Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 07:30:52 AM
Quote from: Dick Cheney
CHENEY: On the other hand, this government has only been in office about five months, five or six months now... If you look at the general overall situation, theyre doing remarkably well.
James Baker, as reported by the BBC Wednesday (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20601699-5006506,00.html):Quote from: James Baker
FORMER US secretary of state James Baker was visibly shocked when he last visited Iraq, and said the country was in a "helluva mess", the BBC reported today.
Clearly one of these people is either lying or delusional to the point of being clinically insane. So who is correct and who is a deceitful lunatic: Cheney or Baker?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 18, 2006, 07:33:14 AM
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 07:39:35 AM
Post by: richyoung on October 18, 2006, 07:52:15 AM
Quote from: Darwin
How could things go "remarkably well" yet be a "helluva mess" at the same time?
Considering the time intervals involved, the long history of tribal/secarian violence, and the total LACK of any tradition or history of democracy, there is NO CONTRADICTION between "remarkably well" (purple thumbs and all) with "helluva mess", (especially in the 5 provinces that are the big problem right now...)Quote
As the fighting nears the end of its fourth year, October is on track to be the deadliest month yet for U.S. forces.
That's because the Air Force and artillery can't give you as much help in fighting insurgents as they can a conventional army like Iraq's, so we are now forced to root out the bad guys at bayonet point in buildings, instead of bambarding them in batalion lots at a distance. Of course it will be "deadlier" unti lthe task can be handed off to LOCAL security forces - which coincidentally is what the insurgents are TARGETING, to DELAY that hand-off, (po;lice stations, recruiting stations, etc.) To quit now would be to REWARD that tactic with sucess.Quote
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are now fleeing their homes because of sectarian violence.
And this is worse than being killed by thousands each month by Sadaam...how?Quote
Basic services still haven't been restored for the general population.
...and under Sadaam, whole regions were deliberately DENIED basic services like water, electricity and sewage as political punishment for decades. At least the current situation is understood to be temporary - might have been fixed sooner, but everyone hollered about no-competition contracts going to Honeywell, Haliburtan, and Brown and Root - you can't have it BOTH ways.Quote
In what parallel universe could this situation possibly be considered as going "remarkably well"?
In one where you aren't pimping for Saint Hillery and Comrade Pilosi....
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 07:46:58 AM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 18, 2006, 08:03:06 AM
Quote from: richyoung
In one where you aren't pimping for Saint Hillery and Comrade Pilosi....
Gotta love that. Anyone who doesn't think we should be in Iraq, or thinks our leadership totally screwed it up MUST want Hillary and Pelosi in office.
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 08:07:09 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 18, 2006, 08:15:52 AM
There is no contradiction necessarily. When was the last time Baker was in Baghdad? I'll bet if he had been there prior to the war he would have found "a hell of a mess." Yes, Baghdad doesnt look like Paris or Prague. Big surprise. Their infrastructre has been a mess for 20 years or more. Their political situation has been chaotic forever. Under Saddam it was just held in check by fear. Want to go back to that?
People were predicting all kinds of mayhem and it hasnt happened.
And Darwin's solution is what? Pull out? That will sure help everyone. Oh sorry. It isnt a withdrawl or retreat, it is a "strategic repositioning."
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 08:28:16 AM
If we are not in this to win, to pacify Iraq and prevent civil war, what are we in this for? To waste American lives five, ten at a time with no definable goals or exit strategy? All the while the civil war continues to build and violence grows increasingly worse by the month? What the hell kind of plan is that? If we are not going to make the hard choices needed to win this thing, which we are not, then do we continue to throw lives down this insane rabbit hole, plodding along as we have been for nearly four years?
The fact is that we are not going to do this either. James Baker has made it clear that "staying the course" is not an option. As soon as the election is over, we will begin withdrawing troops, and whatever it is that we fear will happen in our absence will happen. It will happen if the Republicans maintain control of Congress, in which case it will be given some kind of positive-sounding spin regardless of how disasterous the outcome, or it will happen if the Democrats take over, in which case the Administration will blame it all on the Democrats for "cutting and running."
Either way doesn't much matter to me much. Neither side holds any moral high ground as far as I'm concerned because neither side has had the fortitude to tell the American people what the real choices are. Instead both sides have chosen to play politics with the lives of our soldiers, which to me is unforgivable.
Post by: HankB on October 18, 2006, 09:05:25 AM
But I'm NOT seeing any CREDIBLE numbers AT ALL for dead bad guys in Iraq . . . if we're killing terrorists/insurgents/whatever at a rate that's 20xor 50x the rate that we're taking casualties, there may be light at the end of the tunnel . . . if the numbers are about even, that's a problem. A BIG problem.
Anyone have links to CREDIBLE numbers?
Post by: wingnutx on October 18, 2006, 09:06:55 AM
I'm both on a pretty regular basis.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 18, 2006, 09:07:30 AM
Anyway. I don't speak Arabic. I haven't been to Baghdad, much less any other part of Iraq. I dont know the leaders of the Parliament or the opposition. I've never trained an Iraqi police squad or army unit. I havent gauged the strength and determination of the opposition or their support among the civilian population.
But plenty of people have and the consensus of those people is not to pull out or send in massive numbers of troops.
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 09:09:10 AM
Post by: richyoung on October 18, 2006, 09:09:54 AM
Quote from: Darwin
What no one is saying is that we have only one of two logical responses. Either we make every effort to pacify Iraq and prevent all out civil war, or we get out immediately. The first option would take a massive investment in money and manpower, most likely requiring a draft if we are to build our troop strength up to a size where we can smother the insurgency.
Ah, the dlightful "only two options" gambit, in which one option is so unpleasant that the only LOGICAL choice is to impiment the "option" the discourser has already settled on in his mind. And as usual, its FALSE - there are a whole WORLD of options:1. Annex Iraq and make it an American possesion like Samoa.
2. Tell Puerto Rico it lost out on being the 51st atate - tough noogies.
3. Iraq - the REAL "palestinian Homeland".
4. Iraq - the new atomic proving grounds.
5. Options 3 and 4 combined - two birds with one stone...
6. Iraq - the new Kurdish homeland.
or, what we are doing:
Keep the peace as best as possible while traininghte Iraqi's themselves to take over as soon as possible.
Quote
Zinni's original estimate of 300,000 troops might have been adequate prior to our bungling of the occupation in 2003-2004,
..and just WHAT would you have done differently?Quote
but now it would take a much larger force to quell the tremendous chaos that we have created in the country.
We didn't CREATE chaos in Iraq - chaos has been there ever since Islam split into various sects, and ever since hte Kurds and Persians have existed. Granted, Sadaam kept the chaos down, by rithlessly exterminating anyone who got out of line,...but that also got the world the Iran-Iraq war, Gulf War I and II, hundred of thousands of Kurds and other citizens killed...gee, suddenly the level of "chaos" now evident doesn't seem so bad...Quote
And right now our military is too depleted from nearly four years of war to produce that kind of manpower without a draft.
Bullpucky. 3000 casualties is less than 3 battalions of troops. Thats less than one battalion of loses a year - and we're NOT loosing a bunch of tanks, airplanes, or other heavy equipment. Not to mention its better to fight them OVER THERE, than have parts of Manhattan leveled in terrorist acts.Quote
Most importantly, the first option would require the political will of the American people, and that flat-out is not going to happen.
Don't bet on it.Quote
If we are not in this to win, to pacify Iraq and prevent civil war, what are we in this for? To waste American lives five, ten at a time with no definable goals or exit strategy?
WWII has been over since 1945 - whats our "exit strategy" for the occupation forces of Germany, Japan, and Korea? I'd like to know, 'cause as far as I can tell, we never left...Quote
All the while the civil war continues to build and violence grows increasingly worse by the month? What the hell kind of plan is that? If we are not going to make the hard choices needed to win this thing, which we are not, then do we continue to throw lives down this insane rabbit hole, plodding along as we have been for nearly four years?
A false argument. the new Iraq government will take over the task as it is capable. It takes a while to replacce a destroyed army, police force, etc - especially when the existing personnel are unacceptable for one reason or another - See: Germany, Japan,...Quote
The fact is that we are not going to do this either. James Baker has made it clear that "staying the course" is not an option.
I missed it - when did James Baker get elected to any current position of power?Quote
As soon as the election is over, we will begin withdrawing troops,...
We are already withdrawing troops...Quote
and whatever it is that we fear will happen in our absence will happen. It will happen if the Republicans maintain control of Congress, in which case it will be given some kind of positive-sounding spin regardless of how disasterous the outcome, or it will happen if the Democrats take over, in which case the Administration will blame it all on the Democrats for "cutting and running."
Either way doesn't much matter to me much. Neither side holds any moral high ground as far as I'm concerned because neither side has had the fortitude to tell the American people what the real choices are. Instead both sides have chosen to play politics with the lives of our soldiers, which to me is unforgivable.
Please - enlighten us with WHY we should take your opinion seriously - relevant facts would include your age, education, profession, and just what, beside te mewlings of the Drive-By Media, you base this drivel on...
Either way doesn't much matter to me much. Neither side holds any moral high ground as far as I'm concerned because neither side has had the fortitude to tell the American people what the real choices are. Instead both sides have chosen to play politics with the lives of our soldiers, which to me is unforgivable.
Post by: richyoung on October 18, 2006, 09:12:00 AM
This jibes with e-mail and such from co-workers and aquaintances in country, Rabbi.
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 09:13:17 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 18, 2006, 09:29:43 AM
Quote from: Darwin
Richyoung, we will see very shortly which of us is correct. If you are correct, I will be pleased. I'm afraid that you couldn't be more wrong, but again, we shall see shortly, before the end of the year, I believe.
Please define exactly what sort of calamity you expect to see before years end. Reply in the form of objective, testable, and verifiable standards, so that come years end we'll be able to measure your prediction against reality.
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 09:35:46 AM
Quote from: headless thompson gunner
Please define exactly what sort of calamity you expect to see before years end.
Again, for those with a short attention span and/or other mental disorders: Quote from: Darwin
The fact is that we are not going to do this either. James Baker has made it clear that "staying the course" is not an option. As soon as the election is over, we will begin withdrawing troops, and whatever it is that we fear will happen in our absence will happen. It will happen if the Republicans maintain control of Congress, in which case it will be given some kind of positive-sounding spin regardless of how disasterous the outcome, or it will happen if the Democrats take over, in which case the Administration will blame it all on the Democrats for "cutting and running."
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 18, 2006, 09:38:25 AM
Baker=politician.
Cheney=politician.
They are both lying.
As usual, the truth is somewhere between "We're doing great!" and "Holy crap it's a bloody mess!"
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 09:42:54 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 18, 2006, 09:44:53 AM
Quote from: richyoung
"...the consensus of those people is not to pull out or send in massive numbers of troops."
This jibes with e-mail and such from co-workers and aquaintances in country, Rabbi.
Agreed. I know two former profs who took work contracts in Iraq about a year ago. From what they describe, it appears that the US is doing remarkably well in most parts of the country. Not all parts, of course, but the bulk of the country is passified and secure. Most of the Iraqis my friends spoke to said their lives are better now than under Saddam.This jibes with e-mail and such from co-workers and aquaintances in country, Rabbi.
The antiwar fanatics love to say that we've lost this war, or that we're about to lose it if we don't give up and go home immediately. What they always fail to do is describe what it is about the situation, exactly, that indicates we're losing. The insurgents have never managed to win a battle. They've never managed to stop the democratic political process. The've never managed to recapture territory they've lost. There is NOTHING tangible to indicate that the insurgency is making any headway or progress towards their goals. By contrast, Iraq and America have implimented a democratically supported constitution. Iraq and America have instituted a democratically elected government. The Iraqi people have defied all odds to vote in an election in massive numbers, with even greater voter turnout than in the US. The Iraqi people defy the insurgents and terrorists every day in massive numbers, when they stand in lines to join the Iraqi police or army. Much of IRaq is governed and secured by the Iraqis alone, without help from us.
And the antiwar nuts expect me to believe that we're getting our collevtive national ass handed to us by these insurgents? Gimme a break.
The only thing the insurgents have managed to accomplish is to wrap the American left around their finger.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 18, 2006, 09:47:38 AM
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 09:51:31 AM
regardless, arguing it ad nauseum would be a waste of time. We only have to wait a month or so to see if I am right or wrong.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 18, 2006, 09:55:37 AM
Quote from: Darwin
Quote from: headless thompson gunner
Please define exactly what sort of calamity you expect to see before years end.
Again, for those with a short attention span and/or other mental disorders: Quote from: Darwin
The fact is that we are not going to do this either. James Baker has made it clear that "staying the course" is not an option. As soon as the election is over, we will begin withdrawing troops, and whatever it is that we fear will happen in our absence will happen. It will happen if the Republicans maintain control of Congress, in which case it will be given some kind of positive-sounding spin regardless of how disasterous the outcome, or it will happen if the Democrats take over, in which case the Administration will blame it all on the Democrats for "cutting and running."
Don't tell me about what is and isn't an option (in Baker's mind) or about "whatever it is that we fear will happen". I want a tangible prediction of what will happen and why, so that when that doesn't happen you'll be demonstrably proven wrong. (Or, in the remote chance that you're right, you can come back and say "I told you so.")
Parotting sound bites form a politician do not constitute a tangible prediction. Politicians are adept at using lots of words to speak nothing other than vauge and intangible gloom, which is always the other guy's fault. Don't give me a politicians answer, give me a real man's answer. Say straight up what you think will happen in Iraq by years end and why.
EDIT: Looks like Rabbi beat me to it...
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 09:57:40 AM
Quote from: darwin
said that we will be bailing out of Iraq by year's end, a process that will begin shortly after the mid-term election. The election will only change the terminology used to describe the process, but the process will remain the same regardless of the terminology. Yes it will be gloomy. It will be an ugly disaster. But I believe it is coming.
What part of the above do you not understand?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 18, 2006, 09:59:23 AM
Quote from: Darwin
I said that we will be bailing out of Iraq by year's end, a process that will begin shortly after the mid-term election. The election will only change the terminology used to describe the process, but the process will remain the same regardless of the terminology. Yes it will be gloomy. It will be an ugly disaster. But I believe it is coming.
Ok, now we're starting to get something tangible. Darwin predicts that we will "bail out" of Iraq shortly after the election in 3 weeks. He further predicts some sort of change in the public discourse surrounding said "bail out."Let me ask you this: Who (Democrats? Republicans? Congress? White House?) will make the decision to perform this bail out? What will be the results of this bail out in Iraq? What will be the results of this bail out in the US and the rest of the world? Please answer in the form of tangible events and outcomes, not in vague predictions of doom and gloom.
We're getting closer to a tangible prediction, but we're not quite there yet.
Quote from: Darwin
regardless, arguing it ad nauseum would be a waste of time. We only have to wait a month or so to see if I am right or wrong.
We'll only be able to see if you're right or wrong if you actually make tangible, testable predictions. "Doom and gloom, right after the election" doesn't cut it, because anyony can take a situation and find reason to describe it as awful or as hopeful, depending upon their agendas. If this is your prediction, then we'll be right back where we started one month from now, arguing about whether the current events connote "doom and gloom." Just look at the two quotes that kicked off this thread. If you want to be proven right, you have to make predictions that are more specific than the vagueries you've been spouting so far.
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 10:11:29 AM
Quote from: headless thompson gunner
Who (Democrats? Republicans? Congress? White House?) will make the decision to perform this bail out? What will be the results of this bail out in Iraq? What will be the results of this bail out in the US and the rest of the world?
Who will make the decision? The administration will, based on the recommendations of Baker's committee. They will continue to pretend that things are going well to keep the loyal base that has bought into this line of B.S. on board through the mid-term election, then try to put the best face possible on the withdrawal.What will be the result? Probably all-out civil war, with Iran gaining even more control of the area's oil supply. Once that situation settles itself, there will be tremendous problems between the Kurds in the north and the Turks, as well as between the Arab Shiia and their Persian Shiia neighbors in Iran. Ironically the troubled Sunni triangle may be the calmest place in a post-U.S. occupied Iraq because they have a relatively stable relationship with the Syrians. In fact the Sunni triangle will likely become a defacto extension of Syria. As far as our relationship with the rest of the world, that could hardly get worse than it has been the past four years and will most likely start to improve once we are out of Iraq.
Now how about some specific preditictions from you? How do you see this shaking down? Will we finally defeat these dead enders who are in the last throes of their insurgency and the Iraqi people will finally greet us with flowers as democracy flourishes in the region?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 18, 2006, 10:33:44 AM
There won't be any sort of monumental shift in our policy towards Iraq. There may be small revisions, perhaps to include deadlines for the Iraqis to be fully independent. There may be a reduction of troops in Iraq, mostly withdrawn from areas that have long been passified, or perhaps a shift towards support for Iraqi. But there won't be any sort of "bail out." The American left will scream utter and total American defeat despite any reason, much like they have been for years.
Insurgents will still try to kill Iraqi army and police members. Iraqi people will still line up to join the Iraqi police and army to try to defeat the insurgents. American and Iraqi units will continue to kill and capture insurgents at a rate that far exceeds the losses the insurgents inflict.
Sunnis will continue to murder Shiia, and vice versa, as has been happening for centuries. Such killings will not destabilize the new government.
The Kurdish territory will remain peaceful. There will be no war between Kurds and Turks for the forseeable future. Iran will still exert its under-the-table influence on the Sunni-Shiia thing, much as it has been for the past few years. The most influence Syria will have would be to exert a similar under-the-table influnece, such as the Iranians will do. Neither Iran nor Syria will gain overt control of Iraq for the forseeable future.
Bottom line: I predict any chances after the election will be modest revisions in our policy towards Iraq. I predict there will not be any sort of "bail out", and the US will not abandon Iraq to fend for itself against Turkey, Iran, Syria, or the insurgents. The political situation in Iraq and the middle east will be more similar than different compared to what we see today.
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 10:36:00 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 18, 2006, 10:38:07 AM
Quote from: Darwin
So you're basically saying we will "stay the course." Care to make some sort of wager on that?
I'm not predicting "stay the course." I suspect that there will be changes in our policy in Iraq. I simply don't beleive that they will be as radical as you predict.The opeative term in all of this is "bail out." You think the US will bail out of I raq. I don't.
There's a wide range of possibilities between "stay the course" and "bail out." I predict that the new policy will fall somewhere midway between these two extremes.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 18, 2006, 10:42:16 AM
Quote from: James Baker
FORMER US secretary of state James Baker was visibly shocked when he last visited Iraq, and said the country was in a "helluva mess", the BBC reported today.
Quote from: Dick Cheney
CHENEY: On the other hand, this government has only been in office about five months, five or six months now... If you look at the general overall situation [which is a helluva mess], theyre doing remarkably well.
Does that help? Baker was referring to the overall situation and Cheney was referring to how well the new government was coping with it.
Post by: roo_ster on October 18, 2006, 10:55:53 AM
It usually takes about 10-12 years to defeat an insurgency without massacreing or dispersing the population. The Philippines & Maylaysia are two 20th century examples.
If the USA finds the resolve to tough it out, Iraq might end up like the PI under Marcos or Indonesia under Sukarno/Suharto. Not a Switzerland, but better than any other country in the ME with the exception of Israel, decency-wise. I would have been happy with rubbling the country, seeing as they weren't exporting much oil to begin with.
If we leave before the Iraqi gov't is strong enough to fend for itself, we can expect the Kurds to do just fine & the Sunnis to take it in the face, good & hard, unless the Shiites splinter.
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 11:14:41 AM
Quote from: fistful
Cheney was referring to how well the new government was coping with it.
I see. That's sort of like my saying that my mother, who has terminal lung cancer, is doing remarkably well. Like the current Iraqi government she probably won't hold together until Christmas, but given that, she is doing remarkably well.Does that mean you think Cheney is agreeing with Baker that Iraq is well and truley scrod?
Jfruser, I sort of agree with you, except that I think Syria will back the Sunni with weapons and other tactical support to keep them from being exterminated by the Shiia, therefore prolonging the turmoil.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 18, 2006, 11:24:34 AM
Maybe the Saudis will arm the Kurds. Maybe the North Koreans will give the insurgents a nuke.
You could fantasize a dozen different scenarios with no end. But people were predicting the break up of the country before we even got to Baghdad. And it hasnt happened.
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 11:25:59 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 18, 2006, 11:30:59 AM
Here's the full, unedited quote:
Quote from: Cheney
Well, I think there's some natural level of concern out there because in fact, you know, it wasn't over instantaneously. It's been a little over three years now since we went into Iraq, so I don't think it's surprising that people are concerned. On the other hand, this government has only been in office about five months, five or six months now. They're off to a good start. It is difficult, no question about it, but we've now got over 300,000 Iraqis trained and equipped as part of their security forces. They've had three national elections with higher turnout than we have here in the United States. If you look at the general overall situation, they're doing remarkably well. It's still very, very difficult, very tough. Nobody should underestimate the extent to which we're engaged there with this sort of, at present, the "major front" of the war on terror. That's what Osama bin Laden says, and he's right. It's very important that we prevail there, but we're engaged really on a global basis. We're very active in Afghanistan. We've got continuing activities in Pakistan. We've captured and killed more Al-Qaeda in Pakistan probably than anyplace else. We're active working with the Saudis and in many others in that part of the world. So it's a major conflict. It's going to run for a long time, and everybody needs to understand that. The campaign, I look on, as an opportunity to remind everybody what's at stake here, and in this particular instance it's especially important to point out to people that terrorists can't beat us in a stand-up fight. They can only win if we lose our will, and they're betting we will. They're betting we don't have the stomach for the fight, and I don't think that's true, and I think faced with that basic fundamental choice I think the American people understand that it's having gone on offense, having gotten aggressive, going after the terrorists, closing those training camps in Afghanistan and working to take down regimes like Saddam Hussein and to stand up democracies in their place as well as stop measures here at home. It's what's kept us safe for five years and is the reason why there hasn't been another attack like 9/11 on the US.
A transcript of the entire interview is posted on Limbaugh's website:http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101706/content/eib_interview.guest.html
Post by: richyoung on October 18, 2006, 11:32:39 AM
Quote
Quote
If we are not in this to win, to pacify Iraq and prevent civil war, what are we in this for? To waste American lives five, ten at a time with no definable goals or exit strategy?
WWII has been over since 1945 - whats our "exit strategy" for the occupation forces of Germany, Japan, and Korea? I'd like to know, 'cause as far as I can tell, we never left...Bueller?....Ferris Bueller?....
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 12:01:09 PM
But the comparison is as ludicrous as your entire argument. Before I explain it to you, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. Tell me--what is the primary difference between our post-war occupations in the countries you mention and our occupation in Iraq?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 18, 2006, 12:12:01 PM
Quote from: Darwin
I hate to reply because it is hard to do so without insulting you, but... we're still there. We're still in Germany, Japan, and Korea, fifty years down the road.
But the comparison is as ludicrous as your entire argument. Before I explain it to you, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. Tell me--what is the primary difference between our post-war occupations in the countries you mention and our occupation in Iraq?
The Libs aren't going apeshit over our presence in Japan, Germany, or Korea??But the comparison is as ludicrous as your entire argument. Before I explain it to you, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. Tell me--what is the primary difference between our post-war occupations in the countries you mention and our occupation in Iraq?
His point is a very valid one for all those many people who claim that we need to give up in Iraq because we've been there for too long, that it's a failure because we haven't won yet. We haven't been there too long. There isn't any such thing as "too long" when it comes to protecting the interests of the United States.
We're still in Iraq for the same reasons we're still in Japan, Germany, and Korea: because it's in our best interests to remain there.
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 12:14:06 PM
But like I said, we'll know soon enough if I am right and you are wrong.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 18, 2006, 12:16:40 PM
Quote from: Darwin
I guarantee you that if we were still losing 100+ soldiers per month four years into an occupation of Germany, Japan, or Korea, we'd have pulled out then, too.
But like I said, we'll know soon enough if I am right and you are wrong.
If we had lost 15,000 on one day of the initial assault there would be screams to pull out too. But in fact the U.S. lost that many on D-Day and I dont recall anyone wanting to stop.But like I said, we'll know soon enough if I am right and you are wrong.
What will you give us all if you're wrong?
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 12:21:55 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 18, 2006, 12:23:16 PM
Quote from: Darwin
Quote from: fistful
Cheney was referring to how well the new government was coping with it.
I see. That's sort of like my saying that my mother, who has terminal lung cancer, is doing remarkably well.Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 18, 2006, 12:26:47 PM
Quote from: Darwin
Part of the reason the American people bought into attacking Iraq was because we were promised that we would be greeted as liberators by a grateful populace. That, like every other pre-war assertion made by the Bush administration, turned out to be a bald-faced lie.
Have you any firsthand knowledge to back up this claim? I ask because all of the people I know who've lived Iraq say this statement is wrong.The people I know who've lived in Iraq tell me that this assertion made by Bush was anything but a bald-faced lie. I'm told, again by several people who've lived in Iraq and have firsthand knowledge about which they speak, that the Iraqis did greet us as liberators and that they definitely do not want to see us leave.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 18, 2006, 12:28:55 PM
Quote from: Darwin
The difference between WWII and Iraq is that we were the attackees in the first instance and the attackers in the second. Part of the reason the American people bought into attacking Iraq was because we were promised that we would be greeted as liberators by a grateful populace. That, like every other pre-war assertion made by the Bush administration, turned out to be a bald-faced lie. If we had been dragged into WWII under false pretexts, it is doubtful that the government would have retained the support of the people for four years. As it was, support was wearing dangerously thin by the time the war ended. This in part drove the decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan, even though the country was practically defeated already.
No, the difference is that in WW2 the enemy spoke German and now they speak Arabic. The difference is that in WW2 soldiers carried M-1s and now they carry M-16s. The difference is that Iraq is a lot hotter than Germany.And I don't recall the Nazis attacking us per se. Or the Italians for that matter.
The population is grateful, for the most part. Expressing that too loudly there will get you killed however. Nor is it in the media's interest to report support.
The people here supported the war because in the aftermath of 9/11 Bush made a persuasive case that terrorism needs the support of nation-states to flourish. Iraq was a good example of a state with a 20 year history of supporting terrorism. Iraq also had a history of violating UN sanctions. All of that was so clear that even Democrats in Congress could understand that.
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 12:37:28 PM
Post by: wingnutx on October 18, 2006, 12:40:14 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 18, 2006, 12:48:05 PM
Quote from: Darwin
I have spoken with a colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves who spent over a year in Iraq, along with a general who also spent considerable time in a command position over there. I don't know who has been providing your information, but the information I'm getting is that the situation is bad and deteriorating. What these commanders have been saying mirrors what I am reading in the press, up to and including the latest polls that say 60 percent of Iraqis approve of killing Americans.
Have you spoken with any civillians who lived and/or worked with Iraqis on a daily basis?
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 12:50:07 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 18, 2006, 12:57:06 PM
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 12:57:55 PM
Post by: richyoung on October 18, 2006, 01:12:36 PM
Quote from: Darwin
But the comparison is as ludicrous as your entire argument. Before I explain it to you, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. Tell me--what is the primary difference between our post-war occupations in the countries you mention and our occupation in Iraq?
The primary difference is that the post-war operations were POST-WAR! The fighting is still going on - as well it should be. In the third year of WWII we had barely landed in Africa - technically, we are STILL at war in Korea.
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 01:15:12 PM
Post by: richyoung on October 18, 2006, 01:21:40 PM
Quote from: Darwin
Please refresh my memory--didn't the banner declare "Mission Accomplished"? Or was that just another lie?
The mission of destroying the Iraqi military and de-throning Sadaam and his secret police WAS accomplished. That is NOT the same thing as all the work, or even all the fighting, is done. One could reasonably have stated "mission accomplished" in August 1945, but people were still being killed from WWII as late as 1956.Edited to be "polite"...
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 01:33:14 PM
The following are quotes from Larry Diamond, one of a panel of experts advising the Iraq Study Group that is co-chaired by James Baker, and who is an expert on building democracies who is at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and is a former adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq:
Quote from: Larry Diamond
"There's a sense among many people now that things in Iraq are slipping fast and there isn't a lot of time to reverse them..."
"The civil war is already well along. We have no way of knowing if it's too late until we try a radically different course..."
From the San Francisco Chronicle article from which the direct quotes were taken:"The civil war is already well along. We have no way of knowing if it's too late until we try a radically different course..."
Quote from: San Francisco Chronicle
But having studied the situation in Iraq closely almost from the time Saddam Hussein was toppled in April 2003, and having been involved in trying to build a functioning democracy there, Diamond said the one thing the United States might no longer have is time. The Bush administration needs to initiate a "crash program" to avoid a catastrophe, he said. A key element would include bringing in new U.S. leadership to rebuild America's battered credibility in Iraq and the region...
If the Bush administration does not move rapidly in this direction and the violence continues to rise, Diamond said he fears Iraq's central government could be overthrown or collapse and the Iraqi military might disintegrate, leaving heavily armed militias controlled by the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis in a bloody struggle for power. The already heavy civilian death toll could soar still higher, dragging Iraq's neighbors into the chaos, he said.
The result, Diamond warned, could be the transformation of the Sunni-dominated Anbar province west of Baghdad into a zone effectively controlled by Islamic extremists, filled with terrorist training camps.
"What worries me more than any other single thing," Diamond said, "is if the country does effectively get broken up through a civil war -- and Anbar province, where most of the Sunnis live, becomes what Afghanistan was before 9/11."
At best, Diamond said, it appears the United States has a few months to implement a new strategy. He added, though, that an atrocity by an Iraqi group -- such as the bombing of the Askariya shrine, sacred to Shiites, in Samarra in February -- could trigger a cycle of retaliation that might spin out of control and give the United States even less time to act.
The first step the Bush administration should take is to renounce any plan to maintain permanent U.S. military bases in the country, said Diamond. Polls inside the country have shown that the vast majority of Iraqis fear that the secret U.S. aim is to continue to occupy Iraq and control its oil, a view that has fueled the insurgency...
...The United States should also announce plans for a flexible drawdown of troops over a period of from 18 months to 3 years, he said.
...He emphasized that the Iraq plan should be flexible so that, if things stabilize, the troops can leave earlier or the drawdown can be slowed if violence flares...
...Diamond stressed that the Bush administration has to move forward on all these different tracks simultaneously, in part because they are interconnected and in part because there is no time to wait for the resolution of one issue before moving on to the next.
"This is the fourth quarter, there's two minutes left in the game, and we're down two touchdowns," said Diamond. "There may not be enough time left."
That last bit would seem to support the drawdown taking longer than I predict, but my guess is that once we start pulling out troops, we'll pull them out at a faster pace than Diamond suggests, but notice he left that option open. Also note his emphasis on the immediacy of the problem, which is why I predict this will all happen sooner rather than later.
If the Bush administration does not move rapidly in this direction and the violence continues to rise, Diamond said he fears Iraq's central government could be overthrown or collapse and the Iraqi military might disintegrate, leaving heavily armed militias controlled by the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis in a bloody struggle for power. The already heavy civilian death toll could soar still higher, dragging Iraq's neighbors into the chaos, he said.
The result, Diamond warned, could be the transformation of the Sunni-dominated Anbar province west of Baghdad into a zone effectively controlled by Islamic extremists, filled with terrorist training camps.
"What worries me more than any other single thing," Diamond said, "is if the country does effectively get broken up through a civil war -- and Anbar province, where most of the Sunnis live, becomes what Afghanistan was before 9/11."
At best, Diamond said, it appears the United States has a few months to implement a new strategy. He added, though, that an atrocity by an Iraqi group -- such as the bombing of the Askariya shrine, sacred to Shiites, in Samarra in February -- could trigger a cycle of retaliation that might spin out of control and give the United States even less time to act.
The first step the Bush administration should take is to renounce any plan to maintain permanent U.S. military bases in the country, said Diamond. Polls inside the country have shown that the vast majority of Iraqis fear that the secret U.S. aim is to continue to occupy Iraq and control its oil, a view that has fueled the insurgency...
...The United States should also announce plans for a flexible drawdown of troops over a period of from 18 months to 3 years, he said.
...He emphasized that the Iraq plan should be flexible so that, if things stabilize, the troops can leave earlier or the drawdown can be slowed if violence flares...
...Diamond stressed that the Bush administration has to move forward on all these different tracks simultaneously, in part because they are interconnected and in part because there is no time to wait for the resolution of one issue before moving on to the next.
"This is the fourth quarter, there's two minutes left in the game, and we're down two touchdowns," said Diamond. "There may not be enough time left."
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 01:35:00 PM
Post by: richyoung on October 18, 2006, 01:43:05 PM
Quote from: Darwin
So, Rich, exactly how many people were "still being killed from WWII" in 1956. Or even in 1949 for that matter? Was it anything like the 70 soldiers who have died this month in Iraq?
Can't give you exact figure - I can tell you I've been to germany, and seen monuments to their war dead. The WWII monuments had dates running into 1956 - apparently, the RUssians weren't in much of a hurry to return POWs, nor were they particularly concerned with their health. Add to that land and sea mines, White Russian troops still fighting, hold-out japanese - (last one surrendered in the '70's, I beleive...), dud arial bombs going off when hit by agriculteral and construction equipment,,,,,
Post by: richyoung on October 18, 2006, 01:48:01 PM
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 01:48:41 PM
Post by: wingnutx on October 18, 2006, 01:50:35 PM
Quote from: Darwin
Please refresh my memory--didn't the banner declare "Mission Accomplished"? Or was that just another lie?
That was the carrier declaring that their mission was accomplished and they were going home. Both ships I was on did exactly that sort of thing at the end of a deployment.
Spin it however you want, though.
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 01:51:05 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 18, 2006, 01:59:31 PM
Quote from: Darwin
I'll go with "or what" for $100.
OK. Then are you going to admit that the two statements you started out with are not mutually exclusive?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 18, 2006, 02:00:35 PM
It was the media, not the White House, that made the assertion that the banner claimed the war in Iraq was over. I'll admit that the Bush admin should have done a better job clearing up that misunderstanding.
But so what? What if the Bush Admin had intended to say that the war was won? Would that somehow invalidate any of our actions in Iraq ever since? Would it somehow change the fact that bailing out now would be a boneheaded move? Would it illegitimize the new Iraqi government? Would it mean that the war is now hopelessly lost?
Would it be anything other than a vynyl banner haning on an aircraft carrier, and evidence of a botched PR gambit? Truly, it wouldn't mean a damn thing at all, except perhaps to the Bush haters grasping at straws.
Post by: Darwin on October 18, 2006, 02:24:55 PM
Maybe, but I doubt it. We'll see soon enough.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 18, 2006, 02:33:14 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 18, 2006, 03:20:52 PM
As for Darwin, I still want to know what we get if you're wrong.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 18, 2006, 03:35:08 PM
For the purposes of the bet, let's define a "bail out" as a withdrawal of at least 2/3 of American forces by the end of the year.
Interested?
Post by: richyoung on October 18, 2006, 04:42:30 PM
Quote from: Darwin
Rich, if you are asking me to choose between your assessment, or the assessment of a man whom the Bush administration sent to Iraq to help develop a democratic government because of his experience and credentials, I'm sorry, ...
Ah, but once again young grasshopper - you are at best misled, at worst, deliberately disenginuous. I'm not asking you to choose anything. Lets look at the WHOLE report when it comes out, instead of a quote or two taken out of context.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 18, 2006, 08:09:16 PM
Quote from: Darwin
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're all not just a bunch of Bush toadies rearranging the deck chairs while the entire neocon agenda goes down in flames.
If I'm a Bush toady, I want my paycheck!
Post by: richyoung on October 19, 2006, 08:12:30 AM
BTW, I'm not Jewish, and there is nothing "neo" about my conservatism, so I can't be a "neo-con",...
Post by: The Rabbi on October 19, 2006, 08:16:17 AM
Quote from: richyoung
BTW, I'm not Jewish, and there is nothing "neo" about my conservatism, so I can't be a "neo-con",...
Where is the "roll eyes while puking" icon?
Post by: richyoung on October 19, 2006, 11:15:13 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: richyoung
BTW, I'm not Jewish, and there is nothing "neo" about my conservatism, so I can't be a "neo-con",...
Where is the "roll eyes while puking" icon?"Some of those identified as neoconservatives refuse to embrace the term. Critics argue that it lacks coherent definition, that it is coherent only in a Cold War context, or is used as a pejorative by anti-Semites. See e.g. Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Institute, Interdisciplinary Center of Herzliya, in a letter from Washington for Sunday, April 6, 2003:
First, "neo-conservative" is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel. "
from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
Post by: Lee on October 19, 2006, 11:43:33 AM
Hmmm...don't think so. With over 3000 KIA and 12,000 wounded, nearly a total depletion of National guard equipment and resources, and multiple in-county unit rotations for most branches, the situation is getting dire without a draft and a huge increases in material resources.
Post by: richyoung on October 19, 2006, 11:54:10 AM
Quote from: Lee
Hmmm...don't think so. With over 3000 KIA and 12,000 wounded,...
We lost that many kille din ONE DAY - 9/11 - remember?.
Quote
nearly a total depletion of National guard equipment and resources,
How much Guard Artillery has been lost? How many Guard tanks? How many Guard airplanes?Quote
and multiple in-county unit rotations for most branches, the situation is getting dire without a draft and a huge increases in material resources.
To the extent that it is dire, it is a result of politicians, many Democrat "spending" a non-existant "peace dividend", and NOT the war on terror, which is, after all , a WAR - and NOT one of our own instigation.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 19, 2006, 11:58:13 AM
Post by: Lee on October 19, 2006, 03:55:38 PM
Yep... bad Saudis.
"How much Guard Artillery has been lost? How many Guard tanks? How many Guard airplanes?'
How effective are tanks and airplanes against the Iraqi insurgents? Any idea what the cost would be to re-supply the guard if this thing were to end today? I don't, but I'm guessing it starts with a B.
"To the extent that it is dire, it is a result of politicians, many Democrat "spending" a non-existant "peace dividend", and NOT the war on terror, which is, after all , a WAR - and NOT one of our own instigation."
No. In a war you have a defined enemy...not some nebulous term that can be applied as you see fit. I'd say when you are down to sending 40 year old businessmen/guardsmen into combat...sometimes twice, calling back reserves, and sending active duty troops back for their 3rd or 4th tour...things are getting pretty dire, and particularly when the situation is deteriorating rather than improving, and will require MORE troops, who will do more fequent and longer tours.
Bush said he would continue with this "war" even if he, Laura, and the dog are the only one's who agree. I think he was serious. I hope the dog doesn't end up getting flown to some Bulgarian prison some night for being a non-believer.
Post by: roo_ster on October 20, 2006, 08:35:28 AM
That is why they are going through the "Reset" program: tear a vehicle down to the last bolt & replace anything worn out. This Reset is being used by some defense contractors to stuff new functionality/doo-dads on the vehicles for only a little extra $$$ for a significant increase in functionality. Think of it as rebuilding your PC: heck, some of the older systems may no longer even be built.
The Army estimated it needed an additional $18B & $20B in the next two years to just tread water, vehicle-preparedness-wise. Rummy & GWB said bullhockey, you're over-estimating. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said there was no fluff in thier estimates. Give us the $$$ or I will quit loudly & in public, 'cause I don't need this job. Rummy & GWB sicced an outside auditing group on the CJC. The auditors found that the Army had underestimated its needs and that the Army needed $22B extra each year to tread water.
Needless to say, CJC is not too popular with Rummy & GWB these days. Best be careful when hiring. If you hire a no-BS tell-it-like-it-is kinda guy, he might just tell it like it is.
Post by: richyoung on October 24, 2006, 04:20:40 AM
The Army fleet of M1 Abrams, M2/3 Bradleys, and M113s is in serious-*expletive deleted*ss need of refurb/rebuild. About 75% of the vehicles.
True - but this is more a function of failure to buy replacements/delays & cancellations in replacement programs - the "peace dividend" that wasn't...
Quote
That is why they are going through the "Reset" program: tear a vehicle down to the last bolt & replace anything worn out. This Reset is being used by some defense contractors to stuff new functionality/doo-dads on the vehicles for only a little extra $$$ for a significant increase in functionality. Think of it as rebuilding your PC: heck, some of the older systems may no longer even be built.
No other choice when no new ones are being built - and not necessarily a bad thing - look at the C-130/KC-135/B-52 programs...
Quote
The Army estimated it needed an additional $18B & $20B in the next two years to just tread water, vehicle-preparedness-wise. Rummy & GWB said bullhockey, you're over-estimating. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said there was no fluff in thier estimates. Give us the $$$ or I will quit loudly & in public, 'cause I don't need this job. Rummy & GWB sicced an outside auditing group on the CJC. The auditors found that the Army had underestimated its needs and that the Army needed $22B extra each year to tread water.
Simple things like trucks haven't been fully funded since the vietnam war. Plus we've never had a true armored car/scout vehicle, hence the use of uparmored HUMVEEs as ersatz Strykers.
Quote
Needless to say, CJC is not too popular with Rummy & GWB these days. Best be careful when hiring. If you hire a no-BS tell-it-like-it-is kinda guy, he might just tell it like it is.
I'm not a Rumsfield fan, but we DO have civillian control of the military - and thats a GOOD thing.
Post by: roo_ster on October 24, 2006, 08:43:54 AM
We can't blame it all on GHWB & Slick Willie & spend-like-a-drunken-sailor COTUS. We have used our equipment much more & much harder than if we had taken a powder on Iraq. Heck, we have used our equipment more than we thought we would even after the decision was made to upend Iraq.
Using up equipment is part of the cost of doing business. Until the machines are reset, we are not ready to do business elsewhere. Really, ought we be sending heavy units to perform counter-insurgency? Well, considering we are so light infantry-poor, I guess we have no choice to use a sledgehammer to swat house flies...
I agree that resetting the machines is a good, viable option. No real need for a new MBT or IFV, since ours are still some of hte best on earth. I don't think the KC-135 could be considered by anybody as "still some of the best on earth," though Freakin' 707s, as sung about by the Steve Miller Band. The B-52 has its place as a a machine that can toss more ordnance down at the enemy than any other. But, for the love of Pete, they came out a generation before I was born! They might end up having service lives as long as 18th century ships of the line. Lord help our B-52 pilots if we fight an enemy who does not easily cede control of their air space.
IMO, we are operating our armed forces on capital acquired decades ago. All we need is one regional conflict against a competitive enemy to deplete our capital. Even if we then devoted unlimited funds, we would be years away from fielding MBT/IFV replacements. I guess we could buy the latest French hardware, provided we brought cash, as they'll armaments to anybody. Perhaps Japan would loan us thier new MBTs. All 30 of them.
Post by: richyoung on October 24, 2006, 09:14:28 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 24, 2006, 09:53:12 AM
Quote
No real need for a new MBT or IFV, since ours are still some of hte best on earth.
The Abrams is hard as nails, no doubt about that. But as a former Bradley passenger and driver, I've heard a lot of negatives about the platform and very little positive. What makes you say it is one of the best?
Post by: richyoung on October 24, 2006, 10:54:27 AM
Quote
No real need for a new MBT or IFV, since ours are still some of hte best on earth.
The Abrams is hard as nails, no doubt about that. But as a former Bradley passenger and driver, I've heard a lot of negatives about the platform and very little positive. What makes you say it is one of the best?Only real competition is the BMP-2 - the BMP-3 is the next thing to vapor-ware. Without thermals, and with only 4 - 5 AT-5 missles, the BMP-2 is not very survivable, much like the BMP-1 from which it came...
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 24, 2006, 11:03:08 AM
Post by: richyoung on October 24, 2006, 11:08:45 AM
vaporware? meaning weak armor?
Meaning very few actually built and fielded - the BMP-2 soldiers on for most of the world that bought it.
Post by: roo_ster on October 24, 2006, 11:29:43 AM
Quote
No real need for a new MBT or IFV, since ours are still some of hte best on earth.
The Abrams is hard as nails, no doubt about that. But as a former Bradley passenger and driver, I've heard a lot of negatives about the platform and very little positive. What makes you say it is one of the best?But, I'll give credit where it is due: the Bradley has what a contemporary IFV needs:
- Cannon good vs everything up to med armor in the 25mm
- Heavy ATGM capability provided by the TOWtally Stupendous TOW*
- World-beating FLIRs with the IBAS & CITV*
- Armor that is, uh, OK
- Decent trafficability
It does lack in capacity & armor. Some folks carp about the 25mm cannon's inferiority vis a vis larger (medium) cannon. I am not convinced. About the only advantage the bigger 40mm cannons have is stowed kills. Even a 40mm Supershot is still not going to knock out a tank this side of a T55, inclusive.
OK, rank promotion aside, I think that its EO/IR sensors are what set it apart. The reports our boys in uniform sent back about their utility and how much they liked them caused no little boost in morale up in McKinney, Texas. (Same with LRAS & ITAS by their users.)
If one treats it like what it really is (decently armed battle taxi) it can do its job.
FWIW, if I had to go to battle in a metal box, I would want that box to be an Abrams. I would accept no substitutes. Anything else I consider field-expedient, above-ground, mobile sepulcher.
richyoung has it: the BMP2 is the other widely-fielded, tracked, med cannon & ATGM-equipped IFV.
Most other armored troop carriers are light, wheeled vehicles (like the LAV, Stryker, BTR) or old-school APCs (M113, MTLB). The light wheeled vehicles have even less armor, cross-country mobility, and firepower. The APCs have less armor & firepower & are slower.
So, yeah, the Bradley has its shortcomings, but relative to the others it is arguably the best.
I would like to hear any input from Europeans or east Asians about new or up & coming home-grown IFVs that might be in the works or technically on par with the Bradley.
* Yes, there is some rank promotion going on, here. So sue me.
Post by: Desertdog on October 24, 2006, 11:32:11 AM
Quote
How could things go "remarkably well" yet be a "helluva mess" at the same time?
Which one has the up to date reports from the front line and the rest of Iraq, or which one was just looking at what they saw in Bagdad?I think I would trust the one with the up to date reports to be more accurate.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 24, 2006, 11:34:40 AM
Quote
How could things go "remarkably well" yet be a "helluva mess" at the same time?
One was referring to the performance of the govt. One was referring to the overall situation. In fact, if you read just the one line by Cheney, he implies within that sentence that the situation is, at the very least, problematic. World-beating FLIRs with the IBAS & CITV*
This much I don't understand.
Post by: richyoung on October 25, 2006, 04:00:31 AM
World-beating FLIRs with the IBAS & CITV*
This much I don't understand.
IBAS = Improved Bradley Aquisition Subystem (for TOW missle)
CITV = Commander's Independant (from the gunners sight) Thermal Viewer
Post by: richyoung on December 27, 2006, 11:14:04 AM
Care to wager some real money that I am right and you are wrong on all of the above, Rich Young?
What do you consider "real money"? Who would you consider to be a fair arbiter as to who is right, and what time frame?
Post by: richyoung on December 27, 2006, 11:20:21 AM
richyoung;
We can't blame it all on GHWB & Slick Willie & spend-like-a-drunken-sailor COTUS. We have used our equipment much more & much harder than if we had taken a powder on Iraq. Heck, we have used our equipment more than we thought we would even after the decision was made to upend Iraq.
We can't blame it all on GHWB & Slick Willie & spend-like-a-drunken-sailor COTUS. We have used our equipment much more & much harder than if we had taken a powder on Iraq. Heck, we have used our equipment more than we thought we would even after the decision was made to upend Iraq.
This, of course, is partly aggrevated by equipment designed for, and logistics support for, a short intense nuclear war in Europe. But you go to war with what you have, which was always designed for some other contingency, it seems...
]