The Real Reason Dems Backed Burris for the Senate

[777 fixer]

War involves ever changing tactics to suit the Theatre du Jour...don't change tactics and its Dien Bien Phu.....all over again.

Above all that........the increase in troops and available intel let our guys target more strongholds with numerical superiority and not 'provide more targets' as you infer.

No spell check tonite trip seven?

Numerical superiority in a country with over eight million adult males, that's a good one.

If we had not changed tactics more targets is all we would have provided by an increase in troops. Here is a simple fact. Increase in troops did not turn around the situation in Iraq. More troops did not mean more intel. More intel came from the Iraqi's themselves. Maybe you should go to your local bookstore and read books like The Gamble dell.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Numerical superiority in a country with over eight million adult males, that's a good one.

If we had not changed tactics more targets is all we would have provided by an increase in troops. Here is a simple fact. Increase in troops did not turn around the situation in Iraq. More troops did not mean more intel. More intel came from the Iraqi's themselves. Maybe you should go to your local bookstore and read books like The Gamble dell.

Yea, I wished I had that at 120 kts NOE...
I would have just quit and came home...

B) xUT

 

[dapoes]

You don't read much do you? Here's a suggestion, stop listening to the Hannity's and Limbaugh's of the world and crack open a book. One book I would recommend is The Gamble by Tom Ricks. If you think the the troops surge is what defeated the Sunni insurgency in Iraq then you are sadly mistaken. Never in history has flooding a country with soldiers trained to fight a conventional war defeated an insurgency. It did not work for the US in Vietnam nor did it work for the Soviets in Afghnaistan.

What worked for the US in Iraq was to sit down with the various Sunni tribes and strick deals. What also helped was Al Queda trying to strong arm those tribes. That's becasue it back fired big time on them, all they did was drive those tribes deeper into the arms of the Americans. Don't think I'm telling the truth, just look at he casualty figures for this time frame. If we had not dealt with these Sunni tribes and just kept doing what we were doing the insurgency would still be going strong.

Do you even have the faintest clue to which argument you are having? :blink:

I see you subscribe to Obama's capitulation and apologist method of dealing with terrorists and terror-supporting nations. Good luck with that.

 

[Garfield1966]

Do you even have the faintest clue to which argument you are having? :blink:

I see you subscribe to Obama's capitulation and apologist method of dealing with terrorists and terror-supporting nations. Good luck with that.

Do you even know how to counter an argument with anything other than insults?

If you have a point to make, lay it out using examples, facts or simple logic. And I know we have had this discussion before but try and use your own thoughts where possible instead of posting links to people who may or may not have any idea of what they are saying such as in our discussion about 401k's.

 

[dapoes]

Do you even know how to counter an argument with anything other than insults?

If you have a point to make, lay it out using examples, facts or simple logic. And I know we have had this discussion before but try and use your own thoughts where possible instead of posting links to people who may or may not have any idea of what they are saying such as in our discussion about 401k's.

Already have on previous post http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=670653 yet some seem too ignorant to comprehend what they are reading.

 

[Garfield1966]

Already have on previous post http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=670653 yet some seem too ignorant to comprehend what they are reading.

All I see are cut and paste links.

 

[delldude]

Numerical superiority in a country with over eight million adult males, that's a good one.

If we had not changed tactics more targets is all we would have provided by an increase in troops. Here is a simple fact. Increase in troops did not turn around the situation in Iraq. More troops did not mean more intel. More intel came from the Iraqi's themselves. Maybe you should go to your local bookstore and read books like The Gamble dell.

Duh....you just proved intel made the difference..never said increase was the sole reason...

Maybe you should drop back and chill off the Bush hatred a little.We won.

Read my lips:

Notice key wording from my previous post....

Above all that........the increase in troops and available intel let our guys target more strongholds with numerical superiority and not 'provide more targets' as you infer.

Now you naively assert they have an eight million man army?

Numerical superiority in a country with over eight million adult males, that's a good one.

Wow dude...that is larger than the largest army on earth..China...

China Force Size

* Regular Army: 1,600,000
* Armed Police: 600,000
* Reserve: 800,000
* Militia: 3,000,000

Duh....

Iraqi regular army some 260,000...so with your logic Al Qeda has eight million man army??

 

[dapoes]

All I see are cut and paste links.

Then maybe you should start at topic #1 and follow along, instead of chiming in on something your too lazy to read perhaps?

 

[777 fixer]

Do you even have the faintest clue to which argument you are having? :blink:

I see you subscribe to Obama's capitulation and apologist method of dealing with terrorists and terror-supporting nations. Good luck with that.

Well it's rather obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. Case in point posts 58 and 59 on this thread. I pointed out that we talked to the Sunni tribes in Iraq. Rather predictably you said and I quote And logical answer is that we shouldn’t have. Ignoring of course the resulting drop in violence and putting Al Qaeda on the run. Still want to say we shouldn’t have dapoes? If you so take it up with George Bush, it happened during his administration not Obama's.

Which leaves you with a dilemma. You can either continue to say it was a mistake, ignoring of course that facts say otherwise. Doing so would be an admission that Bush made a mistake. Or you can admit it was not a mistake which of course would be admitting your previous comment was wrong.

Could you please show me where I'm for capitulation and an apologist? And disagreeing with you is not a very good reason. While you are at it show me where Obama is for capitulation and for the apologist method of dealing with terror-supporting nations?

 

[777 fixer]

Duh....you just proved intel made the difference..never said increase was the sole reason...

Maybe you should drop back and chill off the Bush hatred a little.We won.

Read my lips:

Notice key wording from my previous post....



Now you naively assert they have an eight million man army?



Wow dude...that is larger than the largest army on earth..China...



Duh....

Iraqi regular army some 260,000...so with your logic Al Qeda has eight million man army??

Now you naively assert they have an eight million man army?

Wow dude...that is larger than the largest army on earth..China...

Could you show me where I said they had an eight million man army dell? What I said was "Numerical superiority in a country with over eight million adult males, that's a good one." You obviously did not understand what I was saying. Each one of those adult males is a potential insurgent. So the idea of having numerical superiority in someone eles's country is a joke.

Iraqi regular army some 260,000...so with your logic Al Qeda has eight million man army??

Once again dell where did I say Al Qaeda had an eight million man army in Iraq? In order to assume that it would mean that you think every insurgent is Al Qaeda. Which of course is non-sense.

Maybe you should drop back and chill off the Bush hatred a little.We won.

Another great one liner dell. This coming from the same person who has it in for Obama so badly that he's willing to believe liars and frauds like Corsi and Berg.

Could you show me some examples where I "hate" Bush?

Here's the problem I have with Bush. Committing US forces to combat based on bad intel. Appointing that ego maniac Rumsfeld who seemed to think he knew better than everyone else. When General Shinseki said that more soldiers were needed to secure Iraq did they listen to him? No they did not; in fact they treated him rather poorly. End result, not enough soldiers to secure places like weapons depots. Those very same weapons were used latter on against US soldiers. Bush pretending that everything was a okay in Iraq when things were not. It was only after he could no longer pretend that he decided to listen.

 

[delldude]

Now you naively assert they have an eight million man army?

Wow dude...that is larger than the largest army on earth..China...

Could you show me where I said they had an eight million man army dell? What I said was "Numerical superiority in a country with over eight million adult males, that's a good one." You obviously did not understand what I was saying. Each one of those adult males is a potential insurgent. So the idea of having numerical superiority in someone eles's country is a joke.

Iraqi regular army some 260,000...so with your logic Al Qeda has eight million man army??

Once again dell where did I say Al Qaeda had an eight million man army in Iraq? In order to assume that it would mean that you think every insurgent is Al Qaeda. Which of course is non-sense.

Maybe you should drop back and chill off the Bush hatred a little.We won.

Another great one liner dell. This coming from the same person who has it in for Obama so badly that he's willing to believe liars and frauds like Corsi and Berg.

Could you show me some examples where I "hate" Bush?

Here's the problem I have with Bush. Committing US forces to combat based on bad intel. Appointing that ego maniac Rumsfeld who seemed to think he knew better than everyone else. When General Shinseki said that more soldiers were needed to secure Iraq did they listen to him? No they did not; in fact they treated him rather poorly. End result, not enough soldiers to secure places like weapons depots. Those very same weapons were used latter on against US soldiers. Bush pretending that everything was a okay in Iraq when things were not. It was only after he could no longer pretend that he decided to listen.

What aren't you an authority on ?

 

[dapoes]

h34r: