the worse case.



Maybe you misunderstand my point. The Marines alone could wipe out Iraq and if they call up their reserves they could take out most if not all of Iran as well. My point was that we have enough forces to stay in either Iraq or Afghanistan but not both if a major war breaks out.

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!! That's real rich. MSNBC is not a "far left propaganda machine" at all. In fact I consider it rather right wing. Of course I don't believe the president. He lied to get your country into a completely unnecessary war that had absolutely nothing to do with defense. I  DO believe senior military leaders, the chief of staff of the Army, who has stated that the U.S is in serious trouble with the strain placed on the combined services.

Ha ha ha ha!!!! This is absolutely ridiculous. FYI, Rumsfeld was just about the most unpopular SECdef with the Pentagon- so much so that if 9/11 hadn't have happened he probably would have been the victim of a mutiny. He knew how much he was hated by the military and so on september 10th, 2001 he made a speech to the good folks at the pentagon, in which he essentially..... declared war on the pentagon. He said that the military was an unwieldy behemoth and that it needed to have the fat trimmed off. I'll get that speech for ya and post it here.

Rummy was all about outsourcing, just so you know, which is now why there are tens of thousands of armed mercenaries in Iraq right now. Rumsfeld was also behing MULTIPLE troop reductions, as he believed that fewer soldiers could get the job done so long as they had all the fancy high tech gear we could imagine (and plenty of support from 30,000 feet).

Rumsfeld was told, by the commander of the entire U.S army, that post-occupation forces in Iraq would need to be much larger than and stay much longer than what Rumsfeld thought. In response to this, Rumsfeld fired the commander, who later turned out to be right on the money!

 

 

Closing down bases overseas like in Germany is not to maintain its strength but to pull out troops no longer needed there. Whether or not we went to war in Iraq we were already closing our bases in Germany and Japan. President Carter signed the order for Japan, and President Carter was ordering the close of the one in Germany until we needed the base to do the air war in Bosnia. What you might fail to understand is that the base closures are based on current threats around the world. Japan asked us to move out so they could turn Okinawa into the Hawaii of the Far East. Germany pissed us off and was so angering to President Clinton he wanted to hurt them and not be the bad guy so he said we were leaving Germany, causing billions of lost money to Germany. Down sizing the military was because by 2020 we were supposed to be out of Japan and by 2025 we were supposed to e out of Germany. With 195k troops coming home and no place to put them we could cut the troop levels. So you see nothing about maintaining strength world wide but to please a friendly nation at the time in the case of Japan and petty anger in the case of Germany. Congress was not going to allow bases to be closed in their districts until the bases over seas were closed. If you paid attention to the politics of the day you will see that the deals are made decades in advance.

Sure now it seems a bad idea to close those bases but the deal was done years ago.

You dont do your cause any good with statements like that. That will only demonstrate how far left you are. MSNBC is the farthest left of the TV news channels.

As for Bush Lying, that is merely an opinion, not a fact.