General Mattis- afghan withdrawal plan only give hope and aid to the enemy

Lol I am still sitting here in disbelief about you actually believing Italy had a world class military and was a world class adversary. Lolololok

Floridatexan wrote:
Keep spinning, Markle.


http://gawker.com/5990784/the-insane-and-devastating-costs-of-the-war-in-iraq


Ten years ago next week, the United States invaded Iraq. The ensuing decade of war would destroy Iraq, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and soldiers, and cost trillions of dollars. It was not worth it. Not even close. A new accounting from the Costs of War project at Brown University lays bare just how much blood and treasure ten years of the War in Iraq has cost. For example:

More than 189,000 direct war deaths.
At least 123,000-134,000 civilians killed in Iraq, and perhaps many times more.
More than 6,600 US soldiers and 3,000 US contractors killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Almost 700,000 US veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan have been granted disability.
The future medical costs of caring for disabled Iraq and Afghanistan veterans is projected to be between $600 billion and $1 trillion.
The US has already spend well over $2 trillion on the war in Iraq. Over the next 40 years, we could pay close to $4 trillion in interest on costs associated with the war.
There's much more.
[The full report. Photo: AP]

The 9/11 act of war cost us the lives of 3,000 innocent men, women and children. It also cost us $2 TRILLION not including the cost of the war on terror since 2001.

Exactly how many more 9/11 attacks should we have absorbed before we fought back?

If I accept the figures you quote, then you must also accept that all these figures are accurate as well.


Current Debt . . . $17.6 TRILLION

Unfunded Liabilities (money we have PROMISED, do not have, nor do we have it coming in)

Social Security. . . . $16.6 TRILLION (10,000 Baby Boomers RETIRE EVERY DAY) (How many workers are entering the job market daily?)

Prescription Drugs .$22.0 TRILLION

Medicare. . . . . . . . $87.5 TRILLION

Total Unfunded Liabilities $126.2 TRILLION!

Number of Households in 2010 = 112,611,029

Unfunded Liability Per Taxpayer $1,101,203.00

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

Markle: Exactly how many more 9/11 attacks should we have absorbed before we fought back?

What did Saddam Hussein/Iraq have to do with the attacks of 9/11, Al Qaeda, and global terrorism and why did invading Iraq suddenly take precedence over crushing Al Qaeda?  Gosh you are too easy....

Bush could have likely bagged Bin Laden in 2004, but he took his eyes off the ball because his team wanted to invade Iraq. Obama finally did it for him in 2011.



I am sure you have a lame cut-and-paste that addresses this issue as well...... 

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Markle: Exactly how many more 9/11 attacks should we have absorbed before we fought back?

What did Saddam Hussein/Iraq have to do with the attacks of 9/11, Al Qaeda, and global terrorism and why did invading Iraq suddenly take precedence over crushing Al Qaeda?  Gosh you are too easy....

Bush could have likely bagged Bin Laden in 2004, but he took his eyes off the ball because his team wanted to invade Iraq. Obama finally did it for him in 2011.



I am sure you have a lame cut-and-paste that addresses this issue as well...... 

No need for any factual "cut and paste" since you were afraid to answer the simple question. Sadly you find the 9/11 attack funny.

How many more 9/11 attacks should we have endured?

President Bill Clinton could have bagged him too.

Floridatexan wrote:
Keep spinning, Markle.


http://gawker.com/5990784/the-insane-and-devastating-costs-of-the-war-in-iraq


Ten years ago next week, the United States invaded Iraq. The ensuing decade of war would destroy Iraq, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and soldiers, and cost trillions of dollars. It was not worth it. Not even close. A new accounting from the Costs of War project at Brown University lays bare just how much blood and treasure ten years of the War in Iraq has cost. For example:

More than 189,000 direct war deaths.
At least 123,000-134,000 civilians killed in Iraq, and perhaps many times more.
More than 6,600 US soldiers and 3,000 US contractors killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Almost 700,000 US veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan have been granted disability.
The future medical costs of caring for disabled Iraq and Afghanistan veterans is projected to be between $600 billion and $1 trillion.
The US has already spend well over $2 trillion on the war in Iraq. Over the next 40 years, we could pay close to $4 trillion in interest on costs associated with the war.
There's much more.
[The full report. Photo: AP]

3,000 US contractors killed in Iraq and Afghanistan <----- big time lie just as are your civilian death counts

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
by Wordslinger Today at 12:36 pm
Markle wrote:
“
The same failure is going to happen in Afghanistan as is happening in Iraq.  We have announced our date of surrender, so Al-Qaeda and the Taliban will just wait for us to leave.

All President Barack Hussein Obama says is that he is ending a way.  WOW!

President Franklin D. Roosevelt could have ended our participation in WWII in 1942 by simply surrendering to Germany and Japan.  Gee...why didn't he think of that?
”
Here our local Nazi genius equates our insane, half-assed "we never meant to win" efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan with WWII.

Here's the difference Herr Markle: In WWII we fought an all-out war to the bitter end to defeat three industrialized world-class adversaries who represented a terrible threat to our survival as a nation.
-------
Name those three world class adversaries... Dang you are as dumb as FT and Dreams combined.

Germany
Japan
.......... And whom else?

My God ... and you claim to be a teacher!  

The Axis was comprised of Germany, Japan and Italy.  Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini.

I can't believe you're really that stupid!

 
Italy was not a world class adversary. Puhlease. You're dumber than a bag of hammers. The last time that there was a world class army that belonged to Italy, it really belonged to the Pope and it was on the way to fight the Crusades. If you really think that Italy had a world class army at the time, please explain why it took Il Duce so long to defeat the Ethiopians before WW II actually started? Hmmmmm. Ethiopia gives them problems and you want to call them "world class." Clueless. You've now stepped on your wanker with misrepresentations of things this week multiple times.

Really? At the beginning of WWII a recognized reference for the opposing forces were the terms "Axis," and "Allies." The Axis consisted of Germany, Japan and Italy. What's it like being dumber than a nail? LOL!

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
by Wordslinger Today at 12:36 pm
Markle wrote:
“
The same failure is going to happen in Afghanistan as is happening in Iraq.  We have announced our date of surrender, so Al-Qaeda and the Taliban will just wait for us to leave.

All President Barack Hussein Obama says is that he is ending a way.  WOW!

President Franklin D. Roosevelt could have ended our participation in WWII in 1942 by simply surrendering to Germany and Japan.  Gee...why didn't he think of that?
”
Here our local Nazi genius equates our insane, half-assed "we never meant to win" efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan with WWII.

Here's the difference Herr Markle: In WWII we fought an all-out war to the bitter end to defeat three industrialized world-class adversaries who represented a terrible threat to our survival as a nation.
-------
Name those three world class adversaries... Dang you are as dumb as FT and Dreams combined.

Germany
Japan
.......... And whom else?

My God ... and you claim to be a teacher!  

The Axis was comprised of Germany, Japan and Italy.  Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini.

I can't believe you're really that stupid!

 
Italy was not a world class adversary. Puhlease. You're dumber than a bag of hammers. The last time that there was a world class army that belonged to Italy, it really belonged to the Pope and it was on the way to fight the Crusades. If you really think that Italy had a world class army at the time, please explain why it took Il Duce so long to defeat the Ethiopians before WW II actually started? Hmmmmm. Ethiopia gives them problems and you want to call them "world class." Clueless. You've now stepped on your wanker with misrepresentations of things this week multiple times.

Really? At the beginning of WWII a recognized reference for the opposing forces were the terms "Axis," and "Allies."  The Axis consisted of Germany, Japan and Italy.  What's it like being dumber than a nail?  LOL!

 
 
Again arsehat, Italy was NOT a world class adversary. They barely beat a 4th world nation at the time in Ethiopia. I didn't see any Italian troops lining up side by side with the Germans heading into Russia on Operation Barbarossa- the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

Hanging out with the bully (hitler) on the block, doesn't make you one as well.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
by Wordslinger Today at 12:36 pm
Markle wrote:
“
The same failure is going to happen in Afghanistan as is happening in Iraq.  We have announced our date of surrender, so Al-Qaeda and the Taliban will just wait for us to leave.

All President Barack Hussein Obama says is that he is ending a way.  WOW!

President Franklin D. Roosevelt could have ended our participation in WWII in 1942 by simply surrendering to Germany and Japan.  Gee...why didn't he think of that?
”
Here our local Nazi genius equates our insane, half-assed "we never meant to win" efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan with WWII.

Here's the difference Herr Markle: In WWII we fought an all-out war to the bitter end to defeat three industrialized world-class adversaries who represented a terrible threat to our survival as a nation.
-------
Name those three world class adversaries... Dang you are as dumb as FT and Dreams combined.

Germany
Japan
.......... And whom else?

My God ... and you claim to be a teacher!  

The Axis was comprised of Germany, Japan and Italy.  Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini.

I can't believe you're really that stupid!

 
Italy was not a world class adversary. Puhlease. You're dumber than a bag of hammers. The last time that there was a world class army that belonged to Italy, it really belonged to the Pope and it was on the way to fight the Crusades. If you really think that Italy had a world class army at the time, please explain why it took Il Duce so long to defeat the Ethiopians before WW II actually started? Hmmmmm. Ethiopia gives them problems and you want to call them "world class." Clueless. You've now stepped on your wanker with misrepresentations of things this week multiple times.

Really? At the beginning of WWII a recognized reference for the opposing forces were the terms "Axis," and "Allies."  The Axis consisted of Germany, Japan and Italy.  What's it like being dumber than a nail?  LOL!

 
 
Again arsehat, Italy was NOT a world class adversary. They barely beat a 4th world nation at the time in Ethiopia. I didn't see any Italian troops lining up side by side with the Germans heading into Russia on Operation Barbarossa- the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

Hanging out with the bully (hitler) on the block, doesn't make you one as well.

You need to rethink your position. At the beginning of WWII Italy's army, navy and air force were ranked higher than our own -- in numbers and quality of equipment. Their fighting ability at the beginning of the war was unknown, although, as you say, they did have problems in Ethiopia.

However, my comment dealt with the enemies we faced just before and at the beginning of our efforts in WWII. No matter how you want to look at it, any one of the three Axis nations were much better equipped, with much larger armies than the Islamic terrorists have been able to face us with.

Anyone who equates WWII with the minor scrimmages we've faced in Iraq or Afghanistan is just stupidly wrong.

Hi Stupidly wrong ... what's it like being a nail?

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
by Wordslinger Today at 12:36 pm
Markle wrote:
“
The same failure is going to happen in Afghanistan as is happening in Iraq.  We have announced our date of surrender, so Al-Qaeda and the Taliban will just wait for us to leave.

All President Barack Hussein Obama says is that he is ending a way.  WOW!

President Franklin D. Roosevelt could have ended our participation in WWII in 1942 by simply surrendering to Germany and Japan.  Gee...why didn't he think of that?
”
Here our local Nazi genius equates our insane, half-assed "we never meant to win" efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan with WWII.

Here's the difference Herr Markle: In WWII we fought an all-out war to the bitter end to defeat three industrialized world-class adversaries who represented a terrible threat to our survival as a nation.
-------
Name those three world class adversaries... Dang you are as dumb as FT and Dreams combined.

Germany
Japan
.......... And whom else?

My God ... and you claim to be a teacher!  

The Axis was comprised of Germany, Japan and Italy.  Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini.

I can't believe you're really that stupid!

 
Italy was not a world class adversary. Puhlease. You're dumber than a bag of hammers. The last time that there was a world class army that belonged to Italy, it really belonged to the Pope and it was on the way to fight the Crusades. If you really think that Italy had a world class army at the time, please explain why it took Il Duce so long to defeat the Ethiopians before WW II actually started? Hmmmmm. Ethiopia gives them problems and you want to call them "world class." Clueless. You've now stepped on your wanker with misrepresentations of things this week multiple times.

Really? At the beginning of WWII a recognized reference for the opposing forces were the terms "Axis," and "Allies."  The Axis consisted of Germany, Japan and Italy.  What's it like being dumber than a nail?  LOL!

 
 
Again arsehat, Italy was NOT a world class adversary. They barely beat a 4th world nation at the time in Ethiopia. I didn't see any Italian troops lining up side by side with the Germans heading into Russia on Operation Barbarossa- the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

Hanging out with the bully (hitler) on the block, doesn't make you one as well.

Of course you did not see Italians lined up to participate in Operation Barbarossa, because you were not born yet.....

That doesn't mean they were not there:

Italian participation in the Eastern Front
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_participation_in_the_Eastern_Front

The Italian participation in the Eastern Front during World War II began after the launch of Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941. Barbarossa was the German war against the Soviet Union. To show solidarity with the Germans, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini ordered a contingent of the Italian Royal Army to be prepared for the Eastern Front and, by early July, an Italian force was in transport. Mussolini did this despite the lack of enthusiasm shown by German dictator Adolf Hitler.

From 1941 to 1943, the Italians maintained two units to fight in the war against the Soviet Union. The first Italian fighting force was a corps-sized unit called the Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia (Corpo di Spedizione Italiano in Russia, or CSIR). The second force was an army-sized unit which subsumed the CSIR. The second force was called the Italian Army in Russia (Armata Italiana in Russia, or ARMIR) and was also known as the Italian 8th Army.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
by Wordslinger Today at 12:36 pm
Markle wrote:
“
The same failure is going to happen in Afghanistan as is happening in Iraq.  We have announced our date of surrender, so Al-Qaeda and the Taliban will just wait for us to leave.

All President Barack Hussein Obama says is that he is ending a way.  WOW!

President Franklin D. Roosevelt could have ended our participation in WWII in 1942 by simply surrendering to Germany and Japan.  Gee...why didn't he think of that?
”
Here our local Nazi genius equates our insane, half-assed "we never meant to win" efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan with WWII.

Here's the difference Herr Markle: In WWII we fought an all-out war to the bitter end to defeat three industrialized world-class adversaries who represented a terrible threat to our survival as a nation.
-------
Name those three world class adversaries... Dang you are as dumb as FT and Dreams combined.

Germany
Japan
.......... And whom else?

My God ... and you claim to be a teacher!  

The Axis was comprised of Germany, Japan and Italy.  Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini.

I can't believe you're really that stupid!

 
Italy was not a world class adversary. Puhlease. You're dumber than a bag of hammers. The last time that there was a world class army that belonged to Italy, it really belonged to the Pope and it was on the way to fight the Crusades. If you really think that Italy had a world class army at the time, please explain why it took Il Duce so long to defeat the Ethiopians before WW II actually started? Hmmmmm. Ethiopia gives them problems and you want to call them "world class." Clueless. You've now stepped on your wanker with misrepresentations of things this week multiple times.

Really? At the beginning of WWII a recognized reference for the opposing forces were the terms "Axis," and "Allies."  The Axis consisted of Germany, Japan and Italy.  What's it like being dumber than a nail?  LOL!

 
 
Again arsehat, Italy was NOT a world class adversary. They barely beat a 4th world nation at the time in Ethiopia. I didn't see any Italian troops lining up side by side with the Germans heading into Russia on Operation Barbarossa- the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

Hanging out with the bully (hitler) on the block, doesn't make you one as well.

Of course you did not see Italians lined up to participate in Operation Barbarossa, because you were not born yet.....

That doesn't mean they were not there:

Italian participation in the Eastern Front
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_participation_in_the_Eastern_Front

The Italian participation in the Eastern Front during World War II began after the launch of Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941. Barbarossa was the German war against the Soviet Union. To show solidarity with the Germans, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini ordered a contingent of the Italian Royal Army to be prepared for the Eastern Front and, by early July, an Italian force was in transport. Mussolini did this despite the lack of enthusiasm shown by German dictator Adolf Hitler.

From 1941 to 1943, the Italians maintained two units to fight in the war against the Soviet Union. The first Italian fighting force was a corps-sized unit called the Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia (Corpo di Spedizione Italiano in Russia, or CSIR). The second force was an army-sized unit which subsumed the CSIR. The second force was called the Italian Army in Russia (Armata Italiana in Russia, or ARMIR) and was also known as the Italian 8th Army.

 
Didn't turn out that well for such a world class adversary, did it? Nope. Lining up beside the blitzkrieg juggernaut of Hitler's army is not the same as doing it yourself. Again, the Italian army was not a world class adversary to be compared to the other Axis powers- Japan and Germany. That's the point I am making. This is like being the guy who is the last person to make the NFL team who survives to the end of the season for the Super Bowl champs. Just because the team is full of superstars (Germany and Japan) doesn't mean you are one as well (Italy). Again, that is my point.

So Z, you skipped the part where the Italians were routed by the Russians......hmmmm

The Soviet 63rd Army, backed by T-34 tanks and fighter-bombers, first attacked the weakest Italian sector. This sector was held on the right by the Ravenna and Cosseria infantry divisions. Indeed from the Soviet bridgehead at Mamon, 15 divisions—supported by at least 100 tanks—attacked the Italian Cosseria and Ravenna Divisions, and although outnumbered 9 to 1, the Italians resisted until 19 December, when ARMIR headquarters finally ordered the battered divisions to withdraw.[3] Only before Christmas both divisions were driven back and defeated, after bloody fightings.

Meanwhile on 17 December 1942, the Soviet 21st Army and the Soviet 5th Tank Army attacked and defeated what remained of the Romanians to the right of the Italians. At about the same time, the Soviet 3rd Tank Army and parts of the Soviet 40th Army hit the Hungarians to the left of the Italians.

The Soviet 1st Guards Army then attacked the Italian center which was held by the 298th German, the Pasubio, the Torino, the Prince Amedeo Duke of Aosta, and the Sforzesca divisions. After eleven days of bloody fighting against overwhelming Soviet forces, these divisions were surrounded and defeated and Russian air support resulted in the death of General Paolo Tarnassi, commander of the Italian armoured force in Russia.[4]

On 14 January 1943, after a short pause, the 6th Soviet Army attacked the Alpini divisions of the Italian Mountain Corps. These units had been placed on the left flank of the Italian army and, to date, were still relatively unaffected by the battle. However, the Alpini’s position had turned critical after the collapse of the Italian center, the collapse of the Italian right flank, and the simultaneous collapse of the Hungarian troops to the left of the Alpini. The Julia Division and Cuneense Division were destroyed. Members of the 1 Alpini Regiment, part of Cuneese Division, burned the regimental flags to keep them from being captured. Part of the Tridentina Division and other withdrawing troops managed to escape the encirclement.

On 26 January 1943, after heavy fighting which resulted in the Battle of Nikolajewka, the Alpini remnants breached the encirclement and reached new defensive positions set up to the west by the Germans. But, by this time, the only operational fighting unit was the Tridentina Division and even it was not fully operational. The Tridentina Division had led the final breakout assault at Nikolajewka. Many of the troops who managed to escape were frostbitten, critically ill, and deeply demoralized.

Overall, about 130,000 Italians had been surrounded by the Soviet offensive. According to Italian sources, about 20,800 soldiers died in the fighting, 64,000 were captured, and 45,000 were able to withdraw.[5] When the surviving Italian troops were eventually evacuated to Italy, the Fascist regime tried to hide them from the populace, so appalling was their appearance after surviving the "Russian Front."

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
by Wordslinger Today at 12:36 pm
Markle wrote:
“
The same failure is going to happen in Afghanistan as is happening in Iraq.  We have announced our date of surrender, so Al-Qaeda and the Taliban will just wait for us to leave.

All President Barack Hussein Obama says is that he is ending a way.  WOW!

President Franklin D. Roosevelt could have ended our participation in WWII in 1942 by simply surrendering to Germany and Japan.  Gee...why didn't he think of that?
”
Here our local Nazi genius equates our insane, half-assed "we never meant to win" efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan with WWII.

Here's the difference Herr Markle: In WWII we fought an all-out war to the bitter end to defeat three industrialized world-class adversaries who represented a terrible threat to our survival as a nation.
-------
Name those three world class adversaries... Dang you are as dumb as FT and Dreams combined.

Germany
Japan
.......... And whom else?

My God ... and you claim to be a teacher!  

The Axis was comprised of Germany, Japan and Italy.  Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini.

I can't believe you're really that stupid!

 
Italy was not a world class adversary. Puhlease. You're dumber than a bag of hammers. The last time that there was a world class army that belonged to Italy, it really belonged to the Pope and it was on the way to fight the Crusades. If you really think that Italy had a world class army at the time, please explain why it took Il Duce so long to defeat the Ethiopians before WW II actually started? Hmmmmm. Ethiopia gives them problems and you want to call them "world class." Clueless. You've now stepped on your wanker with misrepresentations of things this week multiple times.

Really? At the beginning of WWII a recognized reference for the opposing forces were the terms "Axis," and "Allies."  The Axis consisted of Germany, Japan and Italy.  What's it like being dumber than a nail?  LOL!

 
 
Again arsehat, Italy was NOT a world class adversary. They barely beat a 4th world nation at the time in Ethiopia. I didn't see any Italian troops lining up side by side with the Germans heading into Russia on Operation Barbarossa- the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

Hanging out with the bully (hitler) on the block, doesn't make you one as well.

You need to rethink your position.  At the beginning of WWII Italy's army, navy and air force were ranked higher than our own -- in numbers and quality of equipment.  Their fighting ability at the beginning of the war was unknown, although, as you say, they did have problems in Ethiopia.

However, my comment dealt with the enemies we faced just before and at the beginning of our efforts in WWII.  No matter how you want to look at it, any one of the three Axis nations were much better equipped, with much larger armies than the Islamic terrorists have been able to face us with.

Anyone who equates WWII with the minor scrimmages we've faced in Iraq or Afghanistan is just stupidly wrong.

Hi Stupidly wrong ... what's it like being a nail?

 
Educate yourself- Italy was already at war and spun up and still sucked. Here is a link to start which explains how pathetic the Italian army was even against the most hapless foes....
 
http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Italian/italian_army.htm
 
 
This was certainly true of the weapons and equipment which the Italian Army had at its disposal at the outbreak of war in Europe.  Little progress had been made on modernisation, especially apparent in the armoured and artillery arms.  The infantry were also particularly devoid of effective small arms and anti-tank weapons.  In general, the Italian Army still looked very much like a force armed and equipped for combat in the early 1930's, even at the height of their commitments in 1942.
The success in Africa and the seeming collapse of all organised resistance to Hitler's legions persuaded Mussolini to embark on his own series of conquests.  Key among these was the elimination of the small and vulnerable garrisons of British and Commonwealth troops in North and East Africa.  It was upon these relatively minor obstacles that the reputation of the Italian Army was to founder.  The Italians enjoyed numerical superiority in all areas.  To paraphrase a quote from an earlier war against the British, the acquisition of Africa should have been merely a matter of marching.  For most of the Italian troops involved though, the marching was into captivity.  The polyglot collection of troops they faced fought back with both tenacity and intelligence.  Warnings regarding the ineffectiveness of weapons, equipment and most importantly command and control, had been evident in the invasion of southern France, launched in the dying days of the German invasion.  In the vast expanses of the desert war the Italians were now engaged in, these shortcomings were acutely magnified.  

The same sorry story was played out both in North Africa and Greece.  In these theatres, the only thing which prevented total defeat was the intervention of German forces.  They possessed modern and reliable weapons and equipment, and sophisticated command and control tied in with a clear doctrine.  Much work to eradicate these failings was still pending when the Italian Army was committed to a major new front in the East with the invasion of Russia in 1941.  What was a relatively small army was now split between North Africa, the Balkans and suddenly southern Russia.  

As the war progressed, the Italian Army, which was intimately entwined with their German counterpart, began to suffer the same reverses with the Wehrmacht as they had without them.  The resurgent Red Army inflicted crippling losses in the East, while in North Africa the march to evacuation across the Mediterranean dragged on into 1943.  Then came the unthinkable, the landing of Allied troops in Sicily which resisted only briefly, before the invasion of Italy itself.
 
Also-
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/ita/ww2i-mp.html
 
Hitler at the end of the War concluded that the alliance with Mussolini and the Italians was the greatest mistake of the War. That is arguable, but it seems correct that the Italians caused a great deal of trouble for the Germans and returned very little. Mussolini and his 8 million bayonets failed in every military campaign they initiated, except the invasion of Albania and this was because the Albanians did not resist. The Italians failed in France (1940), Greece (1940), Egypt (1940), and East Africa (1941). Italian troops performed badly in the Western Desert (1941-42), Soviet Union (1941-43), Tunisia (1943), and Sicily (1943). And at the end the Army failed to resist the NAZI take over of their country (1943). After the Italian Armistice, the great majority of the Italian army, left without orders, or was disbanded. Thousands of soldiers were killed by the Germans in attempts to quell any move by the former Axis nation to join the Allies or the partisans, while tens of thousands were disarmed and deported to Germany as prisoners.
 
More-
Had the Italians been even marginally effective, they could have easily taken Egyot and Suez early in the War. The question arises as to why. Various reasons had been offered. Historians have suggested factors such as ineffective leadership, poor training, obsolete equipment, and inadequate supplies. Italian officers often took little interest in the well being of their men. Certainly poor equipment was a factor.Fieldmarshall Rommel who had extensive experience with the Italian Army said of the Italians, "They are worthless fighting a war, but we should not judge people whether they make good soldiers or not, otherwise there would be no civilisation."
 
And so it continues-
Italy was not a major indistrial power. The north was industrialized, but its industrial capaity was a fraction of the other major European industrial powers (Englnd, France, and Germany). And industry in the 20th century was necessary to build the weapons systems needed to wage war. Italy with its relatively small indistrial base was not in the position to wage war against major industrial powers. In terms of population, however, Italy was one of the larger European countries. Mussolini claimed that Italy could send 8 million bayonets to the front to fight its enemies. This in effect was true. Italy had a population that sustain a substantial military. What Italy did not have was an industrial base that could adequately equip its soldiers with modern weapons. Fighting the Libyans, Ethipians, and Albanians was one thing, fifgting Britain and the United states ws a very different matter.
 
 
The points here back my statement that Italy was not a world class power/adversary at any point in the war and only had success when resistance was quite light. There was not enough training, weapons, DESIRE on the part of the soldiers, and no industrial base to create a world class adversary. And, unless they were fighting people who lived in grass huts in Africa, they sucked out loud and "couldn't bust a grape in a fruit fight." So, again, being part of the BIG GANG doesn't actually make you the baddest bully on the block. If anything, the Italians helped to drag down the Wermacht substantially and were an albatross around the neck of Germany. Hitler admitted as such.
 
Finally here is part of their doctrine-
One faction of the army wanted an alpine oriented army. In a 1937 conference on the future of armor, a ranking general said, “The tank is a powerful tool, but let us not idolize it; let us reserve our reverence for the infantryman and the mule.”
 
No wonder they were full of fail....

...and I think for the sake of this argument, you are down for the count Rocky....