kallend 1,623 #26 July 31, 2006 QuoteQuote>Good. It's about time Bush stopped listening to the "know >nothings" who think reducing our troop levels in Iraq will reduce the >amount of violence. You don't want our president to listen to our Secretary of Defense? I want him and Rumsfeld to listen more to the Generals on the ground. Not ex-Generals like Murtha. Should have done that years ago, instead of firing them. The Iraq war has been mismanaged from day one, and the buck stops in the Oval Office.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #27 August 1, 2006 Quote>Listening to those who want a pull-out is what has caused the war to be prolonged. QuoteWhat happened to the "as they stand up, we will stand down" thing? They ARE standing up, and have been for several years now. Standing up means reducing the violence. My interpetation of the stand up thing is as the Iraqi are more able to deal with the violence, the US will play a less active role. QuoteSide note - Iraqi government death squads are becoming more and more of a problem; they're being a lot more brazen about it, and more witnesses are living to tell about the abductions and killings. It will be interesting when they start tangling with US troops. Sounds like they are becoming even more convinced that if they can break the will of the American People, the US will pull out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freethefly 6 #28 August 1, 2006 Quote What was that? Fixed it for ya Professor"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,395 #29 August 1, 2006 >Standing up means reducing the violence. Ah. A little revision, and everything is going according to plan. I can just hear the story in a few years: "Our plan to destabilize the Middle East, bring civil war to Iraq and lure terrorists into the open is working perfectly! And those loser anti-war people want to cry uncle and surrender when we're winning." >Sounds like they are becoming even more convinced that if they can >break the will of the American People, the US will pull out. Did you really just say that the Iraqi government is trying to break the will of the American People? Either you have stopped reading, or this war just took a very sad turn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #30 August 1, 2006 Quote>Standing up means reducing the violence. Ah. A little revision, and everything is going according to plan. I can just hear the story in a few years: "Our plan to destabilize the Middle East, bring civil war to Iraq and lure terrorists into the open is working perfectly! And those loser anti-war people want to cry uncle and surrender when we're winning." >Sounds like they are becoming even more convinced that if they can >break the will of the American People, the US will pull out. Did you really just say that the Iraqi government is trying to break the will of the American People? Either you have stopped reading, or this war just took a very sad turn. Doh, sorry I misread your post. I was refering to the increased violence the Iraqi Troops are having to deal with in your stand up thing. I meant that maybe the reason the Iraqi Troops are having less than hoped for success is because the insurgents are trying to break the will of America. Judging by your and others posts, they seem to be doing a good job. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #31 August 1, 2006 Well didn't some of the new Iraqi govenrment say they wanted the US out now and they support the religous resistors (or some thing like that)? I do not think we have the whole hearted support of most of Iraq. But what do I know I only went there twice for over 18 months.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #32 August 1, 2006 Side note - Iraqi government death squads are becoming more and more of a problem; they're being a lot more brazen about it, and more witnesses are living to tell about the abductions and killings. It will be interesting when they start tangling with US troops. Um death squads leave witnesses?...wow they aren't very good or very smart huh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #28 August 1, 2006 Quote What was that? Fixed it for ya Professor"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,395 #29 August 1, 2006 >Standing up means reducing the violence. Ah. A little revision, and everything is going according to plan. I can just hear the story in a few years: "Our plan to destabilize the Middle East, bring civil war to Iraq and lure terrorists into the open is working perfectly! And those loser anti-war people want to cry uncle and surrender when we're winning." >Sounds like they are becoming even more convinced that if they can >break the will of the American People, the US will pull out. Did you really just say that the Iraqi government is trying to break the will of the American People? Either you have stopped reading, or this war just took a very sad turn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #30 August 1, 2006 Quote>Standing up means reducing the violence. Ah. A little revision, and everything is going according to plan. I can just hear the story in a few years: "Our plan to destabilize the Middle East, bring civil war to Iraq and lure terrorists into the open is working perfectly! And those loser anti-war people want to cry uncle and surrender when we're winning." >Sounds like they are becoming even more convinced that if they can >break the will of the American People, the US will pull out. Did you really just say that the Iraqi government is trying to break the will of the American People? Either you have stopped reading, or this war just took a very sad turn. Doh, sorry I misread your post. I was refering to the increased violence the Iraqi Troops are having to deal with in your stand up thing. I meant that maybe the reason the Iraqi Troops are having less than hoped for success is because the insurgents are trying to break the will of America. Judging by your and others posts, they seem to be doing a good job. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #31 August 1, 2006 Well didn't some of the new Iraqi govenrment say they wanted the US out now and they support the religous resistors (or some thing like that)? I do not think we have the whole hearted support of most of Iraq. But what do I know I only went there twice for over 18 months.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #32 August 1, 2006 Side note - Iraqi government death squads are becoming more and more of a problem; they're being a lot more brazen about it, and more witnesses are living to tell about the abductions and killings. It will be interesting when they start tangling with US troops. Um death squads leave witnesses?...wow they aren't very good or very smart huh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #33 August 1, 2006 QuoteWell didn't some of the new Iraqi govenrment say they wanted the US out now and they support the religous resistors (or some thing like that)? I do not think we have the whole hearted support of most of Iraq. But what do I know I only went there twice for over 18 months. Doesn't the new Iraqi government support Hezbollah? It appears that the US has created the one thing it fears the most - a terrorist supportive government. How long untill US dollars and hardware are divirted to Hezbollah?"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #34 August 1, 2006 To late. We have many items that used to be ours in the bad guys hands already. Plus plenty of the "reward" money is going right to funding the same folks the reward was given out to tell on!An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #35 August 4, 2006 www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGEgGYeMa8iw&refer=home... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,395 #36 August 4, 2006 >http://www.bloomberg.com/...Ma8iw&refer=home It's just the damn lying liberal US military claiming there's an imminent civil war! What the hell does our top general in Iraq know about what's going on in Iraq? If you want to know what's going on over there, get one of the chickenhawks on the tube for the _real_ scoop. BTW, all the troops that we moved to Baghdad to help quell the surge in violence there? They came from Mosul, which is now erupting: --------------- Car bombings, clashes in Mosul Insurgents and police slugged it out Friday across the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, leaving three police officers and an unknown number of insurgents dead. The clashes led officials to enforce a citywide curfew until dawn on Saturday. The violence erupted as 3,500 U.S. troops were being moved from the Mosul area to Baghdad to help bolster security in the capital. Fighting raged in at least eight neighborhoods in Mosul, the largest city in Iraq's northern tier about 250 miles (400 kilometers) north of Baghdad. ------------ Perhaps we could move some troops from Fallujah to Mosul . . . no, probably a bad idea there. Perhaps from Afghanistan . . . no, they're needed there to re-retake towns that the nonexistent Taliban has been retaking. Looks like Harry Reid was right - this war probably should have been planned a little better. Draft anyone? It would be a golden opportunity for some war supporters to really support the war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Calle 0 #37 August 8, 2006 Quote Now maybe we will send enough troops in to get the job done so we can get out, instead of the constant mental masturbation and politicalization of the war. What exactly is the job? How could moore troops be better in this situation? Normally, a war have at least something to do with politics. This one however haven`t and that is what makes it so special. And not in a good way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,395 #38 August 8, 2006 >What exactly is the job? Pacification and control of a population of people who all want to kill each other. >How could moore troops be better in this situation? With enough troops we could control every single rooftop, intersection, market stall, parking lot, checkpoint, bridge, police station, power station etc. However, that would take millions more soldiers, not a few thousand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Calle 0 #39 August 8, 2006 Okay, I get it. People kill people, so the troops got there to... Kill people? This war is not able to win in any way. My opinion is that the majority of this people does not want the US present in their country. "Giving" more democracy to this people only makes it harder for the occupiers to stay. Because belive it or not, when theese people get to decide for themself the American way is not wanted there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doogie320 0 #40 August 9, 2006 Quote Perhaps from Afghanistan . . . no, they're needed there to re-retake towns that the nonexistent Taliban has been retaking. We had the TB/ al Qaeda/ Anti-Coalition Militants ('ACM' is our buzzword for the badguys, the TB aren't the only faction left that hate us.) on the ropes and let them off. That happened for a variety of reasons. In RC South there wasn't a major presence like there is now, US efforts were on RC East and the Pakistani border (our track record with securing borders kind of sucks, but I'm hijacking this thread enough). Our ISAF bretheren came in and were shocked at the condition of RC South. With a few exceptions the Deh Chopan, Deh Rawod, Tarin Kowt area was free of US forces, save for some SOF guys here and there. I can't speak for Iraq, but our policy in Afghanistan fluctuates too much. Our insurgency experts (SF guys) aren't running the war and in some areas their efforts are marginalized by conventional commanders that don't know how to wage a counter- insurgency. There are some things right over here, some things that are wrong. We had a real chance at ending this thing and we let it slip away. Oddly, that was due in part to Iraq, but that is for another time if anyone is interested. My two years over here draws to a close literally within a few hours, I should be stateside by Friday. Iraq has caused ripples in the Stan and I don't believe that we will recover from them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #41 August 9, 2006 www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/Almost_2_000_bodies_taken_to_Baghdad_morgue.html?siteSect=143&sid=6959777&cKey=1155119061000 "Mission Accomplished"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #42 August 9, 2006 in some areas their efforts are marginalized by conventional commanders that don't know how to wage a counter- insurgency.Quote This has been a huge problem ever since the inception of spec ops. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #43 August 9, 2006 QuoteQuote Perhaps from Afghanistan . . . no, they're needed there to re-retake towns that the nonexistent Taliban has been retaking. We had the TB/ al Qaeda/ Anti-Coalition Militants ('ACM' is our buzzword for the badguys, the TB aren't the only faction left that hate us.) on the ropes and let them off. That happened for a variety of reasons. In RC South there wasn't a major presence like there is now, US efforts were on RC East and the Pakistani border (our track record with securing borders kind of sucks, but I'm hijacking this thread enough). Our ISAF bretheren came in and were shocked at the condition of RC South. With a few exceptions the Deh Chopan, Deh Rawod, Tarin Kowt area was free of US forces, save for some SOF guys here and there. I can't speak for Iraq, but our policy in Afghanistan fluctuates too much. Our insurgency experts (SF guys) aren't running the war and in some areas their efforts are marginalized by conventional commanders that don't know how to wage a counter- insurgency. There are some things right over here, some things that are wrong. We had a real chance at ending this thing and we let it slip away. Oddly, that was due in part to Iraq, but that is for another time if anyone is interested. My two years over here draws to a close literally within a few hours, I should be stateside by Friday. Iraq has caused ripples in the Stan and I don't believe that we will recover from them. I'm interested. And a big thanks for your serviceI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #44 August 9, 2006 QuoteIraq has caused ripples in the Stan and I don't believe that we will recover from them. That has nothing to do with conventional commanders not understanding how to manage insurgency. That has to do with the the occupant of the White House impersonating a CinC.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #45 August 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteIraq has caused ripples in the Stan and I don't believe that we will recover from them. That has nothing to do with conventional commanders not understanding how to manage insurgency. That has to do with the the occupant of the White House impersonating a CinC. Yawn, John maybe you should speak to youre own son. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #46 August 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteIraq has caused ripples in the Stan and I don't believe that we will recover from them. That has nothing to do with conventional commanders not understanding how to manage insurgency. That has to do with the the occupant of the White House impersonating a CinC. Yawn, John maybe you should speak to youre own son. He wouldn't make a good CinC either, but thanks for thinking of him.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,395 #47 August 9, 2006 >Iraq has caused ripples in the Stan and I don't believe that we will recover from them. Thanks for the overview. That's interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #48 August 9, 2006 I for one wish we had stayed the course in Afghanistan and completed the mission. We had a huge chance to make a difference in the region by doing the right thing. That appears to have been squandered. I think in the long run history will not be kind to the US for this last 5 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Doogie320 0 #49 August 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteIraq has caused ripples in the Stan and I don't believe that we will recover from them. That has nothing to do with conventional commanders not understanding how to manage insurgency. That has to do with the the occupant of the White House impersonating a CinC. Yes and no to both. Additionally there are other areas that we don't always consider yet are vital to the waging of war. Logistics, communications, money, staff time and effort...other things too. Iraq HAS directly impacted those areas in regard to Afghanistan. One thing you can blame the current CINC on, as well as all of his predecessors, is that the US military is NOT capable of waging a two-front war without mobilising the populace. I'm not talking drafts either. I AM talking about putting Guard and Reserves on almost indefinite active duty orders akin to WWII. Conventional commanders have failed, notably the 25th ID when they ran the show. Their soldiers are top notch, their leadership? Not so much. The 173rd spent their time cleaning up after the 25th's year, neglecting certain areas of the country to work in others. 10th Mountain, the UK, and Canada are currently reaping it. You can't pin this down to one single failure by one person or even a single failure by a group of people. A lot of things are wrong and they would be better, if not ideal (as ideal as one can get in war) were we not engaged in Iraq. I'm not smart enough to argue that "we should have invaded" or "we should not have invaded" Iraq. I do know because I've lived it for two years that Iraq is hurting us in Afghanistan. - Not enough specialists like Civil Affairs - Not enough inter-theater or intra-theater logistics - Warfighting staffs are focused on Iraq, they deal with OEF when they have time. -Political repercussions have caused units to minimze OEF casualties becuase they had or a sister unit is having a bad tour in Iraq. -Equipment replacements and new equipment goes to Iraq first. That's off the top of my head. I hate to sound like Jan Brady (Iraq, Iraq, Iraaaaqqqqqq!), but that's the way it is right now. Don't forget that we have troops in the Horn of Africa who are LOWER on the food chain than those in the Stan. Our military and civilian leaders robbed Peter to pay Paul and that neck of the woods isn't going to get better anytime soon. I have a flight to London in a few hours. Joy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,395 #50 August 17, 2006 Today's updates: Roadside bombings in Iraq are at an all time high. Daily attacks against US troops have doubled in the past 8 months. "The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels" - DoD official ". . .it's probably as bad as I’ve seen it, in Baghdad in particular. . .it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war" (if the violence isn't stopped.) - Abazaid, top US general in Iraq. Senior administration officials are now acknowledging that they are considering alternatives to democracy. (We still have Saddam available, after all.) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/world/middleeast/17military.html?_r=1&oref=slogin I hope to god we can admit our mistakes and start fixing them before thousands more have to die. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
akarunway 1 #43 August 9, 2006 QuoteQuote Perhaps from Afghanistan . . . no, they're needed there to re-retake towns that the nonexistent Taliban has been retaking. We had the TB/ al Qaeda/ Anti-Coalition Militants ('ACM' is our buzzword for the badguys, the TB aren't the only faction left that hate us.) on the ropes and let them off. That happened for a variety of reasons. In RC South there wasn't a major presence like there is now, US efforts were on RC East and the Pakistani border (our track record with securing borders kind of sucks, but I'm hijacking this thread enough). Our ISAF bretheren came in and were shocked at the condition of RC South. With a few exceptions the Deh Chopan, Deh Rawod, Tarin Kowt area was free of US forces, save for some SOF guys here and there. I can't speak for Iraq, but our policy in Afghanistan fluctuates too much. Our insurgency experts (SF guys) aren't running the war and in some areas their efforts are marginalized by conventional commanders that don't know how to wage a counter- insurgency. There are some things right over here, some things that are wrong. We had a real chance at ending this thing and we let it slip away. Oddly, that was due in part to Iraq, but that is for another time if anyone is interested. My two years over here draws to a close literally within a few hours, I should be stateside by Friday. Iraq has caused ripples in the Stan and I don't believe that we will recover from them. I'm interested. And a big thanks for your serviceI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #44 August 9, 2006 QuoteIraq has caused ripples in the Stan and I don't believe that we will recover from them. That has nothing to do with conventional commanders not understanding how to manage insurgency. That has to do with the the occupant of the White House impersonating a CinC.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #45 August 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteIraq has caused ripples in the Stan and I don't believe that we will recover from them. That has nothing to do with conventional commanders not understanding how to manage insurgency. That has to do with the the occupant of the White House impersonating a CinC. Yawn, John maybe you should speak to youre own son. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #46 August 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteIraq has caused ripples in the Stan and I don't believe that we will recover from them. That has nothing to do with conventional commanders not understanding how to manage insurgency. That has to do with the the occupant of the White House impersonating a CinC. Yawn, John maybe you should speak to youre own son. He wouldn't make a good CinC either, but thanks for thinking of him.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,395 #47 August 9, 2006 >Iraq has caused ripples in the Stan and I don't believe that we will recover from them. Thanks for the overview. That's interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #48 August 9, 2006 I for one wish we had stayed the course in Afghanistan and completed the mission. We had a huge chance to make a difference in the region by doing the right thing. That appears to have been squandered. I think in the long run history will not be kind to the US for this last 5 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doogie320 0 #49 August 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteIraq has caused ripples in the Stan and I don't believe that we will recover from them. That has nothing to do with conventional commanders not understanding how to manage insurgency. That has to do with the the occupant of the White House impersonating a CinC. Yes and no to both. Additionally there are other areas that we don't always consider yet are vital to the waging of war. Logistics, communications, money, staff time and effort...other things too. Iraq HAS directly impacted those areas in regard to Afghanistan. One thing you can blame the current CINC on, as well as all of his predecessors, is that the US military is NOT capable of waging a two-front war without mobilising the populace. I'm not talking drafts either. I AM talking about putting Guard and Reserves on almost indefinite active duty orders akin to WWII. Conventional commanders have failed, notably the 25th ID when they ran the show. Their soldiers are top notch, their leadership? Not so much. The 173rd spent their time cleaning up after the 25th's year, neglecting certain areas of the country to work in others. 10th Mountain, the UK, and Canada are currently reaping it. You can't pin this down to one single failure by one person or even a single failure by a group of people. A lot of things are wrong and they would be better, if not ideal (as ideal as one can get in war) were we not engaged in Iraq. I'm not smart enough to argue that "we should have invaded" or "we should not have invaded" Iraq. I do know because I've lived it for two years that Iraq is hurting us in Afghanistan. - Not enough specialists like Civil Affairs - Not enough inter-theater or intra-theater logistics - Warfighting staffs are focused on Iraq, they deal with OEF when they have time. -Political repercussions have caused units to minimze OEF casualties becuase they had or a sister unit is having a bad tour in Iraq. -Equipment replacements and new equipment goes to Iraq first. That's off the top of my head. I hate to sound like Jan Brady (Iraq, Iraq, Iraaaaqqqqqq!), but that's the way it is right now. Don't forget that we have troops in the Horn of Africa who are LOWER on the food chain than those in the Stan. Our military and civilian leaders robbed Peter to pay Paul and that neck of the woods isn't going to get better anytime soon. I have a flight to London in a few hours. Joy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,395 #50 August 17, 2006 Today's updates: Roadside bombings in Iraq are at an all time high. Daily attacks against US troops have doubled in the past 8 months. "The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels" - DoD official ". . .it's probably as bad as I’ve seen it, in Baghdad in particular. . .it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war" (if the violence isn't stopped.) - Abazaid, top US general in Iraq. Senior administration officials are now acknowledging that they are considering alternatives to democracy. (We still have Saddam available, after all.) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/world/middleeast/17military.html?_r=1&oref=slogin I hope to god we can admit our mistakes and start fixing them before thousands more have to die. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
