PDA

View Full Version : George Casey tells it straight



retiredman
09-27-2007, 09:11 AM
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/27/army_is_worn_too_thin_says_general/

Army Chief of Staff General George Casey had some pretty frightening stuff to tell congress. I trust his judgment implicitly.

From my perspective, this is what you get when you veer off target and start an unnecessary war in Iraq. Bush and his party have proven they are too inept to steer the ship of state.

Dilloduck
09-27-2007, 09:19 AM
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/27/army_is_worn_too_thin_says_general/

Army Chief of Staff General George Casey had some pretty frightening stuff to tell congress. I trust his judgment implicitly.

From my perspective, this is what you get when you veer off target and start an unnecessary war in Iraq. Bush and his party have proven they are too inept to steer the ship of state.

Are you recommending initiating the draft---again?

Sir Evil
09-27-2007, 09:25 AM
Are you recommending initiating the draft---again?

He's recommending rather suggesting that the dems can do better. Just a easy jab at the administration plain & simple.

retiredman
09-27-2007, 11:47 AM
Are you recommending initiating the draft---again?

I am recommending getting the hell out of Iraq.

The army would not be stretched to the breaking point if we were fighting our real enemies instead of babysitting an internecine spat between sects in Iraq.

And, for the record, I, personally, have no problem with mandatory national service.

actsnoblemartin
09-27-2007, 07:24 PM
while i agree with you that its streching our troops to the breaking point, and it probably was un-neccesary. If we leave now, dont we just hand iran, more power in the region, as well as oil reserves?

second, dont we hand moral to the terrorists and cause even more terrorist attacks all over the world?

Psychoblues
09-28-2007, 12:06 AM
You idiot. No.

manu1959
09-28-2007, 01:00 AM
You idiot. No.

if no then the opposite must be true....

so if we leave....

iran will not overrun iraq and take the oil and power in the middle east

the freedom fighters will not get a moral boost and the number of terrorist attacks outside iraq will not increase?

Psychoblues
09-28-2007, 01:06 AM
You think so? I think it beats the hell out of disrespecting our troops and causing 100's of American Troop deaths in the next few months and all for what? Not to mention the 1,000's of wounded. You ain't big on military issues, are you, m'59?

retiredman
09-28-2007, 07:44 AM
if no then the opposite must be true....

so if we leave....

iran will not overrun iraq and take the oil and power in the middle east

the freedom fighters will not get a moral boost and the number of terrorist attacks outside iraq will not increase?

Unless we install a brutal sunni dictator to rein in the shiite majority (sound familiar?), Iran will eventually exert significant influence over a shiite government in Iraq regardless of when we leave. By removing Saddam, we set the stage for Iran to greatly increase its stature in the middle east... the rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon is one such manifestation. Our leaving Iraq will not change that.

"The freedom fighters"???? It's pretty sad when America opposes people who fight for freedom. lol.

Terrorist attacks outside Iraq? I am not at all convinced that there is some direct correlation between Iraq and terrorist attacks outside of Iraq - except for the fact that 150K american troops occupying an arab country might be considered "low hanging fruit" for those whose goal is to harm Americans. I hardly think that keeping troops in Iraq just so that THEY can be the victims of IED's there is a wise strategic decision, do you?

If we were tostop babysitting a civil war, leave Iraq and put our real emphasis and effort and assets behind an all out attempt to root out AQ cells and leadership, I see no reason why we couldn't be more successful in our war against islamic extremism than we are today.

truthmatters
09-28-2007, 08:25 AM
In his first appearance as Army chief of staff, Casey told the House Armed Services Committee that the Army is "out of balance" and "the current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."


Dont you people get what this means?

It means we cant protect ourselves anymore.

It means we are vulnerable to attack.

Some would recomend we just keep on being vulnerable to attack and being unable to defend oursleves for years to come?

diuretic
09-28-2007, 08:34 AM
Is Casey speaking truth to power?

truthmatters
09-28-2007, 08:50 AM
I think he is speaking truth to those who have relenquished their power.

I think the Power knows the truth already but there are some Americans who refuse to hear the truth and it is to them he is pleading for sanity.

I try to do the same myself when I can.

diuretic
09-28-2007, 09:09 AM
I think he is speaking truth to those who have relenquished their power.

I think the Power knows the truth already but there are some Americans who refuse to hear the truth and it is to them he is pleading for sanity.

I try to do the same myself when I can.

Good. Keep it going.

darin
09-28-2007, 09:25 AM
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/27/army_is_worn_too_thin_says_general/

Army Chief of Staff General George Casey had some pretty frightening stuff to tell congress. I trust his judgment implicitly.

From my perspective, this is what you get when you veer off target and start an unnecessary war in Iraq. Bush and his party have proven they are too inept to steer the ship of state.


I bet you get horny EVERY TIME somebody says something like that. Words that turn you on:

The Army is tired.
Soldiers don't like to deploy. (side note: I shared a beer or 5 with a SFC and a CPT who are PISSED that their units left for Iraq w/o them. They are the 'stay-behind' OIC and NCOIC.)
The Army is spread-thin.
Enlistment rates are down.
The Army suffered a defeat.

Don't tie your irrelevant, out-of-touch opinions on Army deployments to the comments made by Gen. Casey. He said nothing that should surprise anybody. You say the Army is stretched thin because of an "unnecessary war"? Maybe forces are stretched thin because of clinton's massive draw-down?

diuretic
09-28-2007, 09:26 AM
Stop that language. I'm getting the vapours.

JohnDoe
09-28-2007, 09:32 AM
I bet you get horny EVERY TIME somebody says something like that. Words that turn you on:

The Army is tired.
Soldiers don't like to deploy. (side note: I shared a beer or 5 with a SFC and a CPT who are PISSED that their units left for Iraq w/o them. They are the 'stay-behind' OIC and NCOIC.)
The Army is spread-thin.
Enlistment rates are down.
The Army suffered a defeat.

Don't tie your irrelevant, out-of-touch opinions on Army deployments to the comments made by Gen. Casey. He said nothing that should surprise anybody. You say the Army is stretched thin because of an "unnecessary war"? Maybe forces are stretched thin because of clinton's massive draw-down?

good morning dmp

the truth be told it was Rumsfeld and Cheney from the Bush 1 administration that recommended the draw down.... due to the "cold war" being over....is what the facts show, and they recommended a larger draw down of troops than even Clinton was willing to do, if memory serves


jd

darin
09-28-2007, 11:23 AM
good morning dmp

the truth be told it was Rumsfeld and Cheney from the Bush 1 administration that recommended the draw down.... due to the "cold war" being over....is what the facts show, and they recommended a larger draw down of troops than even Clinton was willing to do, if memory serves


jd


Good to see you again, JD -

Nice Spin! :)

:-/

Psychoblues
10-03-2007, 11:13 PM
No spin, dmp. Just facts and you demonstrate that you can't handle facts.



Good to see you again, JD -

Nice Spin! :)

:-/

You're not alone, so don't be so forlorn about it, OK?

manu1959
10-03-2007, 11:19 PM
good morning dmp

the truth be told it was Rumsfeld and Cheney from the Bush 1 administration that recommended the draw down.... due to the "cold war" being over....is what the facts show, and they recommended a larger draw down of troops than even Clinton was willing to do, if memory serves


jd

how many military bases were closed under clinton?.....how many military bases in california.....how many in pelosis district?....how many went to her nephew's company......lennar.....

JohnDoe
10-03-2007, 11:37 PM
how many military bases were closed under clinton?.....how many military bases in california.....how many in pelosis district?....how many went to her nephew's company......lennar.....i don't know the answers to those questions, i could try to find out...does this have something to do with my statement?

jd

manu1959
10-03-2007, 11:46 PM
i don't know the answers to those questions, i could try to find out...does this have something to do with my statement?

jd

i do....it has to do with who closed bases...and it wasn't bush...

Psychoblues
10-04-2007, 12:16 AM
Oh yes it was!!!!!!! ALL of those closings were advised and suggested by #41 and reinforced by the Pentagon from the Reagan Administration.



i do....it has to do with who closed bases...and it wasn't bush...

You have a right to your opinion, m'59 but your rewriting of history just ain't gonna fly with those of us that were actually there. Dig it?

JohnDoe
10-04-2007, 12:25 AM
i do....it has to do with who closed bases...and it wasn't bush...the cuts in the Military were recommended by the previous administration, even greater cuts than what were taken...

and was pelosi speaker of the house 15 years ago, or maybe on a committee that over saw this, like the armed service committee? and didn't all states take some military closures? did calif take more closures than their fair share out of the cuts?

i am not saying clinton was for keeping the military as big as it was....he was probably thrilled with the previous administration's recomendation for cuts...but i don't believe he arbitrarily made cuts just to hurt this country and intentionally make us less secure... it was the mindset of his administration and even moreso the previous administration and the intelligence community, that since the cold war was officially over, we did not need a military, at the levels that it had been maintaining.

jd

Psychoblues
10-04-2007, 12:39 AM
Clinton , #41, Ronald Reagan and most all very tired tax paying Americans were thrilled with the idea of reducing our military expenditures post cold war, JD. To imply differently is simply dishonest and only self serving in the most ominous sense. Don't you think?

actsnoblemartin
10-04-2007, 12:40 AM
I have an honest question for your maineman.

How do we know who to trust, and who is right?


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/27/army_is_worn_too_thin_says_general/

Army Chief of Staff General George Casey had some pretty frightening stuff to tell congress. I trust his judgment implicitly.

From my perspective, this is what you get when you veer off target and start an unnecessary war in Iraq. Bush and his party have proven they are too inept to steer the ship of state.

Psychoblues
10-04-2007, 01:09 AM
Your questiojn is not honest, martin.



I have an honest question for your maineman.

How do we know who to trust, and who is right?

Read only through this thread and you might be enlightened.

actsnoblemartin
10-04-2007, 01:44 AM
are you always such an ass

Geez, im sorry god, i knewi should have bowed down to you.

:pee:


You idiot. No.

Psychoblues
10-04-2007, 02:00 AM
The quote by martin is not complete or a part of this group conversation. I hope this clears up any question you may have on this subject.

martin wants so bad to be Right but he is continually Wrong.