Are we still in Europe?-1945
Are we still in Japan?--1945
Are we still in Korea?--1953

Sometime I agree with the big fat ugly white man. Americans (especially democrats) are the most stupid people on the planet.

They want a Big Mac and Fries in 30 seconds, and instant potatoes at home.

I wish they would give it a rest and let the military do they're job. They do it quite well regardless of the democrats getting them killed daily (by supporting the terrorists) and laying slime and slander on those that survive.

And Barney's already on another thread demonstrating his complete lack of understanding of the Army's "plans".

Are our soldiers getting killed in Europe?-1945
Are our soldiers getting killed in Japan?--1945
Are our soldiers getting killed in Korea?--1953

Are our soldiers getting killed in Korea?--1953

Wrong, Barney. Out troops often engage or engaged by NKPR soldiers who constantly test the DMZ. In fact, quite a few have died in the DMZ, long after 1953.

I hope they have plans for permanent US bases in Iraq. Yes, PERMANENT. Anything less, and I think we are throwing away one of the greatest strategic advantages provided by the invasion of Iraq.

Bill Clinton himself just said a few weeks ago that the reason he held off launching an attack on Bin Laden was because we couldn't establish basing rights close enough to make such an action practically feasible. Now I could take an easy jab at him and question his skills in international diplomacy, but I won't. Hell I voted for the guy....

I have in fact, recently decided that I will not vote for ANY candidate who proclaims support for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. And that's a big deal for me, because that means I will be voting for Rick Santorum over Bob Casey, and I am no fan of Santorum. But we need to have priorities, and Casey's stance on Iraq trumps the issues I have with Santorum.

Scrapiron

you wrote:
Are we still in Europe?-1945
Are we still in Japan?--1945
Are we still in Korea?--1953

You left out. Guantanamo since Spanish American War
Biloxi Since the Civil War.

Are we still in Europe?-1945
Are we still in Japan?--1945
Are we still in Korea?--1953

Are we still there at the then-current troop levels?

I wish I'd kept a copy of a Star Trek bit I wrote about military planning. It was great (if I do say so myself). Spock explains that planning and training in case an energy being takes over the ship had clued the crew into the fact that it was an inside job. Kirk curses and tells Spock to cancel the "transporter malfunction" exersizes and get rid of the spare dilithium crystals.

The military can't see the future and always plans and trains for a future that never happens exactly the way they thought it might. Plans and training cover a variety of different possibilities, just in case.

It's Star Fleet that never plans for anything until after it happens.

I don't have a problem with the Army having plans. I also would be disappointed if they didn't. What troubles me is the competence of the administration to carry out the plans as devised by their experts. As they failed to do when Rumsfeld overruled the generals on going into Iraq.

jaymaster, Iraq will be won when it becomes an accompanied tour. ;-)

What ever happened to: "We'll step down when they step up"? The administrations own estimate has the Iraqi security force at 300,000+ strong. Remember back in the good old days when we only had to deal with a few dead-enders and free Iraqis expressing their freedom? We were running the whole country with 140,000 troops.

So, either things have gotten a whole lot worst, or the security force aint worth crap. Which option makes you feel better about the administration's competency?

Barney, we lost 3,000 troops to "insurgent" activity in the first year after germany surrendered. That's not including traffic accidents, accidental deaths, or natural causes. That was bombs, gunshots, and stabbings. The SS had trained a group for just such an occurence, and was also giving soviet troops in E. germany the same kind of problems. I believe the codename was werewolf. Look that up. We lost more troops in Germany one year after the surrender than we have in 3 years in Iraq. It's a fact, study the military history and you'll see that this has actually been a very low casualty war for us, compared to almost anything of this duration that has gone before.

Chad you must refrain from confusing the moonbats with facts.

Stop it I say. Stop it now.

Ahem........Bosnia?

Chad, thanks for the comments, but Barney will only care if it supports his slanted view point. In his altered reality, facts should not have an influence.

My former Father-in-law was a retired Colonel, Corp of Engineers, U.S. Army. He has WWII; then stayed reserve, and was activated for Korea....not there, but for a year in Germany.

When he returned, he stayed in (then a Capt.), and was sent for his annual 2 weeks in reserve to the War College where he studied almost every possible invasion of the USA!

He was a student there for five years......then made a Colonel. He then retired.

My point is, he was reserve, and they planned for almost every concieveable type of invasion. The fulltimers must do a lot more planning.

I hope they do....it is the only preparedness thingee we have folks!

Duke

A war of choice = 650,000 dead Iraqis
How many more in the next 10 years?

Setting aside the highly-dubious methodology of that number, Hugh, let me answer it like Marlon Brando in his "Wild Ones" days might have:

How many you got?

J.

How many innocent fead Iraqis are enough Jay? 100,000; 200,000; 500,000; 750,000;1,000,000? Would your blood lust be satisfied then?

Hugh,

As many as it takes.

Well Hugh, I see you're still posting that completely debunked statistic. Typical lefty-- don't let the truth stand in the way of your worldview.

Nice Sheik. A class act.

P. Bunyan,

The 'truth', to a lefty, is whatever they believe it to be.

Hugh,

It wouldn't take any at all if they would quit taking up arms against us.

I said "innocent" Iraqis you idiot. Still hold to your belief that a good Iraqi is a dead Iraqi?

Here's more on the 650,000 Iraqis civilian deaths.

Contrary to what some *sshats are saying, as far as I can tell this hasn't been "completely debunked" - but is a "controversial" bit of research.

Maybe the *sshats can post a link to the "debunking"... or cite a source .... or copy and paste a quote... or maybe they're lying - let's see.... the coin is in the air.....

"A war of choice = 650,000 dead Iraqis"

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Because Lancet says so. Mwahahahahahahahahahahaha.

So the next logical questions is...

If the Democrats hadn't continued to give them enemy hope with their rhetoric, how many fewer Iraqis would have died ?

"Contrary to what some *sshats are saying, as far as I can tell this hasn't been "completely debunked" - but is a "controversial" bit of research."

As far as *I* can tell your head is completely up your ass, and there's nothing controversial in me saying it.

Interesting how the ones accusing people of bloodlust immediately seize upon the highest death estimate they can find.

Almost as if they need a bigger mountain of corpses to fuel their agitprop. Which makes them seem a bit... lusty for more blood to dance in.

You know how many actual deaths they recorded to get this estimate?

547

Some statistical magic makes 547 dead people turn into over 650,000.

Lee, the study itself admits it's margin of error is 400,000 to 800,000. It completley debunked itself.

I worded that poorly. I meant: the group that did the study, itself admits...

Hugh,

A little more information:

Besides dealing with significant partisan activity in Germany after the war had ended we had two other significant advantages in that fight. 1) We were able to execute partisans on the spot (in full accordance with the Geneva Conventions); 2)we had literally bombed the country to bits, killing a very large percentage of the available male population.

In fact the allies killed about 10% of the German population during WWII, including 5.5 million male soldiers.

Now re. Iraq. Before the war it had about 26 million people. So, if we follow the German model, about 2.6 million would have to be killed for full pacification. Most of those adult males.

Or perhaps you prefer the Japan model, where only 3.6% of the population was killed. That translates into only about a million dead Iraqis.

Therefore, even the outrageous overestimate by the Lancet indicates that this war has been significantly more "moral" than the war against Germany. Wouldn't you agree? And of course, the insurgent forces themselves are responsible for a majority of those casualties. Certainly we share the butcher's bill with them.

It's not about blood lust. If it was we'd have just carpet bombed the place and have been done with it. You forget, it is entirely within the power of the United States to kill every single Iraqi resident. We've shown remarkable, unprecedented restraint during this conflict.

Winning wars against a committed enemy is a bloody awful business. Always was, always will be.

"Lee, the study itself admits it's margin of error is 400,000 to 800,000. It completley debunked itself.

I worded that poorly. I meant: the group that did the study, itself admits..."

I'm not suggesting you're lying, Paul, but the article doesn't mention that - where did you find that the group admits to a 400,000 - 800,000 error. That sounds - unbelievable

Lee,

It was reported on the only news network that tells the rest of the story.

And I am by no means surprised that the telegraph chose not to report that "inconvient truth".

What qualifies you as a military expert Jay?
Have you served? Studied military affairs at
school?

I always thought the people who didn't understand
the situation were people who said things like:

"We'll be greated as liberators"
"The insurgency is in their last throes"
"Mission accomplished"
"I doubt it will last 6 months"
"The reconstruction will pay for itself"

Why didn't they just come to you wise Jay?

Hugh,

Good grief, moron.

Go back and read your original comment on dead iraqis and show me where you said 'innocent'.

Then, look at the time stamp on your second comment, where you did use the word 'innocent'. Compare that to the time stamp on my comment.

Then, if it isn't too difficult for you, brainiac, try to figure out which of your comments I was responding to.

jp2,

I think it all boils down to those who want the US and its allies to win are going to stress, and yes even exaggerate, the positive, while those who want the terrorist and their allies to win will stress and exaggerate the negative.

Paul - It was reported on FAUX NEWS? Now we know it was a lie. No one else debunked it? What a laugh - ok, let's check the Fox News website.

Here's their story (since we all know you can't trust UK news sources -- you remember the UK - the only nations to fully stand by us in the War inj Iraq -- according to Republicans they can't be trusted).

The Fox News article says nothing about the study being debunked or quoting and appreantly mythical error factors. Bunyan is just rubbing his trunk again....

Yes, the survey is "controversial" - but that doesn't mean you Republicans can just flat out LIE about it being "debunked".

*sshats. I don't know why I waste my time believing them, even if only for a minute. And if anyone wants to know why Republicans are always being called liars around here - now you know why. Whatever, bring on the next Republican liar...