More proof of the mishandling of the Iraqi war

[Disagreeable]

VA expects to be short $2.6 billion for vet care

"The Bush administration disclosed yesterday that it had vastly underestimated the number of service personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and warned that the health-care programs will be short at least $2.6 billion next year unless Congress approves additional funds.
Veterans Affairs budget documents projected 23,553 veterans would return this year from Iraq and Afghanistan and seek medical treatment. However, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson told a Senate committee the number has been revised upward to 103,000 for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. He said the original estimate was based on outdated assumptions."

link to full article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002351504_veterans29.html

(my emphasis added)

 

[Steve]

Maybe next time you could find an article by an American, instead of Hanoi Jane's sister in kind Patty Murry, ,,,

"

Question: What happens now to Sen. Patty Murray's, D-Wash., career, after statements made at a Washington high school, in which she offered her analysis of Osama bin Laden's popularity and the Arab world's anti-Americanism?

"We've got to ask," said Murray, "why is this man so popular around the world? Why are people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty?" The answer, according to Murray, lies in bin Laden's charity, generosity and concern. For bin Laden has been "out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that. How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"

Really?

well the answer is simple Disagreeable finds an article she was quoted in and attempts to use it to say bush mis-handled the war, thats like asking Hanoi Jane to lead a Pro- Nam Vet rally,,

 

[Disagreeable]

That's a pretty pitiful response, Steve, even for you. Can't face the fact the the Bush Bunch totally underestimated the cost of the Iraq war, both in dollars and in blood. Now they're scrambling to catch up and take care of the damaged and wounded. But it's starting to catch up with them. How are we going to come up with the money to take care of these people for the rest of their lives? Our military medical system is stressed right now; I know because I use it. It's not going to get much better anytime soon.

 

[Sandhusker]

Would you care to show me a war where all estimates were correct?

 

[Disagreeable]

Would you care to show me a war where all estimates were correct?

Huh? This is Bush's war. It's the Bush Bunch's responsiblity to take care of the military men and women they send off to war. They ignored the advice of professional military leaders who testifed to Congress that it would take "several hundred thousand" troops several years to win Iraq. Instead they chose to go in light. They didn't have the troops to secure borders. They didn't have troops to secure weapons sites. They didn't have the troops to protect the infastructure of Iraq. And worst of all, they didn't have the troops to protect the Iraq people. All of their estimates were wrong and our military is paying the price, both here at home and in Iraq.

 

[Sandhusker]

Would you care to show me a war where all estimates were correct?

Huh? This is Bush's war. It's the Bush Bunch's responsiblity to take care of the military men and women they send off to war. They ignored the advice of professional military leaders who testifed to Congress that it would take "several hundred thousand" troops several years to win Iraq. Instead they chose to go in light. They didn't have the troops to secure borders. They didn't have troops to secure weapons sites. They didn't have the troops to protect the infastructure of Iraq. And worst of all, they didn't have the troops to protect the Iraq people. All of their estimates were wrong and our military is paying the price, both here at home and in Iraq.

Let's open the history books and see what we find.... It appears there were some problems with Vietnam. It seems both the North was underestimated and the South overestimated all around.

How about Korea. Who would of thought the Chinese would come screaming down the trail?

Looks like Roosevelt had his pants down when the Japanese Navy visited Pearl Habor, despite several warnings the something big was inevitable. Should we talk about Wake Island, Corrigidor, Battle of the Bulge, miscalculations at Omaha Beach? And hey, didn't the English Prime Minister come back from a 1939 meeting with Hitler and proclaim "Peace in our time"?

If we go a little further back, we see that after the Battle of First Bull Run, the South had an open door to Washington, but underestimated the North's resources, while over estimating their strength. Lee kind of fumbled at a little skirmish called Gettysburg.....

Should we consider King George's actions shortly after July 4, 1776?

 

[Disagreeable]

I don't know if any military leaders testified before Congress and gave them an estimate of what would be necessary to take VietNam. Do you? Or Korea? Or Pearl Harbor?

But I do know (and so do you) that a professional soldier gave Congress his best estimate of what it would take for success in Iraq and the Bush Bunch ignored him.

You want to excuse that, ok. But I won't. They sent our troops in without armor. Dozens, maybe hundreds, of young Americans died because they chose to believe that the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. What a shame for the families of those soldiers.

 

[Murgen]

I don't know if any military leaders testified before Congress and gave them an estimate of what would be necessary to take VietNam. Do you? Or Korea? Or Pearl Harbor?

Hope I'm not sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong, but were the estimates of troops needed for Vietnam (McNamara) not miscalculated numerous times, even right up to "Operation Frequent Wind"

The President acts on intelligence that is given to him by his advisors, seems to me, that the last few wars that the US has participated in, he has been given "bad" info.

 

[Steve]

Disagreeable

Our military medical system is stressed right now; I know because I use it. It's not going to get much better anytime soon.

What they forgot to send out your meds again?

 

[Disagreeable]

Disagreeable

Our military medical system is stressed right now; I know because I use it. It's not going to get much better anytime soon.

What they forgot to send out your meds again?

Will they mail them to me? I didn't know that.

 

[Disagreeable]

I don't know if any military leaders testified before Congress and gave them an estimate of what would be necessary to take VietNam. Do you? Or Korea? Or Pearl Harbor?

Hope I'm not sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong, but were the estimates of troops needed for Vietnam (McNamara) not miscalculated numerous times, even right up to "Operation Frequent Wind"

The President acts on intelligence that is given to him by his advisors, seems to me, that the last few wars that the US has participated in, he has been given "bad" info.

Oh, don't worry about sticking your nose in. This discussion is for everyone. Feel free to join and bring online references.

 

[mp.freelance]

Disgreeable,

You seem very concerned, if not obsessed, with problems such as funding mis-estimates, confusion over WMD (which even France believed Iraq had), the need for oil, and other aspects of the war. The ultimate question is whether the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

Yes, I know what you'll say: "this war was supposed to be about WMD, not Hussein. There are bad men in the world."

But what's done is done - even if the war was purely about oil, I still say we're better off.

With all the lip service liberals give to human rights, etc. I'm always suprised at how little they would be willing to sacrifice to actually uphold those values around the world. So what, they say, if Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac? It's not our business.

So I ask you: Would you prefer if Saddam were still in power?

 

[Disagreeable]

Disgreeable,

You seem very concerned, if not obsessed, with problems such as funding mis-estimates, confusion over WMD (which even France believed Iraq had), the need for oil, and other aspects of the war. The ultimate question is whether the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

Yes, I know what you'll say: "this war was supposed to be about WMD, not Hussein. There are bad men in the world."

But what's done is done - even if the war was purely about oil, I still say we're better off.

With all the lip service liberals give to human rights, etc. I'm always suprised at how little they would be willing to sacrifice to actually uphold those values around the world. So what, they say, if Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac? It's not our business.

So I ask you: Would you prefer if Saddam were still in power?

1. If we could roll back time and never have gone into Iraq at all, yes, I would leave Saddam in power.

2. If you are suggesting putting Saddam back in power, no, I wouldn't do that.

I do think, though, there's a good chance he will wind up in the Iraqi government. As this war goes on and the US pulls out (which we will), if he hasn't been killed, I think there's a good chance that in an effort to make peace, whoever is in charge will try to reach out to the Sunnis by putting Saddam in some government position. Of course, the Kurds won't like that.... What a mess.

 

[Steve]

well disagreeable, nice to hear you support a bloodthirsty dictator that tortured, killed and raped his way into the history books,,

are there any other terrorists/killers you would like to continue thier reign just so you can have peace at any cost, how about Hitler?, he sure cost US alot?