RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied

RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

pahunkboy -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/27/2006 8:22:45 AM)
ok lemme play devils advocate here. what is the answer to the mess? nobody knows. does anyone know? while this ensues TONS of opium is readying to the us and western markets. as they had a bumper crop.

CrappyDom -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/27/2006 9:31:29 AM)
Archer, When your reading comprehension hits high school let me know. Nowhere in my post was I refering to YOUR military service and was instead refering to your hypocracy of slamming Julia for trying to judge this issue without military experience and yet YOU blindly accept the testimony of civilians OVER generals when it DOES suit you. If the above is still to complex for you to grasp let me know and I will attempt to dumb it down further.

popeye1250 -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/27/2006 12:06:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IslandHeat Another pet peeve of mine, is that on Dec. 7 1941, we lost 2,400 people at Pearl Harbor, and on Dec. 8th there were lines stretching around the block at recruiting stations. Some young men committed suicide because they were found unfit to serve! Sept. 11, 2001 we lost 3,000, mostly civilians, in a sneak attack that made what the Japanese did look like an ethics class! Sept. 12th, the recruiting offices reported an increase in calls requesting information, mostly from veterans who'd served in Desert Storm wanting to know the prospects of coming back in! Sometimes, I wonder if we as a nation DESERVE to get our asses handed to us! And BTW, what Archer said is correct!! I was one of those veterans who tried to get back in. They said on the news that they have to extend tours in Iraq now because of a shortage of Troops and the lefties think we should get involved with Darfur! That's rich! They're against "foreign intervention" but they want to send Troops to Darfur!

DomKen -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/27/2006 1:45:03 PM)
Who said leftists are against foreign interventions? Sounds like more right wing lies from the likes of Rove to me. Every liberal and progressive I know, and I know a lot as I live in one of the most liberal places in the USA, were in favor of the peacekeepers in Somalia, the former Yugoslavia and the expulsion of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Many were initially in favor of ousting the Ba'athist regime in Iraq. What most are not in favor of is doing it so badly that the country devolves into chaos. Darfur is another situation like the former Yugoslavia where a small force will bring a complete cessation to the violence since the side doing the violence are the worst sort of bullies and do not have the balls to stand up to real combat troops.

popeye1250 -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/27/2006 1:58:26 PM)
Domken, well the lefties are against having Troops in Iraq. The thing is that we don't have enough Troops to go around now with Iraq going on and they have to extend their tours there. Plus, we need about 30-40,000 Troops along that Mexican border. When is Bush going to make good on his promise to secure that border?

DomKen -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/27/2006 2:15:15 PM)
Troops along the Mexican border to do what? By law they can't be used in law enforcement so did I miss news of an imminent invasion by Mexico? Also most leftists aren't for abandoning Iraq. At this point most don't have a good idea on what to do. All the ones I know say that the invasion and initial occupation should have been done right i.e. a massive force able to secure the borders and known ammo dumps as well as provide security forces throughout the nation. Now after years of "bungling", IMO not truly incompetence but an actual decision to trade servicemen's lives for Halliburton profits, the situation is that a true civil war is going on and we don't have the forces or the respect of the people of Iraq necessary to stop it. Getting out quickly won't fix Iraq but at least servicemen will stop dieing for no good reason.

stef -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/27/2006 2:22:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Domken, well the lefties are against having Troops in Iraq. The "lefties" are against having troops there for no good reason, as are many of the "righties" these days. It's got nothing to do with being against foreign intervention, it's about doing the right thing for the right reason. ~stef

CrappyDom -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/28/2006 8:49:13 AM)
Archer, I am offended by you calling us quote: political operatives I do not do what I do because I am a cynical political operative quote: To put it in civilian terms lets see You even manage to make civilian a pejoritive quote: Your silly little attempt to push my buttons has failed again I am many things but silly I am not Since the mods won't call you on your behavior I will.

Archer -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/28/2006 11:01:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Archer, I am offended by you calling us quote: political operatives I do not do what I do because I am a cynical political operative quote: To put it in civilian terms lets see You even manage to make civilian a pejoritive quote: Your silly little attempt to push my buttons has failed again I am many things but silly I am not Since the mods won't call you on your behavior I will. 1. I didn't call you or anyone else specificly a political operative, perhaps a bit of reading comprehension on your part is required. "And media and political operatives will try to make hay out ofthose details telling US..."(ALL OF US INCLUDING YOU). 2. Again you display your propensity for putting feelings of pejorative where they did not existed. julia has stated before she has no military background and when it comes to Flag Officer ranks it gets complicated for many civilians to get the relationship between the various generals. It was an honest attempt to give frame of reference. any pajortive against civilians was manufactured in your mind not mine. 3. The attempt was silly not you again a little of the reading comprehension you claim I need seems to be in order for yourself. Seems that it's becomming a standard operating proceedure for you to ascribe motivations, call names and resort to ad hominem attacks, time for you to be called on your own behaviour.

Archer -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/28/2006 11:15:30 AM)
And now back to the post itself. I have read arguments about not enough troops and too maany troops both comming from the same people in the Democratic party at different points. "We have too many there they need to be redeployed" and "We don't have enough there to do the job right" Truth is both viewpoints have some validity, and both have their problems. More troops was argued against as providing more targets for the terrorists, Less tropps has it's validity as well (provide less targets). The basic truth is the trade off evaluation between the added capability of more troops, and the idea that more troops means more targets in the type of fighting going on in Iraq, was made at some level. You can argue that they evaluated the level trade off wrong but at least take both sides of the argument into account. Will more troops in country mean more US casualties? (Likely)Will more troops in country mean more capability? (More than likely) But at what point is the trade off worth it. If we get a 30% reduction in violence and it costs us an additional 50 lives and 200 injuries over the next year over and above the current estimates, is it worth it? Those are the types of questions generals ask above the division level. The division commanders are looking to improve their capabilities and more men means more capability, but what is the cost/ benifit of that added capability. (sarcasm alert) If we send more of those troops that are terrifying Iraqi women and children in the dark of night (Kerry Immitation) then what is the cost benifit trade off looking like?

juliaoceania -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/28/2006 11:27:25 AM)
You never answered my basic question, where does the buck stop when the war is finally lost because of all the mistakes along the way? Is it Casey, or with the Commander and Chief? Are you suggesting that these generals never discussed anything with Rumsfield, that he never talked to them about conditions in the field? I sincerely hope that Rummy would not be so laisse faire about his position that he would take the word of one or two people directly beneath him as to what is happening with strategy and placement of troops and the amount of troops required to get er done. If you are saying that, maybe it explains why Bush was under the misapprehension that the Mission Was Accomplished when he landed on that aircraft carrier...

Archer -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/28/2006 11:44:29 AM)
Sorry worked away from office all day yesterday so couldn't get back to you, and Id say that this exchange should prove the point to some folks that you are perfectly capable of fending for yourself and calling me on it if I cross the line, LOL Anyhow now as to where the buck stops. The buck has always stopped t the desk of the man in charge (in charge of the platoon for matters at the platoon level, In charge of the Division for Division matters...) so reality based the buck might stop at any of a few levels. It depends on what you believe to be the most accurate evaluation of how many troops are needed. Initial deployement of the troops I'd say falls on Bush's desk. After that it could easily shift a year later If the general In charge of Irag says I need X troops to do the job, and his subordinates complain that they needed more then, the general in charge of Iraq's desk is where that buck stops for that year. It's not one buck stopping it's all those multiple bucks and they should stop on the desk of the person who made the decission. I happen to believe that Bush and Rumsfeld are not personally responsible for every troop level decission made in Iraq, it's not the way the military I spent time in works. Are they ultimately responsible sure their decission to go in is the root. That doen not mean that they are to blame for every decission made afterwards there is a difference between responsibility and blame, I see alot of blame being pushed back and forth being called responsibility.

Archer -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/28/2006 11:46:43 AM)
Julia the question I have for you then is "What level of increased casualties is an acceptable trade for 10% more capability in keeping Iraq secure?" An equally hard question to your pass the buck one, LOL

juliaoceania -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/28/2006 12:00:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Julia the question I have for you then is "What level of increased casualties is an acceptable trade for 10% more capability in keeping Iraq secure?" An equally hard question to your pass the buck one, LOL They are ultimately responsible for everything that happens as the result of the invasion of Iraq... you do not think so, but I do as someone that has ran my own business. If my business succeeded or failed was all on me, if I had employees that mismanaged my business that would also be all on me. I put them in charge, or those I gave that responsibility to did. I did not have employees, but I have been in charge of them, and I had people to report to. If something went wrong it ultimately lay on my boss's desk, and then worked its way up. If the company failed (it is still in business) then it would be the responsibility of the head manager. Also, it has been apparent from the news sources I listen to/watch that the Iraq situation has been a devolving one, for Rummy/Bush to not take responsiblity for what has been going on for some time is rather unfortunate for ALL of us, because ultimately we are the share holders in America and we are paying the ultimate price for the failures of our CEO. Now you say we should not escalate the conflict, I agree.. we should take our troops out altogether on a planned timeline and let what happens happen. If more troops can't win it, less troops certainly won't.

Mercnbeth -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/28/2006 12:19:01 PM)
quote: where does the buck stop when the war is finally lost because of all the mistakes along the way? julia, There is a faulty premise to your question. The war will not be "lost". It can only be abandoned or surrendered. In this case the comparison to Vietnam is obvious. Better yet, the Russian campaign in Afghanistan. All show the problem with trying to walk the center line of a four lane highway. Sooner or later you're going to take a hit. Going in with all the US, or the aforementioned USSR, might and weapons and assuming full control similar to post WW-II Japan and Germany would bring victory. Maybe after a couple generations of such heavy handed control where planted capitalist seeds are allowed to germinate the region would produce the Japan and Germany we see today. However, we no longer wage those kinds of wars. We now "declare victory" from an aircraft carrier while our soldiers still can't walk the streets. There is no attempt at total victory because the media review of the required carnage would not be acceptable to the US citizenry. We are too 'civilized' to accept the civilian casualties. Not enough of us have died yet from an attack. The success of the counter terrorism has reduced what occurred on 9/11 to political buzzwords and a source of new material for dying Kennedy conspiracy theorists.. The war is now one of attrition. We are fighting for something, a ideal we call 'democracy', in a country and for a people who have no desire to achieve the same goal. The battles within the groups go back hundreds of generations. The camps only focus is their leader being THE leader. There is no 'e pluribus unum' mindset. I don't see any positive outcome. Remember, Nixon and Kissinger called the abandonment of South Vietnam a 'victory'. How many, who depended upon the US, died when those words rang hollow? Whether it's President Bush or his replacement I'm sure the Commander and Chief will again declare a similar 'victory'. The only way a real victory could be achieved is total commitment and pragmatic application of military might. I'm afraid the time for that in Iraq has long past which is why for the past year of so, I've been on the side that says declare 'victory' and leave to let them kill each other as they have for centuries. It's easy to define losing. How will we define 'winning'? Better, how can we define victory with the Monday morning quarterbacks from both parties ready with rhetoric to say they knew what should have been done yesterday. Give them credit, the retrospective prognosticators are never wrong. However, they are as useful with their correctness as they are timely.

DomKen -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/28/2006 12:31:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Julia the question I have for you then is "What level of increased casualties is an acceptable trade for 10% more capability in keeping Iraq secure?" An equally hard question to your pass the buck one, LOL You're not actually claiming troop levels in Iraq are the result of trying to minimize casualties are you? Using artillery and armor troops to do MP work does not seem designed to reduce casualties. Sending in reserve and guard troops with inadequate or no body armor does not seem to be part of a strategy to minimize casualties. As a matter of fact I know of no policy beyond troop levels in Iraq that could be said to have implemented to reduce US or Iraqi casualties.

Archer -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/28/2006 12:49:23 PM)
Ken the basic idea was not original to me it was spouted to great effect when Bush raised the troop levels. More troops means more targets. And it holds some level of validity based on the fact that more troops does not help as much when the action is against IED's, and finding the makers and planters of IED's is not something that more troops helps alot, unless the more troops are specialists in something that applies directly to counter insurgency. A few things a few more troops would help with Ability for local security teams Ability to patrol areas Ability to escort more convoys And a few more areas Things a few more troops would hurt with Image that we are ever going to leave (propaganda tool) Added casualties to IED losses ( more folks on patrol eventually means they will miss something and set one off) Added casalties to mortar, rocket attacks, sucide bombers, Additional support structure means someone will target it. It's really actuarial science that I base my agreement with this idea on. X number of Soldier Hours yields Y deaths and Z injuries, Same way insurance companies figure things. If you increase the Soldier Hours you will increase the deaths and injuries, unil you reach one of the possible ballance points where the varables shift.

DomKen -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/28/2006 1:01:15 PM)
I agree with all that. All I wanted to know was whether you were trying to argue that lower force totals in country was a deliberate attempt to minimize casualties. BTW I'm fairly confident that most serious people who have called for more troops in Iraq are not looking for incremetal increases like Bush and Rumsfeld have done over the last few years which certainly does increase the chances of US casualties but a massive increase in troop strength so as to far exceed the unknowable balance point where we have so many troops on the ground that the variables shift in our favor. We did it in Germany in '45 to great effect and the same thing would work in Iraq.

juliaoceania -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/28/2006 1:32:53 PM)
quote: There is a faulty premise to your question. The war will not be "lost". I am not as good at fortune telling as you are, but from my perspective we have already lost quote: The war is now one of attrition. We are fighting for something, a ideal we call 'democracy', I do not see how invading people after 10 years spreads democracy, again we differ. In my educational process people obtain democracy for themselves, it cannot be forced upon them quote: The only way a real victory could be achieved is total commitment and pragmatic application of military might. I'm afraid the time for that in Iraq has long past which is why for the past year of so, I've been on the side that says declare 'victory' and leave to let them kill each other as they have for centuries. More ethnocentric talk. In my learning about the region the war with Iran was something we put Saddam up to, and to say these people were fighting for centuries...look at our own country and tell me how many years we haven't had troops somewhere fighting something or occupying something? It seems we have been at war a lot over the last 100 years... People manage to always project who they are on to others whether they be next door or around the globe

Lordandmaster -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/28/2006 2:09:34 PM)
So what? This thread isn't about you. It's about the people who are in charge of the military and--last I checked--some guy named Archer on Collarme wasn't one of them. I'm always amused by the way these military types claim some kind of special authority and insight. If you served, you VOLUNTEERED to join the military. Remember? My grandfather fought in World War I. My uncle fought in World War II. My Dad fought in the Korean War. Can your family match that? I doubt it. And they weren't volunteers, either. quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Militry family, Military service as an Officer, best freind is in Iraq for the second time.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125