Tonight I listened to all of the top Military Brass try to explain the readiness of our Military in the hot zones.I listened to 5 Democrates and I don't believe one of those SOB's have a clue what their job is.I did notice General Cody stated that at least 10 yrs before the War the Military had been under-funded by at least 40%.And soon after that Gene Taylor (D) Mississippi tried to grill him with no avail.

Democracy in action. Or should I say 'democraps' in action?

Too bad we can't take a congressman/woman and put them on the front lines with a weapon so they can really see what's going on out there. This is a direct result from how insulated they are from reality.

You can look on both sides of the two party system and see that.

You are right Harry about both sides but in Nov.2006 I took the stand wait and see about changes but 16 resolutions later and they have did nothing except imbolden the enemy.I have been a Democrate all of my life we don't have a party anymore we have a party so far to the left it looks like a Nationalist Party.We have a complete Congress that is totaly igornant to the USA.I agree with what General Cody said last night it seems that the only one who understands & believes in their misson in Iraq is our Military .I find it sad that the very people killing our Military does not have one clue and I am not refeering to the enemy but the rich people in Wasington DC.

Sully1 we got plenty of room in the conserv. repub. party

Hey- Coachman how are you.I guess I have kinda been there since Rolling Thunder and any of those start stop things we had going on.

Well to be honest the democrats are actually pretty centrist right now, and it's the republicans are the extremists. Some of the proposals I've heard from the Bush administration and republican congressman have me checking the year on my calendar. I don't really like the democrats a whole lot either, I just like them better than the republicans. And after the awful handling of the war by a republican administration I'm being very doubtful that the republicans can handle war any better.

geez son, just what are you basing this stance on? The very fact that we are still there? For christ sake, the defeat of an entire nations military force in less time that it takes to fix the sewer in any downtown street!
Are you of the opinion that with the flip of a switch that a democracy can be stood up overnight? That we can rebuild all of the infrastructure so that the people of that nation can at least have water and electricity and the basics we all take for granted? At the same time we have outside insurgents blowing us up with IEDs and such? Gimme a break.

You could at least acknowledge the real accomplishments made by the Bush administration.

Gunny, I for one think that the peace is what we tend to handle badly. We are relying on the military to perform a diplomatic mission that the State Department seems incapable of performing. I understand that it takes time to form and stabilize a new government but I truly believe that it came as a surprise to some of the people in charge (not the military).

We should have increased the size of the military and deployed enough troops to keep the peace in a more acceptable manner. Our troops are doing an excellent job with the resources that have been made available to them but it is impossible to have a war on the cheap.

I give the Bush Administration full credit for the war in Afghanistan but think that Iraq has had a negative effect on that mission.

The new leadership at the Department of Defense in refreshing and appears to have the backing of both parties (the people with brains) and I hope that things will change for the better.

The leadership of the Democratic Party is pandering to the polls and not leading in a responsible manner (not unlike the Republicans have done) and are becoming a snake without a head. Maybe we should just have a declaration of war approved by congress the next time we want to commit troops to a long-term action. We have not done that since WW2.

Harry, I hear you, but in all honesty, I don't think that it would have mattered one bit had a democratic administration had been in office, we would still be experiencing the exact same situations we are dealing with today. This was one of those things that couldn't be factored in beforehand. There wasn't any crystal ball handy for the administration, regardless of political affiliation to predict with any degree of accuracy events that transpired. Sure there are scenerios, tons of them and most were analyzed front to back, but all those fly right out the window at the first bullet or bomb dropped. Prior to this war, there were no indications that we would need large quantities of armored humvee's, or that our soldiers body armor wasn't filling the needs of the troops. Our previous wars and conflicts were always with a defined military force, not those that hide within the crowd of civilians and blend right into the population.

Hindsight is only good for one thing, and that is for future invasions or military actions. If folks think that the Bush Adminstration hasn't learned from all this then they are flat out wrong.

Don't misunderstand, I don't and haven't blindly followed the Bush administration on everything, I just feel they did the best they could do under the circumstances. We weren't the ones in the hot seat making the hard decisions when they needed to be made. I refuse to criticize the administration for the most part, simply because they at least took direct and forcefull action. This was distictly lacking in more than a few adminstrations before President Bush took office.

As for the opinions of some of the youngsters in here, hey they are entitled to them, I just don't agree with these types of assertions, especially when it's pretty much word for word from some democratic political hack making a name for himself. These FNG's are more than welcome to engage on these subjects, but more often than not, they won't pick up the gauntlet.

Gunny my opinions are my own, and my own alone, I do not get them from "democratic hacks." I am saying that the war was handled badly in that we rushed in far to fast and for the wrong reasons (downing street memos anyone?). The taking down of the iraqi military wasn't what I'm critisizing, it's his inability to know how to rebuild a country. A mean he doesn't even have competitive bidding for many contracts, what is up with that! I never said that afghanistan was doing badly, it was an actual threat and things aren't going nearly as bad there. I never expected democracies to just be raised overnight, but Bush has shown he has very little if any understanding of the cultural situation in there. I also dislike how fast he went to war with a country that had not connection to the 9/11 attacks whatsoever. And mostly it is the bush administrations complete lack of care about allies. Besides australia and england, we don't have any of any significance. But to be honest bush's foreign policy hasn't been that awful, he's done an pretty good job in afgahnistan I really gotta say, I just dislike the bush administration more for it's economic and social policies more than it's foreign policies.

Gunny - you may well be right about a Democratic administration being no better but I do recall warnings from people in the military about have too few troops.

My niece said that she truly disliked everything about the Iraqis and she is a very easy going kid. Maybe it is that old sow’s ear problem.

Hyperion
You stated that you are critizing President Bush because he doesn't know how to build a new democratic nation in short order, ok, provide us a name of someone that you think can do this.

In case you didn't know this, Iraq was the next friendly location for the Taliban to regroup after Afganistan. We had more than enough evidence concerning weapons of mass destruction being held, produced by Saddass, and his williness to use them. Just because we didn't find a stockpile of nukes doesn't mean WMD's don't exist or were there at some point. Most likely they were buried at a yet unknown location in Iraq or they were transfered to a neighboring country such as Somaila. Uncounted tons of materials are known to have been moved cross borders to Syria to points unknown.

As for the competitive bids? Just how many companies do you think had the capability and or capacity to even venture into this arena? Can probably count them on one finger.....

As for our Allies? Your statement makes little sense. Why do you think these allies stay the course with us on this? Could it be that they have as much or more to lose should we fail? Damn skippy they do.

As I stated eariler, hindsight is good for only one thing, and that's for the next event or conflict. When has your armchair quarterbacking ever resulted in a score for YOUR team during the Superbowl? Think about it.

Harry

Line up an Iraqi, Iranian, Arab, Kuwaiti, Bahrainian, Lebanonese, Syrian, Afgani. (next to impossible task without bloodshed!!) Or take a picture of each and compare them side by side. What are the physical differences?
Next to none.

Even the cultures of each are very close to one another. All that goes out the window when one introduces religeon into the mix.

If your niece has never met one in person, and her only experieces of an Iraqi citizen is what is reported on the news, then......well you know as well as I, there are good and bad in all the various peoples of the world.

Gunny - she is an Army MP (staff sergeant) and did her year in 2004 (I believe). At one time they even had her living with Marine female officers because of a lack of accomidations. I am convinced that is how she got her tattoo!

At her age, I doubt she watches the news.

Ha! gotta watch them split-tail zero's! Then her experiences with them is pretty well founded, but understandable considering how the Islamic people consider women notice. For them seeing a woman with a weapon and in position of authority is no doubt the main reason for the types of reaction she received from them.

Knowing the cultural differences involving our women and placing them in positions like that was in my opinion a failure by our military planners. They didn't need to be there and they still don't need to be there.

Gunny I completely disagree in multiple areas, first of all there was evidence he had them 15 years ago, but little to suggest he still had them. And how does my statement on allies make little sense? I was saying we are sorely lacking in that department, what you're saying has nothing to do with it. Also on competitive bidding your argument makes no sense if there is even more than one company that can do it, competitive bidding will help immensely. Also Saddam didn't LIKE Osama, saddam was a secular leader that Osama condemned, they had tried to work together but it fell apart because one was religous and one was not. Iraq had no ties to the taliban or islamic terrorist organizations, because he was a secular leader, just the kind they hate! I'd say that I believe that Al Gore would have done a better job in Iraq, to name just one person. Oh and finally in reference to your last statement, I don't usually watch football so I wouldn't know.