1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

the forgotten american dead: rural america paying the ultimate price in iraq

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Herbert Anchovy, Jan 28, 2007.

  1. fmrsped

    fmrsped Active Member

    I stand corrected.

    This will, and should/could be retorted by Dems that we shouldn't be there or have been there in the first place, but I wonder what the reaction to it would have been had Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. said it was possible that insurgents could make this a more difficult situation than anyone wants to think about right now, but we need to do this anyway.

    If they would have acknowledged the absolute danger that was inherent over there, I wonder if more people would have raised more eyebrows initially, rather than following along without thinking critically.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Yes.

    You're absolutely right. But this administration had zero interest in doing the right thing.

    They had an interest -- and when I say they, I mean specifically the people quote above -- in implementing a war plan they had been toying with since the mid-1990s.

    And they would say anything to do it.

    Now, one can argue, I suppose, that in their own minds they had larger reasons to do so -- the ususal neo-con hit list: To show that a smaller, more flexible military could succeed; To establish a state friendly to Israel in the Middle East; To prove that they were the smartest people in the room; To prove that bureaucracy was bad and that a small group of dedicated public servants could do better that the State Department or Defense Department.

    But they bought into their own bullshit at some point, and we're all paying for it.

    Thousands paid with their lives.
     
  3. fmrsped

    fmrsped Active Member

    Here's where I'll stop because I'm getting in over my head.

    I feel terribly for the soldiers who gave their lives, and their families as well.

    But, I'm of the mind of the title of a thread started by HB a while back. I won't repeat it, lest I be burned at the stake.

    I think Zeke et al probably know, and I think that's where we all disagree and I should stop. Thanks for listening/discussing civilly Zeke.
     
  4. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    My point was that our objectives in Iraq should have been much easier to accomplish than they've turned out to be.

    If president Stupid (thanks, F_B) and his his merry group of dipshits had listened to the military personnel who tried time and again to warn them that thousands of more troops were needed in order to secure Iraq's borders and quickly squash sectarian violence in several key areas, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. They, however, didn't listen at the start, refused to go back and reconsider their position when it became obvious that the violence was spreading and remained resistant to a change in strategy right up to the point the American people pulled the rug out from under them last November.

    Now, they're stuck. They've created an absolutely unwinnable situation, and there's no good plan to remedy it. All that's left is their grandstanding with a 20k troop "surge" and screaming like children about how the other side has no plan.

    Had they listened when knowledgeable people told them that this war and ensuing occupation wouldn't be as easy as they thought, it wouldn't be so damned difficult now.
     
  5. There were plans.That's the hell of it. There was something called The Future Of Iraq Group in the State Department that spent eight years thinking about Iraq after Saddam. They were ignored. Their boss got fired.
     
  6. friend of the friendless

    friend of the friendless Active Member

    Mr Sped,

    Forget about whether it was advertised as easy - the pt is, it got ugly after they told everyone it was over. Flight-suit. Deck. Mission. Accomplished. Premature. Ejaculations. About. Victory.

    YHS, etc
     
  7. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    Oh, I bet we could scrounge up another 50,000 soldiers for six months. There are 1.2 million people in the Army.
     
  8. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Army, or overall active-duty military?

    As of 2004, there were 1.4 million active duty military in all branches.

    Army -- 500,000

    Marine Corps -- 180,000

    Navy -- 375,000

    Air Force -- 359,000

    Plus, there are another 1.2 million National Guard and reserve in all branches.

    But let's just take the 680,000 active ground combat forces (Army and Marines). Not all of them are combat arms; I'd guess a sizable number of them are combat support or service support. But not as many as in the past, thanks to contractors.

    But the fact remains that in March, we'll begin our fifth year in Iraq, which means that some troops are already on their third tour. The battle fatigue must be unspeakable. Never mind the wear and tear of the desert on equipment. That is another factor. The logistics just blows my mind.

    We've augmented the force with National Guard and Reserve, but that well is beginning to run dry. There is a finite limit to how long we can keep this up over there. Just manpower dictates that, short of restarting a draft or offering volunteers Blackwater-like money to sign up.

    Fifty thousand additional (battle-weary, questionably-equipped) troops still won't be enough to put a boot on the insurgency's throat. The Bushies made our bed for us, and now we all have to sleep in it.
     
  9. Lamar Mundane

    Lamar Mundane Member

    Jan. 15, 2008,

    Washington D.C. - (AP) In his last effort to silence critics and restore order to Iraq, President Bush has commissioned NASA to build a time machine.

    When completed, President Bush will send Condaleeza Rice, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld back to 2002. They will proceed to Iraq, kill Sean Penn and plant weapons of mass destruction in Baghdad.

    This "I can't believe it ain't over" project will be funded by shifting funds earmarked for operation "To Mars Bitches" to this new war on history.

    "It's unknowable if we can interrupt the space-time continuum," Bush said. "I challenge my critics to deliver a plan that will better protect this nation than to turn back time. When Dick, Condi and Don return, I will give them cake and we will finally declare Mission Accomplished."

    When asked why not just return to Sept. 10, 2001 Bush answered "Because Sept. 11 changed everything. I couldn't have taken my weedeater to the Constitution without it. Remember, the terrorists hate our freedoms that why we must surrender them."
     
  10. Angola!

    Angola! Guest

    Do you really want to start comparing the Iraq war to D-Day and the Civil War?
     
  11. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    Lynn Woolsey of California has filed HR 508, which calls for military disengagement in Iraq, provide assistance for reconstruction and reconciliation and begin training of a permanent Iraqi security force.
     
  12. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    There are 1.2 million Soldiers in the Army, active, National Guard and Reserve components.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page