We Should Have Won This One

Discussion in 'Iraq' started by rayboyusmc, Feb 23, 2008.

  1. rayboyusmc
    Offline

    rayboyusmc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    4,015
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +338
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,599
    Thanks Received:
    5,913
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,029
  3. DeadCanDance
    Offline

    DeadCanDance Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,414
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +127
    Naturally, alleged GunnySarge didn't read it, and has nothing of substance to add.

    Rayboy, that was the best damn article I've ever read on the Afghanistan War. Thanks.
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,599
    Thanks Received:
    5,913
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,029
    We were never going to send large numbers of American troops to Afghanistan. The whole point was NOT to send large numbers so as to NOT piss off the locals. Further the types of troops we needed for the terrain involved were not and still are not available.

    Afghanistan is a NATO mission. Any failure there is the fault of NATO. To be more specific the fault of the lackadasical approach taken by Countries that refuse to allow their troops to fight anyone. The French and German come to mind.

    Any heavy handed action we took or take in Afghanistan is counter productive.
     
  5. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    and the heavy handed action we took and take in Iraq ISN'T????? :rofl:
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,599
    Thanks Received:
    5,913
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,029
    Neither here nor there in this thread. Or are you trolling?
     
  7. DeadCanDance
    Offline

    DeadCanDance Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,414
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +127
    LOL

    So keeping a small footprint in afghanistan to not piss the locals off, but surging more troops into Iraq will help.

    LOL

    The gyrations Bush lovers have to jump through to justify their hero's incompetence
     
  8. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    bingo
     
  9. DeadCanDance
    Offline

    DeadCanDance Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,414
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +127
    This post was so funny, I had to address it point by point.

    You say we need a small footprint in afghanistan to not piss off the locals. But, you were in favor of surging more and more troops into Iraq. That's hilarious.

    Given that you were COMPLETELY misinformed about current US military posture in the Balkans, I give your knowledge of the state of the american military a grade of F minus. Sorry, I'm not taking your word for anything on military matters.

    I see. When it looked like Bush had achieved a glorious victory in afganistan in December 2001, Bush got all the credit from you, not NATO. Seven years later, as Bush loses a second war, it's NATO's fault. Defending Bush to the last day, I see.

    Sorry, blaming germany and france for your president's failure won't cut it. If anyone's been lackadaisical and taken their eye off the ball, it's your president. Who diverted us into invading a country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11. If he'd focused on Afghanistan, we might have salvaged something. He's the Leader of NATO by default. And we were the one's who were attacked, NATO was just along for the ride.

    This is the most hilarious statement in the post. You think occupying Iraq with 150,000 troops doesn't piss people off?
     
  10. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,599
    Thanks Received:
    5,913
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,029
    Your knowledge of military and foreign affairs could be inscribed on the head of a pin. Your insistance that Iraq and Afghanistan are one and the same are the hillarious part.

    The simple fact , one that Maineman knows full well, is that there NEVER would have been a large presence of American troops in Afghanistan regardless of Iraq or any other war or non war.

    Our mechanized military is totally unsuited to fight in that terrain to begin with and our special troops are small. Further these troops are hampered by political decisions imposed by all sides of the political spectrum. We lost all but one member of a crack Seal Team because of political arrangements.
     

Share This Page