I think most of the 'out of the closet' fags had to get out of the army a few years back. I think this would dramatically favor the quality over quantity argument.
I have no idea what that means. I'm sure you meant it in a nice way though, didn't you? dgabriel, calm down. I asked a reasonable question and you jump the gun. The information you have provided (other than that ludicrous website you found - obviously not me, the kid hasn't even been to college and I graduated a rather long time ago. - BTW, very poor taste to even imply it's me) is appreciated. I have stated plainly that I DO NOT KNOW if Clinton is responsible as Limbaugh says he is and started this thread to partly answer that question! Geez....obviously you feel it is not Clinton's fault but the Repubs. Fine. If you and others can provide links to information that show Cheney and Bush are responsible for the existing low levels of troops and equipment, so be it! I'll gladly state they totally f****d it up. My personal opinion is that the truth lies somewhere in-between. No need to get hostile. I realize you idolize Clinton/Gore/Dems/Libs, but sheesh, take a chill pill....If you still have lingering resentment from our previous battles, fine by me. Bring it. p.s. So much for me being on your "ignore" list, huh?
A dittohead is a Limbaugh radio slave who nods blissfully while uttering "ditto" after every Rush to judgement. Courtesy Al Franken. If you feel that the the troop levels are inadequate now bear in mind the current administration has had 2 years to deal with troop strength. Sorry about the reference to hapaboy.net. IMO, Rummy stands a good chance of being history by June unless a miracle occurs in Baghdad . An imperious dictator, he misplanned the war. And if Bush cannot bring closure to Iraq by victory in a reasonably short time and effect a stable occupation with rapid transformation of Iraq, he's a sure lame duck. As Rush's boneheaded utterances indicate, the conservatives are already trying to blame Clinton for the current failings of America's military campaign in Iraq. You are still on ignore, but by probation only, I can peek if I want to.
our military is as good as its ever been and certainly more proffessional and effective man for man than any other military in the world. You don't need 1 million troops when your kill ratio is over 100:1
The only reason I disagree with this is because our kill ratio decreases as our need to fight urban warfare increases. All the technology in the World at our finger tips with more precision than ever and we cant hit a tank sitting next to a hospital because of trying to be politicaly correct......How was this not planned when they sold us the "SHOCK & AWE".....I would have thought more MOABS and less precision....Did they not plan for Iraqi soldiers to hide in homes, hospitals or other civilian buildings or to use woman and children as shields....What were the Think Tanks thinking when they put this package together?? (complete surrender)....
Cubano, you are right. There are certainly a diminishing returns on military technology, especially in a theatre of urban combat. My guess would be your exalted leaders were amply aware of what invading Iraq would entail. Selling the invasion to the American public -- and it's been a tough sell, no question -- necessarily meant leaving out such details.
It appears that the Generals were ignored and Rummy drew up the invasion. He told them, "Go in, get Baghdad, be back for Easter". Shock and Awe. More like Shock and Aw shit. Career Generals not anticipating geurrilla tactics? Come on. Rummy sent our boys and girls under equipped. "They will greet us with flowers" send Rumsfeld. Instead, Iraqi ex-patriots, those who sought asylum outside of Iraq are returning to Iraq to fight the US invasion force! How could the Pentagon have so misread the Iraqi people? It appears Iraq has many different peoples and we won;t know who is who until the yoke of Hussein is removed.
Thanks for the definition. Doesn't apply to me. Apology accepted. As said earlier, I think the truth is somewhere in-between. And is two years enough time to recruit hundreds of thousands of troops? Is it enough time to build hundreds of ships and aircraft? It's far easier to cut forces than to build them up. Bush Sr. was in office for another year after Desert Storm. Clinton was then at the helm for 8. Dubya for two. And you're gonna blame it all on Dubya's two years? All of this is, IMO, not only conjecture but indicative of how quickly the anti-war crowd is to ignore what we were told prior to the war. The President, Rumsfeld, Powell, et al told the country time and time again that this war would not be easy, that we would incur losses, that it would take time, and not to have unrealistic expectations. Good grief, did any of you actually believe we'd simply stroll into Baghdad and be greeted with a kowtowing Saddam? That in a little over a week's time we are within 50 miles of Baghdad, have Saddam surrounded, and are inflicting massive damage on his "elite" Repub. Guards is conveniently never mentioned. LOL! You've been doing a lot of "peeking" lately! Commenting too.
It's not the norm as the majority of Americans support the war. Nothing "wrong" with it in the sense that Americans have the right to think and express how they feel. What IS wrong with it, IMHO, is that when that sentiment leads to protests while the war is underway. Protesting is not going to persuade Bush to reverse his course, does nothing to help our troops, emboldens the Iraqis, and in doing so endangers American lives. The most effective protesting is done at the voting booth.