|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 14, 2014 6:50:43 GMT -8
Ugh. Feel free to read what I wrote.  Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards Typical evasion. Frankly, having followed the prior administration talking points I am surprised there was still fighting. Bush told us the mission was accomplished. Cheney told us there were just a few dead enders left. Who were we fighting? I was told the Iraqis would be throwing flowers at us. Since you were there, tell us why Bush and Cheney were so wrong. lol, evasion, right! 2005, we hadn't even done Falluja yet. I get what you are trying to ham-handedly trying to poke at the Boooooosh thing but this is about Iraqi training which you cherry-picked an article and either aren't capable of understanding context of what it takes to retrain a brand new army in the midst of heavy fighting or just are being deliberately coy. I hope the latter bur presume the former. In 2005, we were in the process of cleaning up as the Sunni insurgency was in a nascent stage - all the while the Badr Corp and Shi'a / Iranian influence was gaining in Baghdad and the holy cities south of Baghdad. There was a lot to do and frankly, until the al queda supported Sunnis were routed out of Anbar and northern Iraq, we had a lot of work to do before training and transition could truly begin, as I stated in my earliest psot. I had presumed that I didn't have to lay it out in a more basic, elementary level. Sorry I misjudged that... In 2011, we were forced to transition all provinces without truly achieving Gen Austin's transition goals, they were forced to artificially speed up those readiness ratings in order to be transitioned in the fall and out by the end of the year. You choose to not understand that, I get it, you cherry pick an article from 2005, I get that and frankly don't want to hear from someone you heard from in 2011 that told you this was going to happen and had continuing dialog with back then. Feel free to forget that part since I was writing that from Baghdad at the time. Evasion, right.... you are wasting everyone's time with that. Thanks for playing, feel free to come back when you want substantive dialog... (geez, I have said this to you many times before...I should learn from my mistakes trying to engage with you in meaningful dialog). |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 14, 2014 7:21:44 GMT -8
Typical evasion. Frankly, having followed the prior administration talking points I am surprised there was still fighting. Bush told us the mission was accomplished. Cheney told us there were just a few dead enders left. Who were we fighting? I was told the Iraqis would be throwing flowers at us. Since you were there, tell us why Bush and Cheney were so wrong. lol, evasion, right! 2005, we hadn't even done Falluja yet. I get what you are trying to ham-handedly trying to poke at the Boooooosh thing but this is about Iraqi training which you cherry-picked an article and either aren't capable of understanding context of what it takes to retrain a brand new army in the midst of heavy fighting or just are being deliberately coy. I hope the latter bur presume the former. In 2005, we were in the process of cleaning up as the Sunni insurgency was in a nascent stage - all the while the Badr Corp and Shi'a / Iranian influence was gaining in Baghdad and the holy cities south of Baghdad. There was a lot to do and frankly, until the al queda supported Sunnis were routed out of Anbar and northern Iraq, we had a lot of work to do before training and transition could truly begin, as I stated in my earliest psot. I had presumed that I didn't have to lay it out in a more basic, elementary level. Sorry I misjudged that... In 2011, we were forced to transition all provinces without truly achieving Gen Austin's transition goals, they were forced to artificially speed up those readiness ratings in order to be transitioned in the fall and out by the end of the year. You choose to not understand that, I get it, you cherry pick an article from 2005, I get that and frankly don't want to hear from someone you heard from in 2011 that told you this was going to happen and had continuing dialog with back then. Feel free to forget that part since I was writing that from Baghdad at the time. Evasion, right.... you are wasting everyone's time with that. Thanks for playing, feel free to come back when you want substantive dialog... (geez, I have said this to you many times before...I should learn from my mistakes trying to engage with you in meaningful dialog). I have yet to see anything meaningful from you. You were there is your trump card. I see you as a guy with his nose so firmly against a tree you do not know there is a forest around you. Carry on spouting the company line. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 14, 2014 7:35:37 GMT -8
Typical evasion. Frankly, having followed the prior administration talking points I am surprised there was still fighting. Bush told us the mission was accomplished. Cheney told us there were just a few dead enders left. Who were we fighting? I was told the Iraqis would be throwing flowers at us. Since you were there, tell us why Bush and Cheney were so wrong. lol, evasion, right! 2005, we hadn't even done Falluja yet. I get what you are trying to ham-handedly trying to poke at the Boooooosh thing but this is about Iraqi training which you cherry-picked an article and either aren't capable of understanding context of what it takes to retrain a brand new army in the midst of heavy fighting or just are being deliberately coy. I hope the latter bur presume the former. In 2005, we were in the process of cleaning up as the Sunni insurgency was in a nascent stage - all the while the Badr Corp and Shi'a / Iranian influence was gaining in Baghdad and the holy cities south of Baghdad. There was a lot to do and frankly, until the al queda supported Sunnis were routed out of Anbar and northern Iraq, we had a lot of work to do before training and transition could truly begin, as I stated in my earliest psot. I had presumed that I didn't have to lay it out in a more basic, elementary level. Sorry I misjudged that... In 2011, we were forced to transition all provinces without truly achieving Gen Austin's transition goals, they were forced to artificially speed up those readiness ratings in order to be transitioned in the fall and out by the end of the year. You choose to not understand that, I get it, you cherry pick an article from 2005, I get that and frankly don't want to hear from someone you heard from in 2011 that told you this was going to happen and had continuing dialog with back then. Feel free to forget that part since I was writing that from Baghdad at the time. Evasion, right.... you are wasting everyone's time with that. Thanks for playing, feel free to come back when you want substantive dialog... (geez, I have said this to you many times before...I should learn from my mistakes trying to engage with you in meaningful dialog). Don't bother with him. You are wasting your time. He is the next coming of Bob Forsythe. So far left and so misinformed that it is a waste of time to engage. He is getting more and more likely to just give one line posts that have little substance and less sense. You are hopeless if you can't see the difference between finishing a job and just quitting a job. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 14, 2014 8:21:40 GMT -8
OK, Stu, What is your take on this? I think most is accurate except that it appears it is ISIS rather than AQ. I am all for the idea of massive air strikes with no regard for an co-lateral damage at least where ISIS is located. Innocents for the most part are no where around. www.wnd.com/2014/06/the-opportunity-in-iraq/ |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 14, 2014 9:04:44 GMT -8
lol, evasion, right! 2005, we hadn't even done Falluja yet. I get what you are trying to ham-handedly trying to poke at the Boooooosh thing but this is about Iraqi training which you cherry-picked an article and either aren't capable of understanding context of what it takes to retrain a brand new army in the midst of heavy fighting or just are being deliberately coy. I hope the latter bur presume the former. In 2005, we were in the process of cleaning up as the Sunni insurgency was in a nascent stage - all the while the Badr Corp and Shi'a / Iranian influence was gaining in Baghdad and the holy cities south of Baghdad. There was a lot to do and frankly, until the al queda supported Sunnis were routed out of Anbar and northern Iraq, we had a lot of work to do before training and transition could truly begin, as I stated in my earliest psot. I had presumed that I didn't have to lay it out in a more basic, elementary level. Sorry I misjudged that... In 2011, we were forced to transition all provinces without truly achieving Gen Austin's transition goals, they were forced to artificially speed up those readiness ratings in order to be transitioned in the fall and out by the end of the year. You choose to not understand that, I get it, you cherry pick an article from 2005, I get that and frankly don't want to hear from someone you heard from in 2011 that told you this was going to happen and had continuing dialog with back then. Feel free to forget that part since I was writing that from Baghdad at the time. Evasion, right.... you are wasting everyone's time with that. Thanks for playing, feel free to come back when you want substantive dialog... (geez, I have said this to you many times before...I should learn from my mistakes trying to engage with you in meaningful dialog). I have yet to see anything meaningful from you. You were there is your trump card. I see you as a guy with his nose so firmly against a tree you do not know there is a forest around you. Carry on spouting the company line. Lol, company line... feel free to share your personal and professional opinion as I have. I'll let the unbiased reader decide.  Lol Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 14, 2014 9:06:09 GMT -8
OK, Stu, What is your take on this? I think most is accurate except that it appears it is ISIS rather than AQ. I am all for the idea of massive air strikes with no regard for an co-lateral damage at least where ISIS is located. Innocents for the most part are no where around. www.wnd.com/2014/06/the-opportunity-in-iraq/ ISIS are the same people as AQ. Different intermediary leaders. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 14, 2014 23:03:04 GMT -8
Sometimes I find it hard to believe that you can be either that thick or that politically brain washed you can't see what has happened. You can argue all you want about what we should have done in the first place and it does not change that what we did in not finishing the job was criminal. It was criminal to invade. Bush and Cheney both should be in jail. Well, no, it wasn't, and how anybody can seriously argue the opposite escapes me. The Congress of the United States authorized military action by the President in that theater of operations. That, dear friends, can only be seen as an official declaration of war. Like it or not, what we, meaning the Congress and the President, did was according to our Constitution. Now, if you want to argue that the Iraq operation and the theory behind it (that the Arabs are actually ready for the 20th Century. . . if not the 21st) were foolhardy and ultimately harmful to this nation, you are on much, much stronger ground. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 14, 2014 23:07:21 GMT -8
Brainwashed? We should have never been there to begin with. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards aztecwin still thinks the WMDs were spirited out of Iraq and are buried in the Syrian desert. Talk about brainwashed! WMDs constituted only one of 23 justifications cited by G.W. Bush for the invasion. Again, you may well argue that the whole thing, legal or not, was a lousy deal. Fine. But don't pretend that there were not plenty of reasons to obliterate Saddam. And, let's not forget, all the intelligence agencies, not just our own, declared that Saddam had WMDs. Finally, given enough time, he would have had them again. And in spades. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 14, 2014 23:21:21 GMT -8
We ended the war, we didn't finish it. Big difference. Gen Austin, Lion 6, had a transition plan to develop professional officers and enlisted corps, train on the gear we gave them and let them grow before we left them on their own. They were ok when we instructed them on Advise and Assist missions but they were still about 2 years away. Instead, we just left them out there on their own, unprepared. Here is the result I predicted would happen in 2011. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards
While the two situations are far from identical, it might be useful to keep in mind our experiences with Germany, Japan, and Korea. We're still there, and in force. Have been since I was three years old, and I am now pushing 72! Speaking about bringing the troops home, when was the last time you heard BHO talk about do that in the cases of Germany, Japan, and Korea? Especially in the case of Korea, it was a good idea to help the locals build a capable military even if it took two generations. Too bad BHO has not learned from that experience.
Obama decided that he would roll the dice in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan (the good war, don't forget). Saying he ended two wars, a preposterous statement on the face of it, was more important to him than the risk of seeing both situations disintegrate. It's a bit like what Churchill said of Britain and France after the Munich Conference in '38. He said, and my paraphrase differs only slightly from his actual words . . .
They had a choice between dishonor and war. They chose dishonor and they shall also have war.
I hope that prophesy, which was 100% correct, will not haunt us in this decade. I fear that it may well. The problem is that the Middle East, should it explode into a vast regional war, has the potential of landing a nasty body blow to the economies of Europe and the U.S. That will be a mess that will not be cleared up for a long, long time.
I wonder if the "brains" in the administration have any idea of what the world situation will be like if a radical, retrograde Islamo-Nazi regime ends up controlling everything from Casablanca to the Pakistani/India border?
AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 15, 2014 7:02:40 GMT -8
I have yet to see anything meaningful from you. You were there is your trump card. I see you as a guy with his nose so firmly against a tree you do not know there is a forest around you. Carry on spouting the company line. Lol, company line... feel free to share your personal and professional opinion as I have. I'll let the unbiased reader decide. Lol Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards There are no unbiased readers here. The fact that you think so reveals how close your nose is to the tree. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 15, 2014 7:06:21 GMT -8
It was criminal to invade. Bush and Cheney both should be in jail. Well, no, it wasn't, and how anybody can seriously argue the opposite escapes me. The Congress of the United States authorized military action by the President in that theater of operations. That, dear friends, can only be seen as an official declaration of war. Like it or not, what we, meaning the Congress and the President, did was according to our Constitution. Now, if you want to argue that the Iraq operation and the theory behind it (that the Arabs are actually ready for the 20th Century. . . if not the 21st) were foolhardy and ultimately harmful to this nation, you are on much, much stronger ground. AzWm Because they believed the lies about WMDs. The lies are the basis of why he should be in jail. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 15, 2014 7:08:24 GMT -8
aztecwin still thinks the WMDs were spirited out of Iraq and are buried in the Syrian desert. Talk about brainwashed! WMDs constituted only one of 23 justifications cited by G.W. Bush for the invasion. Again, you may well argue that the whole thing, legal or not, was a lousy deal. Fine. But don't pretend that there were not plenty of reasons to obliterate Saddam. And, let's not forget, all the intelligence agencies, not just our own, declared that Saddam had WMDs. Finally, given enough time, he would have had them again. And in spades. AzWm Fine. What are the other 22? |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 15, 2014 7:38:00 GMT -8
Lol, company line... feel free to share your personal and professional opinion as I have. I'll let the unbiased reader decide. Lol Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards There are no unbiased readers here. The fact that you think so reveals how close your nose is to the tree. LOL lol I'm still waiting on the first credible response from you on any topic, hence why I have tended to take you seriously. Your only response, a la -bob, is to go to the "party line" dodge. You're wasting everyone's time. Again, I'll let the readers decide. I'm not going to waste my time with you. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 15, 2014 11:04:05 GMT -8
Well, no, it wasn't, and how anybody can seriously argue the opposite escapes me. The Congress of the United States authorized military action by the President in that theater of operations. That, dear friends, can only be seen as an official declaration of war. Like it or not, what we, meaning the Congress and the President, did was according to our Constitution. Now, if you want to argue that the Iraq operation and the theory behind it (that the Arabs are actually ready for the 20th Century. . . if not the 21st) were foolhardy and ultimately harmful to this nation, you are on much, much stronger ground. AzWm Because they believed the lies about WMDs. The lies are the basis of why he should be in jail.
And just who are the "they" that you say lied? Are you saying that numerous intelligence agencies from various countries all lied; i.e., they declared that Saddam had WMDs although they knew for a fact that he did not?
As for Pres. Bush's rationale for invading, please read this . . .
The "Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq" that President Bush obtained in October 2002 was a resolution passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, with Democratic as well as Republican majorities. It contained a total of 23 clauses that spelled out the rationale for the war. Of those 23 clauses, only 2 mentioned WMD.
www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=23
Here's another aspect to the Iraq war history that should not be forgotten. The resolution was passed by Congress (with massive Dem. support) in October, 2002. It was not until March 2003 that the war began. Saddam Hussein had plenty of time to comply with all the UN resolutions that he had blithely ignored. He chose not to.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 15, 2014 12:32:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 15, 2014 12:34:51 GMT -8
Richard Clark wrote a book as to who "they" are, William.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 15, 2014 14:10:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 15, 2014 14:35:41 GMT -8
William, have you had a chance to count the number of times WMDs were mentioned after a "whereas"? Seems to more than two. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 15, 2014 14:39:59 GMT -8
Because that is what William was talking about, Bro. Except, of course, he did not post the primary source, and preferred quoting something that he agreed with. Typical conservative, he likes opinions he agrees with instead of facts. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 15, 2014 14:44:04 GMT -8
There are no unbiased readers here. The fact that you think so reveals how close your nose is to the tree. LOL lol I'm still waiting on the first credible response from you on any topic, hence why I have tended to take you seriously. Your only response, a la -bob, is to go to the "party line" dodge. You're wasting everyone's time. Again, I'll let the readers decide. I'm not going to waste my time with you. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards Anytime I post any credible source you tell me you are wasting your time and suddenly have something else to do. |
|
