DaveinElma Posted September 6, 2011 Posted September 6, 2011 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/06/sources-obama-administration-to-drop-troop-levels-in-iraq-to-3000/ The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News. Senior commanders are said to be livid at the decision, which has already been signed off by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. I've found the perfect video to provide an allegory for what Obama has done to the millitary efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8d9_1315213226
/dev/null Posted September 6, 2011 Posted September 6, 2011 Not just the big wheels. I know plenty of squids, jarheads, and zeros who are no fans of Obama
Alaska Darin Posted September 6, 2011 Posted September 6, 2011 They should be livid. This is another irrational, uninformed decision made by an unqualified politician. All we're missing is a "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background.
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 They should be livid. This is another irrational, uninformed decision made by an unqualified politician. All we're missing is a "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background. And a brazen political move. Reduce troop strength down to 3000 advisors by year's end, and he gets to campaign in 2012 on "I ended the Iraq war!"
OCinBuffalo Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 And a brazen political move. Reduce troop strength down to 3000 advisors by year's end, and he gets to campaign in 2012 on "I ended the Iraq war!" Until Iran sends a brigade over the border, thinking they have the initiative, and Obama has to send all these troops right back in. Also. I wonder...RCP had an article about "senior military commanders" were asking for permission to cross the border and hit the Iranian supply lines. Link Here Strange that this comes right after my link. Coincidence? Nope! And, who was right about Iraq merely being a platform to attack Iran? Of course, not you "No Blood For Oil" idiots. We haven't seen a drop of oil from Iraq...but I guarantee you we have been using Iraq to go after Iran. How's it feel to be wrong? Again? Let me tell you what it feels like to be right, again....I feel...nothing. I have been right so many times that for the first time I am becoming bored with it.
pBills Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/06/sources-obama-administration-to-drop-troop-levels-in-iraq-to-3000/ I've found the perfect video to provide an allegory for what Obama has done to the millitary efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8d9_1315213226 hahaha, from Fox news. Seriously a downgrade of 3,000 troops is horrible?
3rdnlng Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 hahaha, from Fox news. Seriously a downgrade of 3,000 troops is horrible? You haven't missed a beat! That's a downgrade to 3000 troops not a reduction of 3000 troops. I guess it's ok though. It's not as if they are union members.
OCinBuffalo Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 Oh, I forgot! Look! It's a thread started by DaveElma that isn't BlackPeopleBad! Well, sort of, but still, if you believe that the President is an office first and man second, and that it's all about policies, as you should, then this isn't a bad story about a black guy. I call it progress. We'll see.
chicot Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 Until Iran sends a brigade over the border, thinking they have the initiative, and Obama has to send all these troops right back in. Also. I wonder...RCP had an article about "senior military commanders" were asking for permission to cross the border and hit the Iranian supply lines. Link Here Strange that this comes right after my link. Coincidence? Nope! And, who was right about Iraq merely being a platform to attack Iran? Of course, not you "No Blood For Oil" idiots. We haven't seen a drop of oil from Iraq...but I guarantee you we have been using Iraq to go after Iran. How's it feel to be wrong? Again? Let me tell you what it feels like to be right, again....I feel...nothing. I have been right so many times that for the first time I am becoming bored with it. What's the weather like on your planet? So the Iraq war was all about opposing Iran. Of course! It makes perfect sense to depose Saddam, who was an implacable enemy to Iran, and see him replaced with a Shiite-dominated government with very close ties to Iran, many of whom actually spent years in exile in Iran Still, don't let me disturb your fantasies of omniscience (I doubt that I could in any case).
OCinBuffalo Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) What's the weather like on your planet? So the Iraq war was all about opposing Iran. Of course! It makes perfect sense to depose Saddam, who was an implacable enemy to Iran, and see him replaced with a Shiite-dominated government with very close ties to Iran, many of whom actually spent years in exile in Iran Still, don't let me disturb your fantasies of omniscience (I doubt that I could in any case). Learn how to read a map. Serve as an officer in a real Army...then get back to me. Saddam ceased being useful to us the minute his war with Iran ended. You don't understand the plan? Ok, I will explain it to you: Afghanistan is on one border of Iran, and, we were going in there no matter what. Oh, an opportunity presents itself! Iraq and Kuwait on the other border, which provide a secured supply line to the sea. Every other border Iran has is either hostile/unwilling to help, or inaccessible to armor/vehicles = supply is easy to cut off. Meanwhile, the "axis of evil" speech clearly defined the enemy. The "big oil" guys, Bush and Cheney, certainly know where their oil comes from, don't they? Not Iraq, so why else should we attack them? WMDs? Please. That was just a smoke screen that got unintentionally politicized. They miscalculated, big. They thought the Democrats wouldn't dare oppose Bush in a time of war, and in truth, most of them didn't, but, they didn't stay that way. You invade Iraq, and now we have massed armor and infantry with nothing between them and Tehran but open terrain. The Iranian Army is much bigger than Iraq's, so, you don't want to fight them on one front...that's where Afghanistan comes in. You use the Airborne Corps and Rangers from Afghan bases to constantly raid their rear areas, and force them to divide that army. Plus we have air superiority. You use the harassment from the Afghan border to draw them out, and hammer them with air. Keep taking ground slowly, goading them into a major battle on the ground you want. And, when they take the bait, it's over. The goal was Iran, and that's also why they didn't see the possibility of getting bogged down in Iraq. They didn't want to see it. This is classic groupthink. They had no plan for post-assault Iraq, because phase 2 was always assault Iran. Look, our military planners are excellent. But, they don't decide what they plan for or why. You can't tell me they were told to plan for occupation and counter-insurgency. They did nothing of the things they would have had to do if that was the plan, until much later. I am not saying I like what they did, I have no opinion about it, because that's for politicians to decide = people who have all the intelligence, unlike you. You can say you don't like it. I don't really care, because your opinion is uninformed. But none of this means I can unknow what I know. Our guys just asked for permission to attack Iran(link above).....so who's right? Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. knew that once we deployed, there was no going back. We will use this strategy to stop Iran from getting a nuke, unless Iran implodes/has a revolution, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it, certainly not Obama. Here's the fun part: Hell chicot...aren't you French? Sarkozy said he wants to to attack Iran. Love how the Russians call him the New Napoleon. I wonder: if Sarkozy wants to attack Iran, whose bases will he use? Whose lines of communication? Whose air power will he ask for? Whose strategy will be used? Will he ask for harassment from Afghanistan? It's already starting.... Edited September 7, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 Learn how to read a map. Serve as an officer in a real Army...then get back to me. Saddam ceased being useful to us the minute his war with Iran ended. You don't understand the plan? Ok, I will explain it to you: Afghanistan is on one border of Iran, and, we were going in there no matter what. Oh, an opportunity presents itself! Iraq and Kuwait on the other border, which provide a secured supply line to the sea. Every other border Iran has is either hostile/unwilling to help, or inaccessible to armor/vehicles = supply is easy to cut off. Meanwhile, the "axis of evil" speech clearly defined the enemy. The "big oil" guys, Bush and Cheney, certainly know where their oil comes from, don't they? Not Iraq, so why else should we attack them? WMDs? Please. That was just a smoke screen that got unintentionally politicized. They miscalculated, big. They thought the Democrats wouldn't dare oppose Bush in a time of war, and in truth, most of them didn't, but, they didn't stay that way. You invade Iraq, and now we have massed armor and infantry with nothing between them and Tehran but open terrain. The Iranian Army is much bigger than Iraq's, so, you don't want to fight them on one front...that's where Afghanistan comes in. You use the Airborne Corps and Rangers from Afghan bases to constantly raid their rear areas, and force them to divide that army. Plus we have air superiority. You use the harassment from the Afghan border to draw them out, and hammer them with air. Keep taking ground slowly, goading them into a major battle on the ground you want. And, when they take the bait, it's over. The goal was Iran, and that's also why they didn't see the possibility of getting bogged down in Iraq. They didn't want to see it. This is classic groupthink. They had no plan for post-assault Iraq, because phase 2 was always assault Iran. Look, our military planners are excellent. But, they don't decide what they plan for or why. You can't tell me they were told to plan for occupation and counter-insurgency. They did nothing of the things they would have had to do if that was the plan, until much later. I am not saying I like what they did, I have no opinion about it, because that's for politicians to decide = people who have all the intelligence, unlike you. You can say you don't like it. I don't really care, because your opinion is uninformed. But none of this means I can unknow what I know. Our guys just asked for permission to attack Iran(link above).....so who's right? Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. knew that once we deployed, there was no going back. We will use this strategy to stop Iran from getting a nuke, unless Iran implodes/has a revolution, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it, certainly not Obama. Here's the fun part: Hell chicot...aren't you French? Sarkozy said he wants to to attack Iran. Love how the Russians call him the New Napoleon. I wonder: if Sarkozy wants to attack Iran, whose bases will he use? Whose lines of communication? Whose air power will he ask for? Whose strategy will be used? Will he ask for harassment from Afghanistan? It's already starting.... Wow. Just...wow.
OCinBuffalo Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) Wow. Just...wow. The whole thing is just to set up the Sarkozy thing. France's New Napolean....and chicot is over here giving me a hard time. It is plausible though...I am not saying smart, or reasoned...just plausible. EDIT: I'm just hoping he reads that before he reads this. Edited September 7, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 The whole thing is just to set up the Sarkozy thing. France's New Napolean....and chicot is over here giving me a hard time. It is plausible though...I am not saying smart, or reasoned...just plausible. EDIT: I'm just hoping he reads that before he reads this. Nice work. Ever consider blogging for prisonplanet.com? They eat that **** up.
3rdnlng Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 Learn how to read a map. Serve as an officer in a real Army...then get back to me. Saddam ceased being useful to us the minute his war with Iran ended. You don't understand the plan? Ok, I will explain it to you: Afghanistan is on one border of Iran, and, we were going in there no matter what. Oh, an opportunity presents itself! Iraq and Kuwait on the other border, which provide a secured supply line to the sea. Every other border Iran has is either hostile/unwilling to help, or inaccessible to armor/vehicles = supply is easy to cut off. Meanwhile, the "axis of evil" speech clearly defined the enemy. The "big oil" guys, Bush and Cheney, certainly know where their oil comes from, don't they? Not Iraq, so why else should we attack them? WMDs? Please. That was just a smoke screen that got unintentionally politicized. They miscalculated, big. They thought the Democrats wouldn't dare oppose Bush in a time of war, and in truth, most of them didn't, but, they didn't stay that way. You invade Iraq, and now we have massed armor and infantry with nothing between them and Tehran but open terrain. The Iranian Army is much bigger than Iraq's, so, you don't want to fight them on one front...that's where Afghanistan comes in. You use the Airborne Corps and Rangers from Afghan bases to constantly raid their rear areas, and force them to divide that army. Plus we have air superiority. You use the harassment from the Afghan border to draw them out, and hammer them with air. Keep taking ground slowly, goading them into a major battle on the ground you want. And, when they take the bait, it's over. The goal was Iran, and that's also why they didn't see the possibility of getting bogged down in Iraq. They didn't want to see it. This is classic groupthink. They had no plan for post-assault Iraq, because phase 2 was always assault Iran. Look, our military planners are excellent. But, they don't decide what they plan for or why. You can't tell me they were told to plan for occupation and counter-insurgency. They did nothing of the things they would have had to do if that was the plan, until much later. I am not saying I like what they did, I have no opinion about it, because that's for politicians to decide = people who have all the intelligence, unlike you. You can say you don't like it. I don't really care, because your opinion is uninformed. But none of this means I can unknow what I know. Our guys just asked for permission to attack Iran(link above).....so who's right? Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. knew that once we deployed, there was no going back. We will use this strategy to stop Iran from getting a nuke, unless Iran implodes/has a revolution, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it, certainly not Obama. Here's the fun part: Hell chicot...aren't you French? Sarkozy said he wants to to attack Iran. Love how the Russians call him the New Napoleon. I wonder: if Sarkozy wants to attack Iran, whose bases will he use? Whose lines of communication? Whose air power will he ask for? Whose strategy will be used? Will he ask for harassment from Afghanistan? It's already starting.... And 9/11 was an inside job.
OCinBuffalo Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 Nice work. Ever consider blogging for prisonplanet.com? They eat that **** up. And 9/11 was an inside job. It's a DaveElma thread...so, ...duh!
chicot Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 Learn how to read a map. Serve as an officer in a real Army...then get back to me. Saddam ceased being useful to us the minute his war with Iran ended. You don't understand the plan? Ok, I will explain it to you: Afghanistan is on one border of Iran, and, we were going in there no matter what. Oh, an opportunity presents itself! Iraq and Kuwait on the other border, which provide a secured supply line to the sea. Every other border Iran has is either hostile/unwilling to help, or inaccessible to armor/vehicles = supply is easy to cut off. Meanwhile, the "axis of evil" speech clearly defined the enemy. The "big oil" guys, Bush and Cheney, certainly know where their oil comes from, don't they? Not Iraq, so why else should we attack them? WMDs? Please. That was just a smoke screen that got unintentionally politicized. They miscalculated, big. They thought the Democrats wouldn't dare oppose Bush in a time of war, and in truth, most of them didn't, but, they didn't stay that way. You invade Iraq, and now we have massed armor and infantry with nothing between them and Tehran but open terrain. The Iranian Army is much bigger than Iraq's, so, you don't want to fight them on one front...that's where Afghanistan comes in. You use the Airborne Corps and Rangers from Afghan bases to constantly raid their rear areas, and force them to divide that army. Plus we have air superiority. You use the harassment from the Afghan border to draw them out, and hammer them with air. Keep taking ground slowly, goading them into a major battle on the ground you want. And, when they take the bait, it's over. The goal was Iran, and that's also why they didn't see the possibility of getting bogged down in Iraq. They didn't want to see it. This is classic groupthink. They had no plan for post-assault Iraq, because phase 2 was always assault Iran. Look, our military planners are excellent. But, they don't decide what they plan for or why. You can't tell me they were told to plan for occupation and counter-insurgency. They did nothing of the things they would have had to do if that was the plan, until much later. I am not saying I like what they did, I have no opinion about it, because that's for politicians to decide = people who have all the intelligence, unlike you. You can say you don't like it. I don't really care, because your opinion is uninformed. But none of this means I can unknow what I know. Our guys just asked for permission to attack Iran(link above).....so who's right? Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. knew that once we deployed, there was no going back. We will use this strategy to stop Iran from getting a nuke, unless Iran implodes/has a revolution, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it, certainly not Obama. Here's the fun part: Hell chicot...aren't you French? Sarkozy said he wants to to attack Iran. Love how the Russians call him the New Napoleon. I wonder: if Sarkozy wants to attack Iran, whose bases will he use? Whose lines of communication? Whose air power will he ask for? Whose strategy will be used? Will he ask for harassment from Afghanistan? It's already starting.... Good grief! I really have to wade through all that... 1) I am not French. I am English on my mother's side and Iraqi on my Father's. 2) There are so many holes in your grand theory I really don't know where to begin. The massed armour and infantry with nothing between them and Iran but open terrain is no longer there in the sort of numbers you'd need to invade Iran. The current number of US military in Iraq is about 45,000 and full withdrawal is supposed to occur at the end of the year. I'm no military genius but I think you may need a few more men to contemplate a full-scale invasion of Iran. Or is it your expectation that the Maliki government is just going to allow a re-occupation of Iraq in preparation for a full-scale assault on Iran? BTW you're out of luck. I read your last post first
3rdnlng Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 It's a DaveElma thread...so, ...duh! I got it. I even read your little mea culpa to Tom before posting that. Next time I'll tell you when I'm being sarcastic or playing around. I thought I only had to do that with pBrain. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
/dev/null Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 Nice work. Ever consider blogging for prisonplanet.com? They eat that **** up. I love that site! It's like reading The Onion or The People's Cube, but written from a connoresque point of view
Peace Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) Wow. Just...wow. Didn't OC once launch a multi-part post explaining that he (OC) knew how to solve all problems in the middle east by following Alexander the Great's plan of conquest? Scheduling meetings between our biggest warriors and tribal leaders comes to mind as an important part of the OC plan. Edited September 8, 2011 by Peace
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 Didn't OC once launch a multi-part post explaining the he (OC) knew how to solve all problems in the middle east by following Alexander the Great's plan of conquest? Scheduling meetings between our biggest warriors and tribal leaders comes to mind as an important part of the OC plan. You sure it wasn't the Temujin plan of "!@#$ing kill everybody and their brother"?
Recommended Posts