Quote :

"Some of the planning by Gen. Tommy Franks and other top military officials before the 2003 invasion of Iraq envisioned that as few as 5,000 U.S. troops would remain in Iraq by December 2006, according to documents obtained by a private research organization. Slides obtained by the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act contain a PowerPoint presentation of what planners projected to be a stable, pro-American and democratic Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/15/war.plans.ap/index.html

Oh lordy. We're close enough, right?

2/15/2007 7:03:23 PM

I'm glad you made this thread, because I was gonna make one regarding the war.

I have a question. If congress voted on a resolution to go to war, why can't they have a resolution to end it?

What are the technicalities/nuances that I am not knowing at this time?

2/15/2007 8:27:52 PM

before anyone tries to suggest that Franks' and Rumsfeld's sugarcoating of the war preparations, somehow absolves poor old George Bush from making the flawed decision to invade...

recall that the previous commanding general of the US Central Command, USMC General Anthony Zinni, was already an outspoken critic of BushCo's preliminary plans to invade Iraq as far back as mid-2000.

George Bush then "retired" General Zinni in September of 2000, and promoted Army General Tommy Franks to the Central Command post, knowing full well that Franks would detail any war planning for Iraq in a more favorable light.

It's interesting how this story is already being spun as somehow favorable to the White House.




[Edited on February 15, 2007 at 8:58 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2007 8:56:28 PM

^^they could. There is actually a mechanism where congress can demand that all troops leave an area within 90 days of passage. They could also pass something setting a timeline, but I am not sure what would be open to veto and what wouldnt be.

The actual politics of the voting prevent anything like that from passing though, let alone having enough votes to override veto.

2/15/2007 9:08:46 PM

keep on sending them till the war is done...

2/15/2007 11:54:26 PM

Quote :

"George Bush then "retired" General Zinni in September of 2000,"

ummmm. maybe i'm missing something, but george bush wasn't president then. how did he have anything to do with this?

2/16/2007 12:00:27 AM

These people are fucking salesmen.

2/16/2007 12:14:50 AM

^^

umm...

hey, look, the Queen!

(runs away)

2/16/2007 12:32:01 AM

Quote :

"I have a question. If congress voted on a resolution to go to war, why can't they have a resolution to end it? What are the technicalities/nuances that I am not knowing at this time? "

The answer to that, my friend, is that the original vote was basically a proxy. The president didn't per se need Congressional approval to send troops into Iraq. However, this made his argument a lot easier and he knew he would win.

2/18/2007 4:26:10 PM

Is this true, the president can send in troops whenever and wherever he choses?

2/18/2007 5:45:39 PM

^In reality now, yes.

Constitutionally, heck no.

2/18/2007 6:06:35 PM

Well that's a gray area. So is the war powers act.

2/18/2007 6:16:57 PM

the only check that Congress has is funding... this is the modern era after The War Powers Resolution was ignored by Nixon and every other president since. the only other thing Congress can do is express disapproval over the act and then the judiciary will also be against the prez.

2/18/2007 6:45:06 PM

We need to institute proportional representation in congress.


Partisan politics and not wanting to admit mistakes is the only reason we continue this ridiculous charade of a war.

2/18/2007 8:22:15 PM

I the democrats really had backbone, they would follow John Murtha's lead and pass legislation to end financing the war.

But they would never do that.

2/19/2007 7:32:27 AM

I don't really call that backbone in the same way you wouldn't teach your kid not to play with his food by not feeding him for a week.

2/19/2007 8:50:00 AM

That is an awesome analogy.

Oh, wait, no it isn't.

2/19/2007 1:28:19 PM

Original plan for Germany:

0 troops by 2007



Oh LAWDY!

2/19/2007 4:30:31 PM

Quote :

"That is an awesome analogy. Oh, wait, no it isn't."

It might not be perfect, but saying the only way the dems can have backbone is by leaving our troops out to dry in regards to what they need to survive is a pretty dumb statement.

2/19/2007 4:43:49 PM

Cutting funding does not mean we are "hanging our troops out to dry". In fact it means the exact opposite.

2/19/2007 5:40:39 PM

Micromanaging a war from Congress is a) dumb/irresponsible and b) not a right that Congress has

2/19/2007 5:41:18 PM

^ I agree. Initiating and removing troops from combat is a right that Congress has. Where exactly is micro-managing going on?

2/19/2007 5:48:27 PM

basically anytime there are senators or reps who are saying "troops must have X before they can be sent to Iraq" and things of that nature...things that just overcomplicate the situation by adding even more middle men to the process

congress can declare war and end war...but some of the things they have proposed do neither of those...i think their intentions are good but wow i dont think they are going about it the right way

2/19/2007 5:50:21 PM

Thats very good point, but cutting funding per se does not fall into that category.

2/19/2007 5:54:45 PM

i guess it doesnt...i was just speaking in general on the govts' role in a war

i'll take generals giving orders over senators ANY day

2/19/2007 5:56:58 PM

but what happens when the President stops listening to generals? constitutionally he doesn't have to... he is, after all "commander-in-chief", the head military strategist. does he have any more right in your mind than the senate?

im just playing devil's advocate here, im writing a paper on this exact subject

2/19/2007 6:00:54 PM

the president is the generals' boss.

so the real question is what happens when the generals stop listening to the president.

2/19/2007 6:05:32 PM

we'll see in 2009 if Clinton wins

2/19/2007 7:28:21 PM

Quote :

"does he have any more right in your mind than the senate?"

any more right than the senate to do what? he certainly has more right to be more involved as the 'commander in chief'

2/19/2007 7:57:36 PM

You know what, being here in Iraq actually doing the stuff, I can't express how important it is for the U.S. to be here and to finish the job.

Yeah, the planning didn't go down like it was envisioned. But you should never give in to terror. If you guys faced that kind of enemy on your front door... I'm scared to ask what spoiled Americans would do.

But these people that are peaceful, that really want to give democracy a shot (and I know what they want, I deal with them everyday), they are hoping that the U.S. doesn't leave because they're afraid of the aftermath of dealing with that. And if that happens, you guys should be worried too.

2/19/2007 8:25:18 PM

Mmmm, that kool aid tastes good.

2/19/2007 8:51:20 PM

Quote :

" And if that happens, you guys should be worried too."

because the roving death squads and IEDs are going to come to america?

i'm not saying that we should immediately give up on iraq or anything, but tying it to terrorism in america in any direct way is ridiculous.

2/19/2007 8:56:02 PM

Quote :

"Mmmm, that kool aid tastes good."

2/19/2007 8:57:45 PM

how did he tie it to terrorism in america?

and yeah scuba and typea, why would he know anything about iraq? its not like he's been there

2/19/2007 9:10:15 PM

the combo of

Quote :

"But you should never give in to terror. If you guys faced that kind of enemy on your front door... I'm scared to ask what spoiled Americans would do."

and

Quote :

"they are hoping that the U.S. doesn't leave because they're afraid of the aftermath of dealing with that. And if that happens, you guys should be worried too."

2/19/2007 10:38:02 PM

i guess so on the first quote but with the 2nd i dont think thats what he meant...i mean kim jong il isnt in america but if he hadnt agreed to disarm we shouldve been worried too

2/19/2007 10:42:00 PM

Quote :

"and yeah scuba and typea, why would he know anything about iraq? its not like he's been there"

I don't know everything that is happening within my company; the strategic decisions that are made behind closed doors by the power-suits of our company. But I guess I am an expert that is qualified to comment on that strategy since I work here.

2/20/2007 9:07:37 AM

no, but i know more about your company than you do because i've heard pundits on the news talk about your company and they must clearly know more than someone who works there

2/20/2007 10:13:04 AM

I don't see why not. I imagine analysts that have spoken with the company execs and have studied our numbers relative to the market and ourselves probably have a broader overall picture of how our company is doing than most of us do.

To think a "yes sir, no questions asked" foot soldier has a real clue about overall strategy and success of the entire mission is pretty preposterous when you think about it.

2/20/2007 10:15:51 AM

Quote :

"I imagine analysts that have spoken with the company execs and have studied our numbers relative to the market and ourselves probably have a broader overall picture of how our company is doing than most of us do"

do you have a lot of top secret and confidential information and strategy in your company that the analysts that have spoken with the company execs are aware of?

to put more faith in the driveby media than somebody who has lived the situation first hand is fucking moronic, plain and simple

- HEY I KNOW A TON ABOUT IRAQ FROM WATCHING THE NEWS
- I would disagree with some of those things based on what I've seen first hand with my own 2 eyes
- ARE YOU INVOLVED IN STRATEGY? FUCK YOU IDIOT, THE MEDIA KNOWS MORE THAN YOU EVER WILL

we can agree to disagree, and sure a "foot soldier" isnt going to know a lot of in depth strategy from a leadership perspective...but to completely dismiss the accounts of someone who has seen a lot more of Iraq than you or I ever will is just dumb

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 10:30 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2007 10:20:15 AM

The Soap Box: where bad analogies go to die.

2/20/2007 10:34:39 AM

Quote :

"do you have a lot of top secret and confidential information and strategy in your company that the analysts that have spoken with the company execs are aware of?"

I'm not exactly sure where you are going with this, but I will say that I doubt a foot soldier does either. Furthermore, it isn't like this war has been conducted in top secret fashion either. It's pretty clear, train the Iraqi army to take care of their country, we leave and hope it doesn't fall apart.

Quote :

"to put more faith in the driveby media than somebody who has lived the situation first hand is fucking moronic, plain and simple"

I'll put more faith in a collection of generals and commanders that have said we aren't doing so well over there than a foot soldier though.

Quote :

"I would disagree with some of those things based on what I've seen first hand with my own 2 eyes "

What did he disagree with? He offered up a couple of "feel good" anecdotes. In fact, he has agreed with what everyone, media included, has said about the war, that is

Quote :

"Yeah, the planning didn't go down like it was envisioned. "

The problem is, he also said this

Quote :

"But you should never give in to terror."

And it's well known now that Iraq wasn't really a big problem in the war on terror. But when the Commander and Chief says it, and the Generals repeat it (because, after all they are "yes sirs" too and want to be promoted), it just trickles down to the lowly little foot soldier.

2/20/2007 10:34:44 AM

Quote :

"I'm not exactly sure where you are going with this, but I will say that I doubt a foot soldier does either"

and i doubt a CNN reporter does either

also I'm sure you've read first hand what the generals have said...I doubt you'd make those claims if you had simply heard news reporters' summaries of their accounts

2/20/2007 10:44:49 AM

I'm not really sure what point you are arguing. This guy said terror will come to our shores if we leave early. How does him being a soldier qualify him anymore than anyone else that is able to read reports of how the war is going? Did he talk to terrorist over there that gave him intimate knowledge of what they will do if we leave?

I think it's probably true that a soldier on the ground is more blind than anyone about how the overall effort is going. That's the way our military training is structured. We don't want soldiers questioning why they are doing what they are doing. We just want them to do as told, and be hungry killers.

2/20/2007 10:50:53 AM

Quote :

"I think it's probably true that a soldier on the ground is more blind than anyone about how the overall effort is going"

I think Derek Jeter is more blind about how the Yankees are doing than some sports radio listener

2/20/2007 10:52:37 AM

Here is a better analogy than you just offered.

I think Derek Jeter might be blind to MLBs overall strategy to get more viewers and to increase the profits of league owners.


The equivalent to yours for a soldier would be

"I think a soldier knows better how his missions are going than anyone that isn't a part of his squad"

2/20/2007 10:55:08 AM

my real argument is someone who has been in iraq, living and breathing the war, knows more than you and me who get all our information 3rd hand from biased media outlets

i dont care how much high level strategy Apocalypse has

experience is everything...have you been to iraq? or are you regurgitating some political propaganda that you saw on television? stfu

2/20/2007 11:09:24 AM

Quote :

"my real argument is someone who has been in iraq, living and breathing the war, knows more than you and me who get all our information 3rd hand from biased media outlets"

How does he know more than us? You haven't really made that clear. What is it about a foot soldier, who is limited in access to the same information we are, that allows him to "know more" about the overall war effort?

The only thing he said in this thread is terrorist will come to the United States and some Iraqi's want us to stay. This doesn't look like too much "knowing" to me.

Quote :

"experience is everything..."

Everything in regards to what? So, I suppose a soldier working in a relatively peaceful pocket of the country has enough experience to say the war is going great, right?

Quote :

"or are you regurgitating some political propaganda that you saw on television"

Are you calling reports such as the ISG and those equivalents, "political propaganda I saw on the TV"?

2/20/2007 11:27:07 AM

first of all you didnt read the ISG report...you heard about it on TV...so dont come with that crap

Quote :

"What is it about a foot soldier, who is limited in access to the same information we are, that allows him to "know more" about the overall war effort? "

so you're admitting that he has access to the same information we are...thats good

but you're ignorant to the fact that he IS IN IRAQ IN THE WAR...wow you are dense on this issue

he can watch CNN and read websites on the internet just like us...yet you completely and totally dismiss any first hand accounts he has of dealing with Iraqis, dealing with insurgents, living the war every day unlike you or I who only "choose" to live the war when we get on a news website or turn on the tv

if you or i arent in this thread posting, we're probably working or eating lunch or out somewhere, etc...if HE isnt reading this thread he might be fighting the war that he apparently knows nothing about...how you can continue to downplay eyewitness firsthand accounts is astonishing

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 11:34 AM. Reason : ..]

2/20/2007 11:32:41 AM

Quote :

"first of all you didnt read the ISG report...you heard about it on TV...so dont come with that crap"

No, I didn't read the report. What is the problem with reading a summary of it on foxnews.com? Is fox lying when they are saying that the ISG report calls for a phased withdrawal?

Quote :

"yet you completely and totally dismiss any first hand accounts he has of dealing with Iraqis, dealing with insurgents, living the war every day unlike you or I who only "choose" to live the war when we get on a news website or turn on the tv"

I'm not completely dismissing his account. One thing he said wasn't an account, or first hand experience, it was an opinion. I asked you to tell me if he has talked to terrorist that told him they are coming to our shores if we leave.

I also don't see why you are putting so much weight onto a statement that they don't want us to leave because they fear for their life. From sectarian violence, something that doesn't effect me at all.

What does this statement say about the overall war effort and how we are doing? Nothing!

2/20/2007 11:44:40 AM