your mother is resonsible for your stupidity

-TedTed2K

That's funny!

drmiler

What a stupid person you are.

The OP Plan called for 500,000 troops in COUNTRY.

Just about every one of our most senior generals have admitted that there was not nearly the troops required IN IRAQ to prevent the sectarian violence and the growth of the foreign terrorists. You sir are an IDIOT!

Idiot Colonel!

The commander of ops in Iraq is the same person as in Afhganistan, if you don't even know that, then you are too stupid for words.  Learn a little about this war and maybe you'll start sounding intelligent.

 

Now go tell your mom she wants you.

 

drmiler What a stupid person you are. The OP Plan called for 500,000 troops in COUNTRY. Just about every one of our most senior generals have admitted that there was not nearly the troops required IN IRAQ to prevent the sectarian violence and the growth of the foreign terrorists. You sir are an IDIOT!

"I'm" the stupid one? Need I remind you of what YOU wrote?

The Op Plan called for 500,000 troops in Iraq the day Saddam Fell. Under pressure, Gen Franks cut that number first to 380,000 and the least number he said was REQUIRED was 300,000. Bush sent less then 150,000! The lack of troops in Iraq allowed both the sectarian violence and the al Qaeda to develop into the problem we see today. We never finished the job in Afghanistan and today the very same terrorists that planned 9/11 are reestablishing themselves in that country!

He sent MORE than what you said! You said less than 150,000, he sent a total of 214,000. A LOT more than you stated. So if "anyone" here is stupid.....I would imagine it would be you!

Parated2k

Op Plan is an abbreviation for the name of plans that the PENTAGON STAFF DEVELOPS FOR VARRIOUS POTENTIAL MISSIONS. The plan TO INVADE IRAQ WAS DESIGNATED OP Plan 1003



Drmiler


Since when is 150,000 (in Country) that Bush sent more then 500,000 which is what the original Op Plan 1003 called for to secure Iraq when Saddam Fell . After much coercion General Franks lowered that number to 300,000 which is twice what Bush sent!

You are as usual talking out of your ass!

reduced to semantics now Gene? tsk tsk

The fact is, Afghanistan has NEVER been denied troops or logistical assets because they were needed for Iraq. So take your lies and stick them up your 4th point of contact.

The fact is that with the troop levels in Iraq and given the available troops there were no additional troops for Afghanistan. The proof that there are not enough troops in BOTH countries is the way the fighting is going. In fact the commander in Afghanistan says he MUST have another 2,500 ASAP. Although NATO is to provide the added troops, the reality is that we did not have the force levels required and the size of the active military is FAR TOO SMALL to even field, on a long term basis, the deployments that have been made. We have some members of our military that are on their 4th deployment to Iraq.

Our Marine commander has said he does not have the troops required to win in An war Province and they are just fighting a delaying action because most of the American Forces are struggling in the Baghdad area.

I have told the truth it is you and the idiot in the White House that is not telling the truth or looking at the reality of what is taking place in the entire Moslem region!

The fact is that with the troop levels in Iraq and given the available troops there were no additional troops for Afghanistan. The proof that there are not enough troops in BOTH countries is the way the fighting is going. In fact the commander in Afghanistan says he MUST have another 2,500 ASAP. Although NATO is to provide the added troops, the reality is that we did not have the force levels required and the size of the active military is FAR TOO SMALL to even field, on a long term basis, the deployments that have been made. We have some members of our military that are on their 4th deployment to Iraq.

Our Marine commander has said he does not have the troops required to win in An war Province and they are just fighting a delaying action because most of the American Forces are struggling in the Baghdad area.

I have told the truth it is you and the idiot in the White House that is not telling the truth or looking at the reality of what is taking place in the entire Moslem region!

Since when is 150,000 (in Country) that Bush sent more then 500,000 which is what the original Op Plan 1003 called for to secure Iraq when Saddam Fell . After much coercion General Franks lowered that number to 300,000 which is twice what Bush sent! You are as usual talking out of your ass!

As USUAL "YOU" don't read! Here let me help you:

United States military operations were conducted under the codename Operation Iraqi Freedom.[40] The United Kingdom military operation was named Operation Telic. Approximately 100,000 soldiers and marines from the United States, and 26,000 from the United Kingdom, as well as smaller forces from other nations, collectively called the "Coalition of the Willing," were deployed prior to the invasion primarily to several staging areas in Kuwait. (The numbers when naval, logistics, intelligence, and air force personnel are included were 214,000 Americans, 45,000 British, 2,000 Australians and 2,400 Polish.) Plans for opening a second front in the north were abandoned when Turkey officially refused the use of its territory for such purposes. Forces also supported Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 50,000. Despite the refusal of Turkey, the Coalition conducted parachute operations in the north and dropped the 173rd Airborne Brigade, thereby removing the necessity of any approval from Turkey. (Later on, during the invasion, it was rumored that Turkey itself had sent troops into the Kurdish part of Iraq.)

So "now" who's talking out their ass? Again as per usual you are!

drmiler

Where do you get 500,000 troops in Iraq from what you have written?

Almost EVERY senior GENERAL HAS SAID BUSH did not SEND NEARLY ENOUGH TROOPS TO SUCCEED IN IRAQ!

The results on the ground PROVE Bush screwed up BIG TIME!

drmiler Where do you get 500,000 troops in Iraq from what you have written?

Hey clown...."revised" troop strenth was REDUCED to 300,000! 500,000 was what was originally asked for.
By your OWN words:

After much coercion General Franks lowered that number to 300,000 which is twice what Bush sent!

Wrong again!

The results on the ground PROVE Bush screwed up BIG TIME!

You mean the conquest and eliminate of the Iraqi regime in a matter of a few weeks?

 

It's a good thing you didn't do anything as a Colonel other than make decisions that didn't matter. I'd hate to think of you actually making life and death decisions when you are so dead wrong about everything.

On the other hand, you did make it to that rank so maybe there was a time you could actually formulate a coherent thought, but your caustic hatred for Bush has left you intellectually impotent.

The need for 500,000 troops WAS NOT to remove Saddam but to INSURE CONTROL of Iraq when the government fell. We were unable to clean up the areas we bypassed on our rush to Baghdad after Saddam fell. That allowed the sectarian violence to develop in those areas. We could not stop the terrorists from using the explosives and weapons that were stashed in over 200 Ammo dumps thought Iraq. We could not protect the oil, water and electric systems. We could not prevent foreign elements from coming into Iraq. Every one of these failures was because we DID NOT ENOUGH TROOPS IN COUNTRY!!!!!

I would never have had the success in the Military or in civilian life if I had acted like Bush. Bush has failed at EVERYTHING he has attempted and his connections, or rather his father's connections, have rescued him every time except this time! This time there is no rescue and our country will suffer from the WORST excuse for a President we have EVER HAD IN OFFICE!

My dislike is not for Bush the man but for what Bush has done to our great country. A study conducted by the Pugh Foundation that was discussed with Karen Hughes showed that the reputation of the United States has never been lower in almost EVERY country in the world. Bush is viewed in a very negative way by the people of almost ALL country in the world. The debt this man has created will burden our children for decades. The harm Bush has created will last LONG after he is no longer in office.

Col Gene - you are operating on a false assumption. You assume that success in Iraq is dependent on whether Iraqi's are living in a happy, safe environment.

My understanding was that we invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein because we felt he posed a threat.

We did that.

Having more soldiers in Iraq would in my estimation simply caused more casualties.  Sporadic sectarian violence is not going to be easily quashed whether you have a thousand troops or a million troops on the ground. There aren't major battles going on in Iraq, it's essentially gang violence between the two major sects of Islam.

That Iraqi's are going around shooting each other and blowing each other up is sad. But it's hardly a testament that we should have sent 500,000 troops. No thanks.

Your other issue is how the world views the United States.  Again, you are operating from a false assumption -- that it matters what non-Americans think of the United States.  What exactly is the consequence if people in Belgium or wherever don't like the United States as much?  Do we get to pay less to the UN if everyone loves us?

The job of the US President is to act in America's best interest, not please the chattering classes in Europe.