WHO'S THE PARTY OF LINCOLN?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guyone

It's not poor planning on the part of the Bush administration. It's just that the left resents having one of their own dethroned. Sadam being a good little socialist will get the support of the left. So the left will do anything they can to undermine America's policy. Even to the detriment of America itself.

---

Tell me how the following applies to Iraq:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guyone

. . . if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.

---

Specifically, explain to me how the US would have been out of Iraq already if it were not for people "whining" about the inadequacies of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy (now the overwhelming majority of US citizens).

Futhermore, what about the many current and former high ranking military officials who do blame the Bush Administration for its poor implementation/planning in Iraq? Let's take a look at just a few of the many such comments:

1. -Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak, Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94:

We have a force in Iraq that's much too small to stabilize the situation. It's about half the size, or maybe even a third, of what we need.

2. -Former CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinni:

When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath.

When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.

3. A panel of retired generals told a United States Senate committee today that sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq will do little to solve the underlying political problems in the country. "Too little and too late," is the way Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, described the effort to the Senate Committee.

4. -Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st US Army Division in Iraq:

I think the current administration repeatedly ignored sound military advice and counsel with respect to the war plans.

I suspect, going way back five years to the beginning of this whole war, there were ample times when people said to him, as General Shinseki did, "We need more." In the case of General Shinseki, he was retired early.

When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes.

5. -Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne in Iraq:

Well I don't agree with Secretary Rumsfeld's management of the war. Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there to achieve our strategic objectives.

I really believe that we need a new Secretary of Defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. And I'll speak briefly about that. But it goes back to insufficient forces to attack north to Baghdad and subsequently fight the insurgency.

I could go on and on, but the point has been made.

-Quinn

If the world stood together and with one voice condemned the current violence taking place in Iraq it would be a lot easier to contain the 'rabble rousers'. As long as enemy combatants can poison the trust between the government and its people there will not be any peace.

Quote:

---

If the world stood together and with one voice condemned the current violence taking place in Iraq it would be a lot easier to contain the 'rabble rousers'. As long as enemy combatants can poison the trust between the government and its people there will not be any peace.

---

i was told by a reliable source that we already have a vast coalition of the willing behind us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guyone

If the world stood together and with one voice condemned the current violence taking place in Iraq it would be a lot easier to contain the 'rabble rousers'. As long as enemy combatants can poison the trust between the government and its people there will not be any peace.

---

That’s a fine sentiment, but it addresses neither the realities on the ground in Iraq nor the following statement on your part:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guyone

. . . if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.

---

Once again, specifically explain to me just how the US would have been out of Iraq already if it were not for people "whining" about the inadequacies of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy (now the overwhelming majority of US citizens).

Once again, your assertion – that it’s dissenters “whining” and not the Bush Administration’s poor planning/implementation that has resulted in Iraq dragging on – is not supported by any interpretation of the military realities on the ground in Iraq:

1. -Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak, Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94:

We have a force in Iraq that's much too small to stabilize the situation. It's about half the size, or maybe even a third, of what we need.

2. -Former CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinni:

When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath.

When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.

3. A panel of retired generals told a United States Senate committee today that sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq will do little to solve the underlying political problems in the country. "Too little and too late," is the way Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, described the effort to the Senate Committee.

4. -Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st US Army Division in Iraq:

I think the current administration repeatedly ignored sound military advice and counsel with respect to the war plans.

I suspect, going way back five years to the beginning of this whole war, there were ample times when people said to him, as General Shinseki did, "We need more." In the case of General Shinseki, he was retired early.

When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes.

5. -Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne in Iraq:

Well I don't agree with Secretary Rumsfeld's management of the war. Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there to achieve our strategic objectives.

I really believe that we need a new Secretary of Defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. And I'll speak briefly about that. But it goes back to insufficient forces to attack north to Baghdad and subsequently fight the insurgency.

That’s just the tip of iceberg so far as military critics of the Bush Administration's poor planning/implementation in Iraq are concerned. Their assessments, which are backed by both extensive education and experience in such matters, represent an objective reality that you have yet to recognize, let alone effectively address or event refute.

-Quinn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quinn

LOL... I know, Chef. Talk about a guy having less than nothing to work with. I'm actually starting to feel bad for TFan. This is so damn one-sided, it's actually starting to get ugly, though that has more to do with the lunacy and weakness of TFan's position than anything else.

-Quinn

---

Ain't it the truth, Quinn. Please allow me to quote the learned George Costanza on such matters:

"He's beboppin' and scattin' all over the place!"

Isn't it ironic that we don't have a single veteran on this board who is pro-bushevik/neocon? :lol:

And yet our resident CHICKENHAWKS still have the unabashed temerity to deny their so richly deserved CHICKENHAWK label... :roll: :P

Quote:

---

Talk about a guy having less than nothing to work with. I'm actually starting to feel bad for TFan. This is so damn one-sided, it's actually starting to get ugly, though that has more to do with the lunacy and weakness of TFan's position than anything else.

---

http://cbs.sportsline.com/images/cen...hotos/sumo.jpg
Above: Little TFan trying hard to win an argument.

If FDR had a 35% approval rating and all those generals mouthing off as well we would all be speaking German & Japanese.

I just don't understand how so many Americans can side with our enemies on a constant basis. It almost as if America suffers from some self loathing personality disorder.

i just don't understant neo, why you would rather type over here, than fight over there. it's as if your suffering from cowardice or some other weakness of character.

Are you talking about the same cowardice & weakness of character that the entire left wing of our political system suffers from? Not really because I've been waiting here at the recruiting station for you guys to show up. None have...go figure.