Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
When you add in naval, logistics, intelligence, and air force personnel. They had 126,000 American and British soldiers and marines, and this was half of what Gen. Franks had requested. They had 400,000 ground troops in Gulf War 1.MachZer0 said:In case you missed it, the invasion force numbered 290,000, more than double your figure of 125,000.
burrow_owl said:Dems proposed a supplementary appropriations bill that would've provided for more equipment; the GOP voted it down.
Only one party bears the blame for this state of affairs.
You have no idea. Most of the new veterans who are running for office are running as Democrats. "Fighting Dems" they call them. Not a poster child for pacifism by any stretch.utdbear said:Right now, the poster child of pacifism can be found today's Democratic Party and modern American liberal.
Die hard GOPers are like Augustine before conversion: they're relentless Manicheans that need to see everyone and everything around them as evil. Even if they have to lie or hallucinate to get there, it's critical to their political self-image that they be crusading against some nefarious force. That's why they make such poor leaders: their primary goal is feeling self-righteous; good governance is, if anything, an afterthought.Coffee said:You have no idea. Most of the new veterans who are running for office are running as Democrats. "Fighting Dems" they call them. Not a poster child for pacifism by any stretch.
JustOneWay said:It was Bush who sent the soldiers into battle without being fully armored. Why did the Bush administration send unprotected troops into a war?
Coffee said:You have no idea. Most of the new veterans who are running for office are running as Democrats. "Fighting Dems" they call them. Not a poster child for pacifism by any stretch.
Coffee said:When you add in naval, logistics, intelligence, and air force personnel. They had 126,000 American and British soldiers and marines,
Franks developed the plan and set the troop strength. He got what he wanted.and this was half of what Gen. Franks had requested.
They had 400,000 ground troops in Gulf War 1.
Fantasy.utdbear said:. Now, all you're doing just running pacifists who are also war veterans.
Well, then I guess the only thing to do is say two more words.Coffee said:Fantasy.
War veterans are choosing the Democratic party because we fight for servicemen and veterans.
Republican Rhetoric:
Support our troops. Stick a yellow ribbon on the back of your car.
The Democratic Record:
is all spelled out in the OP.
utdbear said:Well, then I guess the only thing to do is say two more words.
Bring it.
Bring your 'Real Security' plan to the debate. And then watch as your party get pwned. Again.
That looks like total military personnel to me. This is the first time I've ever read that figure as a total for ground troops during the invasion.MachZer0 said:The US and the UK, with a military ground force of about 300,000, encountered stiff Iraqi resistance.
Gen. Franks obeyed orders. Gen. Franks and Gen. Zinni both asked for 385,000 troops in Dec. 2001 (I'm pulling this from Cobra II, p. 28).Franks developed the plan and set the troop strength. He got what he wanted.
You should have read the book written by the man who planned and executed the war insteadCoffee said:[/b] That looks like total military personnel to me. This is the first time I've ever read that figure as a total for ground troops during the invasion.
Franks' orders were to develop a plan to invadfe Iraq. The number of troops was his decision. Again, you should have read his book.Gen. Franks obeyed orders. Gen. Franks and Gen. Zinni both asked for 385,000 troops in Dec. 2001 (I'm pulling this from Cobra II, p. 28).
An author's opinion. Franks said it would take at least 3 - 5 years to stabilize Iraq after the invasion. That appears to be quite accurate."After the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, the requirements were reversed: mass, not speed, was requisite for sealing the victory." (p.500)
"This strategy calls for increasing Army special operations forces, curbing terrorist financing, preventing the growth of radical Islamic fundamentalism, and advancing U.S. interests through diplomacy and development in the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Democrats have introduced measures to increase foreign language expertise to meet the challenges of international terrorism and have called for the establishment of a commission to develop a set of metrics for measuring success and assessing U.S. efforts in the war on terror. "
Coffee said:[/b] That looks like total military personnel to me. This is the first time I've ever read that figure as a total for ground troops during the invasion.
Gen. Franks obeyed orders. Gen. Franks and Gen. Zinni both asked for 385,000 troops in Dec. 2001 (I'm pulling this from Cobra II, p. 28).
"After the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, the requirements were reversed: mass, not speed, was requisite for sealing the victory." (p.500)
Hence the debacle underway now. There are not enough troops to guard the borders and dominate the terrain. The strength of the insurgency was not inevitable. The US invaded with minimum acceptable forces, canceled the deployment of badly needed reinforcements, and disbanded the Iraqi army, putting 300,000 armed men on the streets.
Coffee said:Fantasy.
War veterans are choosing the Democratic party because we fight for servicemen and veterans.
Republican Rhetoric:
Support our troops. Stick a yellow ribbon on the back of your car.
The Democratic Record:
is all spelled out in the OP.
KalEl76 said:Dismantling the military was a very bad move. We should have kept them in place in order to control the insurgency.
thirstforknowledge said:"Insurgency" really isn't an accurate term, anymore. These are three different factions of Iraqi citizens fighting each other for power. That isn't what I call an insurgency. This is the problem. Forget all about the political games. Republican or Democrat, I just want someone to step forward and offer a solution for this, but no one seems to be willing to do it. How do we stop Iraqis from fighting each other? How do we convince them to form their own government? Do we just sit back and wait, because that is what it seems like we are doing. This civil war isn't just going to fizzle out. These problems have been here forever, between these groups, and they aren't just going to go away.
Fantasy.Coffee said:Well, it's not official but here's something being discussed:
Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.
The concept, dubbed "strategic redeployment," is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007...
Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, has endorsed Korb's paper and begun mentioning it in meetings with local Democratic groups. In addition, the study's concepts have been touted by the senator assigned to bring Democrats together on Iraq -- Jack Reed of Rhode Island -- and the report has been circulated among all senators by Senator Dianne Feinstein, an influential moderate Democrat from California. LINK
Problem is if we pull out - others will swoop in.KalEl76 said:I say we pull out and let them have their civil war. I mean the U.S. went through one and we became a nation of progression because of it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?