Togo Wants Bush to Overthrow Their Leader...

[BVS]

How poorly executed was this war? I mean in comparison to oter millitary actions over the centuries the Iraq was was very sucessful even by todays standards. The regime and army was toppled in under a month, civilian casualties were low for an operation of this size, the scenarios of massive humanitarian disasters involving hundreds of thousands of refugees didn't eventuate, the Republican Guard was unable to mount any proper operations against coalition forces and a counter-insurgeny campaign has been waged for two years with under 1500 KIA. Not to mention the work that has been done fixing up the country - building schools, infrastructure and the like as well as the elections which saw a decent turnout.

Things have gone wrong in this war, in retrospect some decisions created problems now (such as disbanding the Iraqi army ~ but if it had been kept then we would have entirely different problems at this point) but things like this happen in every war. The Greeks at Thermopylae suffered a millitary disaster, the Battle of Trafalgar was a disaster for the Spanish and French, Napoleons retreat from Russia was a disaster, the Battle of the Bulge was a big blunder by the allies ~ shit happens and it is annoying when people act like Iraq has been a series of huge millitary blunders because in the scheme of things it has been a very sucessful operation that reflects extremely well on the men and women that serve there and the millitary leadership that drafted the plans for the war.

Maybe you can tell that to my friend who's going back for the third time. We have men without the proper armor, we're asking retired 50 somethings to re-enlist and sending them over there, and we have no set plan on how to pull out.

Yes the toppling of the regime was quick, but honestly how hard did we think that was going to be, it's the aftermath that's been a joke.

 

[STING2]

Maybe you can tell that to my friend who's going back for the third time. We have men without the proper armor, we're asking retired 50 somethings to re-enlist and sending them over there, and we have no set plan on how to pull out.

Yes the toppling of the regime was quick, but honestly how hard did we think that was going to be, it's the aftermath that's been a joke.

The efforts of the US military, US diplomats, aid works, Coalition troops, and Iraqi's has NOT been a joke! It took years longer to have free elections in both Germany and Japan after their dictatorships were overthrown.

What has been accomplished in Iraq is amazing! Unfortunately, one can only see that when one fully examines the whole picture instead of just focusing on one chief aspect in 4 of Iraq's 18 provinces.

Most of the United States military is not deployed in Iraq. There are some shortages in some high skill or experience area's from time to time though.

Any equipment shortages are the fault of a government and in particular liberal movements that have always worked against increasing defense spending, forcing those in the military to only spend the little money they have on the most immediate requirements. If more money had been spent on defense in the years prior, the military would have more funds for all kinds of potential situations including the type of environment faced by our troops in Iraq with its unique requirements and needs. By liberals and unfortunately even moderates and both parties would vote for that level of defense funding, hence the reason there have been some shortages in various area's.


There is a set plan on how to pull out. It involves training the Iraqi military into a large and capable force ready to defend the country and successfully combat any insurgent movement in the country. Once that has been accomplished, Coalition forces can start to withdraw.

 

[najeena]

[No message]

 

[sulawesigirl4]

So, being the only person on this entire forum that actually lives in Africa, near Togo and is directly affected by the events in that country, can I please bring the thread to the original point???

To sum up, after the death of the strongman president of Togo, the military decided to install his son, compelling the parliament to change the constitution in order to effect this. The union of West African states condemned the act as a coup d'etat and moved to put sanctions on Togo as did the African Union. And a few days ago, he stepped down as acting president in order to spare his country the effects of sanctions. Of course, no one is naive enough to think that this is the end...he is running for president and will most likely find a way to "win."

All this to say that it has been interesting to follow because the African organizations have really seemed to be able to effect change and make things happen. And that is a positive step. For my own part, we in Mali would definitely be affected if any long-term sanctions were put on Togo or if fighting broke out. It is our main port to the sea and being a landlocked country is very very important in keeping prices stable.

 

[Se7en]

Any equipment shortages are the fault of a government and in particular liberal movements that have always worked against increasing defense spending, forcing those in the military to only spend the little money they have on the most immediate requirements.

you do know that bush 1 and cheney were advocates of cutting military spending in the 90s right?

 

[STING2]

you do know that bush 1 and cheney were advocates of cutting military spending in the 90s right?

They were advocates of reducing the size of the overall force structure with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The only things that were cut, were weapons that would not be needed, because the units they were to go to, were not going to exist anymore. It would have been a waste of money to buy these weapon systems when the Units they would be purchased for, were no longer in existence.

This is often sited by Democrats as an example of Bush Sr. recklessly cutting defense which is totally false. The Democrats neglect to explain the context of the time and the fact that all active and reserve military units received every piece of equipment they needed during that time.

 

[Do Miss America]

They were advocates of reducing the size of the overall force structure with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The only things that were cut, were weapons that would not be needed, because the units they were to go to, were not going to exist anymore. It would have been a waste of money to buy these weapon systems when the Units they would be purchased for, were no longer in existence.

This is often sited by Democrats as an example of Bush Sr. recklessly cutting defense which is totally false. The Democrats neglect to explain the context of the time and the fact that all active and reserve military units received every piece of equipment they needed during that time.

So when is it good to cut back and when is it not? Oh I see when Republicans want to it's ok but when Democrats want to it's not.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Um, no - when the major threat is diminished it is common sense to cut back but then when a new threat arises it is the right thing to build up.

Cold War --> Post Cold War --> Global War on Terror.

 

[STING2]

So when is it good to cut back and when is it not? Oh I see when Republicans want to it's ok but when Democrats want to it's not.

The point here is that force structure was cut not the weapons and needs of the troops, the forces that remained continued to receive the latest technology and weapons under Bush 1.

The Soviet Union along with the Warsaw Pact could potentially put over 6 million troops immediately into the field if a war broke out in Europe. With this threat gone, the Bush Sr. administration cut the total number of troops on active duty, but not the weapons or technology that the remaining troops would recieve. Democrats on the other hand had always been pushing for cuts even with the Soviet threat, including cuts to a wide range of vital weapon systems, many of which John Kerry wanted to cancel in 1984 when he first ran for the senate. Thankfully, he failed and the US military today is the best equipped military on the planet, with most of its weapon systems coming from the Reagan build up of the 1980s, a build up that John Kerry tried to stop, which would have robbed are troops of the weapons they need to win on the battlefield with the smallest loss of life(US, Civilian or enemy) possible.

 

[Do Miss America]

Um, no - when the major threat is diminished it is common sense to cut back but then when a new threat arises it is the right thing to build up.

Cold War --> Post Cold War --> Global War on Terror.

Um yes but take a look at Sting's post.

He had to point out that liberal movements made these cuts, and it's simply not true.

When Clinton was making cuts it was during peace time, just as Bush Sr.

 

[Do Miss America]

Democrats on the other hand had always been pushing for cuts even with the Soviet threat, including cuts to a wide range of vital weapon systems, many of which John Kerry wanted to cancel in 1984 when he first ran for the senate. Thankfully, he failed and the US military today is the best equipped military on the planet, with most of its weapon systems coming from the Reagan build up of the 1980s, a build up that John Kerry tried to stop, which would have robbed are troops of the weapons they need to win on the battlefield with the smallest loss of life(US, Civilian or enemy) possible.

This still doesn't prove how 'liberal movements' are at fault for any shortages in equipment today. You are bringing up examples in 84 which you admit failed.

Honestly man you aren't making any sense. Any cuts that have gone through were during peace times and for weapons that wouldn't be used in this war. I find your blame game to be partisan BS.

 

[STING2]

This still doesn't prove how 'liberal movements' are at fault for any shortages in equipment today. You are bringing up examples in 84 which you admit failed.

Honestly man you aren't making any sense. Any cuts that have gone through were during peace times and for weapons that wouldn't be used in this war. I find your blame game to be partisan BS.

The majority of those that advocate and support cutting defense spending, whether it be in a time of war or peace are democrats or liberals. Its been that way since the 1980s.

This helps to create an environment where even when defense spending is increased, it is often not enough. The blame for shortages in equipment today can fall on both parties, but clearly the Democrats share far more of the blame. The example from 1984 is just an example to show the constant pressure that exist in certain parts of congress to cut or hold defense spending down. Even when defense spending is increased, this pressure holds back increases from being the levels of what they should be.

The M1 Tank, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Patriot Missile, Apache Attack Helicopter were all weapon systems built and designed during the 1980s and are currently the main weapon systems USED by the United States Army in Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

Cuts to defense budget in the 1990s prevented certain improvements and upgrades on a number of these weapon systems. They also effected the ability to maintain and repair the equipment during the 1990s. Cuts and cancelizations from the 1990s do impact the military today, because the current budgets during the Bush administration, although they have been increased, have not been increased to the degree necessary to offset the 8 year defense spending holiday seen during the Clinton years.

Procurement and Moderanization take time(often several years) and when programs get canceled or are not funded, work can't be done in that area until the investment returns and then it takes time to meet the sudden demands of the military.

This is precisely why in Peace Time, you need to be spending and prepared for every contingency should war break out. Its way to late to start up an old program that was canceled or never funded once a war breaks out and find that you need that program. It could take months or even years to fully develop and equip a military with a new weapon system or an upgrade to certain equipment.

The Bush administration has done a good job at addressing the needs of the military but it can't make up a decade of no funding and development in certain areas in such a small amount of time. The Bush administration has tried to get some of the largest increases in defense spending ever and has succeeded to some extent, but the large new expenditures from fighting a war compete with money used to update, pay, train and equip the military as the war continues. This is why it is necessary that in peace time, the military needs to be properly funded so it is fully ready once war begins.

Its not to say the Bush administration has been perfect, but they have done a lot more for the military in 4 years than the previous administration did in 8 years.


It is not partison BS, but a fact that the largest resistence to military spending and the largest calls for defense cuts have come from the Democrats since the 1980s.

 

[BVS]

Its not to say the Bush administration has been perfect, but they have done a lot more for the military in 4 years than the previous administration did in 8 years.


It is not partison BS, but a fact that the largest resistence to military spending and the largest calls for defense cuts have come from the Democrats since the 1980s.

No one can predict when a "new enemy" is going to come about. The Bush administration didn't do much pre 9/11, just like Clinton.

What if we always continued to increase military spending and this war never came about for another 10 years? Then we'd have a lot of outdated weapons that never got used and would have already had to been replaced during peace time? Then people, including conservatives, would bitch about wasted tax money. You can't have it both ways. Your logic is far too simplified and convienent.

Both make cuts during peace time. I see a lot of partisan hypocricy to blame Democrats for our troops not having the proper equipment.

 

[Do Miss America]

Its not to say the Bush administration has been perfect, but they have done a lot more for the military in 4 years than the previous administration did in 8 years.

Well let's see one was in peace time and one created a front for war. Your argument's lack logic and are dripping with partisan bias.

 

[melon]

Um, no - when the major threat is diminished it is common sense to cut back but then when a new threat arises it is the right thing to build up.

Cold War --> Post Cold War --> Global War on Terror.

Except, of course, that until 9/11 hit, they were solely focused on an expensive "missile shield" that would have done nothing to prevent 9/11.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yeah but it would have had advantages against the Rouge State threat ~ overlooking of course the ease at which one could just smuggle a weapon into the country not needing to put it onto a bloody ICBM.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

Well let's see one was in peace time and one created a front for war. Your argument's lack logic and are dripping with partisan bias.

Lol, like your arguement's dont! Seems to me your first sentence contradicticts your second one!

 

[Do Miss America]

Lol, like your arguement's dont! Seems to me your first sentence contradicticts your second one!

Why, because I said one administration created a front for war? I've seen many Republicans claim the same thing proudly. If that seems partisan then call me partisan, but it just seems like a fact.

But if you can explain to me otherwise I'd be glad to listen.

 

[drhark]

I think most of us here are partisan and most arguments presented drip with partisan bias. Nothing wrong with partisan bias except when one denies it (Bye bye Dan Rather)

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Bye, Dan.

 

[STING2]

Well let's see one was in peace time and one created a front for war. Your argument's lack logic and are dripping with partisan bias.

Your arguements like this one are simply accusations with no facts.

 

[STING2]

No one can predict when a "new enemy" is going to come about. The Bush administration didn't do much pre 9/11, just like Clinton.

What if we always continued to increase military spending and this war never came about for another 10 years? Then we'd have a lot of outdated weapons that never got used and would have already had to been replaced during peace time? Then people, including conservatives, would bitch about wasted tax money. You can't have it both ways. Your logic is far too simplified and convienent.

Both make cuts during peace time. I see a lot of partisan hypocricy to blame Democrats for our troops not having the proper equipment.

It is precisely the reason that no one can predict the new threat or enemy which makes it a necessity to have strong defense spending during peace time.

If military spending was properly funding, weapons would not become outdated. They would be improved and updated until a new model to replace the older one was developed. If one cuts or interferes with this development process, one winds up years later with outdated weapons or no weapons for certain situations.

Being prepared for every contingency is not a waste! It saves lives when war becomes a necessity and prevents many conflicts from happening in the first place.

It is a fact that the Democrats have been the prime source of opposition to military spending since 1980. The Republicans have primarily only made cuts to overall force structure when it was ok to do so, for example with the end of the Cold War and the Soviet Union, but at the same time did their best to give the current force structure the latest weapon systems and money for training and pay.

 

[Do Miss America]

Your arguements like this one are simply accusations with no facts.

Well like I said, this is rhetoric which I borrowed from Republicans. If you don't agree with it then tell me why? Do you honestly think the war on terror actually lied in Iraq before this war?

 

[STING2]

Well like I said, this is rhetoric which I borrowed from Republicans. If you don't agree with it then tell me why? Do you honestly think the war on terror actually lied in Iraq before this war?

I've extensively explained my positions using facts and have had them greeted with a couple of sentences filled with accusations, but nothing else.

No one lied in regards to Iraq. Anyone that takes the time to examine the inspections process which had been going off and on for nearly 12 years will realize how futile it had become to get Saddam to verifiably disarm, something that should only take a year at most, just as it did in Ukraine, Kazaksthan, Belarus, and South Africa.

The Coalition went to war out of necessity because Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD and was not in compliance with 17 different UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

What many people fail to understand is that this whole process was started back in March of 1991, NOT January 2001! This was a major national security issue for the region, the United States, and the whole world. Few people realize the extent to which full scale military intervention in Iraq almost happened before Bush ever got elected into office. This was a huge problem that had been getting worse with Saddam collecting nearly 4 Billion dollars a year on the blackmarket despite sanctions that were getting weaker every day.

The threat was real and military action was a necessity. Democrats love to point out intelligence information that turned out not to be accurate, but that does not change the central case for military action which was Saddam's failure to Verifiably disarm of all WMD as required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

 

[Do Miss America]

I've extensively explained my positions using facts and have had them greeted with a couple of sentences filled with accusations, but nothing else.

No one lied in regards to Iraq. Anyone that takes the time to examine the inspections process which had been going off and on for nearly 12 years will realize how futile it had become to get Saddam to verifiably disarm, something that should only take a year at most, just as it did in Ukraine, Kazaksthan, Belarus, and South Africa.

The Coalition went to war out of necessity because Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD and was not in compliance with 17 different UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

What many people fail to understand is that this whole process was started back in March of 1991, NOT January 2001! This was a major national security issue for the region, the United States, and the whole world. Few people realize the extent to which full scale military intervention in Iraq almost happened before Bush ever got elected into office. This was a huge problem that had been getting worse with Saddam collecting nearly 4 Billion dollars a year on the blackmarket despite sanctions that were getting weaker every day.

The threat was real and military action was a necessity. Democrats love to point out intelligence information that turned out not to be accurate, but that does not change the central case for military action which was Saddam's failure to Verifiably disarm of all WMD as required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with my question.

You charged me with making accusations. What accusations?

I told you I was using verbage that I've heard many Republicans proudly use.

I didn't say anyone lied, didn't say anything about the war in Iraq really.

I don't know what your problem is.

I don't appreciate your charging me "making accusations with no facts".

 

[STING2]

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with my question.

You charged me with making accusations. What accusations?

I told you I was using verbage that I've heard many Republicans proudly use.

I didn't say anyone lied, didn't say anything about the war in Iraq really.

I don't know what your problem is.

I don't appreciate your charging me "making accusations with no facts".

Really, and what do you think of this statement made towards me by yourself:

"Your argument's lack logic and are dripping with partisan bias."

That is indeed an accusation with no facts to support it.

 

[Do Miss America]

Really, and what do you think of this statement made towards me by yourself:

"Your argument's lack logic and are dripping with partisan bias."

That is indeed an accusation with no facts to support it.

Well that's not the one you quoted.

You were very contradicting with your logic. You admit that both sides make cuts during peace time. You bring up examples from the 80's to which you admit failed. You make no comment about Bush pre 9/11 and how his spending was going down the wrong path in reference to this war. Yet you still blame Democrats for not having the right equipment. It's extremely bias. Cover it up anyway you want it, but your bias is visible from a mile away.

 

[STING2]

Well that's not the one you quoted.

You were very contradicting with your logic. You admit that both sides make cuts during peace time. You bring up examples from the 80's to which you admit failed. You make no comment about Bush pre 9/11 and how his spending was going down the wrong path in reference to this war. Yet you still blame Democrats for not having the right equipment. It's extremely bias. Cover it up anyway you want it, but your bias is visible from a mile away.

It is not a contradiction, but a fact, that since 1980, Republicans have been far more active than the Democrats in giving more money to the military. I'm sorry you do not understand the difference between what the Republicans have done in regards to defense spending vs. the Democrats. The difference between a cut in overall force structure after the Soviet Union Collapsed vs. hords of Democrats that tried to cut defense spending without any regards to national security or its effects on the military regardless of whether it was peacetime or war time. Its one thing to draw down the overall size of the military after a threat is gone and not able to return to that degree, its another thing to raid the standing military, what ever the size, of funds that are needed for the development and procurment of new weapons, training, and increased pay.

Bush's Pre-9-11 spending was in the process of increasing spending beyond anything Clinton had spent in his first 8 years. The largest pay increase for military members since the Reagan years was being voted on at that time. Guess who members of the US military voted for by more than a 4 to 1 margin this past November based on polling data conducted by the Armytimes?

Various members of the Democratic party including John Kerry have fought at one time or another to have nearly every weapon system the military currently uses, canceled! This is not bias, this a fact!

 

[Do Miss America]

tried to cut defense spending

Tried? That doesn't explain how it's their fault now. You've admited they failed.

Bush's Pre-9-11 spending was in the process of increasing spending beyond anything Clinton had spent in his first 8 years.

But none of his actions aided in giving this paticular war the proper equipment. And that's what this was all about.

If you are going to start a war, make sure you have the right equipment. That's all I'm saying.

 

[STING2]

Tried? That doesn't explain how it's their fault now. You've admited they failed.



But none of his actions aided in giving this paticular war the proper equipment. And that's what this was all about.

If you are going to start a war, make sure you have the right equipment. That's all I'm saying.

Through out the 1990s, the democrats succeeded in making deep cuts in defense spending which meant there was not money for many types of weapon systems or improvements, training, as well as other important equipment. They failed in the 1980s in making deep cuts, but were more successful in the 1990s. They constantly place pressure on cutting or keeping defense spending down, so even in years where defense spending is successfully increased by a large margin, its a smaller margin than it would be, because of liberal democrats efforts to cut the defense budget.


US forces in Iraq have had the proper equipment! There have only been shortages in certain area's. Trucks and Humvees have never been armored up until now, partly because of the forces in congress which drive to keep the defense budget down. This effort to keep spending down by many democrats forces the military to only spend on the most important items and needs.