I want answers

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Reference "Code Pink" they frequently demonstrate at Walter Reed by making coffins and placing dead Troops names on them while parading around the enterance of the Hosptial.... a tasteless act.....They have the support of Cindy Sheehan....what a tool she is.

Code Pink is just irritating. I totally understand they have good intentions...but please...take a moment to think things through.

Ugh...they are irritating...I just put them out of my mind.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Kind of like the CNN reporter who was chuckling/laughing at a press conference given by John McCain. In Iraq, no less!!!

Anyone out there who still believes the press is unbiased needs to wake up, or just watch the White House daily briefing with reporters such as Helen Thomas and David Gregory.

Actually, he never chuckled or laughed that was a lie. The tapes have been review and he never did that. He only commented after the event.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

If you believe Hillary's voting record defines her true beliefs...you're gullible. She's been setting the stage for her Presidency since winning the Senate & knew she'd have to appear moderate while biding her time.

blah, blah, blah...

C'mon...people have been saying that B.Clinton was hiding his liberal views for his entire 8 years...and there was Hillary alongside him. The talk then shifted to her "B.Clinton is hiding his views to support Hillary."

14 years I have been hearing that same line...it will be 16 when the election happens.

To say that she and her husband planned this out 16 years ago and never acted on their beliefs during that time is ludicrous.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

My main problem with the war is that most of the General's who opposed the former SecDef were afraid to stick there necks out and tell him that there was a great possibilty that he was wrong in the number of troops needed (though this is very debatable i.e. occupier vs liberator). Now that they are Ret Generals they are more then willing to speak there peace and write books about it. Where was there obligation to the troops ? At what point do you set aside your own personal gain, and take one for the troops ? The greatest part of the Army is the Soldier, The Private, The Specialist, The Sergeant, it has nothing to do with the equipment....All the equipment in the world does no good if the individual Soldier doesn't know how to apply it to a tactical situation. The General officers who went down without a fight to Former SecDef Rumsfield should be held accountable.

They DID tell him. They presented a plan asking for 350,000 troops to invade and occupy. Rumsfeld demanded 75,000. They eventually got him to agree to 150,000.

It's sad really...

Remember that Rumsfeld was known during his business career to NEVER brook back-talk. That carried over to his work as SecDef.

By the way, the men who DID tell Rumsfeld that 150,000 was still too little...they were fired. (aka relieved of command and most retired)

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

2) No religion gets bashed like Christianity. The fact is, the the majority of Americans are Christians (or claim to be). You say anything negative about Islam or Judaism & your drawn & quartered by the media. Say something negative or blame Christianity for something & your "high fived" by the liberal elites w/ no reprucusions, no apologies, no "hate crimes".

Certain slivers of it do. I definitely do not consider many of the Falwell-Robertson types Christians. They think they are...but they hate far too much and selectively review Jesus' life and works. Bashing the loonies goes on for ANY religion...be it Hindu, Muslim, or Christian.

As for Islam, people bash it all the time. I can't begin to tell you how many times I have heard cracks on TV about getting 70 virgins and it being mocked. [by the way, no one mentions the fact that you are supposed to get all those virgins, but you are not allowed to nail them]

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

RE: Irishmylove; I’m not here to argue with anyone; I full well realize Liberalism is a mental illness. I attempted to engage in a coherent discussion, but churning out illiterate attacks without addressing any facts was a severe miscalculation of your mental prowess. I realize it’s difficult to have a simple conservation; much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry when Liberals are constantly rushing to their conspiracy rule book; but keep in mind your ‘08’ champion ran to the TV networks whining about a “vast right wing cabal”.

Read the books from which the footnotes were taken and there may be hope.

To say liberalism is a mental illness fully goes against your stated intention of engaging in a "coherent discussion".

I did not issue an illiterate attack, I said that if you want to engage me in discussion bring on a discussion, don't go around posting half-baked articles by other people.

As for my '08 Champion...it's Bill Richardson. I can't stand Hillary.

Just for the record...she was right about the conspiracy... It was mostly funded by Richard Mellon Scaife.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Some prisoners at Abu Ghraib were humiliated b/c they posed for some sophomoric photos or were made to wear panties. Uh, if that's the worse that happens to you in prison, then we need to get tougher. Listening to specialists, incl Navy Seals, I heard them describe their hostage training as pretty damn intense. In fact, their "captors" are permitted to break 2 bones in their hands before allowing them to stop. So we treat our own more physically & mentally harsher in training than our actual prisoners.

What about the men who were beaten? What about those who were killed? What about those who had their joints dislocated?

Are we conveniently forgetting those prisoners at Abu Ghraib?

 

[cuss444]

Some prisoners at Abu Ghraib were humiliated b/c they posed for some sophomoric photos or were made to wear panties. Uh, if that's the worse that happens to you in prison, then we need to get tougher. Listening to specialists, incl Navy Seals, I heard them describe their hostage training as pretty damn intense. In fact, their "captors" are permitted to break 2 bones in their hands before allowing them to stop. So we treat our own more physically & mentally harsher in training than our actual prisoners.

Agreed but not a true statement ref "hostage training" as SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resisitance, Escape) School deals with the Code of Conduct and is a moral guide for all Service Members and a set the standards for behavior they are to live by, regardless of there environment and provide the skills Service Members are to live by during this time of uncertainty. No bones are broken in any school. Instructors are allowed to use physical restraints on students. Having been a proud member of the SERE school in 1999, I can tell you first hand the school is no fun.

But I agree that there is a substantial number of abuses that go on outside of what the U.S. military does that are far worse. The only problem is that on the U.S., Brits and Aussies come close to following the Genva Conventional rules ref POW's. But then again then this country isn't fighting another country, there is no opposing Military in Iraq and Afghanistan, therefore the rules don't apply to them when they capture Coalition members.

Love the debates, it's great to have them. It's a good break.....

11 more days till the Spring Game....See ya there.......

 

[cuss444]

They DID tell him. They presented a plan asking for 350,000 troops to invade and occupy. Rumsfeld demanded 75,000. They eventually got him to agree to 150,000.

It's sad really...

Remember that Rumsfeld was known during his business career to NEVER brook back-talk. That carried over to his work as SecDef.

By the way, the men who DID tell Rumsfeld that 150,000 was still too little...they were fired. (aka relieved of command and most retired)

You need to also remember that this was the second time that SecDef Rumsfeld held this office 75-77 was his first tour. He has never changed this way. The General's had ample time to discuss this, but it was the President, Vice President, SecDef and Sec of State who made the decision about troop level.

I don't disagree with your assessment. All I'm saying is that now all of a sudden those General's who never spoke up before are all of a sudden retired from the military and are writing books on Iraq and making a profit off the loss of Troops' lives. These are the same people who's entire responsibility is to take care of the troops and to implements policies procedures and standards within the military.

Not sure where you get your numbers from ref the 350,00 troops when you consider the fact that when the war started the Army (which is the bases for the numbers) only had 495,000 troops total. When I came in the Army in 1992, there were approx 890,000 Soldiers (Surprise !!! troop size was cut in half from 1992-1999, along with paycuts, supplies and advance technology). The military could support a deployment of 350,000 troops and still maintain enough warfighters to merit two major campaigns at one time. The 350,000 troop estimate is bogus to say the least.....

"America is at the Mall.....The Military is at War"

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

You need to also remember that this was the second time that SecDef Rumsfeld held this office 75-77 was his first tour. He has never changed this way. The General's had ample time to discuss this, but it was the President, Vice President, SecDef and Sec of State who made the decision about troop level.

I don't disagree with your assessment. All I'm saying is that now all of a sudden those General's who never spoke up before are all of a sudden retired from the military and are writing books on Iraq and making a profit off the loss of Troops' lives. These are the same people who's entire responsibility is to take care of the troops and to implements policies procedures and standards within the military.

Remember that they cannot go out and make public comments about their needs unless it's a specific request from Congress to testify. If they do, they will be relieved of duty. Many did speak up before Congress.

Not sure where you get your numbers from ref the 350,00 troops when you consider the fact that when the war started the Army (which is the bases for the numbers) only had 495,000 troops total.

Reserves baby...reserves... Also, let's not forget that this includes Air Force and Navy Personnel (I am lumping Marines into the Navy bucket). We had about 1.5M Active duty military total at the time the war started with over 800,000 in reserves.

When I came in the Army in 1992, there were approx 890,000 Soldiers (Surprise !!! troop size was cut in half from 1992-1999, along with paycuts, supplies and advance technology). The military could support a deployment of 350,000 troops and still maintain enough warfighters to merit two major campaigns at one time. The 350,000 troop estimate is bogus to say the least.....

It was Shinseki before Congress. He was fired for this. When Army Secretary White came to his defense...he was fired too.

Here's a great interview on it...
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10483/

"America is at the Mall.....The Military is at War"[/QUOTE]

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I don't recall Tommy Franks having a problem with the troop estimate. He was the CINC at the time if I recall correctly. We didn't need more to win the war, so I was ok with that number, as were a number of generals. We did need more to help win the peace, which surprised a lot of people. This is a lame debate anyway, no war is fought perfectly anyway. Hell, Inchon, one of the greatest amphibious landings ever, was a HELL of a gamble, which many people thought would end in disaster. Somebody has to approve some plan, which others will have disagreed with. I think the war went well, I do think more troops were needed shortly after major ops concluded. The only people who keep bringing this up are those that criticize everything about Iraq, or want us to leave now.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I don't recall Tommy Franks having a problem with the troop estimate. He was the CINC at the time if I recall correctly.

Shinseki was head of the Army...he was asked what it would take. He had an analysis done, he gave the answer, the upper eschelons did not like the answer...

From Wikipedia:

On February 25, 2003, four months before the end of his term as Chief of Staff of the Army, Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he thought an occupying force of several hundred thousand men would be needed to stabilize postwar Iraq. He was pressed to provide a range by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI). Below is the exchange:

SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?

GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --

SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?

GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.

Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, called Shinseki's estimate "far off the mark" and "wildly off the mark". Wolfowitz said it would be "hard to believe" more troops would be required for post-war Iraq than to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Specifically, Wolfowitz said to the House Budget Committee on February 27, 2003:

DEP. SEC. WOLFOWITZ: There has been a good deal of comment - some of it quite outlandish - about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army - hard to imagine.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Dude..let's go back in history and see all of the wrong choices made in war. This could be the longest thread ever in all of the internets..

Mobilizing a force that large would have meant a whole lot more money. With all the clamor about the vets outpatient services (and for good reason!), where would the money come from? Choices have to be made, sometimes not the right ones. Most leaders want 3 kinds of options, most optomistic, least optomistic, and another that lies somewhere in the middle. That is probably what is chosen most often, for better or worse.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Dude..let's go back in history and see all of the wrong choices made in war. This could be the longest thread ever in all of the internets..

Mobilizing a force that large would have meant a whole lot more money. With all the clamor about the vets outpatient services (and for good reason!), where would the money come from? Choices have to be made, sometimes not the right ones. Most leaders want 3 kinds of options, most optomistic, least optomistic, and another that lies somewhere in the middle. That is probably what is chosen most often, for better or worse.

Middle is not bad...but when you choose the most optimistic and it proves to be wrong...and you say "stuff happens" instead of taking blame...well, I think that person should be immediately fired. When that dose not happen I question those who keep the person on board.

The current fella (Patreus) seems like a sharp dude...I see give him all he needs/asks for.

(the only reason I brought it up at all was in response to another post pointing fingers at the Generals)

 

[marv81s]

he was confirmed without a single vote against him, wanted a troop surge, got it, and now they want to start bringing them home 120 days after the bill is signed, which we all know it won't be.

I'll never understand it.

Politics and war planning don't go together, wish both parties and the media would stay the fuck out of the generals/military business and let them do their f'n job.

 

[notredomer23]

gr8 point marv reps

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I agree with ya'll.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

blah, blah, blah...

C'mon...people have been saying that B.Clinton was hiding his liberal views for his entire 8 years...and there was Hillary alongside him. The talk then shifted to her "B.Clinton is hiding his views to support Hillary."

14 years I have been hearing that same line...it will be 16 when the election happens.

To say that she and her husband planned this out 16 years ago and never acted on their beliefs during that time is ludicrous.

Dude, where are you getting the theory that it was planned out 14 yrs ago...you're the delusional one. Not ONE of us has asserted this cockamamie theory. Your usually fairly accurate w/ your history, but you've struck out on this one. Maybe you got a crush on the Clintons & that's OK, but at least admit the obvious...they're both Liberals w/ a capital "L". The only difference between the 2 is that Bill likes the ideas but Hillary actually believes them. Remember, it takes a village. Check out the article in the WSJ from 2 yrs ago where Peggy Noonan did a pretty good job of predicting Hillary's M.O. And before you go bashing Ms. Noonan: yes, she's an avowed conservative, but no she's no right wing whacko. She brings credibility & class to every interview/debate I've seen her in & she's done a helluva lot of research on Hillary when writing her book. The research incl. interviews w/ friends, relatives, political opponents, etc.http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006000

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Certain slivers of it do. I definitely do not consider many of the Falwell-Robertson types Christians. They think they are...but they hate far too much and selectively review Jesus' life and works. Bashing the loonies goes on for ANY religion...be it Hindu, Muslim, or Christian.

As for Islam, people bash it all the time. I can't begin to tell you how many times I have heard cracks on TV about getting 70 virgins and it being mocked. [by the way, no one mentions the fact that you are supposed to get all those virgins, but you are not allowed to nail them]

I would never align myself w/ the "Falwell-RObertson" types, but I would also not be so sanctimonious to judge their private relationship w/ Christ. That's between them & God. However, you're right, they don't reflect what we'd like to see in a Christian leader, but, of course; non-Christians always assume Christians believe they are perfect & sin free which leads to the hypocrisy they love to rail about. The irony is that being a Christian is realizing we're all sinners & fall short in the eyes of God & thus, nowhere near perfect. The only perfect being I know of was nailed to a cross.

What people bash Islam "all the time" w/o social reprucussions? In Britain, they're no longer allowed to teach the Crusades or the Holocaust for fear of offending the Muslims. Do you really believe they'd do the same for Christians? Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh....NO. You're talking about a few off-color jokes, I'm referring to political correctness gone amok.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Agreed but not a true statement ref "hostage training" as SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resisitance, Escape) School deals with the Code of Conduct and is a moral guide for all Service Members and a set the standards for behavior they are to live by, regardless of there environment and provide the skills Service Members are to live by during this time of uncertainty. No bones are broken in any school. Instructors are allowed to use physical restraints on students. Having been a proud member of the SERE school in 1999, I can tell you first hand the school is no fun.

But I agree that there is a substantial number of abuses that go on outside of what the U.S. military does that are far worse. The only problem is that on the U.S., Brits and Aussies come close to following the Genva Conventional rules ref POW's. But then again then this country isn't fighting another country, there is no opposing Military in Iraq and Afghanistan, therefore the rules don't apply to them when they capture Coalition members.

Love the debates, it's great to have them. It's a good break.....

You're correct about SERE training. The guy I heard discussing it kept mentioning that word but I couldn't make out the pronounciation...the interviewer even got confused thinking the specialist was saying "Seal" training. Thanks for the correction. This guy mentioned they are able to treat the trainees as if they were actually taken hostage which incl. mental & physical torture (to an extent). I didn't intend to imply that they purposefully broke the bones, but that they had to stop if up to 2 bones were broken in his hand. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...I'm just repeating what I heard this soldier report. I appreciate the insight.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

It's great to see everyone playing together nicely.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

It's great to see everyone playing together nicely.

It's not hard to do, w/ SLH out of the picture. BTW, your boobs are distracting...nice...but distracting.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

LOL I get that alot.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Politics and war planning don't go together, wish both parties and the media would stay the fuck out of the generals/military business and let them do their f'n job.

AMEN...

If Rumsfeld and the other politicians had let the Armed Forces plan and do their jobs...we would be winding down in Iraq...or maybe already home.

We would not be having these dumb debates about funding, etc.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Dude, where are you getting the theory that it was planned out 14 yrs ago...you're the delusional one. Not ONE of us has asserted this cockamamie theory. Your usually fairly accurate w/ your history, but you've struck out on this one. Maybe you got a crush on the Clintons & that's OK, but at least admit the obvious...they're both Liberals w/ a capital "L".

Clinton was never the liberal people made him out to be. He did not pursue many liberal policies, nor did he institute them.

So for 8 years he was a moderate. Then for 6+ years Hillary has been a moderate.

That's 14+ years.

And all we hear is "She is a liberal hiding in a moderate's clothing."

After 14 friggin years of policy making between the two of them...

Hillary Clinton is the Right's Boogeyman...that's all.

I sure as hell don't want her as my President...but these claims about her supposed Liberalism fly in the face of 14 years of the Clintons in Washington.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

What people bash Islam "all the time" w/o social reprucussions? In Britain, they're no longer allowed to teach the Crusades or the Holocaust for fear of offending the Muslims. Do you really believe they'd do the same for Christians? Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh....NO. You're talking about a few off-color jokes, I'm referring to political correctness gone amok.

That is not what's happening at all. They are allowed to teach it.

What IS happening is the the teachers fear the Muslim community's backlash at teaching them. Which is just like the backlash against teaching evolution in Science class in the US.

Teachers know that religious fringe types are teaching the kids lies and so the Teachers fear teaching the truth.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445979&in_page_id=1770

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

LOL I get that alot.

at least they are not man-boobs...

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

You had to go there..

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Clinton was never the liberal people made him out to be. He did not pursue many liberal policies, nor did he institute them.

So for 8 years he was a moderate. Then for 6+ years Hillary has been a moderate.

That's 14+ years.

And all we hear is "She is a liberal hiding in a moderate's clothing."

After 14 friggin years of policy making between the two of them...

Hillary Clinton is the Right's Boogeyman...that's all.

I sure as hell don't want her as my President...but these claims about her supposed Liberalism fly in the face of 14 years of the Clintons in Washington.

Darn tootin she is. Don't you remember her attempt to 'reform' health care. Her own party didn't even support that. She rates fairly high on the list of most liberal in the senate. She is roughly in the middle of the DEMS, not the senate as a whole. Therefore, I would not call her moderate.
Do you really think she was for the war when she and others voted for it???? I sure as heck don't. They did so out of fear, and not to look weak. So now, her and every dem get to blast the president for his constant mishandling of the whole thing. I have not heard her say one positive thing about Bush or the war. She has not come out in support of our troops, or defended them when the Abu Graib/Gitmo stuff came out. Her and Bill are very astute politically, and she does not want to appear as she is. Knowing that you have go get a fair portion of moderate voters, she has to appear moderate. Problem is, nobody is buying it. Think what you will, but there must be a reason why we think the way we do. I have nothing personal against her, but let's at least be honest.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Darn tootin she is. Don't you remember her attempt to 'reform' health care. Her own party didn't even support that.

Yet it turned out to be the Republican solution just 8 years later. haha

Do you really think she was for the war when she and others voted for it????

Considering her husband bombed the crap out of Iraq and threatened to go to war with them? Yeah, I do.

She's a convenient boogeyman that's all.