Democrats: Real Security. Bush Republicans: Dangerous Incompetence

[Eryk]

In case you missed it, the invasion force numbered 290,000, more than double your figure of 125,000.

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.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

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.

Let's not forget the amendment attached to the defense bill that would have provided security to our ports, that the Republicans voted down also. Republican actions speak for themselves. Everyone comes in here and says that the country doesn't believe Democrats are tough on security, yet every poll has them ahead of Democrats in that area. Well all areas, in fact.

 

[Eryk]

Right now, the poster child of pacifism can be found today's Democratic Party and modern American liberal.

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.

 

[burrow_owl]

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.

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.

 

[chalice_thunder]

It was Bush who sent the soldiers into battle without being fully armored. Why did the Bush administration send unprotected troops into a war?

Just guessing - but I think he thought it was more important for extremely rich people to have extra tax breaks.

 

[utdbear]

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.

Just because someone is a war veteran does not exclude them from being a pacifist. See John Kerry. Now, all you're doing just running pacifists who are also war veterans. My statement still stands, I think it would be wise for the Democrats to stay away from the national security debate. Stick with domestic issues, it's what you're good at.

 

[MachZer0]

When you add in naval, logistics, intelligence, and air force personnel. They had 126,000 American and British soldiers and marines,

The US and the UK, with a military ground force of about 300,000, encountered stiff Iraqi resistance.

and this was half of what Gen. Franks had requested.

Franks developed the plan and set the troop strength. He got what he wanted.

They had 400,000 ground troops in Gulf War 1.

Different war, different time

"THEN AND NOW. Let's look at the strength of the forces assembled for Operation Iraqi Freedom compared with Desert Storm of 12 years ago: 250,000 U.S. troops on the ground today, vs. 550,000 then. Remember, Baghdad lost close to half its combat effectiveness in Desert Storm as tanks were blown up and soldiers killed. And U.N. sanctions on Iraq meant few imports of spare parts or arms over the years that followed.

On that basis alone, 250,000 troops would be enough. But in Desert Storm, 10% of munitions were precision-guided, while in Iraqi Freedom, the figure was closer to 70%, and tanks were far more accurate. So, in theory, far fewer than 250,000 should have been necessary."

 

[Eryk]

. Now, all you're doing just running pacifists who are also war veterans.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

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.

The sad thing is, they don't even need to bring a plan. Before there was any mention of a Democratic plan, public approval ratings had them ahead of Republicans. Again, THIS IS WITHOUT EVEN HAVING A PLAN. So, I'm not sure how they are going to get "pwned". Americans have already decided that the Republican plan is a failed one. There is no way for the Republicans to win, with the course that they are on. When they decide to change their plan to one that works, I will discuss it. And unlike you, if it is actually a good plan, I will not bash them simply becaue they are Republicans. I'm entirely too old to play immature parlor games. The state of the country is at stake, and if Republicans do not care about America, then it is time to move on. Sorry, my loyalty is to America, not some random person, because they are part of some random party.

 

[Eryk]

The US and the UK, with a military ground force of about 300,000, encountered stiff Iraqi resistance.

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 developed the plan and set the troop strength. He got what he wanted.

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.

 

[MachZer0]

[/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.

You should have read the book written by the man who planned and executed the war instead

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' orders were to develop a plan to invadfe Iraq. The number of troops was his decision. Again, you should have read his book.

"After the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, the requirements were reversed: mass, not speed, was requisite for sealing the victory." (p.500)

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.

 

[hoser]

"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. "

Oh, please. Where are they going to increase special forces and what will there roll be? Curbing terrorist financing, uh, this has been ocurring. Preventing the growth of radical Islamic fundementalism? Don't you people ever question anything? What do you suppose that the Democrats are going to do to accomplish this? This one I am really curious about and I hope someone here can answer. And advancing interests through diplomacy blah, blah, blah,,,,... What a bunch of meaningless nonsense. All these words and sentences sound nice but add up to a bunch of nothing. What the Democrats do know how to do is dupe people, they have been doing it forever.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

[/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.

Dismantling the military was a very bad move. We should have kept them in place in order to control the insurgency.

 

[hoser]

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.

The Democrats have no record other than to appease to the terrorists.

 

[kermit]

The Democrats have no record other than to appease to the terrorists.

I suppose you can back that up?

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Dismantling the military was a very bad move. We should have kept them in place in order to control the insurgency.

"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.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

"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.

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.

 

[Ray367]

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

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

What a bunch of Hog Wash..Nobody spews more rhetoric than the liberals.and thats a fact

 

[dignitized]

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.

Problem is if we pull out - others will swoop in.