"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:49:37 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:43:20 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:41:08 -0400, Someone Else
wrote:

...horror perpetrated by George W. Bush and Dique Cheney, and these
are
some of the results.

http://s99.photobucket.com/albums/l2...lesullivan.jpg

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l2...RyanMaseth.jpg

http://s99.photobucket.com/albums/l2...rrent=Capt.jpg

http://s99.photobucket.com/albums/l2...lvercedes3.jpg




Do you have the same horror pictures of the dead soldiers since
1/20/09?
We are following the same flawed strategy in Afghanistan that was so
wonderful in Iraq, led by the same general.

actuallly not. bush fired the first general...shinseki...who said we
needed more troops there.

Petraeus was in charge of the surge and he replaced Casey. Shinseki
was never in command in Iraq. I agree he did have the opinion that we
could never stabilize Iraq without a lot more people. It is yet to be
seen if Iraq will be stable after the surge is over.. The reality will
probably be that our 6 year occupation only delayed the civil war that
they were going to have anyway.
I don't think those people respect any government that wasn't forged
in blood.

The days of massing hundreds of thousands of troops like we did in Gulf
I was that there isn't the time nor the transportation resources to do
it. Everyone now knows that we don't have months to amass the troups.

And, the supply train that is needed to support one brigade in the field
is costly in troops to run the supply train and to protect it.

If we had put 250,000 combat troops into Iraq in Gulf II we could never
have afforded it. The Army didn't have the troops even with the Army
Reserve and the National Guard.

The days of overwhelming ground force are over and will never return.
Shinseki was was working from an old and out dated thinking.



Sure. You're more of an expert that a sitting general. Whatever.