Reply #26 April 19, 2006 2:50 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

#25 by COL Gene Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Moderateman That note is Bush and Rummy are responsible for the death of 2370 Americans and 17,500 combat injuries. That sounds like a VERY sour note to me!

I agree with you on this point, as every President since we have been a republic that has sent troops off to war is responsible for the deaths of our fighting men and women.

Ultimately the buck stops at the oval office, always.

Reply #27 April 19, 2006 3:11 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

#17 by Bahu Virupaksha Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Wow, I am impressed. Nicely well said.

That note is Bush and Rummy are responsible for the death of 2370 Americans and 17,500 combat injuries. That sounds like a VERY sour note to me!

Col, your a waste of internet space. Even the most ignorant of people know this is true. But neither you nor anyone on this planet could say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that with more troops in Iraq that this many or more soldiers would not have died. When fighting a war against an enemy that does not play by the rules death will always occur on the side of those who play by the rules. Take that Colonel, this coming from someone who has no military experience.

For a guy who claims to speak for "The Vast Majority Of American" I have yet to see a report that says that everyone or almost everyone thinks this way.

Gong, gong, gong, gong, gong.

Reply #28 April 19, 2006 3:17 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

27 by Charles.C Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Gong, gong, gong, gong, gong.

I see you too hear the same sour one note from gene . heh

but it's more like a ding, ding, ding. heh heh heh

Reply #29 April 19, 2006 3:57 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

CharlesC.

We did not lose the vast majority in the battle to depose Saddam. We lost the majority because we did not establish and maintain control over the factions in Iraq after the Government fell. That is because we did not have a 1/3 of the troops that the military believed essential to establish and maintain security. That is the fault of Bush and Rumsfeld who have NO experience or basis for setting the troop levels needed to control that country.

In addition, we attacked a country that presented NO danger to the United States and therefore had we not invaded in the first place we would have ZERO deaths and injuries in Iraq! That is because of Bush!

Reply #30 April 19, 2006 4:13 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

29 by COL Gene Wednesday, April 19, 2006

not establish and maintain control over the factions in Iraq after the Government fell. That is because we did not have a 1/3 of the troops that the military believed essential to establish and maintain security.

tommy franks said he had enough, or do you just read and listen to generals that trash Bush? silly question. Of course you pay no attention to anything said that might support Bush, what color is the sky in your bizzaro world?

Reply #31 April 19, 2006 4:34 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Moderateman

You better look at the facts. The plan called for just under 500,000 troops. Under pressure from Rumsfeld, Franks said he could cut it to 385,000 in December 2001. Rumsfeld would not accept that number and Franks brought the number down to 300,000. Under even more pressure the final number Franks said was essential was 275,000. Bush and Rumsfeld sent 150,000.

The Army Chief of Staff, Gen Zinni who was Frank’s predecessor and Gen Powell before that said the number in Op Plan 1003-98 which was just short of 500,000 was what was needed.

The U S had 495,000 troops in the first Gulf War in a smaller country with far less people to control. Iraq is a country of 24 million people, about 400,000 former Saddam military that were still in Iraq after Saddam fell in a country the size of California.

Let’s call a spade a spade. The reason that Bush and Rumsfeld did not provide the troop levels that the military said was needed was they did not want to take the time to build our force to a size that could provide and support that number. There was no urgency to attack in March 2003 except that Bush wanted to invade with out delay. This was not a war forced on our country and the urgency or the need was NOT present. Thus we went to war and have risked the lives of our military without just reason to satisfy George W. Bush! The proof that the military was correct as to the numbers can be scene EVERY DAY in Iraq.

Reply #32 April 19, 2006 4:44 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

All you that support Bush and Rumsfeld treat our military as Cannon Fader. There are 2,370 dead American military and 17,500 combat injured and as much as a Trillion dollies wasted on a WAR THAT DID NOT HAVE TO BE! I have a Hell of a lot more respect for the lives of our military then to sacrifice them to fight in a war against a country that was no threat to the United States. In March 2003 Saddam could not have mounted an attack against an ROTC unit much less the United States of America.

Reply #33 April 19, 2006 4:44 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Let’s call a spade a spade

WE HAVE BEEN! We've been calling you a ding-bat all along! ding, ding, ding, ding....ding-bat!

Reply #34 April 19, 2006 4:59 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Drmiler

No you are calling the most senior military leaders ding-bats. Look in the mirror- you are ALL that you call others.

Reply #35 April 19, 2006 5:38 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Drmiler No you are calling the most senior military leaders ding-bats. Look in the mirror- you are ALL that you call others.

I don't think so. Number one I haven't called "anyone" a ding-bat except for you I save such remarks very strictly for you and those like you. And we've had this discussion before. I have verifiable IQ of 130, want to match wits? Bring it on ding-bat!

Reply #36 April 19, 2006 5:39 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: COL GenePosted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006DrmilerNo you are calling the most senior military leaders ding-bats. Look in the mirror- you are ALL that you call others.

no the most senior leaders Franks and meyers said Bush did the right thing!!! why can't you just admit it's your blind hatred for bush that rules all your thinking!!

Reply #37 April 19, 2006 5:47 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Why do you even bother trying to get through to colgene? He is obviously not going to listen to any thoughts but his own, no matter how much proof you offer.

Reply #38 April 19, 2006 5:54 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

37 by spindoctor (Anonymous user) Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Why do you even bother trying to get through to colgene? He is obviously not going to listen to any thoughts but his own, no matter how much proof you offer.

one can only hope to reach him, I really am concerned at the depth of his hatred, Secret Service should be keeping an eye on him. IMO

Reply #39 April 19, 2006 5:56 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

When you explain the 2,370 dead and the 17,500 combat injuries that DID NOT have to happen, I will be glad to listen. Those dead and injured Americans say Bush and Rumsfeld were wrong.

Drmiler Since I am in agreement with most of the senior military officers, when you disagree with me you also disagree with them. Please list your military experience and training?

Reply #40 April 19, 2006 5:57 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

When you explain the 2,370 dead and the 17,500 combat injuries that DID NOT have to happen, I will be glad to listen. Those dead and injured Americans say Bush and Rumsfeld were wrong.

Drmiler Since I am in agreement with most of the senior military officers, when you disagree with me you also disagree with them. Please list your military experience and training?

Reply #41 April 19, 2006 5:58 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

no the most senior leaders Franks and meyers said Bush did the right thing!!! why can't you just admit it's your blind hatred for bush that rules all your thinking!!

You and I BOTH said it before.....ding, ding, ding, ding, and I finished it. He's a ding-bat.

Reply #42 April 19, 2006 5:58 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: spindoctor(Anonymous User)Posted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 Why do you even bother trying to get through to colgene? He is obviously not going to listen to any thoughts but his own, no matter how much proof you offer.

I must acknowledge your fast learning.  None of us are perfect, but automatons are just a slot machine with only one outcome! MM is Don Quixote.  He has earned that right.

Reply #43 April 19, 2006 6:02 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Drmiler

I have no idea about you IQ but I do know your comments on this Blog site show you know nothing about the Military, Economics or Financial Management.

Reply #44 April 19, 2006 6:23 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

#42 by Dr. Guy Wednesday, April 19, 2006

! MM is Don Quixote

tooooooooo dreammmmmmmmmmmmmmm the imposible dreammmmmmm, to fightttttt the unbeatable foeeeeeeeeeeeeee....

Reply #45 April 19, 2006 7:25 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

40 by COL Gene Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Please list your military experience and training?

how about you listing your combat experence? wounds received, how many you see die from combat? How about just led men into combat?

Reply #46 April 19, 2006 7:53 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Drmiler I have no idea about you IQ but I do know your comments on this Blog site show you know nothing about the Military, Economics or Financial Management.

No, what I don't know is "your" version of the military, "your" version of economics, or "YOUR" version of financial management. And I would dare say "your" versions are not in line with a lot of other peoples versions either. Now answer MM's military questions or shut the hell up.

Reply #47 April 19, 2006 8:24 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

My versions are what succeed. They are what get the job done. I have proven that over 40 years. You do not tell me to do anything.

Reply #48 April 19, 2006 8:29 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

47 by COL Gene Wednesday, April 19, 2006

My versions are what succeed. They are what get the job done. I have proven that over 40 years. You do not tell me to do anything.

typical of YOU to ignore my simple request about your experence. that is what we talk about how YOU ignore things, then expect us to answer your every question.

Reply #49 April 19, 2006 8:39 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

All I know is I'm going to hear the "Donald" Rumsfield after all. He's speaking at my sons' college graduation next month. I'll take notes and share with you all!!

Reply #50 April 19, 2006 8:45 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Moderateman

I will respond to a request. I will not respond to a demand such as drmiler made.

I was not assigned to combat in Vietnam much to my surprise. From 1964-1968 I was regular Army and thought in 1966 I was to be assigned to the 4th Div. As it turned out, my assignment as a nuclear weapons officer and the very sensitive information I obtained prevented my assignment anywhere where I might be captured. I did not learn that until 1986 when I was not selected for promotion to BG. I held most staff positions and had three commands. Two commands were LTC slots and one was a COL position. I was a Field Artillery Officer from 1963-1966. I then became a Finance Officer. I was recalled in 1981 to head the team that redesigned the Military Pay System for the Army Guard and Reserve. I had a total of 6 years on active duty and 24 years in the Active Reserve.