WAR..What is it good for?

[cool_chick]

So how exactly would you do that? If you have a solution, I am in the position to pass it on to those who could use it.

It's impossible to secure much with the paltry level of troops in Iraq.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by cool_chick
So it would seem that we would need less troops for driving Iraq out of Kuwait (smaller area, focused area...) than taking over a whole country like Iraq. So, based on what you're saying, we needed more than 400,000 troops.

And yes, Fint, we all can spend all day doing just that. All day. A day. A day here and there..... But no sexual affair is going to take up so much time that someone can't do their day job.....unless you're superman, Fint...

We do not have more troops. We have far less. Your heroes Bush 1 and Clinton significantly reduced the size of our military.

If you only knew. Like I said....you need to upgrade.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by cool_chick
But no sexual affair is going to take up so much time that someone can't do their day job....

you don't know me very well...

[fintstone]

Originally posted by cool_chick
It's impossible to secure much with the paltry level of troops in Iraq.

more troops are just more targets. That is why the combatant commanders have asked to keep a smaller footprint.

What would you do with more troops? Station a couple in each home?

Where would you get them? get Congress to rescind the cap on troop strength? We are currently cutting thousands in the AF due to that. Then would you re-institute the draft? How would you pay them? A huge tax increase?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by nostatic
you don't know me very well...

LOL...Those Chicago guys must be wusses.

On the other hand, can you image the energy that it would take for an old guy like Clinton to both service a 21 year old intern and put up with Hillary's BS....No wonder he was sucking down those high-calorie bags of Big Macs. That also explains his failed attempts at jogging...had to save his strength.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fintstone
We do not have more troops. We have far less. Your heroes Bush 1 and Clinton significantly reduced the size of our military.

If you only knew. Like I said....you need to upgrade.

LOL, Randy knows what I think about conservatives and sex. LOL (j/k)

Since you claim we have far less troops than under Clinton and Bush 1 (how on earth did they suddenly become my "heroes" in your head?), then I respectfully request figures to substantiate that claim.

Not to mention, why on earth would someone declare war on a country that isn't a threat with less than the necessary troop counts needed?

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fintstone
ore troops are just more targets. That is why the combatant commanders have asked to keep a smaller footprint.

Again, that doesn't need to be the case, as evidenced in Iraq 1

What would you do with more troops? Station a couple in each home?

Where would you get them? get Congress to rescind the cap on troop strength? We are currently cutting thousands in the AF due to that. Then would you re-institute the draft? How would you pay them? A huge tax increase? [/B]

We are "currently" cutting thousands in the AF......is that because of "your hero" Bush II? LMAO

It may be too late now, the insurgency was allowed to grow unchecked for so very long now....it would've been prudent (as requested by generals at the time) to invade at the beginning with the necessary number of troops. Now it's trying to gain control over a preventable out-of-control situation.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fintstone
In an Oct 2002 PEW Poll, 62% of Americans say they support military action to "end Saddam Hussein’s rule."

Polls

Let's compare...observe the dates....

Afghanistan
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/war_poll.pdf

Iraq
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/06/opinion/polls/main543034.shtml

Internationally:
http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/survey.asp?id=10

People had misgivings even before we invaded Iraq. The misgivings ended up being true. Overwhelming support in Afghanistan continues.

Don't you get tired of blaming others for that guy's actions?

[RANDY P]

Originally posted by cool_chick
LOL, Randy knows what I think about conservatives and sex. LOL (j/k)

"NEOCONS DON'T LIKE SEX! AND THEY ALL DO IT MISSIONARY, AND FOR PROCREATION PURPOSES ONLY!!"

[Jim Richards]

ROFLMAO! It's true, sad, but true.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by RANDY P
"NEOCONS DON'T LIKE SEX! AND THEY ALL DO IT MISSIONARY, AND FOR PROCREATION PURPOSES ONLY!!"

Maybe not in all cases, meet the US government's dominatrix, Mistress Condo.


And here, I thought she was another drone like Janet Reno. Just goes to show you.

[RoninLB]

[fastpat]

Originally posted by RoninLB

You have a bit of Gynecomastia, Ronin, it's giving you a nice pair of sweater puppies.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Again, that doesn't need to be the case, as evidenced in Iraq 1



We are "currently" cutting thousands in the AF......is that because of "your hero" Bush II? LMAO

It may be too late now, the insurgency was allowed to grow unchecked for so very long now....it would've been prudent (as requested by generals at the time) to invade at the beginning with the necessary number of troops. Now it's trying to gain control over a preventable out-of-control situation.

No as I stated, there is a congressional cap on how many troops we can have. It is not up to Bush.

The generals who were actually there...and fought the war...got exactly as many as they requested.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Polls
....Iraq
.....

People had misgivings even before we invaded Iraq. The misgivings ended up being true. Overwhelming support in Afghanistan continues.

Don't you get tired of blaming others for that guy's actions?

According to your poll:

"Americans would approve of U.S. military action to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power, but by 48% to 27%"

Almost 2 to 1 in favor of war in your poll. Thanks for backing me up.

[Moneyguy1]

Is that true re: The Congressional cap?

Do you think that Congress would have authorized (or still would) more troops had the Pentagon requested them?

Didn't some high ranking officers say they would liked to have seen more boots on the ground?

Forgive me for asking. When I don't know something, I am not ashamed to admit it....

Bob

[fintstone]

Originally posted by cool_chick
LOL, Randy knows what I think about conservatives and sex. LOL (j/k)

Since you claim we have far less troops than under Clinton and Bush 1 (how on earth did they suddenly become my "heroes" in your head?), then I respectfully request figures to substantiate that claim.

Not to mention, why on earth would someone declare war on a country that isn't a threat with less than the necessary troop counts needed?

You continually refer to their wise actions..and defend their mistakes...and wonder why our current President does not do what they did...I assume you respect them to do so

As I posted before, we have enough troops on the ground according to our military leaders. We just do not have enough to increase to the level that you want. I expect that their estimates are a bit more accurate than yours.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fintstone
According to your poll:

"Americans would approve of U.S. military action to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power, but by 48% to 27%"

Almost 2 to 1 in favor of war in your poll. Thanks for backing me up.

66% is 2 to 1.

It's funny, you're like Bush, you cherry-pick one small piece that slightly supports you, and dismiss the vast rest that does not.

This is the real reason why people don't support the admin's decisions...

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fintstone
No as I stated, there is a congressional cap on how many troops we can have. It is not up to Bush.

The generals who were actually there...and fought the war...got exactly as many as they requested.

Yet, since Bush's "hands are sooooo tied" with this "not much of an army", yet he chooses to invade a second country when he has one on his hands, that's not even a threat....

Funny, Bush gets the pass because of congress, but Clinton gets all the blame and not his congress.

How convenient....

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by cool_chick

It may be too late now, the insurgency was allowed to grow unchecked for so very long now....it would've been prudent (as requested by generals at the time) to invade at the beginning with the necessary number of troops. Now it's trying to gain control over a preventable out-of-control situation.

afaik.. Putting a major war in operation is difficult in any democracy. Some politics was dealing with Turkey in allowing the feed thru of 40.000 troops+. They knew in advance they had to close the back door and squeeze them till dead before they disbursed. That didn't happen. Turkey didn't allow it. The news coverage was following Turkey politics big time. Even business mags were commenting on the new, somewhat religious, government's economic policies influence and the war.

There is now never any dis Turkey chatter coming from the Executive branch because Turkey is a democracy. A different kind but it's still a democracy. What I personally like about their style is that their constitution allows the military to fully take over the country and can any problem political group it wants. Then the military steps back and allows the population to regroup.

So.. war is fluid. What policies were used in the beginning change as the war progresses. It's not static policy it's dynamic for both the military and the Executive. Civilization is shaped by War and Economics. Everything else is downhill from there.

all above a prejudical rant.