WOW.. So Perot had nothing to do with Bush loss? What did Clinton do? No regulation on markets had to stimulate the corruption... BJ in the oval office... Protected the muslims in Bosnia... North Korea stoped developing bombs (Albright)... Terrorism was spreading around the world and in the US... We were attacked multiple times with no responce...  3 chances to kill/catch Saddam... 

It's easy to look at the whole political picture and blame Bush for almost everything that is negative... When you take a look at the person and what they did or did not do it's interesting...

Don't know of a perfect war plan that you talk about, but if the goal was to get Saddam out and for a stable Iraq... 3 elections in two years is rather good...

Back to the books...       Sonny I am just a pup so I do listen to what my elders say, but at times I wonder if they have alzheimers...

Hey Clipper…got news for you…Gore lost in 2000…

[quote=SonnyClips]Gore lost the election not the vote. Frankly, I would rather win the vote. I mean hell all the glory and none of the responsibility, isn't that yer beef anyway? Grow a beard fcuk yer wife get in the history books and not have to be responsible for all this bullsh*t. Oh all that and make more bank, not a bad deal aye?[/quote]

Good.  That means that Al and Tipper(I always thought that name sounded like either a Spaniel or a sorority girl) are just as happy as I am that he's not President of the United States!

7God, 

Where did Bush's ass kicking in the first week get us to?  In case you missed it, we are still fighting there so the first week was one of the many battles; frankly, it means nothing now considering we sit where we do. 

Funny how I'm closed minded in your assumption that I believe military is the only option w/ Iran and Syria - my point is that if we are going to fight terror it just makes more sense to go after the REAL sponsors of terror.  But how is that suggestion closed minded when it was Bush's determination to use the military option v Iraq?  It appears that he may have been a bit more closed minded yet you don't have issues with that.  That's why apologists like you and Mike B are true Hypocrites who just can't be intellectually honest with reality.

I am a registered Republican by the way, but will be changing to the conservative party exclusively.  It's a great victory for freedom and democracy to know that the Patriot Act and data collection at the NSA is in place too.  

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

[quote=csmelnix]Where did Bush's ass kicking in the first week get us to?  [/quote]

Let's see... that would be the end of Saddam's army, the end of Saddam's reign of terror, the end of Saddam's government.

 BTW, I seem to recall the very sort of “OMG, they’ve screwed the pooch. Our supply lines…. Units getting lost….the sandstorm has us stopped in our tracks…” hysteria then that I hear now…

 [quote=csmelnix]In case you missed it, we are still fighting there …

[/quote]

Are we fighting Saddam’s army, or are we fighting a collection of AQ terrorists and thugs who kill more civilians that soldiers, are offending the people they hope to persuade to join them (see AQ’s #2’s letters to the #1 AQ guy in Iraq), who can’t hold terrain. You mean we’re “fighting” IEDs and snipers, both of which have dropped off in their frequency. Some people won’t admit victory a decade after our troops are back home…

[quote=csmelnix]  “… my point is that if we are going to fight terror it just makes more sense to go after the REAL sponsors of terror.”

[/quote]

Hmm, and your “real sponsors of terror”, which of them can claim Saddam’s record of hiding WMDs (remember how his son-in-law had to tell us about his programs at work while the UN was trying to inspect and finding nada?), refusing inspections. Housing/training/recuperating terrorists how have killed Americans, shooting at our planes and plotting to kill a former president?

[quote=csmelnix]

  But how is that suggestion closed minded when it was Bush's determination to use the military option v <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq? 

[/quote]

See the above for a brief review of how your “real sponsors” aren’t nearly in the same category Saddam was.

[quote=csmelnix]

That's why apologists like you and Mike B are true Hypocrites who just can't be intellectually honest with reality.

[/quote]

You wouldn’t know reality if someone drew a circle around it on your map with a red alcohol pen.

[quote=csmelnix]

I am a registered Republican by the way, but will be changing to the conservative party exclusively. 

[/quote]

Hey, it’s your vote. You want to make it worthless, it’s your call.

[quote=csmelnix]

 It's a great victory for freedom and democracy to know that the Patriot Act and data collection at the NSA is in place too.   <?:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

[/quote]

Ohhhh the evvvvilll Patriot Act and the NSA tapping AQ phone calls. Will democracy survive? 

CS, I guess we have different views on threats and how to deal with them.

Do you view WMD's as only germs and nuclear? Two DC snipers had 25 million people scared to leave their home. It only took 19 to kill thousands and level the World Trade Centers.

Some Americans think Saddam hated Americans and was a threat. After all he killed about a million people. Attacked 5 countries. Used chemicals on his own people. Supported terrorism 20k per marter. Saddam invited hundreds of extreme Muslim teachers into his country to preach hatred to his people. Reported by the AP.

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,593 6,18171946%255E1702,00.html

MB - you are just lost;  you are a fraud that makes zero sense. 

7G - we do disagree but I don't think on such a wide scale.  I said from the beginning of this post, I don't necessarily disagree with going into Iraq as much as I just can't stomach how screwed up we have fought the thing.  Mike B being the expert correspondence school CGS graduate that he is feels that he is a much better expert on low intensity conflict than somebody who has been thorough trained in thant type of warfare.  But anyway, WMDs are not the same as terrorists man come on; that's too big a stretch.  And about the invitation of extremists.... it's beyond the borders of Iraq.  Saudi, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Khazakistan, Uzbek, on and on...that's just not the proper barometer.  Again though, I don't necessarily disagree with going into Iraq, we just needed to do it better, which we are far more capable of doing than what we have there thus far. 

[quote=mikebutler222]

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

[quote=csmelnix]Where did Bush's ass kicking in the first week get us to?  [/quote]

Let's see... that would be the end of Saddam's army, the end of Saddam's reign of terror, the end of Saddam's government.

In place of absolute chaos, where parents can't send their kids to school in fear of car bombs, there's less work than before, less energy and oil output than before .... again the policy of poor planning that you have such a hard time seeing (too bad the staff training and state dept jobs you had didn't help you here).

 BTW, I seem to recall the very sort of “OMG, they’ve screwed the pooch. Our supply lines…. Units getting lost….the sandstorm has us stopped in our tracks…” hysteria then that I hear now…

That's great Mike, I am glad you recall that - so do the people who f&*king died because we did not properly provide force protection for this. 

 [quote=csmelnix]In case you missed it, we are still fighting there …

[/quote]

Are we fighting Saddam’s army, or are we fighting a collection of AQ terrorists and thugs who kill more civilians that soldiers, are offending the people they hope to persuade to join them (see AQ’s #2’s letters to the #1 AQ guy in Iraq), who can’t hold terrain. You mean we’re “fighting” IEDs and snipers, both of which have dropped off in their frequency. Some people won’t admit victory a decade after our troops are back home…

Does it matter?  We're still fighting but sorry your son died maddam, the good news is he was killed by a Sunni insurgent. 

Stupid...if you had any idea of the situation there you would know that we are fighting a force made roughly of 85-90% sunni's from inside Iraq; not foreigners.  Al Anbar, ever been there?  It's chock full of the Sunni's that benefitted from the Rule of Saddam.  The chaos is predominately inside there where we fight the Sunni's.  Your broad brush again....wipe the foam off your mouth moron.

[quote=csmelnix]  “… my point is that if we are going to fight terror it just makes more sense to go after the REAL sponsors of terror.”

[/quote]

Hmm, and your “real sponsors of terror”, which of them can claim Saddam’s record of hiding WMDs (remember how his son-in-law had to tell us about his programs at work while the UN was trying to inspect and finding nada?), refusing inspections. Housing/training/recuperating terrorists how have killed Americans, shooting at our planes and plotting to kill a former president?

His son in law also said that there were no WMDs they were destroyed in the mid-90s - I already included that in my posts earlier.  Real sponsor, paying and directly funding Hamas, Fatah, Force 17, Hizballah, AL aqsa, Islamic Jihad, AL Gama Islamiyya, DFLP, Sipah e sahaba and then some v cherry picked and outdated intelligence.... known v unknown - yea makes sense to go after the suspected unknown v the known.  Again, thank God you were part of the downsizing in the officer corp.

[quote=csmelnix]

  But how is that suggestion closed minded when it was Bush's determination to use the military option v <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq? 

[/quote]

See the above for a brief review of how your “real sponsors” aren’t nearly in the same category Saddam was.

[quote=csmelnix]

That's why apologists like you and Mike B are true Hypocrites who just can't be intellectually honest with reality.

[/quote]

You wouldn’t know reality if someone drew a circle around it on your map with a red alcohol pen.

[quote=csmelnix]

I am a registered Republican by the way, but will be changing to the conservative party exclusively. 

[/quote]

Hey, it’s your vote. You want to make it worthless, it’s your call.

Spoken like a real moron -

[quote=csmelnix]

 It's a great victory for freedom and democracy to know that the Patriot Act and data collection at the NSA is in place too.   <?:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

[/quote]

Ohhhh the evvvvilll Patriot Act and the NSA tapping AQ phone calls. Will democracy survive? 

Yea, that's the assumption.  NSA isn't tapping either, go do some research there numb nuts...data mining grabs far greater info from far greater sources...if it was just wire tapping, even I believe Bush would have sought court appointed warrants.  I guess you are comfortable though that only one branch of government, and one person in that branch gets to determine who the suspected terrorists is, and determines that they can listen in on him w/o any oversight. 

[quote=SonnyClips]You are never free...if you are a Republican...[/quote]

Clipper...if you use that as your sig line, I'll have to charge royalties for copyright infringement...

BTW...I am an independent...both in my line of work and my politics, but I'll have to confess to some republican leanings...

...and I still feel pretty free...

[quote=csmelnix]

MB - you are just lost;  you are a fraud that makes zero sense.  [/quote]

This from the expert that doesn't know what the mission is....

[quote=csmelnix]

Mike B being the expert correspondence school CGS graduate that he is feels that he is a much better expert on low intensity conflict than somebody who has been thorough trained in thant type of warfare. 

[/quote]

As opposed to the "expert" that never advanced that far but feels qualified to tell the commanders on the ground there how they "screwed it up"...

[quote=csmelnix]But anyway, WMDs are not the same as terrorists man come on; that's too big a stretch. [/quote]

Hmmm, as if Saddam couldn't have handed a small, easily concealed WMD to a terrorist pal of his. Yeah, too big a stretch.

BTW, the "secret tapes" of Saddam are now public, including the discussions in his office about how they kept UN inspectors from their WMD programs and Saddam commenting on how easy it would be to attack the US with small, concealable WMDs...

Secret tapes dating back to 1995.  Smokn gun brother.

Funny I never saw you mention the mission.  Downsized - gotta love it.

[quote=csmelnix][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=csmelnix]Where did Bush's ass kicking in the first week get us to? [/quote]

Let's see... that would be the end of Saddam's army, the end of Saddam's reign of terror, the end of Saddam's government.

In place of absolute chaos, where parents can't send their kids to school in fear of car bombs, there's less work than before, less energy and oil output than before .... again the policy of poor planning that you have such a hard time seeing (too bad the staff training and state dept jobs you had didn't help you here).

[/quote]

So Saddam keep the trains running on time. This might be news to you, but the “plans” change the second the first round is fired. It is true from time immortal. I just love tha backbenchers harping on “planning” that would have made this all run like a Superbowl halftime show.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=csmelnix]

BTW, I seem to recall the very sort of “OMG, they’ve screwed the pooch. Our supply lines…. Units getting lost….the sandstorm has us stopped in our tracks…” hysteria then that I hear now…

[/quote]

That's great Mike, I am glad you recall that - so do the people who f&*king died because we did not properly provide force protection for this. [/quote]

Perhaps you could name the “force protection” agenda in ALB2000 that protects the long supply lines. Oh, that’s right, the doctrine accepts as a given that supply line would be vulnerable, but that that price is worth it to run the offense deep and fast to destroy the enemies centers of influence early…. I guess you slept thru that part of IOAC…

[quote=csmelnix]In case you missed it, we are still fighting there …

[/quote]

Are we fighting Saddam’s army, or are we fighting a collection of AQ terrorists and thugs who kill more civilians that soldiers, are offending the people they hope to persuade to join them (see AQ’s #2’s letters to the #1 AQ guy in Iraq), who can’t hold terrain. You mean we’re “fighting” IEDs and snipers, both of which have dropped off in their frequency. Some people won’t admit victory a decade after our troops are back home…

[/quote]

Does it matter? We're still fighting but sorry your son died maddam, the good news is he was killed by a Sunni insurgent. [/quote]

As a matter of fact, it does matter. We now face a ragtag “enemy” that is fading, can’t hold terrain and is offending the civilian populace he had hoped to bring into his movement. I know in your cherry little world the right “planning” would have made this easy as pie.

[quote=csmelnix]

Stupid...if you had any idea of the situation there you would know that we are fighting a force made roughly of 85-90% sunni's from inside Iraq; not foreigners.

[/quote]

When did I ever suggest the majority of the insurgency was foreigners? I used to joke with infantry guys about their lack of reading ability, but it really was a joke. Here’s the deal, pal, the commanders on the ground know better what we face than you do.

[quote=csmelnix] “… my point is that if we are going to fight terror it just makes more sense to go after the REAL sponsors of terror.”

[/quote]

Hmm, and your “real sponsors of terror”, which of them can claim Saddam’s record of hiding WMDs (remember how his son-in-law had to tell us about his programs at work while the UN was trying to inspect and finding nada?), refusing inspections. Housing/training/recuperating terrorists how have killed Americans, shooting at our planes and plotting to kill a former president?

[quote=csmelnix]

His son in law also said that there were no WMDs they were destroyed in the mid-90s - I already included that in my posts earlier. [/quote]

His son-in-law, the one that ran from him, told us Saddam had WMD programs WHILE THE UN INSPECTORS WERE FINDING NONE, returned to Iraq with Saddam’s promise of safety. He then was promptly killed.

[quote=csmelnix]

Real sponsor, paying and directly funding Hamas, Fatah, Force 17, Hizballah, AL aqsa, Islamic Jihad, AL Gama Islamiyya, DFLP, Sipah e sahaba and then …[/quote]

I love how the guy with the CV Saddam had isn’t a “real sponsor of terror” ….

[quote=csmelnix]

Again, thank God you were part of the downsizing in the officer corp.{/quote]

Gee, another faulty assumption jumped to. You have a really bad habit there, junior.

[quote=csmelnix]

I am a registered Republican by the way, but will be changing to the conservative party exclusively.

[/quote]

Hey, it’s your vote. You want to make it worthless, it’s your call.

[/quote]

Spoken like a real moron -

Spoken like someone who’s never counted the number of “conservative party” members in the House or Senate….

[quote=csmelnix]

It's a great victory for freedom and democracy to know that the Patriot Act and data collection at the NSA is in place too.

[/quote]

Ohhhh the evvvvilll Patriot Act and the NSA tapping AQ phone calls. Will democracy survive?

[quote=csmelnix]

Yea, that's the assumption. NSA isn't tapping either,

[/quote]

I suspect you mean isn’t “just”…

[quote=csmelnix]….go do some research there numb nuts...data mining grabs far greater info from far greater sources...if it was just wire tapping, even I believe Bush would have sought court appointed warrants.

[/quote]

The data mining programs are well known, junior. Call me crazy, but in a time of war, I don’t have a problem with the president not going to the courts to ask permission to listen to enemy transmissions. Say, should FDR have had the court’s permission to cack the Japanese codes?

[quote=csmelnix]

I guess you are comfortable though that only one branch of government, and one person in that branch gets to determine who the suspected terrorists is, and determines that they can listen in on him w/o any oversight.

[/quote] [/quote]

Very. It’s war, not a police action.

I knew you would throw that crap about the son in law.  Again showing your lack of knowledge.

His son in law stated to the CIA flat out that the weapons were destroyed.  If you knew anything about the situation you would be aware of this.  Are you familiar with "the farm" operation?  Obviously not.  When he defected he stated what I mentioned above, the caviot is he also detailed how Saddam's Regime maintained the information necessary to reconstitute the WMD program.  As a result of his defection however, Saddam had the weapons inspectors do an inspection of the defectors "farm" in Iraq - guess what they found?  All the documents and equipment that the son in law was talking about with regard to the information necessary to reconstitute the WMD program. 

Sorry to blow your story up, but that's what you get for being a staff pogue which by the way you also fail to declare to those who read this thread when you brag about your "advanced" school/correspondence.  Those schools teach you how to be a good staffer and print pretty power point documents for the men in charge. 

Oh yea, also love your comment about acceptable price for long supply lines - is it acceptable that no force protection was allocated?  Where I got training, supply lines to an overextended enemy were target #1; did they teach that at correspondence?

One last piece, maybe we agree on this small point - I have no problem in times of war for the President eavesdropping or mining info on the enemy either.  However, there's no distinguishing factor here between who is enemy and who isn't - again, learn what data mining is and what the NSA is doing and you would see this.  Another broad brush attempt - the Japanese code breaking = NSA casting a wide net across all people; citizens, non-citizens, terrorists etc...yea that is pretty similar; was the codes from Japan or in the US?

Oh I didn't realize my one vote matter more if I was a Republican instead of a registered Conservative.  I better brush up on my citizenry studies. 

"are we fighting Saddam’s army, or are we fighting a collection of AQ terrorists and thugs"  

does that look familiar?  You are assuming we are fighting AQ predominately in Iraq by your statement.. so yes you did state that.  Facts are we are barely fighting these scum bags; we are predominately fighting Sunni Bathists - what party did Saddam control again?

I will also agree with your "cherry little world" comment... however, I take strong issue with the idea that the insurgency was an unknown.  Detailed in my other posts, more than a few experts warned and what ever else about this and it was the corner stone of the argument of having a much larger force presence; but good 'ol Wolfowitz and cronies actually made the comment that>>>"there has never been any history of ethnic strife in Iraq...." 

having said that, I guess Monday morning quarterbacking is out of line. 

[quote=csmelnix]

I knew you would throw that crap about the son in law.  Again showing your lack of knowledge.

His son in law stated to the CIA flat out that the weapons were destroyed.  If you knew anything about the situation you would be aware of this.  Are you familiar with "the farm" operation?  Obviously not.  When he defected he stated what I mentioned above, the caviot is he also detailed how Saddam's Regime maintained the information necessary to reconstitute the WMD program.  As a result of his defection however, Saddam had the weapons inspectors do an inspection of the defectors "farm" in Iraq - guess what they found?  All the documents and equipment that the son in law was talking about with regard to the information necessary to reconstitute the WMD program. 

Sorry to blow your story up, but that's what you get for being a staff pogue which by the way you also fail to declare to those who read this thread when you brag about your "advanced" school/correspondence.  Those schools teach you how to be a good staffer and print pretty power point documents for the men in charge. 

Oh yea, also love your comment about acceptable price for long supply lines - is it acceptable that no force protection was allocated?  Where I got training, supply lines to an overextended enemy were target #1; did they teach that at correspondence?

One last piece, maybe we agree on this small point - I have no problem in times of war for the President eavesdropping or mining info on the enemy either.  However, there's no distinguishing factor here between who is enemy and who isn't - again, learn what data mining is and what the NSA is doing and you would see this.  Another broad brush attempt - the Japanese code breaking = NSA casting a wide net across all people; citizens, non-citizens, terrorists etc...yea that is pretty similar; was the codes from Japan or in the US?

Oh I didn't realize my one vote matter more if I was a Republican instead of a registered Conservative.  I better brush up on my citizenry studies. 

"are we fighting Saddam’s army, or are we fighting a collection of AQ terrorists and thugs"  

does that look familiar?  You are assuming we are fighting AQ predominately in Iraq by your statement.. so yes you did state that.  Facts are we are barely fighting these scum bags; we are predominately fighting Sunni Bathists - what party did Saddam control again?

I will also agree with your "cherry little world" comment... however, I take strong issue with the idea that the insurgency was an unknown.  Detailed in my other posts, more than a few experts warned and what ever else about this and it was the corner stone of the argument of having a much larger force presence; but good 'ol Wolfowitz and cronies actually made the comment that>>>"there has never been any history of ethnic strife in Iraq...." 

having said that, I guess Monday morning quarterbacking is out of line. 

[/quote]

Damn csmelnix, you are givin' the bulldog a run for his money on this one, I appreciate your stamina as well as your background. 

Some people say going after Saddam was a shot at the bow of all terrorist nations. When Zarquari was hurt he fled to IRAQ. I suspect he knew Saddam accepted him? Either way if the goal was to remove Saddam and Iraq have a stable government then we have won. Now just to clean up and move out!

Of course IRAQ is in the middle of the fire. So its nice to see the world including France taking a stand against Iran. Syria and Hamas have some serious pressure on them also.

Before it was Lebanon to Afganistan that hated us. Now it's every other. Not a bad way to balance the field in three years.

Agreed 7G; like I said my true beef it's just the way Iraq was run.  The cleaning out could have been done much better w/ the proper planning and execution. 

Take care, hopefully the next bow we shoot across is done cleaner.

Yeah I hear you, but I don't think there is a perfect war? Iraq was crazy due to so many factors including: UN bs, the removal of Iraq Army in one week, support from Syria and Iran, Turkey not allowing troops as we attacked from the south.

You really think Bush/Cheeny/Rumsfield drew up all the plans then without any Generals opinions? I know you have reviewed this, but I doubt they drew up the plans.

Under the assumption that we had 300k troops on the ground do you think it would have been easier to manage? Would the terrorists still have attacked? Would the result be the same (Saddam removal, IRAQ forces fighting for freedom and a solid government)? Could we have expected 2500 US troops dead (many recently have died by road side bombs)?

To me the theory of having 300k troops would have resulted in numerous unknown variables that may have resulted in a better or worse conclusion after 2 years. No one will ever know so why think about it.

All we can do is support the troops... Finish the job and get out... Party like its 1999... Continue to remove terrorists from the earth, where ever they may hide...

[quote=7GOD63]

Some people say going after Saddam was a shot at the bow of all terrorist nations. When Zarquari was hurt he fled to IRAQ. I suspect he knew Saddam accepted him? Either way if the goal was to remove Saddam and Iraq have a stable government then we have won. Now just to clean up and move out!

Of course IRAQ is in the middle of the fire. So its nice to see the world including France taking a stand against Iran. Syria and Hamas have some serious pressure on them also.

Before it was Lebanon to Afganistan that hated us. Now it's every other. Not a bad way to balance the field in three years.

7G,

No I certainly don't think they drew up plans w/o Generals involvement, however, I do KNOW that they were given specific parameters of which to build a plan with in - the worst thing a civilian leader can do is micromanage for those w/ the expertise.

If we went in heavier, I believe we would have been in a much greater position than today.  But there were more mistakes on planning than just size of force...one being the placing of many Republican party members involved with state campaigns getting position in the IPA initially after the war "ended" when none had any experience overseas let alone in the middle east.  There was a tremendous loss of time and momentum due to this part of the plan or lack there of, that really led steam to the insurgency.  Having a larger force there would have helped prevent a lot of the follow on chaos and given us better capability to restore infrastructure. 

Anyway, it was good throwing stuff back and forth with you.

Sixers lost to the Bulls last night. They showed a small glimmer of life and closed the 30 point gap to about 20.