Trained Iraqis

"Terrorists" sneaked up on a whole platoon of Iraq police and killed them all today.
1,300 Iraqi soldiers were "fired" yesterday for running or not fighting in their first real skirmish a few weeks ago!
I suppose that means they were on our payroll? We don't "fire" soldiers.

How on earth can all these idiots who are saying every chance they get that we have trained these people? They go home for lunch for goodness sake!
You couldn't hire me to be a General or an Ambassador under this administration. They are not ignorant and know exactly what a farce the whole thing is. They should resign.

They are pumping oil and hiding the money---we are paying all the bills!

One can not make a silk purse out of a 7000 year old sow's ear! Didn't Condi know that? I know George didn't.
Poor Generals. Many books will be written about their service.

sageadvice's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 2:15pm.

A whole platoon of Iraqi police killed, jeez I must have missread the story that it was twelve policemen killed while asleep and that another policeman is being sought for complicity. You are correct though in that some thirteen hundred Iraqi soldiers were fired, but as I read it they were sent home after being disbanded as a unit. I do not recall reading where they were placed on administrative leave as you suggest.

How we in the USA deal with "fired" soldiers and the manner in which the Iraqi government does is quite dissimilar. Our military from time to time will take off for lunch just like the Iraqis, so what is the big deal? From reading some of your previous posts, I would say that you have quite a distain for the senior leadership of our country's military-I hope that not be the case.

I'm relatively sure that they can get by without you being one of the generals.

Just my two cents worth.


Submitted by sageadvice on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 5:09pm.

This was an Iraqi Platoon Mike, Only one-third usually on duty at one time. Even in a battle they go for lunch or home to sleep!
Apparently they don't use sentries either!
Our desk jockeys and green zoners do eat lunch.
Mike, who is correct about Iraq? The Chairman of the JCS, The Southern Commander, Barry McAffery, several "retired" generals, Shinsecki for one, or these dudes who have gone along with Bush and Cheney for six years?
They MUST agree with him--- they stayed.

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 2:09pm.

'"Terrorists" sneaked up on a whole platoon of Iraq police and killed them all today.'

Yes...the surge is working, ain't it!?

Mr. Sage, if you hate this war so much, then vote for someone who will actually END the war instead of maintaining this crap Bush created.

Oh, that's right - you've told us you'll be voting for McSame in November, isn't that correct?

Anyone who votes for McSame in November, has no right to compalin about the war. Blood will be on THEIR hands.


Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 2:25pm.

... get realistic, do you really believe the hype created by Mr Obama? I fully support your right to choose, but I would have thought someone of your intellect would know better.

Of the three viable candidates, two are lightweights in experience, and the other has proven to be a political maverick. All have egos and personal quests for power, I only ask that as we vote we keep as a primary consideration what is best for the US as a whole. Your distain for President Bush is showing.


Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 4:32pm.

"Your distain for President Bush is showing.

Mike, I've never tried to hide my disdain for Bush, or this corrupt administration, who led us into the Iraq war based only on the lies they concocted.

I appreciate Hack's response to your post and I must concur that only a Dem will get us out of the mess Bush created for our country, at home as well as in Iraq. But it is the Dem's race to lose at this point and the infighting between Obama and Hillary is sickening to say the least and currently plays well for McSame.

Bush's approval rating reached a new low recently, based on an AP poll released Thurs. showing he dropped from 30% approval in Feb/March, down to 28%, with only 24% of the country believing the country is headed in the right direction.

BUSH CONTINUES DOWNHILL SLIDE IN APPROVAL


Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 6:51pm.

Perhaps you may be correct in that only a Dem will get us out of Iraq-only time will tell. Mr Bush's corrupt administration (your words) pales in comparison to his predessor who by the way made a bit of a mess in Bosnia. Either way, we have a mess, and we now shoulder the responsibility to clean it up. Any ideas?


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 3:29pm.

I have no disdain for troops; junior or senior. I have incredible disappointment in the decisions we continue to make at the political end of military leadership.

-Senator Obama has asked a valid question: How long do we wait for Iraqis to decide to unify their government?

-How long do we heed the advice of people who have gotten predictions wrong consistently?

-How many years of Iraq do we put on credit cards?

-How long do we keep rotating guys into a theater that has yielded no reductions in international terrorism, and has not gotten us any closer to OBL?

If I was a person who wanted to reduce our foot print in Iraq, who else would I vote for? Hillary doesn't know an 8th grader from a sniper, and John McCain wants to expand our democratic magic-making to Iran. He also sees a long term basing agreement in Iraq as being feasible.

I see Obama as the only candidate who has been brave enough to truly speak his mind. John McCain, who I would not be unhappy with, told us in '05, '06, and '07 "No one said Iraq would be easy." Problem is, in '03 and '04 John McCain told Meet the Press and Fox News he thought Iraq would be easy. Same flops on gay marriage and the confederate flag.

My point is, if a man has experience, but tries to convince us he did not say what we have him on tape saying, why should I give that experience over-riding importance?

Thanks for being one of the level heads!

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King


Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 6:39pm.

Thanks for taking the dance. I agree with your stance on the female candidate, however on Mr Obama I simply can not see him as "ready for prime time". He does give a great impression in his eloquence, but beyond that, who really knows. On a world stage we have too much to lose, and inexperience is not what we need right now (my opinion).

Mr McCain was not my first choice, but among the three all I can say is that I'm going with my instinct.

Regarding the mess in Iraq, I see you and I pretty much on the same tract except that for me the place would have been left completely barren after I left after 90 days. My opinion again, I see the military not in the role of nation building, for that time is long past. When Mr Hussein was located, it was time for us to leave and let the chips fall where they may.

When an administration makes the decision to put US forces into harms way, there can be but one outcome, and it must happen quickly and with a violence level that the average American would be shocked. I believe that you and I had a similar conversation a few weeks back in regards to winning.

Just my two cents worth.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.