President Bush is a Miserable Failure

[WalterM140]

100 Miserable Failures of the Bush Administration:

1. Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq
invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of
the war.

2. Approving the demobilization of the Iraqi Army in May, 2003 –
bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reversing an earlier position,
the President left hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis disgruntled
and unemployed, contributing significantly to the massive security
problems American troops have faced during occupation.

3. Not equipping troops in Iraq with adequate body armor or armored
HUMVEES.

4. Ignoring the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more
troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed
the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said
it would if there were not enough troops.

5. Ignoring plans drawn up by the Army War College and other
war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security and
infrastructure problems America faced in the early days of the Iraq
occupation.

6. Making a case for war which ignored intelligence that there were no
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

7. Deriding "nation-building" during the 2000 debates, then engaging
American troops in one of the most explicit instances of nation
building in American history.

8. Predicting along with others in his administration that US troops
would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

9. Predicting Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.

10. Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.

11. Trusting Ahmed Chalabi, who has dismissed faulty intelligence he
provided the President as necessary for getting the Americans to
topple Saddam.

12. Disbanding the Sunni Baathist managers responsible for Iraq's
water, electricity, sewer system and all the other critical parts of
that country's infrastructure.

13. Failing to give UN weapons inspectors enough time to certify if
weapons existed in Iraq.

14. Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian Yellow Cake
in his 2003 State of the Union.

15. Announcing that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended"
aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, below a "Mission
Accomplished" banner – more U.S. soldiers have died in combat since
Bush's announcement than before it.

16. Awarding a multi-billion dollar contract to Halliburton in Iraq,
which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops
dirty food.

17. Refusing to cede any control of Post-invasion Iraq to the
international community, meaning reconstruction has received limited
aid from European allies or the U.N.

18. Failing to convince NATO allies why invading Iraq was important.

19. Having no real plan for the occupation of Iraq.

20. Limiting bidding on Iraq construction projects to "coalition
partners," unnecessarily alienating important allies France, Germany
and Russia.

21. Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without
informing Congress.

22. Shutting down an Iraqi newspaper for "inciting violence" – the
move, which led in short order to street fighting in Fallujah, incited
more violence than the newspaper ever had.

23. Telling Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go to war
with Iraq before Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Counterterrorism

24. Allowing several members of the Bin Laden family to leave the
country just days after 9/11, some of them without being questioned by
the FBI.

25. Focusing on missile defense at the expense of counterterrorism
prior to 9/11.

26. Thinking al Qaeda could not attack without state sponsors, and
ignoring evidence of a growing threat unassociated with "rogue states"
like Iraq or North Korea.

27. Threatening to veto the Homeland Security department – The
President now concedes such a department "provides the ability for our
agencies to coordinate better and to work together better than it was
before."

28. Opposing the creation of the September 11th commission, which the
President now expects "to contain important recommendations for
preventing future attacks."

29. Denying documents to the 9/11 commission, only relenting after the
commissioners threatened a subpoena.

30. Failing to pay more attention to an August 6, 2001 PDB entitled
"Bin laden Determined to Attack in U.S."

31. Repeatedly ignoring warnings of terrorists planning to use
aircraft before 9/11.

32. Appointing the ultra-secretive Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11
commission – Kissinger stepped down weeks later due to conflicts of
interest.

33. Asking for testimony before the 9/11 commission be limited to one
hour, a position from which the president later backtracked.

34. Not allowing national Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify
before the 9/11 commission – Bush changed his mind as pressure
mounted.

35. Cutting an FBI request for counterterrorism funds by two-thirds
after 9/11.

36. Telling Americans there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al
Qaeda.

37. Failing to adequately secure the nation's nuclear weapons labs.

38. Not feeling a sense of urgency about terrorism or al Qaeda before
9/11.

Afghanistan

39. Reducing resources and troop levels in Afghanistan and out before
it was fully secure.

40. Not providing security in Afghanistan outside of Kabul, leaving
nearly 80% of the Afghan population unprotected in areas controlled by
Feudal warlords and local militias.

41. Committing inadequate resources for the reconstruction of
Afghanistan.

42. Counting too heavily on locally trained troops to fill the void in
Afghanistan once U.S. forces were relocated to Iraq.

43. Not committing US ground troops to the capture of Osama Bin Laden,
when he was cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan
in November, 2001.

44. Allowing opium production to resume on a massive scale after the
ouster of the Taliban.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

45. Opposing an independent inquiry into the intelligence failures
surrounding WMD – later, upon signing off on just such a commission,
Bush claimed he was "determined to make sure that American
intelligence is as accurate as possible for every challenge in the
future."

46. Saying: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found
biological laboratories."

47. Trusting intelligence gathered by Vice President Cheney's and
Secretary Rumsfeld's "Office of Special Plans."

48. Spending $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons this year to develop new
nuclear weapons this year – 50% more in real dollars than the
average during the cold war – while shortchanging the troops on body
armor.

Foreign Policy

49. Ignoring the importance of the Middle East peace process, which
has deteriorated with little oversight or strategy evident in the
region.

50. Siding with China in February, 2004 against a democratic referenda
proposed by Taiwan, a notable shift from an earlier pledge to stand
with "oppressed peoples until the day of their freedom finally
arrives."

51. Undermining the War on Terrorism by preemptively invading Iraq.

52. Failing to develop a specific plan for dealing with North Korea.

53. Abandoning the United States' traditional role as an evenhanded
negotiator in the Middle East peace process.

Economic

54. Signing a report endorsing outsourcing with thousands of American
workers having their jobs shipped overseas.

55. Instituting steel tariffs deemed illegal by the World Trade
Organization – Bush repealed them 20-months later when the European
Union pledged to impose retaliatory sanctions on up to $2.2 billion in
exports from the United States.

56. Promoting economic policies that failed to create new jobs.

57. Promoting economic policies that failed to help small businesses

58. Pledging a "jobs and growth" package would create 1,836,000 new
jobs by the end of 2003 and 5.5 million new jobs by 2004—so far the
president has fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of the mark.

59. Running up a foreign deficit of "such record-breaking proportions
that it threatens the financial stability of the global economy."

60. Issuing inaccurate budget forecasts accompanying proposals to
reduce the deficit, omitting the continued costs of Iraq, Afghanistan
and elements of Homeland Security.

61. Claiming his 2003 tax cut would give 23 million small business
owners an average tax cut of $2,042 when "nearly four out of every
five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less"
than that amount.

62. Passing tax cuts for the wealthy while falsely claiming "people in
the 10 percent bracket" were benefiting most."

63. Passing successive tax cuts largely responsible for turning a
projected surplus of $5 trillion into a projected deficit of $4.3
trillion.

64. Moving to strip millions of overtime pay.

65. Not enforcing corporate tax laws.

66. Backing down from a plan to make CEOs more accountable when "the
corporate crowd" protested.

67. Not lobbying oil cartels to change their mind about cutting oil
production.

68. Passing tax cuts weighted heavily to help the wealthy.

69. Moving to allow greater media consolidation.

70. Nominating a notorious proponent of outsourcing, Anthony F.
Raimondo, to be the new manufacturing Czar—Raimondo withdrew his name
days later amidst a flurry of harsh criticism.

71. Ignoring calls to extend unemployment benefits with long-term
unemployment reaching a twenty-year high

72. Threatening to veto pension legislation that would give companies
much needed temporary relief.

Education

73. Under-funding No Child Left Behind

74. Breaking his campaign pledge to increase the size of Pell grants.

75. Signing off on an FY 2005 budget proposing the smallest increase
in education funding in nine years.

76. Under-funding the Title I Program, specifically targeted for
disadvantaged kids, by $7.2 billion.

77. Freezing Teacher Quality State Grants, cutting off training
opportunities for about 30,000 teachers, and leaving 92,000 less

teachers trained than the president called for in his own No Child
Left Behind bill.

78. Freezing funding for English language training programs.

79. Freezing funding for after school programs, potentially
eliminating 50,000 children from after-school programs.

Health

80. Not leveling with Americans about the cost of Medicare – the
president told Congress his new Medicare bill would cost $400 billion
over ten years despite conclusions by his own analysts the bill would
cost upwards of $500 billion over that period.

81. Silencing Medicare actuary Richard Foster when his estimates for
the Administration's Medicare bill were too high.

82. Letting business associate David Halbert, who owns a company which
stands to make millions from new discount drug cards, craft key
elements of the new Medicare bill.

83. Underfunding health care for troops and veterans.

84. Allowing loopholes to persist in Mad-Cow regulations.

85. Relaxing food labeling restrictions on health claims.

86. Falsely claiming the restrictions on stem cell research would not
hamper medical progress.

87. Reducing action against improper drug advertising by 80 percent.

Environment

88. Abandoning the Kyoto Treaty without offering an alternative for
reducing greenhouse effect.

89. Counting on a voluntary program to reduce emissions of harmful
gasses—so far only a tiny fraction of American companies have signed
up.

90. Gutting clean air standards for aging power plants.

91. Weakening energy efficiency standards.

92. Relaxing dumping standards for mountaintop mining, and opening the
Florida Everglades and Oregon's Siskiyou National Forest to mining.

93. Lifting protection for more than 200 million acres of public land.

94. Limiting public challenges to logging projects and increased
logging in protected areas, including Alaska's Tongass National
Forest.

95. Weakening environmental standards for snowmobiles and other
off-road vehicles while pushing for exemptions for air pollution
proposals for five categories of industrial facilities.

96. Opposing legislation that would require greater fuel efficiency
for passenger cars.

97. Reducing inspections, penalties for violations, and prosecution of
environmental crimes.

98. Misleading the public about the Washington mad cow case and the
likely effectiveness of USDA's weak testing program.

99. Withdrawing public information on chemical plant dangers,
previously used to hold facilities accountable for safety
improvements.

Other

100. Cutting grants to state and local governments in FY 2005, forcing
states to make massive cuts in job training, education, housing and
environment.

[Jarg]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
om...
>

See todays job reports?

Jarg

[WalterM140]

>See todays job reports?

We have what, @ 750 KIA now?

Don't make me laugh. The president has very little effect on the economy, and
what effect he -can- have is dwarfed by the effect he can has on the nation
being at peace or war.

George Bush is a miserable failure.

Walt

[Denyav]

>Don't make me laugh. The president has very little effect on the economy,
>and
>what effect he -can- have is dwarfed by the effect he can has on the nation
>being at peace or war.
>
>George Bush is a miserable failure.
>

Who cares about economy or Iraq?
Only 60% of registered voters go to polls on election day and naturally 70 or
80% percent of them are senior citizens.
Whoever gets 50% or even less of the votes of those who voted gets elected by a
landslide.
Fix Medicare and make senior citizens happy you will get elected no matter
what.

Thats the reason why we go to polling places on Tuesdays.(not Sundays or
Saturdays).
The system is designed to keep working people away from polling places.

[B2431]

>From: (Denyav)
>
<snip>

>Thats the reason why we go to polling places on Tuesdays.(not Sundays or
>Saturdays).
>The system is designed to keep working people away from polling places.

Once again you know not what you say. Sundays were out since colonial times due
to it being the Sabbath.

If there really was a plot to keep workers from voting why have the polls open
before and after a normal workday? If you can't find time to vote that is YOUR
fault not some government plot.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Jarg]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >See todays job reports?
>
> We have what, @ 750 KIA now?
>
> Don't make me laugh. The president has very little effect on the economy,
and
> what effect he -can- have is dwarfed by the effect he can has on the
nation
> being at peace or war.
>
> George Bush is a miserable failure.
>
> Walt

While the casualties are tragic, I imagine it is impossible to fight a war
without losses. Certainly the US has sustained far worse in previous wars.

President Bush's tax policies have contributed greatly to the recovery. I
doubt you could find a credible economist who would claim otherwise. Thus
the real question is how many other American voters share your lack of
understanding.

So laugh away. We'll see who gets the last laugh when the election is over.

Jarg

[Vaughn]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
om...
> 100 Miserable Failures of the Bush Administration:

Please trim agressively and re-post just the part that pertains directly to
military aviation. Otherwise, take your political **** somewhere else.

Vaughn (no fan of GWB)

[WalterM140]

>Please trim agressively and re-post just the part that pertains directly to
>military aviation. Otherwise, take your political **** somewhere else.
>
>Vaughn (no fan of GWB)

Please give orders to someone likely to obey them.

Walt

[BUFDRVR]

>We have what, @ 750 KIA now?

As tragic as each and every death is, 750 for the invasion, conquering and
pacification of a nation is quite low and if Bush were a Democrat, your
partisan pie hole would be touting 750 deaths as a positive attribute.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Vaughn]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >Please trim agressively and re-post just the part that pertains directly to
> >military aviation. Otherwise, take your political **** somewhere else.
> >
> >Vaughn (no fan of GWB)
>
> Please give orders to someone likely to obey them.

Where I come from, orders do not contain "please".

The point of my post was to point out that your OT political posts are
unlikely to do any good, (may even do some harm) and are as welcome as the
proverbial fart in church. And I agree; if you are a true troll, you are
unlikely to feel bound by any of the normal social rules of conduct that apply
to normal people and I am wasting my time.

Have a nice life.

Vaughn


>
> Walt

[WalterM140]

>While the casualties are tragic....

The casualties are unnecessary. We shouldn't be in Iraq.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>We have what, @ 750 KIA now?
>
>As tragic as each and every death is, 750 for the invasion, conquering and
>pacification of a nation is quite low...

We shouldn't be in Iraq at all.

Iraq is not pacified and is not likely to be.

I was watching the News Hour on PBS. James Woosley, Clinton's CIA director
said some fateful words: "The war is not lost yet." He also said that
Rumsfeld should not be fired.

You'll write this off as, "oh, he's a Clinton guy."

Other people will compare your statement:

"750 for the invasion, conquering and
pacification of a nation is quite low..."

And the former DCI saying the war is not lost --yet--.

And wonder if you could possibly be serious. Or are you claiming that the
country is -now- pacified? Or something else?

Walt

[WalterM140]

>The point of my post was to point out that your OT political posts are
>unlikely to do any good, (may even do some harm) and are as welcome as the
>proverbial fart in church.

It's an open forum.

You post what you like. Don't dictate to others.

Walt

[BUFDRVR]

>We shouldn't be in Iraq at all.

Says the partisan lefty who undoubtedly revels in the death of every U.S.
service member in Iraq as it stokes his political machine.

>Iraq is not pacified and is not likely to be.

What you see on TV represents about 5% of Iraqi territory. Before you spout
your partisan junk, perhaps you should do a little research. Will we ever
pacify 100% of Iraq? Doubtful, even Sadam Hussain never accomplished that.

>You'll write this off as, "oh, he's a Clinton guy."

Uhh, when you begin threads titled "President Bush is a miserable failure" you
kind of wear your partisan heart on your sleeve. As a left wing extremeist, you
are incapable of having a rational discussion. Don't feel bad, the right wing
extremists suffer from the same fault. See, you two do have something in
common.

>And wonder if you could possibly be serious.

I am serious.

>Or are you claiming that the
>country is -now- pacified?

The great majority of Iraq is pacified. The rest we may or may not be able to
pacify before we leave, but even, God forbid, the fatalities doubled over the
next year, it would be a startling military success, and if Clinton were still
C-in-C you would be pointing this out.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[WalterM140]

>>Or are you claiming that the
>>country is -now- pacified?
>
>The great majority of Iraq is pacified.

We have 760 KIA now. What's your best guess on the final number of KIA before
the -whole- country is pacified?

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>We shouldn't be in Iraq at all.
>
>Says the partisan lefty who undoubtedly revels in the death of every U.S.
>service member in Iraq as it stokes his political machine.

Ad hominem attacks are about all you haev left. I'm such a leftist that I
joined the Marine Corps.

One of the scariest aspects of our present state is that both sides want to
demonize each other. We have a lot more in common than we do not.

People on the right -and- left need to agree that we can disagree and still be
loyal Americans.

Walt


>
>>Iraq is not pacified and is not likely to be.
>
>What you see on TV represents about 5% of Iraqi territory. Before you spout
>your partisan junk, perhaps you should do a little research. Will we ever
>pacify 100% of Iraq? Doubtful, even Sadam Hussain never accomplished that.
>
>>You'll write this off as, "oh, he's a Clinton guy."
>
>Uhh, when you begin threads titled "President Bush is a miserable failure"
>you
>kind of wear your partisan heart on your sleeve. As a left wing extremeist,
>you
>are incapable of having a rational discussion. Don't feel bad, the right wing
>extremists suffer from the same fault. See, you two do have something in
>common.
>
>>And wonder if you could possibly be serious.
>
>I am serious.
>
>>Or are you claiming that the
>>country is -now- pacified?
>
>The great majority of Iraq is pacified. The rest we may or may not be able to
>pacify before we leave, but even, God forbid, the fatalities doubled over the
>next year, it would be a startling military success, and if Clinton were
>still
>C-in-C you would be pointing this out.
>
>
>BUFDRVR

[WalterM140]

>>You'll write this off as, "oh, he's a Clinton guy."
>
>Uhh, when you begin threads titled "President Bush is a miserable failure"
>you
>kind of wear your partisan heart on your sleeve.

President Bush -is- a miserable failure.

Again, I will direct your attention to the comment of the frmer DCI:

"The war is not lost -yet-."

Thanks to the Bush administration's almost criminally maladroit policies.

>>Or are you claiming that the
>>country is -now- pacified?
>
>The great majority of Iraq is pacified. The rest we may or may not be able to
>pacify before we leave, but even, God forbid, the fatalities doubled over the
>next year, it would be a startling military success, and if Clinton were
>still
>C-in-C you would be pointing this out.

A startling military success? You do recall Vice President Cheney saying we
would be met as liberators, right?

So could it be that a startling military success had to recoup a stunning
political failure?

Walt

[BUFDRVR]

>We have 760 KIA now. What's your best guess on the final number of KIA
>before
>the -whole- country is pacified?
>
>Walt

I have no idea, but less than 1000 KIA to invade, defeat and occupy a country
for 1 year is unbelievably low.If you had any real military experience you
would acknowledge that.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>>Says the partisan lefty who undoubtedly revels in the death of every U.S.
>>service member in Iraq as it stokes his political machine.
>
>Ad hominem attacks are about all you haev left.

No, no, I've got plenty more. If you can't take a spade being called a spade
I'd suggest stopping the creation of threads that highlight yourself as some
leftist troll.

>I'm such a leftist that I
>joined the Marine Corps.

I doubt that.

>One of the scariest aspects of our present state is that both sides want to
>demonize each other. We have a lot more in common than we do not.
>
>People on the right -and- left need to agree that we can disagree and still
>be
>loyal Americans.

The only people in Congress who feel that way are John McCain and Joe
Lieberman. And I don't believe people, like yourself, who troll aviation
newsgroups with threads such as this fit into this catagory either. If 50
Americans were killed in Iraq today, you'd watch TV with a big grin on your
face because you're more loyal to the DNC than to this country.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>A startling military success?

Only a blinded partisan fool can't see this...

>You do recall Vice President Cheney saying we
>would be met as liberators, right?

What has this to do with anything? We're discussing fatalities here, not
pardades. For what its worth, in a great part of Iraq, even today, we are
treated like liberators. Your problem is, all of your knowledge about Iraq
comes from CNN, NBC etc. Try finding someone who has actually been there. Even
the guys in the hot spots will tell you those hot spots are compareably small.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Denyav]

>If there really was a plot to keep workers from voting why have the polls
>open
>before and after a normal workday? If you can't find time to vote that is
>YOUR
>fault not some government plot.

Who wants to go to polls after a long working day and wait one hour in the
line.
(That was excatly the case during primary 10 days ago,and that was only
primary)

[John Kunkel]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >We shouldn't be in Iraq at all.
>
> Says the partisan lefty who undoubtedly revels in the death of every U.S.
> service member in Iraq as it stokes his political machine.


How narrow minded.
It is quite possible for an individual to criticize the policies of a
Republican regime without being a "lefty" or a "commie" or a Democrat and
that criticism doesn't infer revelry at the death of U.S. soldiers.
Speaking for myself, I have no love for the Left and am not a Democrat but I
do agree with the majority of the original post.
Leave the name calling for the school yard.
John

[B2431]

>From: (Denyav)

>
>>If there really was a plot to keep workers from voting why have the polls
>>open
>>before and after a normal workday? If you can't find time to vote that is
>>YOUR
>>fault not some government plot.
>
>Who wants to go to polls after a long working day and wait one hour in the
>line.
>(That was excatly the case during primary 10 days ago,and that was only
>primary)
>

In other words you didn't think it was worth your effort to vote. That's not
the government's fault. Maybe you are just lazy. Maybe you didn't want to do it
during your lunch break.

I see people in wheel chairs, on oxygen, using walkers, blind people etc voting
every time I go. One year I had no transportation and couldn't afford a cab so
I walked 2 miles each way.

Next time try harder and don't blame the government.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>
>
>>The point of my post was to point out that your OT political posts are
>>unlikely to do any good, (may even do some harm) and are as welcome as the
>>proverbial fart in church.
>
>It's an open forum.
>
>You post what you like. Don't dictate to others.
>
>Walt

It is an open forum, but it is a military aviation forum. Calling Bush a
"miserable failure" in the subject line is political and has nothing to do with
military aviation.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

>> Says the partisan lefty who undoubtedly revels in the death of every U.S.
>> service member in Iraq as it stokes his political machine.
>
>
>How narrow minded.

No, a quite accurate analysis of "Walt".

>It is quite possible for an individual to criticize the policies of a
>Republican regime without being a "lefty" or a "commie" or a Democrat

Who said otherwise?

>and
>that criticism doesn't infer revelry at the death of U.S. soldiers.

By itself, no it doesn't, but take all of "Walt"'s collective trolls, put them
togather and you get a pretty good picture of a left wing zelot, more
interested in success for the DNC than America.

>Speaking for myself, I have no love for the Left and am not a Democrat but I
>do agree with the majority of the original post.

Good for you, and as soon as you begin trolling with threads like the one we're
currently in, you'll be placed in the same catagory as "Walt".

>Leave the name calling for the school yard.
> John
>

Name calling? After the crap this guy has thrown all over a military aviation
board, if you believe calling him a "left wing zelot" is name calling and not
an accurate character assesment than you've not been reading enough of his
posts.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 09 May 2004 15:41:09 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

> >If there really was a plot to keep workers from voting why have the polls
> >open
> >before and after a normal workday? If you can't find time to vote that is
> >YOUR
> >fault not some government plot.
>
> Who wants to go to polls after a long working day and wait one hour in the
> line.
> (That was excatly the case during primary 10 days ago,and that was only
> primary)
>

waa waa waa

If that price is too much for you to pay I guess you could move to Cuba.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[JStONGE123]

Your Mom really really likes him for 100 reasons. :-P

>100 Miserable Failures of the Bush Administration:
>






The Durango 95 purred away real horrorshow. A nice warm vibratey feeling all
through your guttiwuts.

[WalterM140]

>How narrow minded.
>It is quite possible for an individual to criticize the policies of a
>Republican regime without being a "lefty" or a "commie" or a Democrat and
>that criticism doesn't infer revelry at the death of U.S. soldiers.

BUFDRVR is practically a shill for the Bush adminstration/apparatus. This
demonization of their opponents is a technique straight from Nazi Germany.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>It is quite possible for an individual to criticize the policies of a
>>Republican regime without being a "lefty" or a "commie" or a Democrat
>
>Who said otherwise?

You did.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>We have 760 KIA now. What's your best guess on the final number of KIA
>>before
>>the -whole- country is pacified?
>>
>>Walt
>

>I have no idea, but less than 1000 KIA to invade, defeat and occupy a country
>for 1 year is unbelievably low

We shouldn't be there at all.

1000 KIA is a grotesque disaster.

>If you had any real military experience you
>would acknowledge that.

I was a company commander on Desert Storm.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>I'm such a leftist that I
>>joined the Marine Corps.
>
>I doubt that.

Of course you do. But I am a Viet Nam Era (I didn't go to Virt Nam however)
and a veteran of Desert Storm. I served in the Marine Detachment on U.S.S.
Simon Lake, and in the 6th, 8th and 24th marine Regiments.

I don't have to prove my bona fides to you, nor does it take a veteran to know
that George Bush Jr is a miserable failure.



Walt

[WalterM140]

>>A startling military success?
>
>Only a blinded partisan fool can't see this...
>
>>You do recall Vice President Cheney saying we
>>would be met as liberators, right?
>
>What has this to do with anything?

We have @ 750 KIA.

Really, you are getting so over the top ridiculous you can just about be
ignored; on the other hand, it is fun to pick at you.

The Bush administration policies are a miserable failure.>We're discussing
fatalities here, not
>pardades [sic].

We certainly are, @ 750 of them.



> For what its worth, in a great part of Iraq, even today, we are
>treated like liberators.

Irrelevent. There is no one to turn over the governmet to -- Bremer said that
a couple of weeks ago. The place is a money pit; the infrastructure is being
sabotage, I could go on and on.

>Your problem is, all of your knowledge about Iraq
>comes from CNN, NBC etc. Try finding someone who has actually been there.

I was on Desert Storm myself.

>Even
>the guys in the hot spots will tell you those hot spots are compareably
>small.

Our guys are dying every day.

Walt

[Greg Hennessy]

On 11 May 2004 06:55:33 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:


>We shouldn't be there at all.
>
>1000 KIA is a grotesque disaster.
>

Oh puhleeze get a grip, come back and make that statement when you find out
how many were KIA on the 1st day of the Somme or at Omaha Beach before
emoting such piffle in future.




greg

--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)

>>How narrow minded.
>>It is quite possible for an individual to criticize the policies of a
>>Republican regime without being a "lefty" or a "commie" or a Democrat and
>>that criticism doesn't infer revelry at the death of U.S. soldiers.
>
>BUFDRVR is practically a shill for the Bush adminstration/apparatus. This
>demonization of their opponents is a technique straight from Nazi Germany.
>
>Walt

Walt, all sides do it. Watch what happens when someone questions Kerry's voting
record in congress. Most of his flunkies will scream his patriotism is being
questioned and then bring up his Viet Nam service. The same will happen if you
ask him to explain his contradictory stories about the medals he threw over the
fence.

I don't like to see any side of a political issue or moral issue get
interviewed live. Straight answers are rarely forthcoming and agendas are
pushed. Out of half an hour you may get 2 minutes of value.

Only in politics can reducing an increase be referred to as a cut. Only in
politics can eliminating tax breaks not be considered an increase in taxes.

The shame of it is arguments rarely get beyond "your side is wrong and is going
to ruin the country."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)

<snip>

> The place is a money pit; the infrastructure is being
>sabotage, I could go on and on.

<snip>

>Our guys are dying every day.
>
>Walt

I agree it's not running right, but what if we pulled out. Lat's say we set a
date of 1 September. What do we say to the men who will die between now and
then? What do we say to the families of the men who will have died? Do we
slink out like hyenas as we did when Clinton pulled up stakes? What do we say
to the Iraqis we promised to help? Do we say we rebuilt your powergrids to
before war levels, we have installed sewer systems where they weren't before,
rebuilt schools and they should be happy with that? What do we say to all the
GIs who did their level best to do their jobs for nothing?

Would you rather an armistice as in Korea where the grand children of the men
who fought and died in that war are still guarding the border?

You have called Bush names and criticized his policies. Anyone can complain.
OK, you have complained, now what are your solutions?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140 Wrote:

>>>I'm such a leftist that I
>>>joined the Marine Corps.
>>
>>I doubt that.
>
>Of course you do.

You're right, your lack of knowledge about command responsibility cast doubt on
your claim to have ever served.

>But I am a Viet Nam Era (I didn't go to Virt Nam however)
>and a veteran of Desert Storm.

So now not only are you a veteran, but retired as well?

>I don't have to prove my bona fides to you, nor does it take a veteran to
>know
>that George Bush Jr is a miserable failure.

You are nothing more than ignorant leftist troll. You and the loons on the far
right are ruining this newsgroup and this country, and seem quite proud of
both. Go away troll.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140 wrote:

>BUFDRVR is practically a shill for the Bush adminstration/apparatus.

You ignorant troll, if I were a "shill" for anyone then I would be right there
with you begining threads like "John Kerry is <insert insult here>" . I have
not done that you loon, however you have, more than once.

>This
>demonization of their opponents is a technique straight from Nazi Germany.

I don't demonize you because you're a left wing zelot, I do it because you're a
fake and a troll.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140 wrote:

>We shouldn't be there at all.

Says the leftists troll.

>1000 KIA is a grotesque disaster.

Only to a leftist troll.

>>If you had any real military experience you
>>would acknowledge that.
>
>I was a company commander on Desert Storm.
>

So you were nearing 20 years (retirement) and were only a Captain?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140 wrote:

>We have @ 750 KIA.

You keep spouting this, but it hurts your argument more than helps it.

>Really, you are getting so over the top ridiculous you can just about be
>ignored

If you believe touting 750 KIA in one year of combat as a success is ridiculous
then I suggest you hide in a closet if Korea ever kicks off, because we'll
suffer that many in a week there.

> on the other hand, it is fun to pick at you.

You're a leftist troll, as bothersome and ignorant as some of the righty trolls
we get in here. Just go away troll.

>> For what its worth, in a great part of Iraq, even today, we are
>>treated like liberators.
>
>Irrelevent.

Only to a leftist troll who chooses to ignore the success in Iraq.

>>Your problem is, all of your knowledge about Iraq
>>comes from CNN, NBC etc. Try finding someone who has actually been there.
>
>I was on Desert Storm myself.

First of all, I doubt you were "on" Desert Storm, second so what? Desert Storm
and Iraqi Freedom are not compareable. You occupied (actually, you didn't but
real Marines did) Kuwait, do you really think that's compareable to occupying
Iraq? Of course you do because you were never a Marine and haven't a clue about
military matters.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Dave]

HOLY COW! I about spit coke all over my screen on this one! Mr Walt...You
get funnier with each post! Company Commander. Yah, right. That was a
good one.

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >>We have 760 KIA now. What's your best guess on the final number of KIA
> >>before
> >>the -whole- country is pacified?
> >>
> >>Walt
> >
>
> >I have no idea, but less than 1000 KIA to invade, defeat and occupy a
country
> >for 1 year is unbelievably low
>
> We shouldn't be there at all.
>
> 1000 KIA is a grotesque disaster.
>
> >If you had any real military experience you
> >would acknowledge that.
>
> I was a company commander on Desert Storm.
>
> Walt

[WalterM140]

>I don't demonize you because you're a left wing zelot, I do it because you're
>a
>fake and a troll.

You could learn to spell it:

"zealot."

Walt

[WalterM140]

>WalterM140 wrote:
>
>>We shouldn't be there at all.
>
>Says the leftists troll.
>

Al Quaida is in Afghanistan. Now all the Army that can be spared is in the
wrong place. It's been well shown that Iraq under Saddam was no threat to us
and had no links to Al Quaida.

It's also been shown that the Bushies planned to invade Iraq even before 9/11.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>> The place is a money pit; the infrastructure is being
>>sabotage, I could go on and on.
>
><snip>
>
>>Our guys are dying every day.
>>


>I agree it's not running right, but what if we pulled out. Lat's say we set a
>date of 1 September.

Well, remember what John Kerry said back in 1971:

"Who wants to be the last man to die for a bad cause?"

The beauty of the Bushies' getting us into the war (for them) was that once we
crossed into Iraq they could point to every one who opposed them as traitors,
and point to the body bags they caused, to keep us going down the road of wrong
and poorly executed policies.

Given the fact that the Bushies have totally screwed up at every decision
point, even if the war is right, we need to turn it over to someone else to
run. They could hardly screw up as badly as the Crawford Cowboy.

Did any one notice this? The Marines strike a deal with the locals at Fallujah
and withdraw. These were the Sunnis, who hate us and have largely supported
the Ba'athists.

Then within a week we are destroying the headquarters of a Shi'ite leader in
Najaf -- our natural allies?

It's just another maladroit maneuver by the Bushies that will lead to more of
our guys getting killed.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>Do we
>slink out like hyenas as we did when Clinton pulled up stakes?

We should never have had troops in Somalia. It was an intractable problem.
Those troops were placed there by GHWB after he lost the election.

Don't forget how the Reagan administration screwed up totally in Lebanon. This
helped bring on the attack on the Beirut airport that killed 241 US servicemen.
The Reagan administration promptly "slunk" out of that quagmire.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>WalterM140 wrote:
>
>>We have @ 750 KIA.
>
>You keep spouting this, but it hurts your argument more than helps it.
>
>

Al Quaida is in Afgahnistan, not Iraq.

>>Really, you are getting so over the top ridiculous you can just about be
>>ignored
>
>If you believe touting 750 KIA in one year of combat as a success is
>ridiculous then I suggest you hide in a closet if Korea ever kicks off,
because we'll
>suffer that many in a week there.

That would be because of more incompetence by the Bushies.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>HOLY COW! I about spit coke all over my screen on this one! Mr Walt...You
>get funnier with each post! Company Commander. Yah, right. That was a
>good one.
>

India Company, Third Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment.

Walt

[George Z. Bush]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >WalterM140 wrote:
> >
> >>We have @ 750 KIA.
> >
> >You keep spouting this, but it hurts your argument more than helps it.
> >
> >
>
> Al Quaida is in Afgahnistan, not Iraq.
>
> >>Really, you are getting so over the top ridiculous you can just about be
> >>ignored
> >
> >If you believe touting 750 KIA in one year of combat as a success is
> >ridiculous then I suggest you hide in a closet if Korea ever kicks off,
> because we'll
> >suffer that many in a week there.
>
> That would be because of more incompetence by the Bushies.

I hate to disagree with you, but it wouldn't matter who took that job
on......they'd clean our clocks because they have a helluva lot more boots on
the ground than we have and nukes as well, so we wouldn't be able to use our
with any confidence.

George Z.
>
> Walt
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> >HOLY COW! I about spit coke all over my screen on this one! Mr Walt...You
> >get funnier with each post! Company Commander. Yah, right. That was a
> >good one.
> >
>
> India Company, Third Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment.

Hey, you don't need to post your bona fides. If the guy jiggling your chain
posted his, they'd probably say:

Metal Polisher, 144th Messkit Repair Battalion, 1st Army Support Group.
(^-^)))

George Z.

>
> Walt

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >WalterM140 wrote:
> > >
> > >>We have @ 750 KIA.
> > >
> > >You keep spouting this, but it hurts your argument more than helps it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Al Quaida is in Afgahnistan, not Iraq.
> >
> > >>Really, you are getting so over the top ridiculous you can just about
be
> > >>ignored
> > >
> > >If you believe touting 750 KIA in one year of combat as a success is
> > >ridiculous then I suggest you hide in a closet if Korea ever kicks off,
> > because we'll
> > >suffer that many in a week there.
> >
> > That would be because of more incompetence by the Bushies.
>
> I hate to disagree with you, but it wouldn't matter who took that job
> on......they'd clean our clocks because they have a helluva lot more boots
on
> the ground than we have and nukes as well, so we wouldn't be able to use
our
> with any confidence.

You seem to be forgetting about the "troika"--FROKA, SROKA, and TROKA. Three
well equipped, trained, and prepared ROK armies. Plus a ROKAF armed with
F-16's, not to mention the backing from the USAF and USN airpower. "They'd
clean our clocks"? Very doubtful, to say the least. Casualties would be on a
scale we have not seen since the Vietnam era, but no, they would not "clean
our clocks".

Brooks

>
> George Z.
> >
> > Walt
> >
> >
>
>

[BUFDRVR]

George Z. Bush wrote:

>Hey, you don't need to post your bona fides.

His posted it George because its bogus. I know there have been some 20 year
O-3s, but are you trying to tell me we've actually met one here and he was a
Marine?

Doubtful.

>if the guy jiggling your chain
>posted his, they'd probably say:
>
>Metal Polisher, 144th Messkit Repair Battalion, 1st Army Support Group.

I guess I can be accused of "jiggling his chain", but I was never in the Army
and the only metal polishing I've done was on my old belt buckle.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140 wrote:

>Al Quaida is in Afghanistan. Now all the Army that can be spared is in the
>wrong place.

The force size in Afghanistan is the same as it would have been had Saddam
still been in power like you guys want. If you had any clue about the military
you would know this.

>It's been well shown that Iraq under Saddam was no threat to us

Well shown? Hardly.

>It's also been shown that the Bushies planned to invade Iraq even before
>9/11.
>

A military plan existed prior to the actual operation? Say it ain't so....

All Bush did was update *Clinton's* Iraq OPLAN. Oh, I'm sorry you did know that
Clinton "planned to invade Iraq" too?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140 wrote:

<snip critiques of U.S. military moves>

>It's just another maladroit maneuver by the Bushies that will lead to more of
>our guys getting killed.

Once again your lack of knowledge about anything military shines. These "bad"
decisions were made by both combatant commanders (CDRUSCENTCOM and JTF-7
Commander) in the region and not by anyone above their paygrade. Bush, like
Clinton and his father before him has not involved himself in the battlefield
tactical decisions.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

George Z. Bush wrote:

>> That would be because of more incompetence by the Bushies.
>
>I hate to disagree with you, but it wouldn't matter who took that job
>on......they'd clean our clocks because they have a helluva lot more boots on
>the ground than we have and nukes as well, so we wouldn't be able to use our
>with any confidence.

No George, according to Walt, no matter if a democrat were in the White House
for 12 years proceeding the nK invasion, it would be the fault of the
Republicans. He's already stated as much.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[B2431]

>From: (BUFDRVR)

>
>WalterM140 wrote:
>
>
>>It's also been shown that the Bushies planned to invade Iraq even before
>>9/11.
>>
>
>A military plan existed prior to the actual operation? Say it ain't so....
>
>All Bush did was update *Clinton's* Iraq OPLAN. Oh, I'm sorry you did know
>that
>Clinton "planned to invade Iraq" too?
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>

I guess some people don't know there are people in the Pentagon whose sole
function is to prepare contingency and/or invasion plans just in case the
president asks for them. I would not be surprised if there weren't plans in
existance to invade Andorra, Canada, Mexico..etc.

If Clinton, Bush or whomever did NOT have such plans on the shelf then they
should have been fired.

I guess what I am saying is Bush had plans for Iraq long before 9/11, but so
did Clinton, Bush the Elder, Reagan and so on.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 5/12/2004 3:43 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>George Z. Bush wrote:
>
>>Hey, you don't need to post your bona fides.
>
>His posted it George because its bogus. I know there have been some 20 year
>O-3s, but are you trying to tell me we've actually met one here and he was a
>Marine?
>
>Doubtful.
>

Never heard of prior enlisted?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

wrote:

>Never heard of prior enlisted?

Yes I have and if he was USAF I wouldn't have batted an eye lash, but a 38 year
old Marine Infantry Company Commander seems unlikely to me. I'm playing golf
tommorow with a Paris Island D.I., I'll ask how many prior service guys they
have running infantry companies. Then I'll ask if he ever ran into one on the
verge of retirement.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[WalterM140]

>>It's been well shown that Iraq under Saddam was no threat to us
>
>Well shown? Hardly.
>

Yes, extensively.

>>It's also been shown that the Bushies planned to invade Iraq even before
>>9/11.
>>
>

>A military plan existed prior to the actual operation? Say it ain't so....
>

Bush planned to invade Iraq because this is a war for Oil.

>All Bush did was update *Clinton's* Iraq OPLAN. Oh, I'm sorry you did know
>that
>Clinton "planned to invade Iraq" too?

Proof? I thought weinie Clinton only fired cruise missiles?

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>It's just another maladroit maneuver by the Bushies that will lead to more
>of
>>our guys getting killed.
>
>Once again your lack of knowledge about anything military shines.

I know a lot about the military. But you don't have to know much about the
military to know that the Bush administration has screwed up the war, even if
you bought their premise.

> These "bad"
>decisions were made by both combatant commanders (CDRUSCENTCOM and JTF-7
>Commander) in the region and not by anyone above their paygrade.

You can try and show that. Common sense will tell someone it's not true.

>Bush, like
>Clinton and his father before him has not involved himself in the battlefield
>tactical decisions.

As we know, Bush is ultimately responsible what is done or not done.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>From: (BUFDRVR)
>>Date: 5/12/2004 3:43 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>George Z. Bush wrote:
>>

>>>Hey, you don't need to post your bona fides.
>>
>>His posted it George because its bogus. I know there have been some 20 year
>>O-3s, but are you trying to tell me we've actually met one here and he was a
>>Marine?

The C.O. of the Marine Detachment on the U.S.S. Simon Lake when I was there was
a 20 year captain - Captain Howard Lovingood, and so was his relief, Captain
Walter Peoples. They both retired as Majors.


>>
>>Doubtful.
>>
>
>Never heard of prior enlisted?
>

I enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1973. That's how I got be a Viet Nam Era
veteran. Anyone who served more than 180 days prior to sometime in 1975 makes
the cut. I actually narrowly missed going to Viet Nam anyway. Most of the
Marines in my class at Infantry Training School were in the MAU (now called
MEU's) that evacuated Saigon in the spring of 1975. I got orders to Sea School
Atlantic and then to the Marine Detachment on the U.S.S. Simon Lake, so I
missed that show.

I was a rifle company commander in the 24th Marine Regiment on Desert Storm, as
I said. That's the reserve unit in Nashville.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>Never heard of prior enlisted?
>
>Yes I have and if he was USAF I wouldn't have batted an eye lash, but a 38
>year
>old Marine Infantry Company Commander seems unlikely to me.

In 1991 I was 36 years old. And I did serve four years as an enlisted Marine on
sea duty and in the 8th Marine regiment.

I haven't seen much from you to show your background. You don't seem to know
much about command responsibility, that's for sure, or they teach it
differently in the Air Force.

As I indicated, it was nice to hear the editors of the Military Times say
pretty much what I said.
>I'm playing golf
>tommorow with a Paris Island D.I., I'll ask how many prior service guys they
>have running infantry companies. Then I'll ask if he ever ran into one on the
>verge of retirement.
>

Ask him about limited duty officers. I worked for two: Captain Howard
Lovingood and Captain Walter Peoples.

See if this link comes up. It's my profile on Freerepublic.com

http://www.freerepublic.com/~whiskeypapa/

Walt

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140 wrote:

>I haven't seen much from you to show your background.

If you weren't such a troll, and actually came here to enjoy a rational
discussion on military aviation, you would be familiar with my background. If
you're new and just discovering these boards then your introduction was
horrible. Starting threads like this one is the sign of troll nothing more.

>You don't seem to know
>much about command responsibility, that's for sure, or they teach it
>differently in the Air Force.

Actually, you're the one lacking...at times. You have flip-flopped between
agreeing with me and arguing Bush was responsible for every infraction
committed by every sevice member. Somehow I think we would be in complete
agreement if Bush were a democrat. And that is also what makes you a troll.

>As I indicated, it was nice to hear the editors of the Military Times say
>pretty much what I said.

Typical. You can keep saying this, but it won't make it true. The editors
published the article written by a lone individual. Does this mean they agree?
Hardly since the Air Force Times (same company, same editors) publishes several
editorials every week and often two of them argue with each other. Great, one
person agrees with you. Want to bet hes a left wing fanatic like you?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140 wrote:

>>>It's been well shown that Iraq under Saddam was no threat to us
>>
>>Well shown? Hardly.
>>
>
>Yes, extensively.

If this guy was such a pussycat then why did the U.N. resolutions continue for
over a decade? Obviously someone thought he was threat. Hell, your boy Billy
Clinton drafted a Congressionally signed mandate that said the official U.S.
foregin policy on Iraq was regime change. Were you outraged when this happened?
Is it OK to draft a policy and not okay to execute it?

>Bush planned to invade Iraq because this is a war for Oil.
>

Troll. Why don't you call him a "neo-con"?

>>All Bush did was update *Clinton's* Iraq OPLAN. Oh, I'm sorry you did know
>>that
>>Clinton "planned to invade Iraq" too?
>
>Proof? I thought weinie Clinton only fired cruise missiles?

It's statements like this that cast doubt on your military service. I'll try to
explain it to you. Clinton's latest Iraq war plan (entitled 1003-98) was simply
updated by the Bush administration (1003-98 became 1003V). This is the "plan
for a war with Iraq" that you read about. The fact that war plans exist (for
numerous countries) and are updated regularly was lost on the leftist fanatics.
Clinton updated 1003 at least twice during his 8 years, interesting I never
read about his "plan for a war with Iraq". Why do you suppose that is?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140 wrote:

>I know a lot about the military.

No you really don't. You don't understand chain of command or command
responsibility. You don't understand war plans or how, when or why they're
developed. These seem to be very basic issues you have a problem over coming.

>> These "bad"
>>decisions were made by both combatant commanders (CDRUSCENTCOM and JTF-7
>>Commander) in the region and not by anyone above their paygrade.
>
>You can try and show that. Common sense will tell someone it's not true.

So tell me. What was Bush's involvement in any of the supposed screw ups you
brought up? I'll make it easier, tell us what part Bush played in the Fallujah
incident. I want to know details, not you leftist troll crap that says "he's
ultimately responsible". I've already said that myself, but you are no longer
talking about responsibility, you're talking about blame. So tell me what was
Bush's role with CJTF-7 and the argeements that came out of the Fallujah
uprising?

>>Bush, like
>>Clinton and his father before him has not involved himself in the
>battlefield
>>tactical decisions.
>
>As we know, Bush is ultimately responsible what is done or not done.

Blah, blah,blah..like a broken record. You don't even know what you mean when
you type that. You are a troll of the worst type. You blame Bush for everything
happening in the U.S. military, yet deflect blame from Clinton for Somalia. You
are a pathetic loser.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[David Pugh]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >It's been well shown that Iraq under Saddam was no threat to us
>
> Well shown? Hardly.

It seems pretty clear that, compared to the other threats, Saddam wasn't
much of a threat. Based on the pre-invasion intelligence estimates, Iraq:
had no ties to Al Qaeda
had no nuclear weapons
probably had chemical or biological weapons but there were no indications
that they were exported

In comparison, Pakistan (nuclear weapons, exporter of nuclear technology,
direct supporter of the Taliban, direct supporter of terrorists in Kashmir)
and Syria (direct supporter of terrorists, suspected of posessing chemical
and biological weapons) would seem to be far greater threats.

Add in that the invasion does not seem to have diminished the threat that
Iraq was originally claimed to pose. It has been claimed, for example, that
the reason that no chemical & biological weapons were found was because they
were all shipped to Syria. If so, those weapons are even more of a threat
than they were before the invasion. Add in the looting of Iraqi nuclear
material
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-05-wagner_x.htm)
and it is a little hard to see how invading Iraq made us safer.

As it was, the invasion seemed to be designed to "get Saddam" rather than
deal with the claimed threat. Either the people at the top knew there wasn't
a real threat or they failed adequately deal with it by providing enough
resources to secure the borders and known nuclear sites.

[BUFDRVR]

David Pugh Wrote:

>It seems pretty clear that, compared to the other threats, Saddam wasn't
>much of a threat.

Compared to the other threats we could deal with quickly, he was #1.

>Based on the pre-invasion intelligence estimates, Iraq:
> had no ties to Al Qaeda

While he may have had no direct ties to Al Queda, he was a.)supporting
terrorists in the PA and Isreal by paying families of bombers a healthy stipend
("healthy" is obviously relative). Could this outward support of terrorism been
an indication of future or less visable acts? b.) Had a long relationship
(ended in hail of bullets, over what issue we may never know) with Abu Nidal
and several other terrorists. Should we just have waited until one of Saddams
supported terrorists attacked the U.S. or Americans overseas?

Those two questions are not as clear as they seem and if you don't believe the
evidence indicates a potential threat in either one than you obviously don't
believe Hussain to have been a threat.

> probably had chemical or biological weapons but there were no indications
>that they were exported

I believe, again, this falls into the "lets not wait until they are" catagory.
Bush said the U.S. would be proactive and it appears he meant it.

>In comparison, Pakistan (nuclear weapons, exporter of nuclear technology,
>direct supporter of the Taliban, direct supporter of terrorists in Kashmir)

Well, to be fair, the Pakastani government, while blind and ignorant was not
exactly the reason Pakistan conducted such activity. After 9/11, Musharif cut
all support to the Taliban and at least it appears that he (and the rest of the
government) were ignorant about the nuclear weapons technology flow out of
Pakistan. As far as Kashmir is concerned, neither India nor Pakistan is absent
blame as far as supporting unlawful combatants. The bottom line on Pakistan,
the people appear to be the ones supporting terrorists, not the government.
Going to war against a people is much harder (and bloodier) than going after a
government.

>and Syria (direct supporter of terrorists, suspected of posessing chemical
>and biological weapons) would seem to be far greater threats.

Syrian support for terrorists in Isreal and the PA has been overt for decades
and a concern for the U.S. since 9/11 opened our eyes. It isn't that Syria
isn't a threat, its just that they're not as vulnerable and easy to deal with
as Iraq was. I believe Syria's time is coming, whether Bush is office or Kerry,
eventually Syrian ties to a terrorist organization that srtikes the U.S. will
be discovered. Right now Assad is walking a very fine line, he's got pressure
from both sides (extremists in Syria and the U.S.), we'll see which way he
eventually falls.

>Add in that the invasion does not seem to have diminished the threat that
>Iraq was originally claimed to pose.

Well, one absolute is that Iraqi money will not be funding any more terrorists
or abeting suicide bombers in Isreal.

>It has been claimed, for example, that
>the reason that no chemical & biological weapons were found was because they
>were all shipped to Syria. If so, those weapons are even more of a threat
>than they were before the invasion.

I wouldn't argue more of a threat, but surely as big.

>Add in the looting of Iraqi nuclear
>material
>(http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-05-wagner_x.htm)
>and it is a little hard to see how invading Iraq made us safer.

It did two things. 1.)Eliminated a potential or actual supporter of terrorists
and 2.) got U.S. forces out of Saudi Arabia, a major issue with Muslim
fundamentalists.

>As it was, the invasion seemed to be designed to "get Saddam" rather than
>deal with the claimed threat.

I believe its because Saddam was the main threat.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[David Pugh]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Syrian support for terrorists in Isreal and the PA has been overt for
decades
> and a concern for the U.S. since 9/11 opened our eyes. It isn't that Syria
> isn't a threat, its just that they're not as vulnerable and easy to deal
with
> as Iraq was. I believe Syria's time is coming, whether Bush is office or
Kerry,
> eventually Syrian ties to a terrorist organization that srtikes the U.S.
will
> be discovered.

The sad truth is that even if we caught the Syrians red-handed turning small
pox virus over to Osama, there isn't much we could do about it. We don't
have the resources to do it right now and we've severly limited our options
in the future by destroying any credibility we used to have. Any claim by
the US that pre-emptive action is needed against Syria, Iran, Pakistan
(after the revolution), etc. is going to be dismissed as "that's what you
claimed last time."

> >Add in the looting of Iraqi nuclear
> >material
> >(http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-05-wagner_x.htm)
> >and it is a little hard to see how invading Iraq made us safer.
>
> It did two things. 1.)Eliminated a potential or actual supporter of
terrorists
> and 2.) got U.S. forces out of Saudi Arabia, a major issue with Muslim
> fundamentalists.

Offhand, I'd say Muslim fundamentalists are far more upset with the US now,
given out actions in Iraq, than they were by our forces in Saudi Arabia.
Which is a false argument, anyhow: we could have withdrawn our forces from
Saudi Arabia any time we wanted to. Given Iraq's great success against Iran
(with it had a far stronger army), I'd be really surprised if they could
accomplish much against Saudi Arabia given US air support.

[Denyav]

>The sad truth is that even if we caught the Syrians red-handed turning small
>pox virus over to Osama, there isn't much we could do about it. We don't
>have the resources to do it right now and we've severly limited our options
>in the future by destroying any credibility we used to have. Any claim by
>the US that pre-emptive action is needed against Syria, Iran, Pakistan
>(after the revolution), etc. is going to be dismissed as "that's what you
>claimed last time."

>> >and it is a little hard to see how invading Iraq made us safer.

If US has resources to occupy Syria,Iran,Afghanistan and Pakistan is an
irrelevant question.
After the death of Brzezinskis very ambitious Eurasia dominance plan US is now
basicaly pushed back to Cyprus-Turkey-Iran-Afghanistan line and these four
countries are now the front states in the struggle between Global Financial
and Global Military powers.
Dilemma for US is that Kissingers plan "Seizing Arab Oil" and Brzezinskis
"Eurasia" plans were designed to complement each other so after demise of one
it will be pretty difficult to implement the remaining one.

[BUFDRVR]

David Pugh wrote:

>The sad truth is that even if we caught the Syrians red-handed turning small
>pox virus over to Osama, there isn't much we could do about it. We don't
>have the resources to do it right now

Agreed and until and unless congress authorizes and increase in U.S. military
force end strength this will continue for quite sometime.

>and we've severly limited our options
>in the future by destroying any credibility we used to have. Any claim by
>the US that pre-emptive action is needed against Syria, Iran, Pakistan
>(after the revolution), etc. is going to be dismissed as "that's what you
>claimed last time."

Agree. We will have to provide direct proof that lies well outside "our
intelligence estimates...."

>Offhand, I'd say Muslim fundamentalists are far more upset with the US now

For the present time you are correct. It appears anger and our presence in the
holy land has been replaced by anger at our presence in Iraq. When our forces
leave Iraq I'd expect somewhat of an improvement.

>Which is a false argument, anyhow: we could have withdrawn our forces from
>Saudi Arabia any time we wanted to.

If we wanted to abandon Operation SOUTHERN WATCH and leave Hussain to his own
devices in Southern Iraq you're right, but I don't believe that would have been
a positive thing for regional stability.

>Given Iraq's great success against Iran
>(with it had a far stronger army), I'd be really surprised if they could
>accomplish much against Saudi Arabia given US air support.

The problem is, without PSAB you can't get US air support over most of Iraq in
large enough numbers.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[David Pugh]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> David Pugh wrote:
> >The sad truth is that even if we caught the Syrians red-handed turning
small
> >pox virus over to Osama, there isn't much we could do about it.
> Agreed and until and unless congress authorizes and increase in U.S.
military
> force end strength this will continue for quite sometime.
> >...
> Agree. We will have to provide direct proof that lies well outside "our
> intelligence estimates...."
>
> >Offhand, I'd say Muslim fundamentalists are far more upset with the US
now
> For the present time you are correct. .... When our forces
> leave Iraq I'd expect somewhat of an improvement.

In other words, by attacking Iraq, we have taken out Saddam (good), did
little about the threat of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons since, if
they existed in the first place, we didn't make the required effort to
prevent them from being exported to Syria (neutral), allowed the looting of
Iraqi nuclear facilities (bad), tied our hands is a new and more dangerous
threat emerges (bad) and alienated the entire region (bad). Explain to me
again why invading Iraq was a good thing?

> If we wanted to abandon Operation SOUTHERN WATCH and leave Hussain to his
own
> devices in Southern Iraq you're right, but I don't believe that would have
been
> a positive thing for regional stability.

Is there any reason SOUTHERN WATCH couldn't have been run from Kuwait and
Qatar?

[BUFDRVR]

David Pugh wrote:

>In other words, by attacking Iraq, we have taken out Saddam (good)

Yes.

>did
>little about the threat of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons since, if
>they existed in the first place, we didn't make the required effort to
>prevent them from being exported to Syria (neutral)

Not 100% accurate. *If* Saddam managed to export his weapons to Syria (a very
unforseen event by the way that dems seem anxious to exploit as if they knew
this was going to happen) their chance of being used probably just got cut in
half. Syria is much more unlikely than Saddam of using these weapons either
overtly or through a terrorist.

>allowed the looting of
>Iraqi nuclear facilities (bad)

Allowed? You'll have to show me how we were complicit with the looting of what
were *suspected* facilities. Ask any democrat, they'll tell you Iraq didn't
have any WMD; so what exactly was looted?

> tied our hands is a new and more dangerous
>threat emerges

I don't follow this one?

>and alienated the entire region

Hardly. If we had alienated the entire region, we would not currently be hosted
in nearly every country on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf.

>Explain to me
>again why invading Iraq was a good thing?

Because it removed a known threat who had a great potential to kill Americans
and our allies.

>Is there any reason SOUTHERN WATCH couldn't have been run from Kuwait and
>Qatar?

Uhh, because the closer you are to Iraq the less tankers you need. There would
have been no way (unless you built a few more airfields in the region) to put
up the same number of SOUTHERN WATCH sorties every day if most strike aircraft
had to fly from Al Udeid or even Masirah or Thumrait. There just wasn't enough
ramp space for all the tankers you would have needed.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[David Pugh]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Not 100% accurate. *If* Saddam managed to export his weapons to Syria (a
very
> unforseen event by the way that dems seem anxious to exploit as if they
knew
> this was going to happen) their chance of being used probably just got cut
in
> half.

The notion that Saddam might flush his chemical/biological weapons was
discussed before the invasion. It doesn't take a lot of foresight to predict
that someone with chemical weapons who was about to go down might -- if they
chose not to use them -- give them away to someone who might. And, while I
agree that any ex-Iraqi weapons under the control of the Syrian government
are relatively safe, I'm not so sure that the Syrian government is the only
recipient (by accident or design).

> Allowed? You'll have to show me how we were complicit with the looting of
what
> were *suspected* facilities. Ask any democrat, they'll tell you Iraq
didn't
> have any WMD; so what exactly was looted?

Check out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3002169.stm.
Basically the US failed to secure know nuclear (not weapon related, but
research and the like) and they were looted. Net result is that radioactive
material suitible for making a dirty bomb are missing.

So, "allowed" as in "had a responsibility to prevent and failed to do so".

> > tied our hands is a new and more dangerous
> >threat emerges
>
> I don't follow this one?

Sorry, typo: "hands _if_ a new". Basically what do we do now if, for
example, there is for example an Islamic revolt in Pakistan?

> >and alienated the entire region
>
> Hardly. If we had alienated the entire region, we would not currently be
hosted
> in nearly every country on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf.

Check out: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=185. It is
a somewhat troubling sign when more people in think Osama is more likely to
do the right thing than Bush.

> Uhh, because the closer you are to Iraq the less tankers you need. There
would
> have been no way (unless you built a few more airfields in the region) to
put
> up the same number of SOUTHERN WATCH sorties every day if most strike
aircraft
> had to fly from Al Udeid or even Masirah or Thumrait. There just wasn't
enough
> ramp space for all the tankers you would have needed.

How many sorties/day were flown by SOUTHERN WATCH? I admit I'm surprised
that we couldn't have supported it with a couple of airfields, but you are
the expert. Even so, though, how much would it have cost to expand the ramp
space?

[Ron]

>
>If you believe touting 750 KIA in one year of combat as a success is
>ridiculous
>then I suggest you hide in a closet if Korea ever kicks off, because we'll
>suffer that many in a week there.

I would figure that in the first few hours, if not even faster


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

[BUFDRVR]

David Pugh wrote:

>The notion that Saddam might flush his chemical/biological weapons was
>discussed before the invasion.

However, the most logical train of thought said that Saddam's experience with
running his more modern fighter aircraft to Iran during the first (or second
depending on how you count) Gulf War would not encourage him to try that again
with any military hardware. By the way, the "fact" that he shipped some CW
weapon to Syria is far from proven. We're kind of in an argument about a
supposition.

> I'm not so sure that the Syrian government is the only
>recipient (by accident or design).

Well, ask Kerry, he'll tell you not to worry because Iraq never had any weapons
and Bush lied to us. The bottom line if Kerry is wrong is that U.S. forces did
the best they could to seal off as many suspected WMD facilities as they had
the man power to.

>Basically the US failed to secure know nuclear (not weapon related, but
>research and the like) and they were looted.

Which is tragic, but not preventable unless we invaded Iraq with 500,000
troops.... which we may have been able to get had Russia, Germany and France
not been against us to cover-up there own "dirty dealings" in Iraq.

>Basically what do we do now if, for
>example, there is for example an Islamic revolt in Pakistan?

The same thing we would have done in 1994, 1999 or 10 SEP 2001, watch very
carefully and strongly encourage India not to do a first strike unless they can
confirm a transfer of nuclear weapons to radicals.

>It is
>a somewhat troubling sign when more people in think Osama is more likely to
>do the right thing than Bush.

Ohhh, you're talking about the "Arab Street" and not the Arab governments.
Well, I've got news for you, the U.S. will *never* be popular with your typical
Arab Muslim, or most muslims in general. Its an information warfare battle we
cannot win. If they had given that poll on 12 SEP 2001, the results probably
would have been even more in favor of Bin Laden.

>How many sorties/day were flown by SOUTHERN WATCH?

Hmm, a rough estimation I'd say around 40-50 sorties into the container
(southern Iraq) a day. Then you had AWACS, RJ and Compass Call sorties.

>I admit I'm surprised
>that we couldn't have supported it with a couple of airfields

The biggest LIMFAC for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM was the number of tankers
available in theater. PSAB was unavailable for any sortie penetrating the Iraqi
ADIZ. If KSA had refused the flight of *any* aircraft out of PSAB we would have
had to reduce the number of sorties by 10-15%.

>Even so, though, how much would it have cost to expand the ramp
>space?

Cost isn't the only issue. The nations of Oman, UAE and Qatar have to agree as
well. Oman was very cooperative after 9/11, allowing us to build up both the
ramp and runway at Thumrait, but they still maintained (as is their right) very
tight control over aircraft flying into or out of Thumrait. The problem is also
one of geography. PSAB was 350 nautical miles from the Iraqi border. Building
up the ramps in Qatar, UAE and Oman to handle more strike aircraft would be
great, but now you need twice (or more) the tankers because you're twice( or
more) as far away. The building project you're talking about here would have
been *huge*.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

Ron wrote:

>>If you believe touting 750 KIA in one year of combat as a success is
>>ridiculous
>>then I suggest you hide in a closet if Korea ever kicks off, because we'll
>>suffer that many in a week there.
>
>I would figure that in the first few hours, if not even faster


Well, perhaps I am being too optimistic, but I tend to think our land mine
fields, at least initially, will be fairly successful. And remember, we're
talking killed, not killed and wounded.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Ron wrote:
>
> >>If you believe touting 750 KIA in one year of combat as a success is
> >>ridiculous
> >>then I suggest you hide in a closet if Korea ever kicks off, because
we'll
> >>suffer that many in a week there.
> >
> >I would figure that in the first few hours, if not even faster
>
>
> Well, perhaps I am being too optimistic, but I tend to think our land mine
> fields, at least initially, will be fairly successful. And remember, we're
> talking killed, not killed and wounded.

Guys, if you have been reading the stuff coming out of the region the last
couple of years, you'd know that the US ground forces are pulling back
further from the DMZ, and that we only have a single division (minus--only
two of three normally assigned maneuver brigades), with some corps and
theater/army level CS/CSS units, in the ROK proper. Both point to the idea
of "750 KIA in the first few hours" as being rather unlikely. Do we expect
the DPRK's air assets to be really successful in the strike role? Nope, so
they are unlikely to kill oodles of our USAF folks at the airbases down
south. Their naval forces? Hardly. Which leaves their army--big, hard...and
archaic. And facing it are three ROK armies--FROKA, SROKA, and TROKA. Big,
hard, and pretty danged modern in terms of both equipment and tactics. All
of this adds up to any new DPRK offensive yielding results that would look
nothing like those they enjoyed in their initial push in 1950, when they
faced an inadequately manned, equipped, and trained ROK army and our token
deployment of first Task Force Smith and then the constabulary-focused 24th
ID in toto (or as much "toto" as you could get from that undermanned and
undertrained skeleton force). In other words, when it comes to a
conventional fight in Korea, the sky is not going to fall down--yeah, we'll
likely take heavier casualties than we have in other recent confrontations,
but it will not be the bloodbath for our guys that y'all seem to think it
would be. Unless you think the DPRK's first salvo will be nukes--and that is
unlikely.

Brooks

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[David Pugh]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> However, the most logical train of thought said that Saddam's experience
with
> running his more modern fighter aircraft to Iran during the first (or
second
> depending on how you count) Gulf War would not encourage him to try that
again
> with any military hardware. By the way, the "fact" that he shipped some CW
> weapon to Syria is far from proven. We're kind of in an argument about a
> supposition.

Depends on his motivation: sending planes to a former enemy and hoping to
get them back might have been a tad optimistic. Dispersing
chemical/biological weapons for use against soft targets is something else
entirely. In any case, the point was that if the rational for war was to it
was required to protect the US from Saddam's weapons, then we should have
anticipated the possibility and guarded against it. We didn't, so either the
leadership was incompetent or didn't consider the weapons a serious threat.

> >Basically the US failed to secure know nuclear (not weapon related, but
> >research and the like) and they were looted.
>
> Which is tragic, but not preventable unless we invaded Iraq with 500,000
> troops.... which we may have been able to get had Russia, Germany and
France
> not been against us to cover-up there own "dirty dealings" in Iraq.

Somehow I don't think that securing a few dozen sites would require an
additional 350,000 troops. Failure to do so was a matter of incompetent
leadership, not lack of resources.

> >Basically what do we do now if, for
> >example, there is for example an Islamic revolt in Pakistan?
> The same thing we would have done in 1994, 1999 or 10 SEP 2001, watch very
> carefully and strongly encourage India not to do a first strike unless
they can
> confirm a transfer of nuclear weapons to radicals.

Somehow, it doesn't seem to be a good idea to use doctrine of pre-emption to
deal with, at worst, a moderate threat if it then leaves us unable to
respond to a major threat. Especially when dealing with the moderate threat
increases the likelyhood of a major threat (or do you think the governmens
of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are more stable now than they were in 2002).

> Ohhh, you're talking about the "Arab Street" and not the Arab governments.
> Well, I've got news for you, the U.S. will *never* be popular with your
typical
> Arab Muslim, or most muslims in general. Its an information warfare battle
we
> cannot win. If they had given that poll on 12 SEP 2001, the results
probably
> would have been even more in favor of Bin Laden.

In other words, only the governments matter and not the opinions of the
general populace? I could have sworn that one of our missions was to support
democracy. In any case, the opinion of the US on the street has taken a big
hit (http://www.aaiusa.org/wwatch/031703.htm). Admittedly, this is the
generally the case of going from bad to worse ... but you have to wonder
might have happened if the US had decided to spend a few billion to
establish secular schools as an alternative to the madrassas.

> Hmm, a rough estimation I'd say around 40-50 sorties into the container
> (southern Iraq) a day. Then you had AWACS, RJ and Compass Call sorties.

Thanks for the information.

> >Even so, though, how much would it have cost to expand the ramp
> >space?
> ....The building project you're talking about here would have
> been *huge*.

So ... if you use the adjective huge to describe the cost of expanding the
airports, what adjective do you use to describe the cost of the war so far?

[BUFDRVR]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

>yeah, we'll
>likely take heavier casualties than we have in other recent confrontations,
>but it will not be the bloodbath for our guys that y'all

By "y'all" I guess you mean you all, which, despite being from New Jersey I
understand to mean both of us. My guess is 750 KIA (+/- 150) in a week. Are you
saying that figure is inflated?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[B2431]

>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 5/17/2004 9:15 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Ron wrote:
>
>>>If you believe touting 750 KIA in one year of combat as a success is
>>>ridiculous
>>>then I suggest you hide in a closet if Korea ever kicks off, because we'll
>>>suffer that many in a week there.
>>
>>I would figure that in the first few hours, if not even faster
>
>
>Well, perhaps I am being too optimistic, but I tend to think our land mine
>fields, at least initially, will be fairly successful. And remember, we're
>talking killed, not killed and wounded.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>

Hussein thought the same thing in 1990-1991. Didn't work then, won't work now.
The agressor only has to force a few lanes through the mine fields. We used
technology the North Koreans may or may not have, but they would be perfectly
willing to use masses of men if they don't.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

David Pugh wrote:

>In any case, the point was that if the rational for war was to it
>was required to protect the US from Saddam's weapons, then we should have
>anticipated the possibility and guarded against it.

You cannot plan for every contingency. With forces on hand, you plan for the
most likely. You can do no more than that. Basically you're claiming both the
civilian and military leaders should be taken to task for not sealing off every
suspected WMD facility, sealing off the borders with Kuwait, Iran, Syria and
Saudi Arabia in addition to conducting a major air-land battle where less than
500 allied troops are killed. You sir are not thinking about what you're asking
for!

>We didn't, so either the
>leadership was incompetent or didn't consider the weapons a serious threat.

The leadership did the best they could with what they had. If you have a
problem with the number of forces involved, take it up with your democratic
congressman (as well as some Republicans) who are steadfastly against an
increase in U.S. military personnel.

>Somehow I don't think that securing a few dozen sites would require an
>additional 350,000 troops.

A few dozen? No sir, you are asking them to seal off well over 100. You can't
use your 20/20 hindsight to determine what suspected sites actually had
material in them and which ones didn't.

>Failure to do so was a matter of incompetent
>leadership, not lack of resources.

Gen. Franks is not incompetent.

>Somehow, it doesn't seem to be a good idea to use doctrine of pre-emption to
>deal with, at worst, a moderate threat

What are you talking about? The U.S. wouldn't have to lift a finger in
Pakistan. If you think India is going to allow an Islamic revolt in Pakistan to
succeed in granting accesss to nuclear weapons to radicals you are clueless.
The main job of the U.S. government would be to make sure India a.) didn't pull
the trigger until the transfer of nuclear weapons could be confirmed and
b.)made sure India hit all the sites.

>In other words, only the governments matter and not the opinions of the
>general populace?

What matters is a strong U.S. national security. There's very little we can do
to control public opinion in the streets of Riyadh, Muscat, Kabul or Kuala
Lumpur short of shutting down Las Vegas, converting our entire population to
Islam and kicking every female out of school. We deal with what we can control,
governments.

>I could have sworn that one of our missions was to support
>democracy.

Where's that written? I believe the Monroe Doctrine states we'll defend the
Americas from European colonization, but thats as close as it gets to your
pronouncement. I swore to uphold the *U.S. Constitution* against all enemies,
foreign and domestic, but this doesn't meet your intent either.

>In any case, the opinion of the US on the street has taken a big
>hit

>Admittedly, this is the
>generally the case of going from bad to worse ... but you have to wonder
>might have happened if the US had decided to spend a few billion to
>establish secular schools as an alternative to the madrassas.

They would crucified us as bad as if we had dropped bombs in their
neighborhoods. To the radicals, we represent everything their (twisted) version
of the Koran condems. Do you really think they're going to put up with us
building schools and educating their children?

>So ... if you use the adjective huge to describe the cost of expanding the
>airports, what adjective do you use to describe the cost of the war so far?

Huge, however moving out of KSA alone would have only helped in one area,
getting Saddam helped in several.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> >yeah, we'll
> >likely take heavier casualties than we have in other recent
confrontations,
> >but it will not be the bloodbath for our guys that y'all
>
> By "y'all" I guess you mean you all, which, despite being from New Jersey
I
> understand to mean both of us. My guess is 750 KIA (+/- 150) in a week.
Are you
> saying that figure is inflated?

No, that could be realistic--I thought the supposition from another poster
was the first day, and some other gent went even so far as to postulate a
matter of hours to rack up that number? Consider yourself
"un-y'alled"--apologies for including you in the mix.

Brooks
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[David Pugh]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >Somehow I don't think that securing a few dozen sites would require an
> >additional 350,000 troops.
>
> A few dozen? No sir, you are asking them to seal off well over 100. You
can't
> use your 20/20 hindsight to determine what suspected sites actually had
> material in them and which ones didn't.

I could excuse failing to seal off a site that we knew nothing about.
Failing to secure sites that the we knew contained nuclear material from
IAEA reports in inexcusable. Check out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35498-2003Apr24?language=printer,
for example:
"Before the war began last month, the vast Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center
held 3,896 pounds of partially enriched uranium, more than 94 tons of
natural uranium and smaller quantities of cesium, cobalt and strontium,
according to reports compiled through the 1990s by inspectors from the
International Atomic Energy Agency."

"Defense officials acknowledge that the U.S. government has no idea whether
any of Tuwaitha's potentially deadly contents have been stolen, because it
has not dispatched investigators to appraise the site. What it does know,
according to officials at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command, is that the
sprawling campus, 11 miles south of Baghdad, lay unguarded for days and that
looters made their way inside. "

> >Failure to do so was a matter of incompetent
> >leadership, not lack of resources.
> Gen. Franks is not incompetent.

He isn't the subject of this thread.

[BUFDRVR]

>I could excuse failing to seal off a site that we knew nothing about.
>Failing to secure sites that the we knew contained nuclear material from
>IAEA reports in inexcusable.

Inexcuseable to you because you won't see reality. When U.S. forces got within
11 miles of Baghdad, there was a lot of issues to be dealt with, not least of
which was destroying Iraqi units that we believed had CW weapons and were
preparing to use them. If you were the 3ID commander (which is who you are
attacking here, not the President) do you detach forces to secure a *suspected*
(despite the IAEA report, the Iraqis moved material around quite a bit and
there was just as good a chance this site had nothing in it. The IAEA reported
"through the 1990s", what about since then?) WMD facility and leave some of
your forces short handed for an attack on unit that is *suspected* of having CW
weapons and is preparing to use them?

>What it does know,
>according to officials at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command, is that the
>sprawling campus, 11 miles south of Baghdad, lay unguarded for days and that
>looters made their way inside.

This is who your beef is with, the Pentagon (indirectly I suppose) and CENTCOM
(more directly the commander of the 3rd Infantry Division who was running the
show in that sector). Ultimately you can blame CDRUSCENTCOM Gen. Tommy Franks I
guess.

>> Gen. Franks is not incompetent.
>
>He isn't the subject of this thread.
>

Bush has and had nothing to do with force taskings during Operation IRAQI
FREEDOM.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[David Pugh]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Inexcuseable to you because you won't see reality. When U.S. forces got
within
> 11 miles of Baghdad, there was a lot of issues to be dealt with, not least
of
> which was destroying Iraqi units that we believed had CW weapons and were
> preparing to use them. If you were the 3ID commander (which is who you are
> attacking here, not the President) do you detach forces to secure a
*suspected*
> (despite the IAEA report, the Iraqis moved material around quite a bit and
> there was just as good a chance this site had nothing in it. The IAEA
reported
> "through the 1990s", what about since then?) WMD facility and leave some
of
> your forces short handed for an attack on unit that is *suspected* of
having CW
> weapons and is preparing to use them?

Try: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068560/
"Some of the lapses are frightening. The well-known Al Tuwaitha Nuclear
Research Center, about 12 miles south of Baghdad, had nearly two tons of
partially enriched uranium, along with significant quantities of highly
radioactive medical and industrial isotopes, when International Atomic
Energy Agency officials made their last visit in January. By the time U.S.
troops arrived in early April, armed guards were holding off looters-but the
Americans only disarmed the guards, Al Tuwaitha department heads told
NEWSWEEK. "We told them, 'This site is out of control. You have to take care
of it'," says Munther Ibrahim, Al Tuwaitha's head of plasma physics. "The
soldiers said, 'We are a small group. We cannot take control of this site'."
As soon as the Americans left, looters broke in. The staff fled; when they
returned, the containment vaults' seals had been broken, and radioactive
material was everywhere."

"U.S. officers say the center had already been ransacked before their troops
arrived. They didn't try to stop the looting, says Colonel Madere, because
"there was no directive that said do not allow anyone in and out of this
place." Last week American troops finally went back to secure the site."

> Bush has and had nothing to do with force taskings during Operation IRAQI
FREEDOM.

But he had everything to do with setting overall objectives and allocating
adequate resources. Franks was told to defeat the Iraqi army and capture
Baghdad. If Franks was never told that securing the known NBC sites was
important then it is hard to hold him responsible. If Franks was told to
secure the sites, but wasn't given adequate resources, he has more
responsibility but the ultimate responsibility is with the President.

Note that there was enough in the administration over the possibility of a
dirty bomb was high enough to arrest and declare a US citizen to be an
"enemy combatant" in the middle of 2002 for being involved in a dirty bomb
plot. What happened to this concern when it came to securing the materials
that could be used to make a dirty bomb?

[BUFDRVR]

David Pugh wrote:

>"The
>soldiers said, 'We are a small group. We cannot take control of this site'."

This is the issue, not military incompentence.

>"U.S. officers say the center had already been ransacked before their troops
>arrived.

Despite this statement, you choose to believe the Iraqis. Why?

>They didn't try to stop the looting, says Colonel Madere, because
>"there was no directive that said do not allow anyone in and out of this
>place."

Once again we get back to the issue at hand. You would not have a plan to
secure a suspected WMD site unless you had enough forces to do so.

>> Bush has and had nothing to do with force taskings during Operation IRAQI
>FREEDOM.
>
>But he had everything to do with setting overall objectives and allocating
>adequate resources.

He set the *overall* objectives, not individual tactical objectives. As far as
allocating adequate resources, Bush played the hand he was dealt. I suppose
Bush could have delayed the operation until congress authorized an increase in
U.S. force manning, then waited for that increase in manning to become a
reality, but even if he's to win a second term, he wouldn't have see that
increase take effect.

>Franks was told to defeat the Iraqi army and capture
>Baghdad. If Franks was never told that securing the known NBC sites was
>important then it is hard to hold him responsible.

By this last statement I take it you have no military experience. "Important"
is a relative term, during a war (and even in peace) somethings are more
important than others. Because seizing Baghdad quickly was of a *higher*
priority than securing *suspected* WMD sites, doesn't mean that was not
important. We had a choice to make in regards to priority, we choose to sieze
Baghdad. If we had chosen to secure all *suspected* WMD sites prior to seizing
Baghdad and the Iraqi army had begun lobbying Sarin filled artilliary shells
killing both coalition personnel and innocent Iraqi's, you would have been up
in arms over that choice.

>What happened to this concern when it came to securing the materials
>that could be used to make a dirty bomb?

It was put at a lower priority than destroying the regime and severing the
control to already weaponized CW.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[David Pugh]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> He set the *overall* objectives, not individual tactical objectives. As
far as
> allocating adequate resources, Bush played the hand he was dealt. I
suppose
> Bush could have delayed the operation until congress authorized an
increase in
> U.S. force manning, then waited for that increase in manning to become a
> reality, but even if he's to win a second term, he wouldn't have see that
> increase take effect.

If you can't afford to do it right, maybe you should consider not doing it
at all. Especially in a case where doing it wrong can have disastrous
consequences. With (admittedly) 20/20 hindsight, can you honestly say we are
better off now than if we had never invaded?

> >Franks was told to defeat the Iraqi army and capture
> >Baghdad. If Franks was never told that securing the known NBC sites was
> >important then it is hard to hold him responsible.
>
> By this last statement I take it you have no military experience.
"Important"
> is a relative term, during a war (and even in peace) somethings are more
> important than others. Because seizing Baghdad quickly was of a *higher*
> priority than securing *suspected* WMD sites, doesn't mean that was not
> important.

Fair enough: I should have said that the importance of securing this site
was set too low, given the potential consequences of not securing the site.
Setting the relative importance of various objectives, especially
non-military objectives, was not Franks' responsibility.

> We had a choice to make in regards to priority, we choose to sieze
> Baghdad. If we had chosen to secure all *suspected* WMD sites prior to
seizing
> Baghdad and the Iraqi army had begun lobbying Sarin filled artilliary
shells
> killing both coalition personnel and innocent Iraqi's, you would have been
up
> in arms over that choice.

I absolutely agree that moving quickly was critically important. Nor am I
suggesting that we deployed a battalion to cover each possible WMD site
(including Granny's still). By all accounts, however, Al Tuwaitha was
exceptional (recent and reliable reports about hundreds of pounds of
radioactive material). If we couldn't divert the resources to secure that
immediately, perhaps we should have waited a little (at least, for example,
until the troops had redeployed from Turkey).

[Kevin Brooks]

"David Pugh" > wrote in message
...
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> ...
> > He set the *overall* objectives, not individual tactical objectives. As
> far as
> > allocating adequate resources, Bush played the hand he was dealt. I
> suppose
> > Bush could have delayed the operation until congress authorized an
> increase in
> > U.S. force manning, then waited for that increase in manning to become a
> > reality, but even if he's to win a second term, he wouldn't have see
that
> > increase take effect.
>
> If you can't afford to do it right, maybe you should consider not doing it
> at all. Especially in a case where doing it wrong can have disastrous
> consequences. With (admittedly) 20/20 hindsight, can you honestly say we
are
> better off now than if we had never invaded?

Well, that depends upon how you look at it. We have an endgame at least in
sight, versus the neverending flyswatting that was going on before. We do,
however, have a bunch of misguided regional native jihadis rolling into Iraq
to take shots at our forces, true enough...but would you rather have those
same jihadis instead trying to get at civilian targets here in the US or
overseas? Then there is the question of how much our action contributed to
the rather quick Libyan turnabout, and maybe the renewed interest on the
part of the Iranians to find an amicable inspection/verification solution...
It appears that you could just as well have asked, "Can you honestly say we
are worse of now than we would have been if we had never invaded?"

>
> > >Franks was told to defeat the Iraqi army and capture
> > >Baghdad. If Franks was never told that securing the known NBC sites was
> > >important then it is hard to hold him responsible.
> >
> > By this last statement I take it you have no military experience.
> "Important"
> > is a relative term, during a war (and even in peace) somethings are more
> > important than others. Because seizing Baghdad quickly was of a *higher*
> > priority than securing *suspected* WMD sites, doesn't mean that was not
> > important.
>
> Fair enough: I should have said that the importance of securing this site
> was set too low, given the potential consequences of not securing the
site.
> Setting the relative importance of various objectives, especially
> non-military objectives, was not Franks' responsibility.

You seem to continue to misunderstand the nature and specificity of
mission-based orders at the operational level, and how that drives the
mission-based orders process for the subordinate levels. BUFFDRVR is
right--the focus during the early phases of OIF were upon removing the
assumed immenent, deliverable weapons threat (note that the senior leaders
at the time had a "when we get hit with chems/bio", not an "if" mindset.
Your hindsight may allow you to critique that from the advantage of knowing
how things played out in the end, but looking at the situation from *their*
view at the time, with the information they then had available, it would be
danged hard to critisize their priorities. Smart CinC's don't interfere with
their warfighting command's planning by inserting a laundry list of "do
this, and this, and this..."--they provide very broad guidance and let the
subordinates do their thing as they best see fit, and provide the resources
that the subordinate requires to do it. AFAIK, it would be hard to fault
Bush in either area.

>
> > We had a choice to make in regards to priority, we choose to sieze
> > Baghdad. If we had chosen to secure all *suspected* WMD sites prior to
> seizing
> > Baghdad and the Iraqi army had begun lobbying Sarin filled artilliary
> shells
> > killing both coalition personnel and innocent Iraqi's, you would have
been
> up
> > in arms over that choice.
>
> I absolutely agree that moving quickly was critically important. Nor am I
> suggesting that we deployed a battalion to cover each possible WMD site
> (including Granny's still). By all accounts, however, Al Tuwaitha was
> exceptional (recent and reliable reports about hundreds of pounds of
> radioactive material). If we couldn't divert the resources to secure that
> immediately, perhaps we should have waited a little (at least, for
example,
> until the troops had redeployed from Turkey).

That last statement reveals a further disconnect with reality on your part.
First, where were you going to move the 4th ID(M) *to*, given that Kuwait
was already reaching the saturation point with the 3rd ID, elements of the
101st AASLT DIV, USMC units, British units, etc.? Second, doing so would
have allowed the Iraqis, operating along interior lines, to even *more*
rapidly reorient the forces they had already deployed facing the presumed
northern threat back down south. Leaving you with a diminishing return kind
of situation, right?

Brooks

>
>

[David Pugh]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> > If you can't afford to do it right, maybe you should consider not doing
it
> > at all. Especially in a case where doing it wrong can have disastrous
> > consequences. With (admittedly) 20/20 hindsight, can you honestly say we
> > are better off now than if we had never invaded?
>
> Well, that depends upon how you look at it. We have an endgame at least in
> sight, versus the neverending flyswatting that was going on before. We do,
> however, have a bunch of misguided regional native jihadis rolling into
Iraq
> to take shots at our forces, true enough...but would you rather have those
> same jihadis instead trying to get at civilian targets here in the US or
> overseas?

Ah yes, the tactic of infuriating the masses so the radical elements attack
your military and die. <sarcasm> That has worked so well in the past. After
all, the Soviets spent a decade killing "misguided regional native jihadis"
in Afghanistan and it was such an effective tactic that not only did the
surviving Afghan's establish an enlightened secular government but none of
them ever considered supporting the Chechen resistance. The French in
Algeria and Isralies in the West Bank are also examples of how effective
this particular tactic is. </sarcasm>

Can you name one place where this tactic has actually worked?

Add in that the majority of the MRNJs would probably not bother to take
direct action against the US if we were not simultaneously ****ing them off
and providing a nearby target. More worrisome is that only the stupid ones
are going to Iraq (where they become dead or experienced and stupid). The
smart ones are raising money and/or plotting major attacks outside of Iraq.
And, of course, for everyone we kill there is a distinct possibility of
creating more than one MRNJ.

> Your hindsight may allow you to critique that from the advantage of
knowing
> how things played out in the end, but looking at the situation from
*their*
> view at the time, with the information they then had available, it would
be
> danged hard to critisize their priorities. Smart CinC's don't interfere
with
> their warfighting command's planning by inserting a laundry list of "do
> this, and this, and this..."--they provide very broad guidance and let the
> subordinates do their thing as they best see fit, and provide the
resources
> that the subordinate requires to do it.

Hardly. If I was arguing from hindsight then -- given the lack of dirty
bombs exploding in NYC using material from Al Tuwaitha -- I'd have to say
the correct decision was made. Based on the available intelligence at the
time, however, it seemed a terribly stupid risk.

Add in that CinC's do give the military objectives that are for essentially
non-military reasons. The scud hunt of the previous Gulf war is a good
example of this. Arguably, the decision to send the Marines into Fallouja
was another.

Note also the requirement, however, to provide the appropriate resources.
There have been many comments that US forces were inadequate (not to defeat
Iraq but secure the peace afterwards). Dismissing General Shinseki soon
after he estimates that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in
postwar Iraq has the distinct flavor of shooting the messenger. I wonder why
none of the military commanders after that claimed they needed more forces.
Was that because they truly felt they didn't need them or they felt any such
request would be a ticket to an early retirement?

> That last statement reveals a further disconnect with reality on your
part.
> First, where were you going to move the 4th ID(M) *to*, given that Kuwait
> was already reaching the saturation point with the 3rd ID, elements of the
> 101st AASLT DIV, USMC units, British units, etc.?

I hadn't quite realize that all of Kuwait was packed tread to tread to tanks
and could have sworn there was a much higher density of forces in the run up
to the previous Gulf war. But, I'll grant you, that it would have been a
concern.

[Kevin Brooks]

"David Pugh" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > If you can't afford to do it right, maybe you should consider not
doing
> it
> > > at all. Especially in a case where doing it wrong can have disastrous
> > > consequences. With (admittedly) 20/20 hindsight, can you honestly say
we
> > > are better off now than if we had never invaded?
> >
> > Well, that depends upon how you look at it. We have an endgame at least
in
> > sight, versus the neverending flyswatting that was going on before. We
do,
> > however, have a bunch of misguided regional native jihadis rolling into
> Iraq
> > to take shots at our forces, true enough...but would you rather have
those
> > same jihadis instead trying to get at civilian targets here in the US or
> > overseas?
>
> Ah yes, the tactic of infuriating the masses so the radical elements
attack
> your military and die. <sarcasm> That has worked so well in the past.
After
> all, the Soviets spent a decade killing "misguided regional native
jihadis"
> in Afghanistan and it was such an effective tactic that not only did the
> surviving Afghan's establish an enlightened secular government but none of
> them ever considered supporting the Chechen resistance. The French in
> Algeria and Isralies in the West Bank are also examples of how effective
> this particular tactic is. </sarcasm>
>
> Can you name one place where this tactic has actually worked?

How many attacks here in the US have you seen since we went into Iraq?

>
> Add in that the majority of the MRNJs would probably not bother to take
> direct action against the US if we were not simultaneously ****ing them
off
> and providing a nearby target. More worrisome is that only the stupid ones
> are going to Iraq (where they become dead or experienced and stupid). The
> smart ones are raising money and/or plotting major attacks outside of
Iraq.
> And, of course, for everyone we kill there is a distinct possibility of
> creating more than one MRNJ.

Must not be many smart ones, then.

>
> > Your hindsight may allow you to critique that from the advantage of
> knowing
> > how things played out in the end, but looking at the situation from
> *their*
> > view at the time, with the information they then had available, it would
> be
> > danged hard to critisize their priorities. Smart CinC's don't interfere
> with
> > their warfighting command's planning by inserting a laundry list of "do
> > this, and this, and this..."--they provide very broad guidance and let
the
> > subordinates do their thing as they best see fit, and provide the
> resources
> > that the subordinate requires to do it.
>
> Hardly.

Well, you have already established beyond a doubt that you "hardly" have any
idea how military operations are planned, so your disbelief is
understandable.

If I was arguing from hindsight then -- given the lack of dirty
> bombs exploding in NYC using material from Al Tuwaitha -- I'd have to say
> the correct decision was made. Based on the available intelligence at the
> time, however, it seemed a terribly stupid risk.

That "expert" analysis coming from...a guy without a clue. Yeah, right.

>
> Add in that CinC's do give the military objectives that are for
essentially
> non-military reasons. The scud hunt of the previous Gulf war is a good
> example of this. Arguably, the decision to send the Marines into Fallouja
> was another.

Excellent example! The Scud Hunt drained off resources that would have been
better used for other tasks, and was considered largely a waste of resources
by the folks tasked to make it happen. How many Scuds were found and
destroyed by those hunters? Versus how many resources were committed to that
endeavor? Yep, that is a good example of why the CinC should stay out of the
operational details when it comes to fighting a war.

>
> Note also the requirement, however, to provide the appropriate resources.
> There have been many comments that US forces were inadequate (not to
defeat
> Iraq but secure the peace afterwards). Dismissing General Shinseki soon
> after he estimates that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in
> postwar Iraq has the distinct flavor of shooting the messenger.

LOL! Shinseki was the guy who was basically told, "Don't let the door hit
you in the ass on the way out." Now look at his estimate--it would take
"several hundreds of thousands soldiers"; interestingly, from the time that
comment was made by him in Feb 2003 until Sep 2003, he had apparently
revised his estimate down to 200K. Last I heard we have around 130K in
country, and no plans to increase that drastically (we have, however,
delayed the previously planned reduction down to the 115K figure). Being as
we are getting the job done with 130K, why do you say that Shinseki was
right when he claimed it would take "several hundreds of thousands"?

I wonder why
> none of the military commanders after that claimed they needed more
forces.
> Was that because they truly felt they didn't need them or they felt any
such
> request would be a ticket to an early retirement?

You must have missed the FACT that Franks, who was commanding CENTCOM at the
time, did not request a drastic increase in manning for the stabilization
phase--and guess what? He retired. If you check into your history a bit, I
believe you will find that *most* CENTCOM commanders have retired from that
post--it is considered by most to be a career capstone assignment. The C/S
who *replaced* Shinseki came out of...*retirement*. So this theory of your's
theory falls about as flat as your earlier posits.

>
> > That last statement reveals a further disconnect with reality on your
> part.
> > First, where were you going to move the 4th ID(M) *to*, given that
Kuwait
> > was already reaching the saturation point with the 3rd ID, elements of
the
> > 101st AASLT DIV, USMC units, British units, etc.?
>
> I hadn't quite realize that all of Kuwait was packed tread to tread to
tanks
> and could have sworn there was a much higher density of forces in the run
up
> to the previous Gulf war. But, I'll grant you, that it would have been a
> concern.

Uhmmm...you do realize that during ODS we had that much larger force spread
over a large chunk of Saudi Arabia, which is a hell of a lot bigger than
Kuwait, and is served by multiple ports of entry, unlike Kuwait? Consider
Saudi Arabia as an olympic swimming pool you are filling with a 12" water
main direct to the pool, while Kuwait is more like a child's wading pool you
are trying to fill via an itty-bitty little ol' quarter-inch piece of
tubing.

Brooks

>
>

[David Pugh]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> How many attacks here in the US have you seen since we went into Iraq?

Zero. How many attacks were there in the US between 9/12/2001 and 3/18/2003?
Zero. Doesn't look like enough data to draw any conclusions. Other trends
are a little worrisome, however: according to the state department's own
report, though, the number of "significant terrorist acts" has increased
from 124 in 2001 to 169 in 2003 (this is world wide). Check out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31971-2004May16.html

> > More worrisome is that only the stupid ones
> > are going to Iraq (where they become dead or experienced and stupid).
The
> > smart ones are raising money and/or plotting major attacks outside of
Iraq.
> Must not be many smart ones, then.

Let's hope that is the case.

> Being as
> we are getting the job done with 130K, why do you say that Shinseki was
> right when he claimed it would take "several hundreds of thousands"?

Given recent history, the notion that we are "getting the job done with
130K" troops is, at least, a matter of debate.

[BUFDRVR]

David Pugh wrote:

>If you can't afford to do it right, maybe you should consider not doing it
>at all.

Depends on what the threat is. In the military we call it risk assesment. Is
the risk that Hussain may be able to arm some terrorists worth the risk of
fighting a conflict without the resources to defeat a regime and secure all
suspected WMD sites? With 20/20 hind sight we *may* be able to say it wasn't
worth it, but knowing only what his intell sources were telling him, I have a
hard time making an issue out of the choice the civilian leadership made.

>can you honestly say we are
>better off now than if we had never invaded?

I'm not sure we have enough info to make that call. In the past week we've seen
the use of mustard and sarin gas. Not too effective in Iraq, against military
personnel trained to deal with such weapons, but whose to say, without
invasion, if those weapons would have been used in the NYC subway?

>I should have said that the importance of securing this site
>was set too low, given the potential consequences of not securing the site.

The potential consequences of a trained Iraqi military employing weaponized
chemical agents is a tough one to beat on the priority scale.

>Setting the relative importance of various objectives, especially
>non-military objectives, was not Franks' responsibility.

However, both these issues *were* military and as such, up to the discretion of
the combatant commander.

>By all accounts, however, Al Tuwaitha was
>exceptional (recent and reliable reports about hundreds of pounds of
>radioactive material).

The way the Iraqis moved their "stuff" around, there was no reason to expect
the Al Tuwaitha site above any other. Additionally, according to U.S. forces,
when they arrived it was already looted. Seems it was a wise choice not to
divert too many men to secure it as they would have wound up guarding an empty
site and not helping seize Baghdad.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[David Pugh]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Depends on what the threat is. In the military we call it risk assesment.
Is
> the risk that Hussain may be able to arm some terrorists worth the risk of
> fighting a conflict without the resources to defeat a regime and secure
all
> suspected WMD sites?

I might be willing to accept this risk assessment provided Saddam was the
sole possible source of WMDs to terrorists. But he wasn't: any such list
would have had to include Libya, Syria, Iran & North Korea. Taking a risk
from a small number to zero is one thing; taking it from a small number to a
slightly smaller number isn't nearly as impressive. And, of course, this
does not even consider the possibility that a botched invasion/occupation
might increase some risk factors (more resources for the terrorists,
increased chance that an ally might have a revolution).

Keep in mind that when you are embarking on any major activity that has a
large amount of uncertainty, prudent leadership demands you be more
conservative when you do your risk analysis. You don't bet the farm unless
you are confident that, even if the you get the realistic worst-case
benefits and the costs are the realistic worst-case costs, you won't lose
the farm.

> I'm not sure we have enough info to make that call. In the past week we've
seen
> the use of mustard and sarin gas. Not too effective in Iraq, against
military
> personnel trained to deal with such weapons, but whose to say, without
> invasion, if those weapons would have been used in the NYC subway?

Given the apparent age of those munitions (at least, based on what I've read
about them), they'd probably be about as effective as Sarin in the Tokyo
subway. Keep in mind, also, that someone scrounging up old weapons doesn't
necessarily imply that they would have been provided terrorists (it doesn't
mean it wouldn't happen, just not that it is a certainty). To be honest,
when it comes to small quantities of chemical and biological weapons, I'd be
more worried about a covert lab somewhere. After all there have been a
couple of incidents already (Anthrax in the US, ricin in the UK) that could
have been much worse.

> The way the Iraqis moved their "stuff" around, there was no reason to
expect
> the Al Tuwaitha site above any other. Additionally, according to U.S.
forces,
> when they arrived it was already looted.

I'll have to disagree with you here. Granted, the Iraqis moved stuff around
but that was, typically, to prevent it from being found. This stuff had
already been found and inventoried. It was also under IAEA seal so moving it
would have had serious repercussions and it had little military value. As
such, I'd be surprised if it was moved.

As for the "looting", there is not, necessarily a conflict between the
stories of the Iraqis (who said the supplies were intact) and the Americans
(who said the site was looted). Al Tuwaitha was a big site so outer
buildings (that didn't contain any material) could have been looted of
everything but the kitchen sink while the nuclear material wasn't looted
until after the Americans left.