Wrong, Wrong, wrong

[RandomGuy]

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW08-02-06.jpg

[boutons_]

YV found them WMDs, too. I holding my breath until it hits the main news channels.

[boutons_]

How can a guy chosen by God to lead the country be so profoundly immoral, so profoundly disconnected from reality, so stunningly superficial.

But, he's wears the "born again" label, so the simplistic evangelicals say he's God's gift to the universe.

[clambake]

It really is a perfect example of the divide that seperates Americans.

We all heard the same things at the same time. The pres. says Iraq has wmd's and it represents America's greatest threat. Colin Powell sits there exhibiting that vial for the wow factor to spread fear. Prez. says Al-Qauida is in Iraq right now ordering take-out.

Weapons inspectors, and a shitload of them, all say, with conviction, that there are no wmd's. US intelligence says there is no proof of terrorist ties to Iraq.

Those on the right process this imformation and conclude "Damn, we gotta do something, we gotta attack this S.O.B!!!!

People not on the right process the same information and conclude "Uh oh, I smell a rat"! How do expect solutions from the same people who won't admit the past.

[whottt]

I just want to thank you guys for your nonstop bitching, pissing, moaning and whining....it makes a difference. Pat yourselves on the back, you bitch, moan, piss and whine...and you do it well.


It's the bitchers, pissers, moaners and whiners that have gotten things done in this country historically, it's they who've made America a great country.


Revolutionary War - Was the bitchers, pissers, moaners and whiners that won that war.

WWI - Ditto, it was also those that said we shouldn't be involved and that people were going to get killed that that made a difference then too.

WWII...the same.


It's always the people that bitch, moan, piss and whine that get things done and make a difference.




Without bitching, pissing, moaning and whining, I don't know where we'd be today.

[scott]

Without bitching, pissing, moaning and whining, I don't know where we'd be today.

We'd be without 95% of your posts, for starters.

[DarkReign]

We'd be without 95% of your posts, for starters.

pwnd

Same could be said for any individual who thinks his/her thoughts and opinions deserve to be "heard" by more people than themselves.

The bitchers, pissers and moaners are the people who start change. If everyone just held the status quo, how fucking boring would that be?

[exstatic]

We'd be without 95% of your posts, for starters.
PWN3D

[whottt]

We'd be without 95% of your posts, for starters.



It's different when I do it, mine has purpose, I bitch and whine about tards on the board...Oil boy.

[whottt]

pwnd

Same could be said for any individual who thinks his/her thoughts and opinions deserve to be "heard" by more people than themselves.

The bitchers, pissers and moaners are the people who start change. If everyone just held the status quo, how fucking boring would that be?


Change to what?


To what?

Tooooooo..........

What?


The only thing I see you guys bitching about is stuff you cannot change...



We are in Iraq...you cannot change it.

Bush is President, he's been reelected and he is going to serve maximum terms...you cannot change it.

[exstatic]

Like you can change our posts or posting styles...

[whottt]

That's entirely possible...and it's not so much posting style or posts...it's the intelligence behind them. Don't worry exs...I haven't given up on you guys yet.


It's not like I am bitching about the past.

[Nbadan]

It really is a perfect example of the divide that seperates Americans.

We all heard the same things at the same time. The pres. says Iraq has wmd's and it represents America's greatest threat. Colin Powell sits there exhibiting that vial for the wow factor to spread fear. Prez. says Al-Qauida is in Iraq right now ordering take-out.

Weapons inspectors, and a shitload of them, all say, with conviction, that there are no wmd's. US intelligence says there is no proof of terrorist ties to Iraq.

Those on the right process this imformation and conclude "Damn, we gotta do something, we gotta attack this S.O.B!!!!

People not on the right process the same information and conclude "Uh oh, I smell a rat"! How do expect solutions from the same people who won't admit the past.


I really think Powell was the clincher for a lot of people. When he stood before the U.N. pointing at what turned out to be broken down trucks and declared them to be mobile WMD factories many people bought into the whole fear and Saddam and Al-Queda working together bullshit.

[BIG IRISH]

It's always the people that bitch, moan, piss and whine that get things done and make a difference.
Without bitching, pissing, moaning and whining, I don't know where we'd be today.


Without Bitchers, moaners, pisser and whiners the Mucking Management
would think everything was wonderfull, because most Managers, leaders
etc haven't got a clue about the real fucking world.

Hell Bush didn't even know they had blacks in Brazil

[RandomGuy]

We'd be without 95% of your posts, for starters.

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/own3d.gif


That was classic. (bows)

[RandomGuy]

Change to what?


To what?

Tooooooo..........

What?


The only thing I see you guys bitching about is stuff you cannot change...



We are in Iraq...you cannot change it.

Bush is President, he's been reelected and he is going to serve maximum terms...you cannot change it.

Cynicism=laziness.

The thing you do about it is force congress to ask more questions.

A lot of people are unhappy about the war, and sur-f***ing-prise a lot of Bush's long time buddies are starting to re-think the whole thing.

People who say "oh-woe-is-me-we-can't-do-anything" are the ultimate whiners, and piss me off to no end.

There is plenty that CAN be done by anyone with the balls to get off their asses and do something.

Individual contributions don't mean much to be sure, but when you get a few tens of millions of people together, you start making a difference.

The effect is even easier to see on a local level. Our country is great precisely because we CAN change things by getting involved even a little bit.

[clambake]

Millions would like to do something but Bush has wrangled powers that none of us have seen before.

Something else that has been overlooked far too often is Powell's resignation. He couldn't tolerate compromising his dignity any further.

[whottt]

Cynicism=laziness.

Who the fuck you are you calling cynical?


What gall.


The thing you do about it is force congress to ask more questions.

A lot of people are unhappy about the war, and sur-f***ing-prise a lot of Bush's long time buddies are starting to re-think the whole thing.

Yeah...we got that, and he was still re-elected...next.




People who say "oh-woe-is-me-we-can't-do-anything" are the ultimate whiners, and piss me off to no end.

That's exactly what ya'll are saying about the mid-east, that it can't work, that it can't be fixed.

You're the fucking cynic, you are the woe is me.


There is plenty that CAN be done by anyone with the balls to get off their asses and do something.

So do it...get over there and human shield the poor civillians.


Individual contributions don't mean much to be sure, but when you get a few tens of millions of people together, you start making a difference.

The effect is even easier to see on a local level. Our country is great precisely because we CAN change things by getting involved even a little bit.


Make a difference about what?

The Middle East?


This is a real slippery slope because I know you motherfuckers haven't got a clue of the mindset of those guys that we fight.


Those dudes are the antithesis of every this country stands for and if you in any way think Bush is worse than they are, you are truly clueless.

I just can't believe how stupid people are that they think our purpose or goals are in any way equal or lesser than those of the Islamic Fundamentalists...

If that's what you think you are clueless dude. And you stand against religious freedoms, political freedom, civils rights, IOW, you stand against all the gains of the Western World in the last 400 years.


Those guys are not a different side of the same coin..

[RandomGuy]

Who the fuck you are you calling cynical?
What gall.

If you aren't cynical, then my apologies. I have seen too many who are that way and who just abdicate any moral or civic responsibility. If you aren't one of them, then so much the better.


Yeah...we got that, and he was still re-elected...next.

Re-election does not mean competant. He is president and that is that. After he is gone and we have really had a chance to measure him up and what he did, I think he will go down as one of the worst US presidents. (shrugs) I only hope he doesn't do much more damage in the time he has left.


That's exactly what ya'll are saying about the mid-east, that it can't work, that it can't be fixed.

The middle east can be fixed, but that requires an administration that has modicum of finesse, knowledge of foreign affairs, and can actually win the "war" on terrorism. The current administration has been the best thing that could have happened to al Qaeda.


You're the fucking cynic, you are the woe is me.

Not sure what you base this on.


So do it...get over there and human shield the poor civillians.

uh, why? Which civilians?


Make a difference about what?

The Middle East?

I was talking about in general.

(to be continued)

[RandomGuy]

This is a real slippery slope because I know you motherfuckers haven't got a clue of the mindset of those guys that we fight.

I have a better idea than you do.

Answer these TWO questions:

When was the last time you talked to a muslim about US foreign policy?

When was the last time you talked to anyone from the Middle East?

I would be willing to bet a bit of money that the answer to both questions for you is "never", am I right?


Those dudes are the antithesis of every this country stands for and if you in any way think Bush is worse than they are, you are truly clueless.

I don't think Bush is "worse" than Al Qaeda. As I stated previously, I think his and his administration's incompetence has been helping them. What better recruitment poster than the pictures from Abu Gharaib? What better cause celebre than Gitmo?

The worst thing about this is that incompetence is DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of US troops. Bush is too busy with vacations to learn about the rest of the world, and our soldiers die. THAT pisses me off to no end.


I just can't believe how stupid people are that they think our purpose or goals are in any way equal or lesser than those of the Islamic Fundamentalists...

If that's what you think you are clueless dude. And you stand against religious freedoms, political freedom, civils rights, IOW, you stand against all the gains of the Western World in the last 400 years.

Those guys are not a different side of the same coin..

Actually I am a big fan of western culture and thinking. I would also be willing to bet a good chunk of money that I have studied it more than you have. Unless you happen to have a degree in philosophy, heh.

By the same token, as much as I am a fan of the Enlightenment, it is less than intellectually honest not to acknowledge the nasty things that western governments have gotten into, such as slavery, concentration camps (not just german ones), and a host of other nastiness.

The sucky thing about this is that if European governments had actually lived up to those ideals, the world would be a much better place.

[whottt]

I have a better idea than you do.

Answer these TWO questions:

When was the last time you talked to a muslim about US foreign policy?


This morning...and daily to weekly since 1998. My best woman friend is a former Pakistani Muslim. We even dated long ago.


When was the last time you talked to anyone from the Middle East?

Sunday.


I would be willing to bet a bit of money that the answer to both questions for you is "never", am I right?

You'd be wrong about that.




I don't think Bush is "worse" than Al Qaeda. As I stated previously, I think his and his administration's incompetence has been helping them. What better recruitment poster than the pictures from Abu Gharaib? What better cause celebre than Gitmo?

The worst thing about this is that incompetence is DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of US troops. Bush is too busy with vacations to learn about the rest of the world, and our soldiers die. THAT pisses me off to no end.

Less than 2700 troops have died taking out the largest military in the middle east, second largest in the world...and overthrowing an entrenched military dictator.

I don't know what you judge as a successful war, in terms of lives, but I'd like to see it.




Actually I am a big fan of western culture and thinking. I would also be willing to bet a good chunk of money that I have studied it more than you have. Unless you happen to have a degree in philosophy, heh.

I have a degree in Anthropology and minored in World History.


By the same token, as much as I am a fan of the Enlightenment, it is less than intellectually honest not to acknowledge the nasty things that western governments have gotten into, such as slavery, concentration camps (not just german ones), and a host of other nastiness.


Slavery still exists in the mid east to this day. Our slavery came with us from Europe BTW...

And fuck this...Slavery has existed in Africa since time began, and it still exists there to this day.


The sucky thing about this is that if European governments had actually lived up to those ideals, the world would be a much better place.

And on that we agree...

But you do realize that the Europeans don't have the same concepts of Democracy and Equality...it's still a largely aristocratic system.

[DarkReign]

Less than 2700 troops have died taking out the largest military in the middle east, second largest in the world...and overthrowing an entrenched military dictator.

I don't know what you judge as a successful war, in terms of lives, but I'd like to see it.

Iraqs military was not the second largest in the world.

1. China
2. India
3. USA

This indicates Iraq doesnt even rate.Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces)

So, lets see what they say about Iraq (or what used to be Iraq).

29. Iraq

Hell, that is even a sourced number on Wiki. Bonus.


Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq)The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimated the Iraqi armed forces to number 389,000 (army 350,000, navy 2,000, air force 20,000 and air defence 17,000), the paramilitary Fedayeen Saddam 44,000, and reserves 650,000.[40] Another estimate numbers the army and Republican Guard at between 280,000 to 350,000 and 50,000 to 80,000, respectively,[41] and the paramilitary between 20,000 and 40,000.[42] There were an estimated thirteen infantry divisions, ten mechanized and armored divisions, as well as some special forces units. The Iraqi Air Force and Iraqi Navy played a negligible role in the conflict.


One way or the other, obviously the American military is crazy-awesome at kicking the living hell out of any and all comers. This is of no debate.

Occupation and rebuilding....was never a good idea to begin with. I dont give a fuck how the US gets out...just get the fuck out of the region. Let them eat each other alive.

[whottt]

Iraqs military was not the second largest in the world.

1. China
2. India
3. USA

This indicates Iraq doesnt even rate.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces)


Just stop dude...the fact that you think Iraq didn't even rate is an amazingly stupid statement in and of itself.

The Wikipedia Link you just backed it up with....exponentially compounds the abundant stupidity in the first statement. And not just because you used Wikipedia...


So, lets see what they say about Iraq (or what used to be Iraq).

29. Iraq

Hell, that is even a sourced number on Wiki. Bonus.

Oh my god.





One way or the other, obviously the American military is crazy-awesome at kicking the living hell out of any and all comers. This is of no debate.

Occupation and rebuilding....was never a good idea to begin with. I dont give a fuck how the US gets out...just get the fuck out of the region. Let them eat each other alive.

Sigh...

Hey you remember when you called me an internet bully and shit like that even though I never make any threats....

I think you are right, I think you should free yourself from my opinion...

Put me on ignore please and that'll save both of us a lot of the frustation caused by you being stupid.

Left click on my name..select view public profile, then select add whottt to your ignore list.


And good luck in the future...I hear a Wikipedia education backed by not a shred of a common sense and coupled with a complete ignorance of history will take you far in life.

Best wishes and Peace.

[ChumpDumper]

Can't put mods on ignore.

Yoni has tried....

[whottt]

Fuck...I am a mod aren't I....oh well I guess I'll put him on ignore then.

When are you going to change that title you don't care about anyway?

[ChumpDumper]

< How's that?

[cheguevara]

We'd be without 95% of your posts, for starters.


hahahahahaha no shit.

[whottt]

< How's that?

Better....

Nice job of doing as you were told.

[ChumpDumper]

Overplayed the hand.

[whottt]

LMAO...like shooting fish in a barrel.

I wonder what it says about your insecurities that you need to give yourself a title like, "whottt's owner".

[ChumpDumper]

I just did it to piss you off.

[whottt]

Do as you like...as long as whottt stays in the title, you know, for the sake of ownership disputes.

[whottt]

Funny...

[RandomGuy]

[I have and continue to talk to people from the Middle East and other Muslim countries.]

Very cool. Many who like to spout off about "the muslims" don't.


Less than 2700 troops have died taking out the largest military in the middle east, second largest in the world...and overthrowing an entrenched military dictator.

I don't know what you judge as a successful war, in terms of lives, but I'd like to see it.

Here is where you are factually wrong.

Overthrowing Saddam only cost 173 coalition lives. This owes to the excellent military planning of the actual combat.

Blundering during occupation and the criminally negligent post-war planning done by the administration has killed over 2500 of our troops, and permanently injured thousands more. I hold Bush directly responsible for not using a better plan in place for post-war Iraq. The “it-will-be-just-like-France-in-1944” mentality evidenced by remarks from Bush/Cheney in the run up were the danger signal to anybody who had a clue as to what we were getting into that the people in charge were ignorant as to what the occupation would be like.

We were rushed into this by an administration more concerned with scoring points with its own political base than actually understanding the enormity of what was being done.

It took almost a full year of troops welding scrap steel to vehicles before armored humvees were ordered. Rummy said that you go to war with the army you have, and he was right about that. The half of that he missed and won’t be held accountable for is that you plan for what you need before you need it, IF you know what you are doing.

The humvees are just the tip of the iceberg, but a good place to start.



I have a degree in Anthropology and minored in World History.

Then I would have lost my bet.


Slavery still exists in the mid east to this day. Our slavery came with us from Europe BTW...

And fuck this...Slavery has existed in Africa since time began, and it still exists there to this day.

Just because others have done it does not make it right. Moral relativism does not make for good ethics.


But you do realize that the Europeans don't have the same concepts of Democracy and Equality...it's still a largely aristocratic system.

I think that is a bit of an overstatement, but compared to the US, I would say that social mobility is a bit more ossified in Europe.

[DarkReign]

Just stop dude...

[bla bla bla, im God, bla bla bla]

Best wishes and Peace.

Well, BBC disagrees with you as well. Link, drop down menu on the right. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2861985.stm)

Admittedly, Wiki is a weak source based on its user created origin, but usually the info is generally accurate on such trivial matters as this. Its not really much of a science to determine Iraq's total military force.

How bout this, you provide a link that says Iraq was the second largest military in the world, instead of just spouting your opinion endlessly as gospel?

[whottt]

asphinxtersayswhat?


This message is hidden because DarkReign is on your ignore list.

ahh ok

[DarkReign]

OMG? You have me on ignore?

:lmao Thats salty.

[boutons_]

"Less than 2700 troops have died taking out the largest military in the middle east, second largest in the world"

demagogic blog-style bullshit "facts", as Whott is known for.

The Iraqi army totally failed to resist, even show up for the game, in first Gulf War, or in the current Repug phony war.

And what threat was this Iraqi non-army to the USA in 2003? None whatsoever, nor was Iraq. But the Repugs started a phony war for a non-threat. After the first Gulf War plus US/allied monitoring of Iraq, the Iraqi Army was used to maintain Saddam in power, much like the Chinese Army does today, not to threaten neighbors, Europe, or the USA.

More Whott facts to follow ....

And of course, the offical Iraqi Army actually killed very few of those 2700. Most were killed by irregulars and insurgents. So how powerful is the vaunted US military if they can't put down, or defend themselves against, rag-tag insurgents? Muslim terrorists everywhere have been encouraged by the unnecessarily displayed weakness of the mighty US military in trying to stabilize Iraq.

[whottt]

"Less than 2700 troops have died taking out the largest military in the middle east, second largest in the world"

demagogic blog-style bullshit "facts", as Whott is known for.



Uh excuse me?

When and where did I state that was a fact?

If I am stating a fact I'll say it.


And furthermore....

Your tool buddy linked a Wiki page of the current strength of world militaries and used the absence of Iraq on the list as to back his claiim on what the strength of Iraq's military was at the time the Iraq War started....


That was stupid.


Then he turned around and backed the claim with a wiki page on the current size.

And his one quote reveals that the size isn't known...but in fact could have been extremely big.

Since the Republican Guard and the Regular Army are separate, and no one knows the exact size of Fedayeen Saddam...even the quote he used to back his point indicates the military could have been larger than the US...based on the information he provided.

And he thinks he refuted me...

I am supposed to argue with that?


Sorry but that's just annoying.


And don't ever site anything at Wikipedia as fact.





Regardless of what size it was(which is unverifiable due to the fact that Saddam wasn't relasing that information), it was big. That's the point.

The last time the size of Saddam's Army was known it was the 4th largest in the World...with the Russian and US militairies being downsized since that time.




The Iraqi army totally failed to resist, even show up for the game, in first Gulf War, or in the current Repug phony war.

And what threat was this Iraqi non-army to the USA in 2003? None whatsoever, nor was Iraq. But the Repugs started a phony war for a non-threat. After the first Gulf War plus US/allied monitoring of Iraq, the Iraqi Army was used to maintain Saddam in power, much like the Chinese Army does today, not to threaten neighbors, Europe, or the USA.

More Whott facts to follow ....

And of course, the offical Iraqi Army actually killed very few of those 2700. Most were killed by irregulars and insurgents. So how powerful is the vaunted US military if they can't put down, or defend themselves against, rag-tag insurgents? Muslim terrorists everywhere have been encouraged by the unnecessarily displayed weakness of the mighty US military in trying to stabilize Iraq.



Um it's a common belief that the former Iraqi army is now part of the insurgency....

[DarkReign]

Me...and Boutons...buddies?

Jesus...batting 1.000 per usual. Btw, read the previous post. BBC disagrees with you as well whott. Any reputable news agency does, but that doesnt matter, I have 12k posts, RAWR!

Im a veteran, you are not! RAWR!
Im smarter than everyone, you are not! RAWR!

I am whott, hear me RAWR!

[ChumpDumper]

Really? Second largest in the world in 2003?

I couldn't find a ranking for 2003 but I found this
Between 1980 and the summer of 1990 Saddam boosted the number of troops in the Iraqi military from 180,000 to 900,000, creating the fourth-largest army in the world....After the [Gulf] War, the army reduced the numbers of units and personnel, and focused on reconstituting armor and mechanised units with remaining equipment. The number of regular army divisions was cut from seven armored/mechanised and 20 infantry divisions to two or three armor divisions, three mechanised divisions and 11 infantry divisions.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/army.htm

[DarkReign]

Another thing, that wiki article actually has Iraq on it....at #29.

Hes full of bullshit.

[ChumpDumper]

The #29 ranking is an estimate from this year. We're talking about 2002-2003. I'm sure if I dug around Janes or the CSIS sites enough I could find something more, but it looks like Iraq was fielding maybe 30-40% fewer troops in 2002 compared to the Gulf War, when it was #4 in the world. Add to that the effect of the Gulf War and resulting sanctions on their equipment over a decade -- it's difficult to see how they could be #2 in the world in 2003.

[DarkReign]

The #29 ranking is an estimate from this year.

Ahhh. Gotcha. Let me check something....

Well, I dont know its validity, but the author is super credible. LINK (http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/primer-iraq.cfm)


Today, the Iraqi armed forces number approximately 389,000.

If you accept that Wiki article as at least "close", then this number puts them at #13 in the world. That link I found goes into some detail about the dissolution of nearly all Iraq's army and forces after the Gulf War.

[RandomGuy]

I noticed that y'all concetrated on the "second largest army" part and completely missed this part from my above post:



Less than 2700 troops have died taking out the largest military in the middle east, second largest in the world...and overthrowing an entrenched military dictator.

I don't know what you judge as a successful war, in terms of lives, but I'd like to see it.

Here is where you are factually wrong.

Overthrowing Saddam only cost 173 coalition lives. This owes to the excellent military planning of the actual combat.

Blundering during occupation and the criminally negligent post-war planning done by the administration has killed over 2500 of our troops, and permanently injured thousands more. I hold Bush directly responsible for not using a better plan in place for post-war Iraq. The “it-will-be-just-like-France-in-1944” mentality evidenced by remarks from Bush/Cheney in the run up were the danger signal to anybody who had a clue as to what we were getting into that the people in charge were ignorant as to what the occupation would be like.

We were rushed into this by an administration more concerned with scoring points with its own political base than actually understanding the enormity of what was being done.

It took almost a full year of troops welding scrap steel to vehicles before armored humvees were ordered. Rummy said that you go to war with the army you have, and he was right about that. The half of that he missed and won’t be held accountable for is that you plan for what you need before you need it, IF you know what you are doing.

The humvees are just the tip of the iceberg, but a good place to start.
(end excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------

Getting rid of Saddam was the easy part. Any short-bus occupant could have done that with the U.S. military with ease.

The hard part, and the part that really makes BUSH responsible for most of the troop death in Iraq, is the post-war fiasco.

[whottt]

The #29 ranking is an estimate from this year. We're talking about 2002-2003.

Like I said...he's an idiot. That's why he's on ignore now...


I'm sure if I dug around Janes or the CSIS sites enough I could find something more, but it looks like Iraq was fielding maybe 30-40% fewer troops in 2002 compared to the Gulf War, when it was #4 in the world. Add to that the effect of the Gulf War and resulting sanctions on their equipment over a decade -- it's difficult to see how they could be #2 in the world in 2003.


They don't know how big it was...Saddam wasn't telling.


Look, the point is not whether or not Iraq had the second biggest military in the world...gdammit...

The point is that it was fucking big.


Look...even douche bag verified this:




WikiThe International Institute for Strategic Studies estimated the Iraqi armed forces to number 389,000 (army 350,000, navy 2,000, air force 20,000 and air defence 17,000), the paramilitary Fedayeen Saddam 44,000, and reserves 650,000.[40] Another estimate numbers the army and Republican Guard at between 280,000 to 350,000 and 50,000 to 80,000, respectively,[41] and the paramilitary between 20,000 and 40,000.[42] There were an estimated thirteen infantry divisions, ten mechanized and armored divisions, as well as some special forces units. The Iraqi Air Force and Iraqi Navy played a negligible role in the conflict.


Add in the number of reserves, which you have to assume Saddam mobilized and you get a number possibly over a million all deployed within an area smaller than Alaska.....

It was fucking big...


And no one knows exactly what Saddam did with his military post persian gulf war...just like we didn't know about his WMD status.

Add in the fact that the both the Russians and the US downsized...and a case could easily be made that it was the second largest force if not military in the world...but all that is not the fucking point...

The fucking point is that it was big.


Much bigger than the force that routed it.


And it's not like they all surrendered...they just went underground.


The bottom line is that the military action to remove Saddam was among the most efficiently executed military dictator extraction in history....

And the fact that we have still basically been fighting remnants of that military for 3 years now, not to mention all the whackjobs from the other Muslim countries, with under 2700 troops lost, is phenomenal.

You can say we fucked up by not controlling the borders sooner, and could have done a better job prepping for the post Saddam era...

But that doesn't change the fact that militarily the execution has been simply amazing.

And anyone that sites 2700 dead as proof of failure is a fucking idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol If I had a problem with your post, DarkReign, I would've said something.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree that the military performed extremely well given its orders. I fault Rummy's adopting a halfassed invasion strategy that in no small part allowed the formation of the insurgency.
They don't know how big it was...Saddam wasn't telling.But YOU do know, right? That's the funny part.

[whottt]

But YOU do know, right? That's the funny part.

Gdammit it doesn't matter if it's the second biggest...

At worst I am basing my estimation of the size on the last information we did have...at the time of the Persian Gulf War...when it was the 4th largest.

[DarkReign]

...idiot...ignorant....stupid....dumb....moron.... .

I am whott, hear me RAWR!!

[ChumpDumper]

At worst I am basing my estimation of the size on the last information we did have...at the time of the Persian Gulf War...when it was the 4th largest.Did Saddam tell us that?

[whottt]

Did Saddam tell us that?




Between 1980 and the summer of 1990 Saddam boosted the number of troops in the Iraqi military from 180,000 to 900,000, creating the fourth-largest army in the world....


The funny thing is...no one has disproved my offhanded comment it was the second largest lmao.


One dumbass posts links of the size of the military from the post Saddam era...not once but twice, and then posts another source saying it could be well over a million...

And another dumbass shits on his own sources he used to attempt to prove me wrong...


Just goes to show...two dumbasses are no smarter than one.

[ChumpDumper]

The funny thing is...no one has disproved my claim it was the second largest lmao.I have, you just couldn't comprehend it as usual.

If you accept that estimate, why would you not accept any others?

Are all estimates made after 1991 moot?

[DarkReign]

You can say we fucked up by not controlling the borders sooner, and could have done a better job prepping for the post Saddam era...

But that doesn't change the fact that militarily the execution has been simply amazing.

And anyone that sites 2700 dead as proof of failure is a fucking idiot.


One way or the other, obviously the American military is crazy-awesome at kicking the living hell out of any and all comers. This is of no debate.

Ummmmm.....?

[whottt]

I noticed that y'all concetrated on the "second largest army" part and completely missed this part from my above post:




Here is where you are factually wrong.

Overthrowing Saddam only cost 173 coalition lives. This owes to the excellent military planning of the actual combat.


How the fuck am I factually wrong...even when you separate the Saddam removal aspect from the police action...

173 is still <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 2700.


Factually...I am right.

[whottt]

I have, you just couldn't comprehend it as usual.

If you accept that estimate, why would you not accept any others?


Because Pre Gulf War we aided Saddam and were on friendly terms with him while he built his military up.



Post Gulf War we didn't, we weren't and our intelligence in the area declined ...




Are all estimates made after 1991 moot?

Less accurate...and even most of the estimates mention this.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol For some reason you are trying to prove that after being decimated in the Gulf War and not being able to maintain or repair almost half of their equipment for a decade, Iraq somehow leapfrogged India and China to be the 2nd strongest military in the world.

My point is that in 2002 Iraq was nowhere near it's 1991 strength when it was estimated to be #4 or 5 in the world, and no one could have expected them to put up a better fight than they did during the Gulf War.

If you can find any estimate or recovered Iraqi document that proves Iraq was stronger in 2002 than 1991, let's see it. Actually, no, I want to see the #2 ranking. I'm sure you got that number somewhere, right?

[RandomGuy]

How the fuck am I factually wrong...even when you separate the Saddam removal aspect from the police action...

173 is still <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 2700.


Factually...I am right.


Semantics. We both know what you meant. Have the intellectual honesty to admit that, and we can move on to the rest of it, which you have so far sidestepped.

[whottt]

:lol For some reason you are trying to prove that after being decimated in the Gulf War and not being able to maintain or repair almost half of their equipment for a decade, Iraq somehow leapfrogged India and China to be the 2nd strongest military in the world.


Well technically speaking....

I never said they were bigger than China, that would make them biggest...they also aren't as dispersed.


My point is that in 2002 Iraq was nowhere near it's 1991 strength when it was estimated to be #4 or 5 in the world, and no one could have expected them to put up a better fight than they did during the Gulf War.

Except for the fact that ground troops in the Persian Gulf War were barely used...and the objective of Persian Gulf war was to remove an occupying force from Kuwait...while the objective of the Iraq war was go into Iraq and remove Saddam and was much more of a ground war....




If you can find any estimate or recovered Iraqi document that proves Iraq was stronger in 2002 than 1991, let's see it. Actually, no, I want to see the #2 ranking. I'm sure you got that number somewhere, right?


Where did I say "strong"?




Ooops....


And for the billionth time...whether it was second or not was irrelevant to the point I was making.

[ChumpDumper]

Where did I say "strong"?You said second largest in the world.

Ooops....

[whottt]

Semantics. We both know what you meant. Have the intellectual honesty to admit that, and we can move on to the rest of it, which you have so far sidestepped.


I haven't sidestepped anything...I consider the number of troops that have died in all aspects of the Iraq war....to be phenomenally low. Phenomenally.


And I haven't got a fucking clue how anyone could argue otherwise.

[whottt]

You said #2.

Ooops....


I said second largest...

Ooops.

RIF.

STFU.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, I was just about to edit.

Still waiting for the "second largest in the world" source.

And "whottt's ass" doesn't count.

[boutons_]

"the number of troops that have died in all aspect of the Iraq war"

A whole lot of Americans consider each of the 2600 US military lives wasted to be 2600 too many. My bet is that history will, too, sooner rather than later.

[whottt]

Prove it wasn't...I don't think it's a big deal, nor was it central to the point I was making...


You are the simple mind who can't think or focus on anything else because of the moth flying around your head...not I.

Be distracted...however I refuse to take the plunge into stupid dirgression with you.....

[ChumpDumper]

Prove it wasn't.Prove it was. You're the one who claims it was the "second largest in the world." Prove it. I supplied plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Why can't you back up a simple statement you made?

[whottt]

Why can't you back up a simple statement you made?


#1. Because it really has nothing to do with the point I was making.

#2. Because whether it is or isn't doesn't change the point I was making.

#3. Becuse I don't see why your obessive compulsive disorder should result in me googling to prove something A. I never stated or claimed was fact and B. I don't think is important to the point I was making.


Now go soak your head.

[ChumpDumper]

#1. Because it really has nothing to do with the point I was making.Sure it does. You exaggerate for effect all the time. Now when you are called on it you fold like a little bitch. Why should we believe anything you say if you can't back up your "fact" that you threw in for effect.
#2. Because whether it is or isn't doesn't change the point I was making.HOW you make your point is just as important. You're shitting all over your credibility by just pulling stuff like that out of your ass and, now, refusing to admit that you pulled it out of your ass.
#3. Becuse I don't see why your obessive compulsive disorder should result in me googling to prove something A. I never stated or claimed was fact and B. I don't think is important to the point I was making.So now you admit you pulled it out of your ass, but hope to disguise it by insulting me.

You fucked up, Hootie. Congratulations.

[whottt]

in sulphuric acid

[whottt]

Sure it does. You exaggerate for effect all the time.

Ahhh the irony.


Now when you are called on it you fold like a little bitch.

Who is folding?


Why should we believe anything you say if you can't back up your "fact" that you threw in for effect.HOW you make your point is just as important. You're shitting all over your credibility by just pulling stuff like that out of your ass and, now, refusing to admit that you pulled it out of your ass.So now you admit you pulled it out of your ass, but hope to disguise it by insulting me.

I never said it was a fact...




You fucked up, Hootie. Congratulations.

LMAO...so did douchebag #1 when he cited current military numbers to refute the state of Saddam's army.

As well as douchebag #2 when he claimed I said "strong" and further when he shit on his own 4th largest in the world sources...


What makes me better than you two is that I at no point tried to claim it was fact...

You attempted and are attempting to get me to argue from the position as if I did, and the funny thing is both of you have done nothing but trip over your own dicks trying to factually disprove something I never claimed was fact ...


to which I respond..fuck you, clown.

[ChumpDumper]

LMAO...so did douchebag #1 when he cited current military numbers to refute the state of Saddam's army. And he was man enough to admit he was mistaken when I ponted it out to him.
As well as douchebag #2 when he claimed I said "strong" and further when he shit on his own 4th largest in the world sources.I admit I was wrong about "strong" - and I didn't shit on any of my sources. I accept that Iraq had the fourth or fifth largest army in the world at the time of the Gulf War, just as I accept the same army was much smaller in 2002. It's easy enough to back up. Now that I ask you to back up your claim that Iraq had the second largest army in the world in 2002, you whine and bitch. Just prove it. Should be easy for someone like you.
What makes me better than you two is that I at no point tried to claim it was fact...Then what do you claim it to be?

Why did you even say it?

[whottt]

Ahhh it was something I thought to be true obviously, you fucking tool, how hard is that to figure...but at no point did I claim I was certain it was true...and that is important.

And again..dickhead, it doesn't change the point I was trying to make...shithead.


But since you guys have elected to make it the central point...the burden to disprove is on you.

[ChumpDumper]

Ahhh it was something I thought to be true obviously, how hard is that to figure...but at no point did I claim I was certain it was true...and that is important.So where did you get that idea? And why didn't you just say so before melting down?
But since you guys have elected to make it the central point...the burden to disprove is on you.Nah, you have to prove it.

[whottt]

So where did you get that idea?

Well to tell you the truth I believe I confused 4th largest at the time of the Persian Gulf with second largest Oil Reserves...

I figured he had over a million men, something that actually hasn't been disproven when taking into account reserves, the Fedayeen Saddam and who knwos what else he had...

Add to that the fact that the US and Russian militaries downsized quite a bit in the 90's...and it's not hard to reach that conclusion...

Everyone knows China is the biggest...and I was uncertain of the size of Indias...I just never think military when thinking of India.

I at no point claimed they had superior weaponry..



And why didn't you just say so before melting down?Nah, you have to prove it.


Um...I melted down because

#1. Whether or ot not it is second in no way changes the impressiveness of the US removing Saddam weighed against the loss of life it took to do so.

#2. Because the idiot that challenged it...
A. Cited fucking Wikipedia
B. Cited current military numbers...not once, but twice...


and the only thing he cited from the Saddam era actually destroyed the other numbers he was citing...since the Saddam era quote he had does allow for the militay to have been well over a million.

He was citing fact...and he did it stupidly. He couldn't even fucking read the fucking page he was looking at evidentally.


How the fuck was I supposed to respond to a dumbass...one I have had heated words with previously.

[ChumpDumper]

Well to tell you the truth I believe I confused 4th largest at the time of the Persian Gulf with second largest Oil Reserves...Was that so hard?
He was citing fact...and he did it stupidly. He couldn't even fucking read the fucking page he was looking at evidentally.Well, he did an immediate about face when I told him. All I had to do was check the notes. That number at least was well-sourced.
How the fuck was I supposed to respond to a dumbass...one I have had heated words with previously.Count to ten?

[Condemned 2 HelLA]

"Less than 2700 troops have died taking out the largest military in the middle east, second largest in the world"

See if that statistic makes the friends and families of the ones who died feel any better.

[ChumpDumper]

I will make an observation about the number of dead. Simply using the total dead stat doesn't tell the whole story since medical advances and the quicker access to care for the wounded soldier in the field has cut down the mortality of battlefield wounds.
Though firepower has increased, lethality has decreased. In World War II, 30 percent of the Americans injured in combat died.3 In Vietnam, the proportion dropped to 24 percent. In the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, about 10 percent of those injured have died. At least as many U.S. soldiers have been injured in combat in this war as in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, or the first five years of the Vietnam conflict, from 1961 through 1965 (see table). This can no longer be described as a small or contained conflict. But a far larger proportion of soldiers are surviving their injuries.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2471

We are better at keeping our own men alive as well as being better at killing the enemy.

[RandomGuy]

I haven't sidestepped anything...I consider the number of troops that have died in all aspects of the Iraq war....to be phenomenally low. Phenomenally.


And I haven't got a fucking clue how anyone could argue otherwise.

Um, ok. Your comment implied that the casualties up until now were "to remove Saddam from power". If we had just done that and left the figure would have been around 175.

I would say that the casualty figures since the fall of Baghdad have been MUCH higher than they should have been, had any reasonable, competant post-war planning been done. I have no problem whatsoever with the planning for the nation-to-nation fight that ended with Saddam's ouster.

Is it your contention that the US-occupation of Iraq been executed well?

On an analytical level, does it make sense to lump together the actual nation-to-nation fighting that toppled Saddam, and the growing insurgency?

Did the war plan from the administration include having to fight a prolonged and growing insurgency for 3+ years after Saddam was deposed?

[RandomGuy]

To be sure, Iraq had a large army. Quibbling over the ranking is a bit silly. The only thing I find odd is that the figure included "reserves" of some 600,000+. I don't think any credible analysis would really include that figure in calculating what could feasibly be fielded by 2003 Iraq.

Intelligence may have declined in the period from 1991 to 2003, but there was some very good solid proof in the form of defectors that gave very good, detailed, accounts about the condition of that military force. In 1991 we had good intelligence, and after that the military numbers probably didn't go up much even though we knew he was diverting the oil-for-food money to his military.

The larger, and more militarily pertinant question is how combat-ready and willing that force was. Given the Mother of all Surrenders in 1991, it was reasonable to assume that the majority of the military would do exactly what it did: as soon as the cowardly officers were out of sight, change into civies and walk home.

[whottt]

See if that statistic makes the friends and families of the ones who died feel any better.


That statistic wasn't mentioned by me to make the friends and families of the ones who died feel any better...it was to judge the success of a military liberation compared to otherrs.

You are obviously too young and sensitive to handle an adult discussion...

I suggest taking a fucking hike to the kiddie forum and stay out of this one...you might get nightmares if you stay here.


PS...there's no Santa Clause either, dipshit.

Damn...now I feel mean.


Oh yeah...you gonna die someday motherfucker and they aaint a fucking thing you can do about it.

Ok I feel better now.

[whottt]

Um, ok. Your comment implied that the casualties up until now were "to remove Saddam from power". If we had just done that and left the figure would have been around 175.

175 is even more impressive than 2700.




I would say that the casualty figures since the fall of Baghdad have been MUCH higher than they should have been, had any reasonable, competant post-war planning been done.

Maybe...maybe not. The figure is low when you consider we are still basically fighting the Iraq military...not to mention Al Qaeda and what other sociopathic fucks have crawled out of the gutter there.




Is it your contention that the US-occupation of Iraq been executed well?

On an analytical level, does it make sense to lump together the actual nation-to-nation fighting that toppled Saddam, and the growing insurgency?

On an anlytical level the two can be tied together...




Did the war plan from the administration include having to fight a prolonged and growing insurgency for 3+ years after Saddam was deposed?


Well you are a liberal...what did you think was going to happen when we went into Iraq?


Let me guess...you were jumping for joy because you believed it was going to be easy right?

My head wasn't in the sand, was yours?



If you are a liberal who did think was going to be easy and was therefore in favor of it...

Where in the hell did you come up with that from?


It's going to take as long as it takes...and the bigger war is going to take decades. As long as it takes...

And I'll say something else...I am not necessarily a big time Bush guy...I just like him better than anything you guys are offering up...

It took a colossal fuck up to lose the last election...but you guys managed to pull it off...and it looks like ya'll are on track to do it yet again.

Oh...and who said it was supposed to be easy?

[whottt]

Was that so hard?

No...if I'd been certain I damn sure would have defended it vociferously...I didn't...I just got annoyed with the badly handled attempts to refute a sidebar...and I never said it was fact.

In the future...if you'd like detailed insight into the mind of a genius...just ask...don't beat around the Liberal...







Well, he did an immediate about face when I told him.

Doesn't change the fact the he's a dipshit.



That number at least was well-sourced.

:wtf...



Count to ten?

I did...and he was still stupid when I finished.

[Guru of Nothing]

I have a better idea than you do.

Answer these TWO questions:

When was the last time you talked to a muslim about US foreign policy?

When was the last time you talked to anyone from the Middle East?

I would be willing to bet a bit of money that the answer to both questions for you is "never", am I right?

Where were you the last time you spoke to a Muslim? Describe the environment.

Have you traveled to the Middle East?

I'm merely curious. Please don't think I am being antagonistic.

Thanks.

[ChumpDumper]

:wtf...The number he got in the wiki article had a link to its source, which is how I could tell the year that it was estimating; some of the numbers didn't have their sources linked.

[RandomGuy]

175 is even more impressive than 2700.

Yes it is. It also makes the 2500+ casualties fighting an insurgency that has been excerbated by administration blundering all the more inexcusable.


Maybe...maybe not. The figure is low when you consider we are still basically fighting the Iraq military...not to mention Al Qaeda and what other sociopathic fucks have crawled out of the gutter there.

No we aren't "basically fighting the Iraqi military". This is a very common misconception among those who think Iraq is/was a good idea. I would simply point out that we rounded up almost all of the "deck of cards" bunch within a few months, and that Zarkawi was not an Iraqi (Jordanian), as are most of the suicide bombers.

The insurgency is being fueled not by Saddam loyalists, but rather by high unemployment, boredom, and no small number of non-Iraqi nutjobs who suddenly have an easy chance to kill Americans. This is according to the US military.


On an anlytical level the two can be tied together...

Not if you want to declare a victory of some sort. We did indeed get rid of Saddam, but ended up with a much more intractable problem, as well as a strengthened Al Qaeda.

A victory in one sense, and a loss in another.


Well you are a liberal...what did you think was going to happen when we went into Iraq?
Let me guess...you were jumping for joy because you believed it was going to be easy right?
My head wasn't in the sand, was yours?

I knew that exactly what would happen. The problem is that the people in charge not only had no clue, but actively dismissed those who did. That screams negligence on the part of the administration.


If you are a liberal who did think was going to be easy and was therefore in favor of it...

Where in the hell did you come up with that from?

I knew the whole thing had a very high chance of being a fiasco. I knew that the easy part would be invading Iraq and deposing Saddam. I also knew that the post-war construction would be very hard. The sucky thing about it was that I was also pretty sure that this administration wasn't up to that task. It was like a train wreck that you can see coming, but can't do anything about.


It's going to take as long as it takes...and the bigger war is going to take decades. As long as it takes...

And I'll say something else...I am not necessarily a big time Bush guy...I just like him better than anything you guys are offering up...

It took a colossal fuck up to lose the last election...but you guys managed to pull it off...and it looks like ya'll are on track to do it yet again.

Oh...and who said it was supposed to be easy?

I agree with you on all points here. I wasn't the only democrat who inwardly groaned when Kerry got the nod, and who is really cheesed with the national leadership of the Democratic party for f***ing things up on a continual basis.

I kind of like the brutal satire of the last election done by the two guys who write "South Park" on comedy central. The kids in the South Park elementary had an election for class president, but instead of real candidates, they were forced to choose between a "giant douchebag" and a "turd sandwich".
I don't remember which of them won. :lol