Reply With Quote
hahahahahaha no .
< How's that?
hahahahahaha no .
Better....
Nice job of doing as you were told.
Overplayed the hand.
LMAO...like shooting fish in a barrel.
I wonder what it says about your insecurities that you need to give yourself a le like, "whottt's owner".
I just did it to piss you off.
Do as you like...as long as whottt stays in the le, you know, for the sake of ownership disputes.
Funny...
Very cool. Many who like to spout off about "the muslims" don't.
Here is where you are factually wrong.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.
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.
Then I would have lost my bet.I have a degree in Anthropology and minored in World History.
Just because others have done it does not make it right. Moral relativism does not make for good ethics.Slavery still exists in the mid east to this day. Our slavery came with us from Europe BTW...
And this...Slavery has existed in Africa since time began, and it still exists there to this day.
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.But you do realize that the Europeans don't have the same concepts of Democracy and Equality...it's still a largely aristocratic system.
Well, BBC disagrees with you as well. Link, drop down menu on the right.
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?
asphinxtersayswhat?
ahh ok
OMG? You have me on ignore?
Thats salty.
"Less than 2700 troops have died taking out the largest military in the middle east, second largest in the world"
demagogic blog-style bull "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.
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....
Last edited by whottt; 08-09-2006 at 10:01 AM.
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!
Really? Second largest in the world in 2003?
I couldn't find a ranking for 2003 but I found thishttp://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../iraq/army.htmBetween 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 recons uting 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.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 08-09-2006 at 11:20 AM.
Another thing, that wiki article actually has Iraq on it....at #29.
Hes full of bull .
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.
Ahhh. Gotcha. Let me check something....
Well, I dont know its validity, but the author is super credible. LINK
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.
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.
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.
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 ing big.
Look...even bag verified this:
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 ing 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 ing point...
The ing 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 ed 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 ing idiot.
If I had a problem with your post, DarkReign, I would've said something.
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.But YOU do know, right? That's the funny part.They don't know how big it was...Saddam wasn't telling.
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.
...idiot...ignorant....stupid....dumb....moron.... .
I am whott, hear me RAWR!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
