How the hell do YOU know how "tight" the formations were or were not. PLEASE stop this inane pretending that you know more about tactics and strategy than our generals because you were "in the service." LOL!
>Our invasion was honestly about WMDs. You starting to make me think that you're a teenager on the bosses computer in the office between your shift as fry cook at McDonalds. Were you in a coma in the year prior to the Iraq war? It sounds like it. I can understand "moderates" disagreeing with the invasion of Iraq on any number of grounds. But you spout the whacko leftie lies like a good little commrade. Stop pretending. On Jul 18, 7:08 pm, Frederick The Moderate <[email protected]> wrote: > "> We thought he had poison gas. Our soldiers were equipped to > confront > > > it. > > Everybody thought he had WMDs, mostly because he not only HAD them but > > because he used them against his enemies." > > Anyone who's been through basic strategic training knows that you > don't go into Iraq with divisions in tight formations (as we did) if > you think the enemy has WMD's (at least not ones that are still any > good - we knew the ones WE gave thme were no longer a threat). > But okay I get it. You guys really want to believe a certain way and > that's fine. I can understand not wanting to believe that your leaders > had motives other than those publicly stated. So fine. Bush never lied > or spun a thing. Our invasion was honestly about WMDs. And our love > for the Iraqi people who needed Liberation. Because the role of the > American government is to ust invade anyone country that isn't nice. > Besides, according to those same leaders, the Iraqis would welcome us > with open arms. > > If nothing else, I can understand your wanting to believe the way you > do. > > On Jul 18, 11:07 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >If there had been WMD, we wouldn't have gone in the way we did. > > > Oh and btw, Iraq is not now and never was a nuclear nation state > > > Actually, they were. Iraq had completed construction of a nuclear > > reactor (That makes you a nuclear nation state) but Israel immediately > > blew it up. (Thank you Israel). > > > Some people would say that a leader who builds a nuclear reactor > > despite worldwide protests and has and uses poison gas on neighboring > > countries and his own people was a dangerous guy. Other people like > > deluding themselves. > > > On Jul 18, 1:42 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If there had been WMD, we wouldn't have gone in the way we did. Large, > > > tight formations are easy targets and we know that. Not to mention > > > that we would have sent a least one division to sweep and search the > > > area where we "knew" the WMD's were for residual (or any other) > > > evidence they ever existed. We never did. Not one peek. I'm former > > > navy intel and i can assure you, even though Bush screwed our Humint > > > network fro some time to come, we still would have been able to find > > > evidence - if believed it was ever there. > > > But I get it. You really, really, really want to believe there were > > > WMD's there. Okay. > > > > Oh and btw, Iraq is not now and never was a nuclear nation state but > > > again, if you really want to believe it is or was, okay dokey. > > > > Talk about wanting to believe lies. > > > > I've lost five friends in Iraq. All of them Psy-Ops and a couple Force > > > Recon. They've made it clear for years that Iraq will never appreciate > > > what we've done and no matter how long we're there, they'll regress > > > shortly after we leave. Two thousand years of culture. > > > Iraq has already made clear they view US as outsiders and went out of > > > the way to spit in Bush's face before he could get out of office. But > > > you believe what you want to believe. > > > > On Jul 18, 7:23 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >>> We also had the certainty that there really were no WMD's > > > > > Not true. > > > > > >>> Urban warfare, their commitment to keep fighting people they viewed > > > > >>> as invaders, and the complete lack of any kind of > > > > > exit strategy, created a no-win situation. > > > > > Once again you show little understanding... Both AQ and the > > > > Americans are outsiders... As is the harsh form of Radical Islam... > > > > As is the lowland Pakistani... The question here is not fighting the > > > > outsider BUT WHICH OUTSIDER... The exit strategy? Stability and a > > > > non Radical Islamic government in a nuclear nation-state... > > > > > >>> I also agree with you on Afghanistan. The Russians border them. > > > > >>> They had easier access and more troops. No success. Tactics & > > > > >>> technology have done squat for us. Thus far, we've been successful > > > > >>> only at blowing up weddings and killing civilians. Lots of them. > > > > >>> It's a mess > > > > > and a mistake and we should get out. > > > > > Tactics and technology make a huge difference... As the fact the our > > > > WILLINGNESS and desire to be a long term occupying power is far less > > > > than the Russians or the Pakistanis as makes a difference... The > > > > Russian border aided in supplying their troops but harmed the "Soft > > > > Warfare" in being seen a a long term occupying power... > > > > > >>> The only upside is at least we're actually going after people we > > > > >>> have truthful cause to go after. > > > > > Once again you proclaim Urban Lies... > > > > > On Jul 18, 3:58 am, Frederick The Moderate > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I agree with you about Iraq. We had so many sanctions on Iraq before > > > > > invading, they couldn't import dental equipment (because it could > > > > > possibly be modified for weapons use - go figure). We also had the > > > > > certainty that there really were no WMD's. So it was nothing to storm > > > > > right in. Like you said, cakewalk getting there. It was afterward the > > > > > problems started. Urban warfare, their commitment to keep fighting > > > > > people they viewed as invaders, and the complete lack of any kind of > > > > > exit strategy, created a no-win situation. > > > > > I also agree with you on Afghanistan. The Russians border them. They > > > > > had easier access and more troops. No success. Tactics & technology > > > > > have done squat for us. Thus far, we've been successful only at > > > > > blowing up weddings and killing civilians. Lots of them. It's a mess > > > > > and a mistake and we should get out. > > > > > The only upside is at least we're actually going after people we have > > > > > truthful cause to go after. > > > > > > On Jul 17, 11:40 pm, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Iraq was [almost] a cake walk, compared to what we face in > > > > > > Afghanistan. Even with enough troops (500,000 +/-), it'll take a > > > > > > generation to pacify Afghanistan - a mountainous moonscape the size > > > > > > of > > > > > > Texas covered with 70-million ants (nomads, warring tribes - > > > > > > barefoot, > > > > > > illiterate villages). There's nothing there to "rebuild," it's all > > > > > > from scratch. The people are suspicious of everything, even a > > > > > > simple, > > > > > > local hydro-pump to generate electricity. > > > > > > > Then there's Pakistan, blood-brother to Afghanistan; we'll never > > > > > > subdue one without subduing the other. And by that time we'll be > > > > > > broke, no longer a viable nation - which makes the whole surge- > > > > > > strategy a lethal mistake.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
