• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

General Casey

A

Anonymous

Guest
"The Boston Globe’s top story is Gen. Casey telling the House Armed Services Committee, in his first appearance as Army chief of staff, 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."

Casey “personally requested the public hearing -- a highly unusual move that military analysts said underscores his growing concern about the health of the Army, America's primary fighting force.”

And “Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asked Congress for a record-setting $190 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next year -- nearly $50 billion more than anticipated. Most of the money would go to Iraq. If the request is approved, the cost of the 2003 invasion will top $600 billion.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/27/382470.aspx
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Most of the money would go to Iraq. If the request is approved, the cost of the 2003 invasion will top $600 billion.”

Thems too big of numbers for me-- but $600 billion sure would have provided a lot of money to track down the 20 million estimated illegal invaders and terrorists already in our country (about $300 million each :roll: )-- and sure could have built a lot of border security infrastructure to prevent us from being attacked on our own soil- rather than trying to rebuild a desert sand flea nest...

If that is the true reason for the war :???:
 

Texan

Well-known member
...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."

I don't have any trouble believing this. That's why I don't think it's time to be talking too big about going into Iran. It doesn't seem that the libs are willing to let us finish what's going on in Iraq, so I don't think we need to 'start' any more **** that we're not able to finish.

I'm even against us using air strikes against Iran unless we're absolutely forced to. I'm afraid that air strikes would bring on the possibility of involvement of our ground troops. I don't think we're ready for that commitment at this time.

Let some of the other world powers take care of Iran. It's time for France, Germany, etc. to belly up to the bar and pay for some things - instead of always waiting on us to do it.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Texan said:
...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."

I don't have any trouble believing this. That's why I don't think it's time to be talking too big about going into Iran. It doesn't seem that the libs are willing to let us finish what's going on in Iraq, so I don't think we need to 'start' any more s*** that we're not able to finish.

I'm even against us using air strikes against Iran unless we're absolutely forced to. I'm afraid that air strikes would bring on the possibility of involvement of our ground troops. I don't think we're ready for that commitment at this time.

Let some of the other world powers take care of Iran. It's time for France, Germany, etc. to belly up to the bar and pay for some things - instead of always waiting on us to do it.

The "libs" won't let you finish the war???lol Just who has been commander in chief since the war's inception.???
 

Texan

Well-known member
TSR said:
The "libs" won't let you finish the war???lol Just who has been commander in chief since the war's inception.???
Actually, what I wrote was:

It doesn't seem that the libs are willing to let us finish what's going on in Iraq...

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

Congress should stop funding the Iraq war to force President Bush and the Iraqi government to "change course," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said Sunday on Face The Nation.

"No matter how heroically and dedicated the performance of our young men and women and their officers are in Iraq - which it has been - they cannot referee successfully a sectarian civil war," Clinton told Bob Schieffer. "So I voted against funding last spring. I will vote against funding again in the absence of any change in policy."

Clinton said, if elected president, she would set deadlines for withdrawing the majority of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, but said there would be a continuing American military presence in Iraq.

"I am committed to bringing the vast majority of our troops home, and I will begin to do that as soon as I am president," Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic nomination, said.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/23/ftn/main3289284.shtml


Maybe those words spell successful mission for libs. To me - and many others - it sounds like surrender.

On second thought, that probably would spell success for libs. Since their main mission seems to be political - anything to make this country look bad is a success for them.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Here's some more words of wisdom from the left:

During the debate, Edwards said if he were elected and 100,000 U.S. troops remained in Iraq, he would immediately redeploy up to half of them.

"I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq," he added.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkGl4IIzq0NZfwaTPNUWXqOnAmuQ


So......Hell, yeah - I'll stand by my statement:

It doesn't seem that the libs are willing to let us finish what's going on in Iraq...
 
Top