Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act

[VRWC]

Hillary:

"I came back even more determined to stop the president's escalation of troops into Iraq and to start the redeployment of troops out of Iraq. So I outlined a plan, and on Friday, I introduced it to Congress as the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act. "

 

WTF:

I thought the troops where supposed to protect us not the other way around? I bet 99% of the people would have thought that we would have another major attack on the homeland after 9/11 but guess what? Our troops are protecting us but most are to stupid and ignorant to realize it.

 

Liberals not only want to PROTECT the troops, they would rather not have a military or the troops to begin with. That way, BIG BAD America can not be the "bully of the world" any more and we would all just get along singing Kum-ba-yah with the like's of Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

It seems most Americans have lost their will to fight and to protect the ideals and principles that made this country great.

 

Most poeple do not know that the average peace time troop deaths per year is about 1,000 due to training and other factors. With two wars in the last five years guess what our troop death rates are? You guessed it, right on average of about 1,000 per year. If the liberals what to protect the troops then lets get rid of all of them.

[X. Benedict]

Did you read what she is proposing?

 

Capping the troop numbers in Iraq is the reduction part,

and the protection part is about making sure everyone in the theater has body armor.

 

Which one are you against?

 

Oh right, Liberals.

[VRWC]

Did you read what she is proposing?

 

Capping the troop numbers in Iraq is the reduction part,

and the protection part is about making sure everyone in the theater has body armor.

 

Which one are you against?

 

Oh right, Liberals.

 

Capping the troop numbers in Iraq is NOT the reduction part: read the whole proposal

 

U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton, a Democratic from New York and a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination next year, on Saturday called for the Bush administration to start withdrawing American troops from Iraq within 90 days.

 

"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war"

This is a full retreat and withdrawal of all troops which means a victory for the enemy (Al Qaeda & Iran) and defeat for us and the Iraqi people.

 

The "CAP" is to prevent the President from putting in more troops beyond what it is already in place as of Jan 1. Hillary and dems want a full withdrawal starting in 90 days.

 

The protection part is a political ploy by congress to tie the president’s hands in the guise of protecting the troops. The troops DO have all the protection they need and ask for. I work at the Pentagon every day and have not heard one person say they do not have the proper equipment to fight this insurgency. The only thing they are lacking is power to use all force necessary to kill the bad guys. A political war is being fought and the MSM and liberal political leaders won't allow our forces to do what is necessary (and that is to kill the enemy).

 

Face it, the libs have no will to fight for freedom and can not see past their political ambitions what would happen if Iraq fell into anarchy.

[molson_golden2002]

what would happen if Iraq fell into anarchy.

Huh?

[X. Benedict]

A political war is being fought and the MSM and liberal political leaders won't allow our forces to do what is necessary (and that is to kill the enemy).

 

Face it, the libs have no will to fight for freedom and can not see past their political ambitions what would happen if Iraq fell into anarchy.

 

What has the mainstream media been doing to stop our troops from killing the enemy?

Are they diving in front of bullets?

What aren't they reporting here?

 

And how has any liberal political leader foiled any military plan up to now?

You work in the Pentagon, so please let us know.

 

I am not saying that I agree with Clinton, but I am interested to know why you think capping or reducing troop levels is a bad idea. http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/...69481&&

[DC Tom]

What has the mainstream media been doing to stop our troops from killing the enemy?

Are they diving in front of bullets?

What aren't they reporting here?

 

Aside from certain idiots that would, if they could, submarine military plans out of sheer stupidity (Geraldo's live reporting of units' positions during the invasion springs to mind), the manner in which the modern media reports military matters in general is such that...well, really, America nowadays would have a hard time successfully prosecuting ANY war, just or otherwise, to completion. The media focuses on reporting sensationalist stories, and in war the sensational is almost always bad news. You'll never see the media report on achieving any goals, because it's just not "newsworthy" (and here I'm thinking not of the occupation, but specifically of the invasion in 2003, when they'd declared it a failure after about 10 days because the 3rd Infantry paused at Karbala while there was fighting on their flank and rear at Nasiriyah. It wasn't even "bad news", but it still had to be sensationalized as such by a media that panders to their viewers' need for drama rather than knowledge.)

 

I am not saying that I agree with Clinton, but I am interested to know why you think capping or reducing troop levels is a bad idea. http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/...69481&&

 

It's a bad idea in general for the legislature to dictate how any war is supposed to be fought. It's essentially "command by committee" (if they were in the chain of command - they're not), which is a sure-fire way of losing a war. There's a phrase in warfare, "getting inside the decision cycle", which basically means being able to react and respond faster than your enemy. I guarantee you, giving the legislature command input into how a war is fought will allow an enemy to get inside the decision cycle through virtue of the fact that a committee of 535 people cannot react fast enough to events.

 

And I know the next response to this will be "How does capping troop levels slow down command decision making?" It doesn't necessarily (though it can), but it's a command prerogative. For example: if Congress caps troop strength at 120k, and the President decides to order 30k troops (say the 82nd and 101st Airborne) into Anbar province, who supercedes whom? (Hint: the Constitution says the President does, without question. Another hint: look up the history of the Great White Fleet in 1908, which is a highly applicable precedent.) And while it may not affect operational decision making directly (which is what "decision cycle" really refers to), I'm against giving the legislature ANY input into command decision, on the principle that it's a really bad precedent.

[MattyT]

I'm pretty sure this is what the nation expected to see from Congress when they voted in the last election. Not just a symbolic resolution.

 

Also, phased redeployment does not equal "full retreat and withdrawal." You make it sound like there isn't going to be an American soldier left in 90 days. The Act doesn't specify, but the redeployment could take several years to complete and there will be thousands of soldiers remaining to train the Iraqis.

 

Your "cut and run" scenario is fantasy.

[X. Benedict]

Aside from certain idiots that would, if they could, submarine military plans out of sheer stupidity (Geraldo's live reporting of units' positions during the invasion springs to mind), the manner in which the modern media reports military matters in general is such that...well, really, America nowadays would have a hard time successfully prosecuting ANY war, just or otherwise, to completion. The media focuses on reporting sensationalist stories, and in war the sensational is almost always bad news. You'll never see the media report on achieving any goals, because it's just not "newsworthy" (and here I'm thinking not of the occupation, but specifically of the invasion in 2003, when they'd declared it a failure after about 10 days because the 3rd Infantry paused at Karbala while there was fighting on their flank and rear at Nasiriyah. It wasn't even "bad news", but it still had to be sensationalized as such by a media that panders to their viewers' need for drama rather than knowledge.)

 

No disagreement from me. The mainstream media is conventional in the sense that it is a slave to to the buzz of the news cycle, and if anything, indifferent to long military planning and objectives. As far as how the media can affect the political capital necessary to prosecute a war is perhaps a different matter.

 

It's a bad idea in general for the legislature to dictate how any war is supposed to be fought. It's essentially "command by committee" (if they were in the chain of command - they're not), which is a sure-fire way of losing a war. There's a phrase in warfare, "getting inside the decision cycle", which basically means being able to react and respond faster than your enemy. I guarantee you, giving the legislature command input into how a war is fought will allow an enemy to get inside the decision cycle through virtue of the fact that a committee of 535 people cannot react fast enough to events.

 

And I know the next response to this will be "How does capping troop levels slow down command decision making?" It doesn't necessarily (though it can), but it's a command prerogative. For example: if Congress caps troop strength at 120k, and the President decides to order 30k troops (say the 82nd and 101st Airborne) into Anbar province, who supercedes whom? (Hint: the Constitution says the President does, without question. Another hint: look up the history of the Great White Fleet in 1908, which is a highly applicable precedent.) And while it may not affect operational decision making directly (which is what "decision cycle" really refers to), I'm against giving the legislature ANY input into command decision, on the principle that it's a really bad precedent.

Generally, I agree. (I also think Clinton's plan is designed for failure, but it sure does give good political cover). Congress in a way has already given its recommendations through the Iraq Study Group. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon the president to articulate his program. Of course the President has not taken the recommendations of the study group - but in terms of appropriations the Congress cutting anything is not without political risk. I just find it a bit comical that blaming the MSM and nascent (and most likely abortive) political plans can be blamed for the President failing in articulating and prosecuting his war plan with the formulation "we can't kill the enemy because of the liberals."

[molson_golden2002]

1) Aside from certain idiots that would, if they could, submarine military plans out of sheer stupidity (Geraldo's live reporting of units' positions during the invasion springs to mind), the manner in which the modern media reports military matters in general is such that...well, really, America nowadays would have a hard time successfully prosecuting ANY war, just or otherwise, to completion. The media focuses on reporting sensationalist stories, and in war the sensational is almost always bad news. You'll never see the media report on achieving any goals, because it's just not "newsworthy" (and here I'm thinking not of the occupation, but specifically of the invasion in 2003, when they'd declared it a failure after about 10 days because the 3rd Infantry paused at Karbala while there was fighting on their flank and rear at Nasiriyah. It wasn't even "bad news", but it still had to be sensationalized as such by a media that panders to their viewers' need for drama rather than knowledge.)

 

 

2)It's a bad idea in general for the legislature to dictate how any war is supposed to be fought. It's essentially "command by committee" (if they were in the chain of command - they're not), which is a sure-fire way of losing a war. There's a phrase in warfare, "getting inside the decision cycle", which basically means being able to react and respond faster than your enemy. I guarantee you, giving the legislature command input into how a war is fought will allow an enemy to get inside the decision cycle through virtue of the fact that a committee of 535 people cannot react fast enough to events.

1) Yes, if you are going to fight a war it probably is best not to have media around because war is just so f--ked up. Americans generally think its like an action film and when they are shown reality, they react in a most unwar like manner. This goes for ignorant leaders who think the same thing. And really, war by its very nature is a sensational story. It's pure violence. As to media never showing the military achiveing its goals I would say they have shown that, and shown it often. I don't watch much TV news but have seen stories of schools getting painted factories opened and such but the real story is the failure. That's just obvious. There are many journalists who have died in Iraq getting stories and that in and by itself is a story, a story of failure. Remember this was suppose to be a free and open society by now. It isn't. No where close.

 

2) Agreed, the legislature shouldn't have a direct say in the operation of the war, but in the overall decision of if the war/occupation is worth it, they should, though admittadly their options are limited. The Great White Fleet is an excellent example. But there are other example. The Committee on the Conduct of the War during the Civil War very much stuck their noses up Lincoln's butt about all sorts of issues and pushed him in a direction most people would agree with today. The election of November really put Congress into the decison by committee function. Bush wasn't reacting to much of anything and now he has reacted by upping the anty with the Surge. Something most Americans didn't want.

[Wacka]

Most poeple do not know that the average peace time troop deaths per year is about 1,000 due to training and other factors. With two wars in the last five years guess what our troop death rates are? You guessed it, right on average of about 1,000 per year. If the liberals what to protect the troops then lets get rid of all of them.

 

Rush Limbaugh yesterday quoted a DoD document that said 4417 US troops were killed from 1993-1996 (peacetime). That's about 1300 MORE than the 3133 killed in Iraq in a comparable span of time.

I found a copy of the data I was looking for. I had seen the original DoD page, but I forgot to downoad it at the time.

Someone made an excel spreadsheet of it .

 

US Active Duty Military Deaths 1980-2004

[bobblehead]

Rush Limbaugh yesterday quoted a DoD document that said 4417 US troops were killed from 1993-1996 (peacetime). That's about 1300 MORE than the 3133 killed in Iraq in a comparable span of time.

I found a copy of the data I was looking for. I had seen the original DoD page, but I forgot to downoad it at the time.

Someone made an excel spreadsheet of it .

 

US Active Duty Military Deaths 1980-2004

 

 

How many US troops between 1993-1996 had thier legs blown off, Rush?

[PastaJoe]

Rush Limbaugh yesterday quoted a DoD document that said 4417 US troops were killed from 1993-1996 (peacetime). That's about 1300 MORE than the 3133 killed in Iraq in a comparable span of time.

I found a copy of the data I was looking for. I had seen the original DoD page, but I forgot to downoad it at the time.

Someone made an excel spreadsheet of it .

 

US Active Duty Military Deaths 1980-2004

 

Rush and an excel spreadsheet, that's all Dick Cheney would need as proof. But of course if you look at the breakdown between 93-96 only 56 were killed due to hostile or terrorist actions. Now compare 3133 to 56 and you get a realistic comparison, which shows how desperate some are to justify continued troop escalations in Iraq.

[MattyT]

Rush Limbaugh yesterday quoted a DoD document that said 4417 US troops were killed from 1993-1996 (peacetime). That's about 1300 MORE than the 3133 killed in Iraq in a comparable span of time.

I found a copy of the data I was looking for. I had seen the original DoD page, but I forgot to downoad it at the time.

Someone made an excel spreadsheet of it .

 

US Active Duty Military Deaths 1980-2004

Why don't you send that spreadsheet to the families of the 3133 killed in Iraq and explain to them how significant these numbers are?

[Alaska Darin]

Aside from certain idiots that would, if they could, submarine military plans out of sheer stupidity (Geraldo's live reporting of units' positions during the invasion springs to mind), the manner in which the modern media reports military matters in general is such that...well, really, America nowadays would have a hard time successfully prosecuting ANY war, just or otherwise, to completion. The media focuses on reporting sensationalist stories, and in war the sensational is almost always bad news. You'll never see the media report on achieving any goals, because it's just not "newsworthy" (and here I'm thinking not of the occupation, but specifically of the invasion in 2003, when they'd declared it a failure after about 10 days because the 3rd Infantry paused at Karbala while there was fighting on their flank and rear at Nasiriyah. It wasn't even "bad news", but it still had to be sensationalized as such by a media that panders to their viewers' need for drama rather than knowledge.)

It's a bad idea in general for the legislature to dictate how any war is supposed to be fought. It's essentially "command by committee" (if they were in the chain of command - they're not), which is a sure-fire way of losing a war. There's a phrase in warfare, "getting inside the decision cycle", which basically means being able to react and respond faster than your enemy. I guarantee you, giving the legislature command input into how a war is fought will allow an enemy to get inside the decision cycle through virtue of the fact that a committee of 535 people cannot react fast enough to events.

 

And I know the next response to this will be "How does capping troop levels slow down command decision making?" It doesn't necessarily (though it can), but it's a command prerogative. For example: if Congress caps troop strength at 120k, and the President decides to order 30k troops (say the 82nd and 101st Airborne) into Anbar province, who supercedes whom? (Hint: the Constitution says the President does, without question. Another hint: look up the history of the Great White Fleet in 1908, which is a highly applicable precedent.) And while it may not affect operational decision making directly (which is what "decision cycle" really refers to), I'm against giving the legislature ANY input into command decision, on the principle that it's a really bad precedent.

Excellent post.

[VRWC]

What has the mainstream media been doing to stop our troops from killing the enemy?

Are they diving in front of bullets?

What aren't they reporting here?

 

And how has any liberal political leader foiled any military plan up to now?

You work in the Pentagon, so please let us know.

 

I am not saying that I agree with Clinton, but I am interested to know why you think capping or reducing troop levels is a bad idea. http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/...69481&&

 

To answer your questions:

1.) They report only those small incidents of solders not acting in accordance to DoD and military standards. (Abu grab, various murders, interegation techniques, etc). These reports by the MSM make it look like all troops are committing these atrocities and it undermines the troops and provides fuel to the anti-war lefties driving military policy changes for political correctness sack. It's a war dam it. I don't here the MSM complain to much when Americans get their heads cut off, or solders are burned in public, or hung from Bridges. Where is the outrage from the MSM about these barbarians?

 

2.) The MSM along with various traitors in this country expose our intelligence gather plans and capabilities. (Patriot Act, Data mining, wire tapping, financial transactions, renditions, interrogations, etc.). All of this undermining of intelligence gathering by the MSM effect the way we wage war and exposes more troops to enemy fire.

 

3.) They blame the US for all of the world ills and trouble. This makes it much harder to foster alliances with other nations and build coalitions.

 

4.) The major MSM organizations don't believe in rooting for the USA to win since they must be "objective". They hate this president and will do everything in their power to discredit him and his policies. The result of such ignorance is to embolden the enemy, make the American public weary of the war, with the end result being a troop withdrawal and defeat.

 

5.) They don't report any of the good things happening in Iraq and how it could eventually transform that region into an ally and democratic state.

 

6.) They only look at the short term outlook of the situation and can't see the long term positive impact to this country if we succeed.

 

7.) The MSM makes up stories and doctor photos to push their agenda. Many of the MSM's "sources" can not be determined and many photos have been proven to be false.

 

8.) They report that no WMD's were found, no connection of Al Qaeda to Iraq and that the war was unjustified from the beginning. Well, all of these are false and have been proven. The MSM will not report any of this.

 

9.) The MSM is the propaganda tool for Al Jezzera and Al Qaeda. They can't wait to hear from Osama Bin Laden again to spew his anti-American hatred.

 

Are they diving in front of bullets?

1.) I wish some of the reports would, that would certainly help our cause.

 

And how has any liberal political leader foiled any military plan up to now?

Well I can't tell that now can I.

See #2. I thinking Patrick "Leeky" Lahee and the like.

 

capping or reducing troop levels?

 

Who is the Commander in Chief? Who provided him the powers and authority to fight this war? The President and the military command should decide on these matters of how to fight this war not congress. Once you take military options off the table your done, you may as well just give up which is what the libs really want.

 

Looking at some of these congressmen, I would let them run a 7-11 let alone set US military policy. If the dems and some RINOS want out of Iraq, then cut off funding which is in there authority. Put up or shut up.

 

Osama knows how to defeat the US. Kill a few Americans and wait till the political pressure becomes so great they will leave on there own accord. Left leaning Ameircans have no backbone or guts to fight. Thank god a few good men do or we'll be going to Mosque some day.

[John Adams]

Excellent post.

 

"You're so smart Darin."

 

"No, you're so smart Tom. I love you."

 

"I love you more Darin."

 

"No I love you more Tom. I love you the mostest."

 

Why don't you fags move to New Jersey.

[molson_golden2002]

To answer your questions:

1.) They report only those small incidents of solders not acting in accordance to DoD and military standards. (Abu grab, various murders, interegation techniques, etc). These reports by the MSM make it look like all troops are committing these atrocities and it undermines the troops and provides fuel to the anti-war lefties driving military policy changes for political correctness sack. It's a war dam it. I don't here the MSM complain to much when Americans get their heads cut off, or solders are burned in public, or hung from Bridges. Where is the outrage from the MSM about these barbarians?

 

2.) The MSM along with various traitors in this country expose our intelligence gather plans and capabilities. (Patriot Act, Data mining, wire tapping, financial transactions, renditions, interrogations, etc.). All of this undermining of intelligence gathering by the MSM effect the way we wage war and exposes more troops to enemy fire.

 

3.) They blame the US for all of the world ills and trouble. This makes it much harder to foster alliances with other nations and build coalitions.

 

4.) The major MSM organizations don't believe in rooting for the USA to win since they must be "objective". They hate this president and will do everything in their power to discredit him and his policies. The result of such ignorance is to embolden the enemy, make the American public weary of the war, with the end result being a troop withdrawal and defeat.

 

5.) They don't report any of the good things happening in Iraq and how it could eventually transform that region into an ally and democratic state.

 

6.) They only look at the short term outlook of the situation and can't see the long term positive impact to this country if we succeed.

 

7.) The MSM makes up stories and doctor photos to push their agenda. Many of the MSM's "sources" can not be determined and many photos have been proven to be false.

 

8.) They report that no WMD's were found, no connection of Al Qaeda to Iraq and that the war was unjustified from the beginning. Well, all of these are false and have been proven. The MSM will not report any of this.

 

9.) The MSM is the propaganda tool for Al Jezzera and Al Qaeda. They can't wait to hear from Osama Bin Laden again to spew his anti-American hatred.

 

Are they diving in front of bullets?

1.) I wish some of the reports would, that would certainly help our cause.

 

And how has any liberal political leader foiled any military plan up to now?

Well I can't tell that now can I.

See #2. I thinking Patrick "Leeky" Lahee and the like.

 

capping or reducing troop levels?

 

Who is the Commander in Chief? Who provided him the powers and authority to fight this war? The President and the military command should decide on these matters of how to fight this war not congress. Once you take military options off the table your done, you may as well just give up which is what the libs really want.

 

Looking at some of these congressmen, I would let them run a 7-11 let alone set US military policy. If the dems and some RINOS want out of Iraq, then cut off funding which is in there authority. Put up or shut up.

 

Osama knows how to defeat the US. Kill a few Americans and wait till the political pressure becomes so great they will leave on there own accord. Left leaning Ameircans have no backbone or guts to fight. Thank god a few good men do or we'll be going to Mosque some day.

You forgot to mention that the MSM has had a major hand in causing numermous injuries to the Buffalo Sabres here down the stretch. These people have got to be stopped!

[DC Tom]

"You're so smart Darin."

 

"No, you're so smart Tom. I love you."

 

"I love you more Darin."

 

"No I love you more Tom. I love you the mostest."

 

Why don't you fags move to New Jersey.

 

[X. Benedict]

To answer your questions:

1.) They report only those small incidents of solders not acting in accordance to DoD and military standards. (Abu grab, various murders, interegation techniques, etc). These reports by the MSM make it look like all troops are committing these atrocities and it undermines the troops and provides fuel to the anti-war lefties driving military policy changes for political correctness sack. It's a war dam it. I don't here the MSM complain to much when Americans get their heads cut off, or solders are burned in public, or hung from Bridges. Where is the outrage from the MSM about these barbarians?

 

2.) The MSM along with various traitors in this country expose our intelligence gather plans and capabilities. (Patriot Act, Data mining, wire tapping, financial transactions, renditions, interrogations, etc.). All of this undermining of intelligence gathering by the MSM effect the way we wage war and exposes more troops to enemy fire.

 

3.) They blame the US for all of the world ills and trouble. This makes it much harder to foster alliances with other nations and build coalitions.

 

4.) The major MSM organizations don't believe in rooting for the USA to win since they must be "objective". They hate this president and will do everything in their power to discredit him and his policies. The result of such ignorance is to embolden the enemy, make the American public weary of the war, with the end result being a troop withdrawal and defeat.

 

5.) They don't report any of the good things happening in Iraq and how it could eventually transform that region into an ally and democratic state.

 

6.) They only look at the short term outlook of the situation and can't see the long term positive impact to this country if we succeed.

 

7.) The MSM makes up stories and doctor photos to push their agenda. Many of the MSM's "sources" can not be determined and many photos have been proven to be false.

 

8.) They report that no WMD's were found, no connection of Al Qaeda to Iraq and that the war was unjustified from the beginning. Well, all of these are false and have been proven. The MSM will not report any of this.

 

9.) The MSM is the propaganda tool for Al Jezzera and Al Qaeda. They can't wait to hear from Osama Bin Laden again to spew his anti-American hatred.

 

I am not going to defend the mass media by saying they are really good at what they do, but I not wishing that they be

a more efficient medium of propaganda either.

 

Number #8 I find quite interesting. If they missed that, they really dropped the ball.

[Alaska Darin]

"You're so smart Darin."

 

"No, you're so smart Tom. I love you."

 

"I love you more Darin."

 

"No I love you more Tom. I love you the mostest."

 

Why don't you fags move to New Jersey.

:lol: :lol: