View Full Version : The Tillman Lies
Equineer
05-23-2005, 08:47 AM
Shameless Neo-cons Squat And Desecrate The Tillmans' Family Tragedy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7946201/)
(MSNBC, May 23, 2005)
The U.S. Army determined days after Army Ranger Pat Tillman's 2004 death in Afghanistan that the former NFL player had been killed by friendly fire, but kept it secret for weeks and even destroyed evidence, Army officials said this month.
Lies layered on top of lies... from the troops who killed Tillman, up through the Army ranks, extending all the way to Bush... a phony Silver Star and funeral staged as a propaganda event... Tillman's uniform and body armor burned to cover up the truth... a deceitful memorial tribute broadcast by Bush to a Cardinals game shortly before the election.
Tillman's father believes he will never get the truth, and he says he is resigned to that now. But he wants everyone in the chain of command, from Tillman's direct supervisors to the one-star general who conducted the latest investigation, to face discipline for "dishonorable acts." He also said the soldiers who killed his son have not been adequately punished.
Tillman's mother says, "If this is what happens when someone high profile dies, I can only imagine what happens with everyone else."
There is no level the neocons will not stoop to. This is part of their pursuit of total world control. For shame, for shame. :(
JustRalph
05-23-2005, 09:08 AM
Old News. The Army lied........they got caught. They investigated it and went after those who lied. It is a shame..........
Equineer
05-23-2005, 09:23 AM
The story was published today because the Tillmans want to see the liars actually punished... "Ooops, we got caught again" does little to discourage lies.
My spidey sense tells me it was'nt an accident.
War news:
Like the phone company. They send you a bill with calls you never made. You call them up, they fix it. Next month when the bill comes, do you look at it? close? closer? or very closely?
I don't know what happened to Pat Tillman. There's probably only 10 people that do. I look at news from the war....Very Closely.
Secretariat
05-23-2005, 12:49 PM
Eq,
Is this asserting that the Pentagon and WH knew that Tillman was killed by friendly fire BEFORE these tributes while playing up that it was an enemy fire incident? And that there was willful destruction of evidence to coverup the facts surrounding Tillman's death.
If so, this is not only appalling, it is demeaning to his family which deserves to know the truth. I doubt it will covered by mainstream media.
JustRalph
05-23-2005, 01:20 PM
Eq,
If so, this is not only appalling, it is demeaning to his family which deserves to know the truth. I doubt it will covered by mainstream media.
It has already been covered. None of this is new. The family just verified a bunch of it with these statements. The Army has already disciplined those who were there.
Suff makes a great point. He may have been killed for reasons we may never know.
What I'm saying is I have a "sense"...a feeling, a surmise, that he was killed by his own men intentionally. As strange as it may be to say, or hear & read, I consider a situation like that..."none of my business". Its between the guys on the ground.
Equineer
05-23-2005, 03:47 PM
A new Army report first publicized on May 4, 2005 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/03/AR2005050301502.html), was hardly old news to the Tillman family... it merely confirmed their private mistrust of the Bush administration and prompted their public protest against government hypocrisy, as reported on May 23, 2005.
Seven written reprimands were issued to soldiers who were actually involved in the fratricide of Pat Tillman and an Afghan militiaman serving with the Rangers. Indeed, the most serious punishments were merely written reprimands for dereliction of duty and failure to exercise sound judgement and discipline in combat.
Like civilian casualties, fratricide is a regrettable consequence of war. However, the absence of dishonorable discharges or any punishments to suggest that there was malevolence involved makes this appear to be another case where everyone but the lowest ranking grunts, who made a tragic mistake in the heat of battle, were immunized by the investigators.
The cover-up and ladder of lies extending to the Oval Office is the reprehensible aspect of this tragedy. Even Tillman's brother Kevin, a fellow Ranger, was purposefully deceived... the Army lied to Kevin, then flew him back with to the U.S. with Pat's body for a deceitful memorial service and nationally televised propaganda event while the Army chain of command issued orders to muzzle potential whistle blowers.
On national television, Tillman's family was treated like common trash by the Bush administration. The new Army report acknowledges that the Army's top theater commander, Gen. John P. Abizaid, knew Tillman's death was fratricide days before the nationally televised memorial service (and months before Bush's deceptive memorial tribute broadcast to Cardinal football fans).
JustRalph
05-23-2005, 04:50 PM
Equieer........you are so full of it. Are you saying that he shouldn't have been honored because he was killed in a friendly fire accident? It appears as such. The reason this individual was different was because he wasn't a regular guy who joined the army to defend his country. He was a millionaire who did so. That is why he was treated with such great respect etc. He stepped out of the NFL and into an Army unit.
You say there was a coverup all the way to the oval office? You are full of it.
His family wasn't treated like trash. They could have been treated much worse. At least they know what happen to him. It could have been completely covered up.
The punishment handed out is dictated by the circumstances of the events that took place. The Army has apparently come to the conclusion that it was accidental and meted out what it thinks is appropriate punishment. You are not qualifed to pass judgement on the results and neither am I. We don't have enough facts. But it doesn't stop you from signing on and throwing flames. I will trust in the Army and those men that were there to decide on appropriate punishment. They are truly the only ones qualified to make the decision.
You are just blindly posting inflammatory crap.........oh yeah......back when I was in combat school we had an acronym for that.......it was called an SOP.........in your case it fits. You are just following your usual SOP........
Secretariat
05-23-2005, 05:07 PM
...You say there was a coverup all the way to the oval office? You are full of it.
His family wasn't treated like trash. They could have been treated much worse. At least they know what happen to him. It could have been completely covered up.
By mainstream media I meant TV media, not print media JR.
This gets to the crux of my question. Obviously, from the comments of Mr. and Mrs. Tillman, they feel like they've been treated like trash, deceived, and maipulated for propaganda purposes. All I know is their son was lost, and information was covered up while an illusion was created that Tillman died under enemy fire. Hopefully, the rest of the story will emerge.
So i again ask the questions? Why was this information not shared imediately when the Army says it did know it was freindly fire, and was the WH aware of this when it attempted to use Tillman's unfortunate death as propaganda.
Suff, I cannot beleive that soldiers would intentionally shoot Tillman. I just cannot ever belevie that.
JustRalph
05-23-2005, 05:49 PM
I cannot beleive that soldiers would intentionally shoot Tillman. I just cannot ever belevie that.
You are naive................
Suff, I cannot beleive that soldiers would intentionally shoot Tillman. I just cannot ever belevie that.
No one is a NFL star in war. No one is nothing in war. War is the 5 seconds of time in front of you. NFL stands for "Not For Long", if you put people in danger, or violate the order of things.
I'm not sayin nuthin. Just breathing. Let it float away.
Equineer
05-23-2005, 08:23 PM
JustRalph,
You don't get it... the Tillmans are outraged that the ladder of liars went unpunished... they are protesting our tolerance to lies at the highest level.
Mary Tillman said she was particularly offended by President Bush's taped memorial message to Tillman at a Cardinals football game shortly before the presidential election last fall. She again felt as though her son was being used, something he never would have wanted.
An embittered seedless neo-con might think the Tillmans were lucky to eventually find out about the liars, but normal parents and most citizens believe the public trust has been violated and the liars should be held accountable, and that is what the Tillmans are still asking for.
Secretariat
05-23-2005, 10:52 PM
You are naive................
Well, perhaps I should have said, I never met a soldier who would deliberately kill another soldier. Perhaps you hung out with a different crowd. I don't know how anyone can read this and not be ashamed of what the Army did here. I'd just like to know why, and who made the call.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050523/ts_washpost/tillman_s_parents_are_critical_of_army
JustRalph
05-23-2005, 10:58 PM
if you put people in danger, or violate the order of things.
Suff: you said a mouthful right there.
Sec, it can happen. It has happen. I can only tell you that within a fighting unit, everybody knows who they want to be in that proverbial foxhole with.....and you know who you don't want to be with..........
I suspect that like many other times in our history.........and in the fog of war, Tillman was accidently killed by his allies. But, you can never rule out anything in a combat zone...........
Secretariat
05-23-2005, 11:02 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050523/ts_washpost/tillman_s_parents_are_critical_of_army
Contrast the above with this below when it happened which was posted by CJ. The truth should be told and hot used for propaganda. Beever below needs to be questioned about his statements back then. It's pretty damn despicable.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1788232
btw JR, I may not have wanted to share a foxhole with someone, but an intentional act of murder is something I did not encounter in the worst of situations. Perhaps things have changed since back then.
JustRalph
06-17-2005, 06:46 AM
Suff, I cannot beleive that soldiers would intentionally shoot Tillman. I just cannot ever belevie that.
Hello? Is there anybody in there? check out this article...........
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8246860/
Military files murder charges
in Iraq killings
NBC: U.S. sergeant accused of ‘fragging’ officers had been disciplined by them
BAGHDAD, Iraq - An Army National Guard staff sergeant has been charged with premeditated murder in a “fragging incident” that killed two senior officers at a U.S. base near Tikrit last week, the U.S. military said Thursday.
‘Fragging’ defined
The term usually refers to the assassination of an unpopular member of one's own fighting unit by lobbing a fragmentation grenade into his or her tent at night. The idea was that the attack would be blamed on the enemy. The term came to include intentionally killing a comrade during combat.
Between 1969 and 1971, the Army reported 600 fragging incidents that killed 82 Americans and injured 651. In 1971 alone, there were 1.8 fraggings for every 1,000 American soldiers serving in Vietnam, not including gun and knife assaults.
As President Nixon drew down U.S. forces in that war, troops felt they were fighting a lost cause they were unwilling to die for.
Such killings are infrequent, said Gen. Wayne Downing, an analyst for MSNBC TV. But he said they are fairly straightforward to deduce.
PaceAdvantage
06-18-2005, 04:15 AM
Why does Sec have such a problem believing soldiers would intentionally kill other soldiers? Hell, brothers kill brothers every day in this country....as do sons killing fathers, fathers killing sons, mothers killing daughters, etc. etc.
Why would the military be immune from this kind of violence? In fact, I would think it might be even MORE prevalent, given the access to weapons, and the ability to cover it up by blaming it on the "enemy"
NoDayJob
06-18-2005, 05:00 AM
Suff, I cannot beleive that soldiers would intentionally shoot Tillman. I just cannot ever belevie that.
When I was in Korea in 1950, an RA 2nd John with the 31st RCT was shot and killed by "friendly fire". The official line was he was covering his men while they retreated and was gunned down by a hail of PLA fire. He was awarded the DSC. There was no investigation, even though we knew what had happened and who probably had done the deed. This wasn't an isolated case either. Sad but true.
NDJ
Sec has a real problem with reality. And he cannot understand anything not sent to him from the DNC every day for talking points.
Secretariat
10-14-2006, 06:05 AM
A reminder about someone Anne Coulter referred to as an American orginal.
“We were outside of (a city in southern Iraq) watching as bombs were dropping on the town. We were at an old air base, me, Kevin and Pat, we weren’t in the fight right then. We were talking. And Pat said, ‘You know, this war is so f— illegal.’ And we all said, ‘Yeah.’ That’s who he was. He totally was against Bush.”
- Spc. Russel Baer, Army buddy of Tillman
“Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war.”
- Mary Tillman, mother of Pat. She said that although he supported the Afghan war, believing it justified by the Sept. 11 attacks
“Pat wasn’t very fired up about being in Iraq” and instead wanted to go fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan."
Senior Chief Petty Officer Stephen White — a Navy SEAL who served with Pat and Kevin for four months in Iraq and was the only military member to speak at Tillman’s memorial —
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/25/MNGD7ETMNM1.DTL
......
"Pat Tillman was an American original — virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be."
- Anne Coulter, professional idiot
rrpic6
10-14-2006, 06:22 AM
Looks like Coulter was not Aware of Tillman's quotes on the Iraqi War. She would retract her "kind" quotes in a heartbeat. Someone should contact her and find out if she is "for or against" Tilman.
PaceAdvantage
10-15-2006, 01:10 AM
Why would she retract her words about Tillman? Why wouldn't they still hold true to her? He still had the balls to go over there and serve his country, no matter what his personal beliefs were about Bush.
Sometimes these posts of yours are the equivalent of a big league swinging strikeout with the bases loaded...............WHIFF!
kenwoodallpromos
10-15-2006, 02:44 AM
More name calling towards someone who has good things to say about a dead soldier- Sec you are showing your anti-American disrespect for the dead.
Suff, I cannot beleive that soldiers would intentionally shoot Tillman. I just cannot ever belevie that.
Sec, you know not of what you post. You say you were in Nam and you never heard of fragging on officer in his bunk? Maybe you were just taking liberties with the truth.
Sec, if someone were to roll all the things you cannot believe into a big ball, we would call it........
R E A L I T Y.
rrpic6
10-15-2006, 12:43 PM
Why would she retract her words about Tillman? Why wouldn't they still hold true to her? He still had the balls to go over there and serve his country, no matter what his personal beliefs were about Bush.
Sometimes these posts of yours are the equivalent of a big league swinging strikeout with the bases loaded...............WHIFF!
Of course he had the balls to go over there. He's a true hero. Unlike Dick Cheney who "had better things to do" when he had his chance to defend America. Coulter's praise of Tilman in her quote seems so underwhelming to me. She gets paid to write, I don't, but she is the all-time strikeout king, or queen, in my book, as far as meaningless written material.
JustRalph
10-15-2006, 04:16 PM
Of course he had the balls to go over there. He's a true hero. Unlike Dick Cheney who "had better things to do" when he had his chance to defend America. Coulter's praise of Tilman in her quote seems so underwhelming to me. She gets paid to write, I don't, but she is the all-time strikeout king, or queen, in my book, as far as meaningless written material.
yeah, tell that to the gazillion who have bought her books............ :lol:
rrpic6
10-15-2006, 04:40 PM
I was looking at Best Seller lists. John Grisham, Stephen King, and Danielle Steele are regulars. Ellen Generes and Dennis Rodman even pop-up in the 90's, so there is no accounting for people's tastes in reading. Coulter's writings would fit nicely in the bottom of bird cages at Petsmart. But thanks for mentioning the book theme, as I went to Amazon to buy Woodward's: State of Denial. Number One this week.
BTW, she keeps appearing on FOX shows, a network that didn't file for bankruptcy last week! :lol::lol:
In fact, they might change the name of one of the shows to
HANNITY AND CASH!
Oh, it's good to be on the rich bastards' side!
skate
10-15-2006, 05:52 PM
rrpic5;
keep your nose out from the bird cage.
take a deep breath
Ann and Pat are/were the VERY best, when going one on one.
rrpic6
10-15-2006, 06:00 PM
rrpic5;
keep your nose out from the bird cage.
take a deep breath
Ann and Pat are/were the VERY best, when going one on one.
Did not know Coulter was on Tilman's team. Explains why the Cardinals are/were so bad. Pat=HERO...Ann=zero.
P.S. Go to another thread to read how picking 5 out of 6 in a pic6 is a good thing?
skate
10-15-2006, 06:11 PM
rrpic5;
i can't go to another post, im still laughing at Toms post.:lol:
but i believe you can make money on 5 out of 6, but then comes the self mutilator- gator.:bang:
JustRalph
10-15-2006, 08:48 PM
Woodward's: State of Denial. Number One this week.
Well, then you just proved your own point.............
Secretariat
10-15-2006, 09:09 PM
More name calling towards someone who has good things to say about a dead soldier- Sec you are showing your anti-American disrespect for the dead.
Name calling??? Please show me where I am name calling Tillman. i have the utmost respect for this guy. Unlike many wealthy people he didn't need to go. He went because of 911. I admire the hell out of that. My point made by both Tillman's mother and Tillman's friends was that Iraq was not the war he signed up for. He wanted to avenge himself against the perpetrators of 911 - Bin Laden.
The anti-American disprespect is when an administration hides the truth about what happened to their son to their family to score political points with his death. THAT is unAmerican.
skate
10-16-2006, 05:38 PM
sec;
it is puny to think that a cover would exist, higher up the chain. if you have a problem, then you could say "it happen" on the very low side of the chain.
a guy/gal takes a crap behind a building, not nice, and you wanna blame WHO.???
balence, you need some balence
that's no crap, and that's not chainsaws(chaney) fault.
Secretariat
10-21-2006, 10:16 AM
ESPN article on Tillman from his brother's perspective:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2633793
Pat Tillman's brother Kevin speaks out against war
PHOENIX -- The brother of an NFL player who was killed in Afghanistan after quitting the team to join the U.S. Army Rangers has broken his silence.
Kevin Tillman, a former Army Ranger who served in Iraq and Afghanistan with his older brother, Pat Tillman, has remained silent since his brother's death in 2004. But this week, he wrote a scathing indictment of the war in Iraq, the Bush administration and American apathy.
"Somehow, the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes," Kevin wrote on Truthdig.com, which purchased his work.
....
"Somehow, the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country. Somehow, this is tolerated. Somehow, nobody is accountable for this." - (Kevin Tillman)
And we should care what one guy thinks because......?
46zilzal
10-21-2006, 01:52 PM
here is a note from Tillman's brother:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601019_after_pats_birthday/
Secretariat
10-21-2006, 02:00 PM
here is a note from Tillman's brother:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601019_after_pats_birthday/
46,
A better and more complete post than mine. Thanks.
Still wondering about the significance.
Why do I care what his brother thinks?
rrpic6
10-21-2006, 05:55 PM
I value all soldiers opinions of what they have observed and dealt with. Will Rush (The oxy-Con Man) say Tilman is part of the drive-by media also? Tilman has every right to vent his frustatrations of having an incompetent draft dodger calling the shots in Iraq.
PaceAdvantage
10-21-2006, 06:13 PM
I find it interesting that nobody on the left who posts on this board gave lsbets much consideration for his opinions (he was stationed in Iraq if you didn't know) on Iraq. They are giving this Tillman guy a lot more respect and consideration.
I wonder why that is.....
46zilzal
10-21-2006, 06:29 PM
I wonder why that is.....
He was a national icon perhaps?
JustRalph
10-21-2006, 07:38 PM
He was a national icon perhaps?
you are kidding right? He was another pair of boots. I find it funny that RRPIC6 says he values every soldiers opine when it comes to this war. Funny, I know a few guys in here that have combat experience and they get shit shoved in their face by him and the horseman, just like anybody else. Amazing.........
46zilzal
10-21-2006, 07:41 PM
truth: some people's opinions (folks who are a KNOWN commodity) make the news and many others don't. SIMPLE
you are kidding right? He was another pair of boots. I find it funny that RRPIC6 says he values every soldiers opine when it comes to this war. Funny, I know a few guys in here that have combat experience and they get shit shoved in their face by him and the horseman, just like anybody else. Amazing.........
And are you suggesting combat experience exempts one from having anyone question their posts on this board ?
PaceAdvantage
10-21-2006, 11:44 PM
He was a national icon perhaps?
Tillman's brother was a national icon? No he wasn't/isn't......
Read the post again....
46zilzal
10-22-2006, 12:23 AM
his brother was a hell of a lot closer to the source (the national icon) than anyone else. He tells what his brother said to him, but NAH it couldn't be true since it doesn't "fit" the story.
Sometimes things are the way they are and not any different: both he and his brother had serious misgivings about this stupid war. It was his brother who joined first giving up a minor league baseball position and talked his brother into it.
MORE AND MORE people are seeing the fiasco for what it is: a pack of bull shit and when they call it as they see it BOOM, ATTACK the messenger as it doesn't fit with what FOX, Dick and the rutabaga says it is, YET they were there to experience it first hand.
PaceAdvantage
10-22-2006, 12:27 AM
Dude, when did I ever state that I thought Tillman's brother was lying?
GET A GRIP! AND REALLY READ POSTS BEFORE YOU RESPOND.
NOW, to get back to what I was REALLY saying.....why don't you and others of your mindset give LSBETS, a member of this board and a guy who fought in Iraq, a similar amount of respect for HIS opinions?
Is it because you don't agree with his opinions? And if that is true, isn't that hypocritical of you all?
You guys cry on here all day and night about being true American PATRIOTS because you are doing your American duty by voicing a dissenting opinion, yet when LSBETS voices an opinion (based on FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE, UNLIKE THE REST OF US) that you don't agree with, you flick him off like some annoying bug.
How do you reconcile this baloney? As long as a solider expresses an opinion you agree with, he gets your respect, but if not, being a soldier fighting on the front line suddenly doesn't count for anything? Nice.....real nice....
JustRalph
10-22-2006, 02:50 AM
And are you suggesting combat experience exempts one from having anyone question their posts on this board ?
you wish.............
46zilzal
10-22-2006, 12:02 PM
lsbets gets his podium: I respectfully disagree with his point of view. End of story.
Secretariat
10-22-2006, 12:18 PM
I respect Isbets service. I served as well (not in Iraq but Nam). i respect his right to voice his opnion as much as he wants, and to certainly be heard. I may not like some of his remarks, but I've never said he doesn't have a right to be heard or be given respect (unless of ocurse he goes off on a tirade at someone who disagrees with him)
Look, Isbets is in my book a vet who fought for his country. There is nothing more admirable. I respect anyone who puts on the uniform and goes off to a fight. But I have spoken with many vets who also fought in Iraq, and been redeployed. I've attended funerals of soldiers. I've seen and spoken with their familes. I've been to Walter Reed. Some agree with his assessment, and some definitely do not.
I have no bones with soldiers who go to Iraq, (except those that violate the Geneva Convention and they are being dealt with). My bone is not with the soldiers, it is with the leaders who (a) manage the war (b) the Iraqis who are so damn slow to get off their ass and fight for their country (saw the same damn thing in Nam with the South Vietnam Army. As long as someone else is willing to do the fighting where's the motivation) (c) I'm pissed that Bin laden, Zawahari and Omar are still out there after all this time. (d) That we are forced to play by Sadr's rules in dealing with militias. (e) That the poppy fields in Afghansitan are flourishing supplying the Taliban and Al Queda with mroe funds for the last FIVE years while we do nothing. (f) That Rumsfeld has not been replaced despite numerous respective generals declaring he has mismanaged the war (g) That the administration keeps painting a rosy picture of a country in chaos...and so on.
The issue is not Isbets. I salute his service. I wish those who attacked John Kerry;s service here did the same, but they never got past their partisanship in smearing a vet. The issue is WHAT THE HELL ARE WE REALLY ACCOMPLISHING THERE, AND AT WHAT COST, IN MANPOWER AND MONEY? WHY HAS THE WAR BEEN SO BADLY MISMANAGED? WHEN IS THE END IN SIGHT? HOW MUCH MORE WILL IT COST? The bullshit answer "whatever it takes" is unacceptable. Our nation is not at threat in Iraq. It NEVER was.
Sec, have you actually read the Geneva Convention?
I haven't.
Please point me to specific parts of it that that the soliers you have already labled as guilty have violated.
While you are at it, try the Constitution - a good read, also. It says people are presumed innocent until proven guitly in a court of law. I understand that might violate your point of view by your comments here today, but you really should consider it.
And I will be waiting for the specifics in the GC that were violated.
Secretariat
10-22-2006, 01:14 PM
Sec, have you actually read the Geneva Convention?
I haven't.
Please point me to specific parts of it that that the soliers you have already labled as guilty have violated.
While you are at it, try the Constitution - a good read, also. It says people are presumed innocent until proven guitly in a court of law. I understand that might violate your point of view by your comments here today, but you really should consider it.
And I will be waiting for the specifics in the GC that were violated.
I have read the GC. There's a lot more, but hope this is specific enough for you. My post wasn't about this, but since you brought it up.
Article 1 of the Geneva Convention states:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat [unable to fight] by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
....
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-01-prison-abuse_x.htm
AP: Army noted Geneva Conventions violations in Iraq prisons last fall
WASHINGTON (AP) — An Army general who visited Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last fall complained that the military was violating international war standards by incarcerating common criminals along with insurgents captured in attacks against U.S.-led forces.
It was one among dozens of observations in a still-classified report, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, portraying an overcrowded, dysfunctional prison system lacking basic sanitation and medical supplies.
"Due to operational limitations, facility limitations and force protection issues, there are criminal detainees collocated with other types of detainees, including security detainees," wrote Maj. Gen. Donald Ryder, the Army's provost martial general. "However, the Geneva Convention does not allow this."
Ryder warned that mixing such prisoners "invites confusion about handling, processing and treatment."
Article 84 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits housing prisoners of war and "persons deprived of liberty for any other reason" with general criminal populations. The rules also require that enemy prisoners be kept in facilities "affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness."
Ryder's 64-page report, dated Nov. 5, states at the outset that investigators found no evidence of "inappropriate" treatment of Iraqi detainees by military police. It does not detail any efforts to find evidence of the abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib around the time he visited the prison — except to note that his team found a "wide variance" of detention practices at Coalition Provisional Authority facilities, including "flawed or insufficiently detailed use of force and other standing operating procedures or policies."
Widely circulated photos have shown U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners.
......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse
Specialist Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of all charges, including conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison.[1]
Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included making three prisoners masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.
[2] Jeremy Sivits was sentenced on May 19, 2004 by a special court-martial (less severe than "general"; confinement sentence limited to one year) to the maximum one-year sentence, in addition to being discharged for bad conduct and demoted, upon his plea of guilty.
[3] Specialist Armin Cruz of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion was sentenced on September 11, 2004 to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers.
[27] Sabrina Harman was sentenced on May 17, 2005 to six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge after being convicted on six of the seven counts. She had faced a maximum sentence of 5 years.[4] Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month’s pay.
[5] Lynndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005, of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. England had faced a maximum sentence of ten years, but was sentenced on September 27, 2005, to just 3 years. She received a dishonorable discharge.[6]
...
I did not post the pictures as we've all seen them. Some you can see on the wilkepedia link.
So by that, the enemy has totally ignored the GC.
I'd say all bets are off - they don't play by the rules, neither do we.
How you suppose bombing of cities in WWII got past that? Weren't innocent people killed?
BTW, have the bodies been exhumed yet? Last I heard, so-called victim's families refused permission.
Now, have you had time to look into that innocent until proven guilty thing yet?
Secretariat
10-22-2006, 03:00 PM
Tom,
I'm not going there. I will say that I beleive because the enemy does not abide by the GC and commits henous acts, that does not justify us doing the same. I am not interested in becoming them.
My original post here was in response to PA about showing Isbets respect. You are baiting me into a discussion far away from that issue.
JustRalph
10-22-2006, 03:00 PM
The Geneva Conv. was written in a time where no person on earth could have imagined "suicide bombers" and terrorist decapitations on Television.
All bets are off on the GC in my book. Throw it out the window.
Steve 'StatMan'
10-22-2006, 03:07 PM
I don't want to become them them either. But the countries of the world agreed to the Geneva Convention. The terrorists didn't. I don't like it, I don't have to like it. But those that won't fight that way don't deserve to be treated better, and if it ends up taking fighting like them to beat them, I won't be the one to say no. Still won't like it. But won't say no. They'd deserve it.
Let them win, and we (and/or our survivors) become them by default.
(Had to get rid of my avatar for now. I'm not smiling.)
Tom,
I'm not going there. I will say that I beleive because the enemy does not abide by the GC and commits henous acts, that does not justify us doing the same. I am not interested in becoming them.
My original post here was in response to PA about showing Isbets respect. You are baiting me into a discussion far away from that issue.
No, just responding to your cavalier posting that they were already guilty. An old lib trick - keep posting lies enough times until some believe them to be true. YOU are probably the one most guilty of that here. You say you respect one and in the same sentence, disrespect many. I hope you never respect me.
Secretariat
10-22-2006, 05:54 PM
No, just responding to your cavalier posting that they were already guilty. An old lib trick - keep posting lies enough times until some believe them to be true. YOU are probably the one most guilty of that here. You say you respect one and in the same sentence, disrespect many. I hope you never respect me.
They are already guilty. Been convicted. Did you read my post? If not, here's part of it again.
Specialist Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of all charges, including conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison.[1]
They are already guilty. Been convicted. Did you read my post? If not, here's part of it again.
Specialist Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of all charges, including conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison.[1]
I'm talking about the 7 being held at Pendleton on murder charges.
Secretariat
10-22-2006, 10:13 PM
I'm talking about the 7 being held at Pendleton on murder charges.
Really? I wasn't. Read my post.
46zilzal
10-22-2006, 10:29 PM
repeated at S.I. website now.http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/10/21/kevin.tillman.ap/index.html
They are already guilty. Been convicted. [1]
Sec says: "I have no bones with soldiers who go to Iraq, (except those that violate the Geneva Convention and they are being dealt with). My bone is not with the soldiers, it is with the leaders"
So Sec, who do you really have a problem with? No leaders were found guilty were they? Can't have it both ways.
Secretariat
10-23-2006, 12:05 PM
Sec says: "I have no bones with soldiers who go to Iraq, (except those that violate the Geneva Convention and they are being dealt with). My bone is not with the soldiers, it is with the leaders"
So Sec, who do you really have a problem with? No leaders were found guilty were they? Can't have it both ways.
Where in my post do I say leaders were found guilty? Whay do you mean both ways? Good God, I stated I have no bone with soldiers, EXCEPT THOSE Found Guilty (like Graner).
My problem is with policy which is instituted by the leaders. Are you really this incapable of understanding my previous post?
Where in my post do I say leaders were found guilty? Whay do you mean both ways? Good God, I stated I have no bone with soldiers, EXCEPT THOSE Found Guilty (like Graner).
My problem is with policy which is instituted by the leaders. Are you really this incapable of understanding my previous post?
Well, I guess I am incapable of understanding double speak.
rrpic6
10-23-2006, 02:49 PM
you are kidding right? He was another pair of boots. I find it funny that RRPIC6 says he values every soldiers opine when it comes to this war. Funny, I know a few guys in here that have combat experience and they get shit shoved in their face by him and the horseman, just like anybody else. Amazing.........
Unless you can prove this, you are in violation of this site's TOS. I work with 22 current or ex military people. We are in the process of recognizing their service this Veteran's Day with a ceremony. This includes one who was in Iraq last year, as well as a female that retired from Reserves. Her husband is also in the Reserves and will be deployed to Iraq in 2007. A family decision to prevent both parents being in a combat zone. An ex-co-worker is now a State Senator that had 4 tours in Iraq as a pilot. Each military person has his/her right to express their opinions. Seems like another case of the Bushies attacking those that are in disagreement.
JustRalph
10-23-2006, 03:09 PM
Unless you can prove this, you are in violation of this site's TOS. I work with 22 current or ex military people. We are in the process of recognizing their service this Veteran's Day with a ceremony. This includes one who was in Iraq last year, as well as a female that retired from Reserves. Her husband is also in the Reserves and will be deployed to Iraq in 2007. A family decision to prevent both parents being in a combat zone. An ex-co-worker is now a State Senator that had 4 tours in Iraq as a pilot. Each military person has his/her right to express their opinions. Seems like another case of the Bushies attacking those that are in disagreement.
I will let the boss decide who is in violation of TOS. What you do outside the board has nothing to do with your support of the horseman on this board. I dont' think you are a bad guy. I just think you are wrong. Just as they are. You might want to go back and read some of the posts from these guys during the first couple years of the war. Including those posts wherein they insulted and used some very serious verbage to disparage our troops and specifically LSBETS while he was in a combat zone. Pick and choose your issues, I have no problem with that. But when you ride the same wagon as these guys.........you make yourself look bad. Remember, you lie down with dogs............you get up with flea's
Secretariat
10-23-2006, 04:18 PM
JR,
If you're going to accuse people (the four horsemen) of attacking Isbets in the early parts of the war, please back it up rather than with anecdotal memories.
Most people I remember here i(ncluding what you refer to as the four horsemen) showed a lot of respect for Isbets service. Many of us disagreed with his opinion as being different than what was being widely reported by the media and by other soldiers on what was going on in Iraq. That doesn't mean people didn't respect his service. I agree soldiers are entitled to different opinions, whether it's Tillman's brother, Tillman, or Isbets. This is why there is so much confusion because there is a vast difference of opinion even among soldiers.
PaceAdvantage
10-23-2006, 06:48 PM
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT RESPECTING HIS SERVICE.....
I'M TALKING ABOUT RESPECTING HIS OPINION (whether you agree with it or not).
Get it now folks?
PaceAdvantage
10-23-2006, 06:52 PM
Unless you can prove this, you are in violation of this site's TOS.
Well, if you are referring to the use of the word "shit," it has been well established that the judicious use of the word shit, and its various derivatives (bullshit, horseshit, etc) are OK when used in moderation.
If you were a fan of the old NYPD Blue TV series, and you've been a member of this board for some time, you know that I enforce the profanity law around here while abiding by "NYPD Blue Standards and Practices," meaning, if you heard it on NYPD Blue, it's ok here.....
Call me crazy.....
delayjf
10-23-2006, 07:50 PM
"Somehow, the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes," Kevin wrote on Truthdig.com, which purchased his work.
The Key word in that whole sentence is "purchased". He waits two years says nothing then right before an election he says.
Somehow, the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country. Somehow, this is tolerated. Somehow, nobody is accountable for this."
I'm starting to hear my little voice telling me .......
delayjf
10-23-2006, 07:56 PM
Somehow, the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country. Somehow, this is tolerated. Somehow, nobody is accountable for this."
I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude he is simply grief stricken. Given his comments above he's obviously confusing the Bush Administration with the Clinton Administration.
rrpic6
10-24-2006, 06:57 AM
Well, if you are referring to the use of the word "shit," it has been well established that the judicious use of the word shit, and its various derivatives (bullshit, horseshit, etc) are OK when used in moderation.
.....
I was refering to "those with combat experience getting shit shoved in their face by him and the other horsemen". Ralph cleared it up in his response. I thought his original comment was defamatory, as it was not truthful towards myself. It certainly does not reflect my attitude towards our great soldiers. I respect their service and their opinions.
Buckeye
10-24-2006, 01:37 PM
one thing he can't lie about is all the dead people after the WTC attack.
Kiss me joker. As for his reasoning, I don't see how he can argue with a bunch of DEAD people.
PaceAdvantage
10-25-2006, 01:33 PM
I was refering to "those with combat experience getting shit shoved in their face by him and the other horsemen". Ralph cleared it up in his response. I thought his original comment was defamatory, as it was not truthful towards myself. It certainly does not reflect my attitude towards our great soldiers. I respect their service and their opinions.
Well, it's an opinion he's expressing, so I'm not quite sure if that falls under the heading of defamatory. One man's shit may be another's Shinola, right?
Lefty
10-25-2006, 01:53 PM
There is no level the neocons will not stoop to. This is part of their pursuit of total world control. For shame, for shame. :(
And some of you call the new guy, luv, ridiculous? NOW, this is what ridiculous really is.
luv_america
10-25-2006, 02:47 PM
Lefty, (lets see how ridiculous I really am)
Whenever the left mention "neocons", you have to confront them and ask them who specifically they are referring to. I don't know any "newcons", and neither do you. I've never heard of a party called "neocons", nor do I know of any organization called "neocons".
Most often, when liberals are confronted about the word "neocons", they start spewing out garbage, and some partial names, which almost always centers around Dr. Paul Wolfowitz who is currently the President of the World Bank, as appointed by George Bush.
Why Wolfowitz is important to this argument, is their concept of "neocons", is directly related to their understanding that certain factions of the Republicans would sell this country outright to protect Israel. While that may be true for different reasons, like the fact that Israel is our ally, and as the only purely Democratic nation in the Middle East (even before Iraq), their real focus is their dislike for Israel in favor of the terrorist and Palestinian causes that they love so much.
I won't go so far to accuse every liberal of this, but when I question beyond the surface about their dislike for Israel, I generally sense an anti-semetic tone, which I've never been able to forget. The fact that Wolfowitz is Jewish, and that his name seems to come up most often in the "neocon" liberal definition is not a conicedence.
Since I am idelogically alligned with Israel's defense of its democratic nation and its accountable government (I must be a "neocon" according to their measure), their attempted split or segmentation of Republicans over defending or being alligned with Israel offends me to no end. Liberals would rather fight for the unaccountable psedo-government of the Palestinian Authority or the terrorists that really rule there.
So, whenever you hear "neocon", please ask your friendly neighborhood liberal what they mean by that, and dive in with the questions. Its funny how you never hear conservatives use that word.
skate
10-25-2006, 03:55 PM
Luv;
nice job on the perspicuity
skate
10-25-2006, 04:10 PM
seems to me, some people try to attach the GC to those fighters who do not belong under the protection of the GC rules.
Secretariat
10-25-2006, 06:50 PM
So, whenever you hear "neocon", please ask your friendly neighborhood liberal what they mean by that, and dive in with the questions.
Why dive in with questions when yo can figure it out yoursefl with a little research? We've been though all this before on this board, but here's a link to help you get started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
And yes, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, GW Bush, Richard Perle espouse a neocon philosophy.
I know their plan...cut and run.
Lefty
10-25-2006, 11:26 PM
luv, i've asked these libs if they really know what the word neocon means. I asked 46 just recently what it meant. Got B.S.
I've even broken it dn for them. Take neo, it means new, i explained. And if yuh wanta take con as an abbreviation for conservative ok.
I explained I'm an old conservative not a new one. But these guys get their buzzwords and then they parrot them and somebody gives em a cracker.
JustRalph
10-26-2006, 12:10 AM
NeoCon ........... Jack Abramoff?
Lefty
10-26-2006, 12:20 AM
NeoCon ........... Jack Abramoff?
Very good, JR. LOL
luv_america
10-26-2006, 12:26 AM
Secretariat,
Obviously I don't need the Wikipedia to understand your definition of "neocon". My analysis added clarity and commentary to how liberals use the word, and what they really mean. In fact it was so clear that you didn't argue my analysis, rather pointing me to someplace where I can get someone else's definition of the word.
You have to ask yourself, why do you use the word "neocon" and what does it mean when you use it. I'm assuming you didn't get my point that liberals use it to hide the underlying prejudice that causes it.
Secretariat
10-26-2006, 01:29 AM
Secretariat,
Obviously I don't need the Wikipedia to understand your definition of "neocon". My analysis added clarity and commentary to how liberals use the word, and what they really mean. In fact it was so clear that you didn't argue my analysis, rather pointing me to someplace where I can get someone else's definition of the word.
You have to ask yourself, why do you use the word "neocon" and what does it mean when you use it. I'm assuming you didn't get my point that liberals use it to hide the underlying prejudice that causes it.
I don't have to ask myself why I use the word or what it means when I use it. It is quite clear. I thought the history of the term and where it came from may be of interest to you, hence I posted the Wilkepdiia link.
If you read the link you'll see that ironically it began with some liberals who left the Dem. party to become conservatives primarily based on discontent with the Democratic party over Israel and mid-East issues. This is important because neocons place the most important aspect of their philosophy on the protection of Israel at all costs (and I do mean costs). Unlike traditional conservatism, neocons do not care if budgets explode if Israel is threatened by its neighbors. The "traditional" conservative is extremely interested in balanced budgets, not just in words but in action. The neocon doesn't make budgets a priority. This has caused a schism this year in the Republican party because there are both neocons and traditional conservatives. Neocons have also recently espoused the advent of creating democracies abroad under the guise that it will stabilize regions and create less of a threat to allied nations, particularly Israel in the mid-East. One can be a democrat and be a neocon, someone like Joe Lieberman is a prime example. The Iraqi policy is more about the neocon philosophy urged by men like Feith and Wolfowitz and Perle than it is about the war on terror in Afghansitan which was a response to the a direct atack on our country by Al Queda. For example even if you bought that Iraq had WMD's, they had no IBM's to deliver them, and hence posed no direct threat to American soil. They would pose a threat to Israel however. This is not to say that Israel is not our ally. They certainly are, but to launch a preemptive attack declaring that Iraq poses a "grave threat" to "our" national security is not who really faced the "grave threat". There' a reason AIPAC, Lieberman, Feith, and Wolfowitz push the neocon agenda. I understand that and respect it. However, I beleive that the pressures of the neocon philisophy implemented by this admnistration are doing a few of things:
1. Redefining what a conservative is. Some really are probably headed to the Libertarian party or seeking moderates, like Hagel.
2. Creating an accelerating National Debt, and annual deficits in the hundreds of thousands each year that GW has been in office. This is not conservative.
3. Weakening our armed forces who are forced to be everywhere.
4. Creating a 'Hate America" across the globe mentality, when after 911 everyone was behind us.
5. Diverting us from really solidfying Afghansitan and defeating the Taliban and destroying the poppy crops. In other words diverting us from the real war on terror - the ones who actually attacked us on 911.
Hopefully, this will help why I use the word neocon. As Lefty says, it does mean "new". The "new" conservative today in this admisntration is Quite different from Newt's "Contract with America" crowd when the GOP took over Congress. The ushering in of Cheney, and the PNAC crowd have given neocons power, and they intend to use it. They have and this is the mess wer'e in.
One other point is that this initially played well to the Evangeliocals because Israel is a "holy land" for Jews and Christians. Therefore, protecting Jerusalem from a muslim influence is improtant to Christians as well as Jews. People like Falwell and Robertson join with AIPAC to create a very powerful one-two punch. Problem is, true fiscal conservatives are being trampled in the process, and now there is no talk of a balanced budget amendment even though Republicans controll the WH, and both houses of Congress. Interesting. They introduced a Gay Marriage Amendmentl, but not a Balanced Budget Amendment over the last SIX years.
I propose this. If we're going to spend all this money in the foreign aid to Israel and in blood and defcits, let's at least make them the 51st state, and tax them to help pay for it.
delayjf
10-26-2006, 02:47 PM
1. Redefining what a conservative is. Some really are probably headed to the Libertarian party or seeking moderates, like Hagel.
If he ever does he will not get re-elected.
3. Weakening our armed forces who are forced to be everywhere
He is using our Armed Forces to take on the global threat of terrorism.
4. Creating a 'Hate America" across the globe mentality, when after 911 everyone was behind us
The people who hate us today have always hated us. 911 changed nothing in that regard. They may claimed to be on our side or outraged, but those were only diplomatic responses so as not to lose the aid we routinely hand out.
5. Diverting us from really solidfying Afghansitan and defeating the Taliban and destroying the poppy crops. In other words diverting us from the real war on terror - the ones who actually attacked us on 911.
In reality, the Taliban never attacked us, they only provided logistical support to Al Queda. So where we wrong to invade Afganistan?? And would you support an invasion of Columbia to eraticate the Cocaine trade?
My point - either you believe the US is justified in going after anyone who harbors and supports Al Queda, or the US is not. Which is it?
luv_america
10-26-2006, 04:04 PM
He's not for any type of war unless its a Democrat war.
His view of neocons illustrates my point.
Tillman's brother got paid good money for that article by truthdig.
I don't think the cover up was to protect the guilty. Isn't it much more heroic to be killed by enemy fire than one of your own?
Secretariat
10-26-2006, 07:25 PM
If he ever does he will not get re-elected.
Hagel will run as a Republican, but could still be a Libertarian in philosophy. Ron Paul does exactly that. He'd be re-elected without having to be a neocon in the plains states. They're more interested in balanced budgets out there - true conservatism.
He is using our Armed Forces to take on the global threat of terrorism.
Not in Iraq he isn't. There were no terrorists from Iraq on the planes during 911. The largest forces we are dealing with in Iraq are insurgency or native Iraqis..we're in the middle of a Civil War that has nothing to do with terrorism on 911 in this country.
The people who hate us today have always hated us. 911 changed nothing in that regard. They may claimed to be on our side or outraged, but those were only diplomatic responses so as not to lose the aid we routinely hand out.
Like who exactly? France? Canada?
In reality, the Taliban never attacked us, they only provided logistical support to Al Queda. So where we wrong to invade Afganistan?? And would you support an invasion of Columbia to eraticate the Cocaine trade?
GW claimed those nations who protected those who invaded our shores on 911 would be dealt with. Since the Taliban and al Queda were in cahoots, and the Taliban was ruling Afgansitan, GW correctly invaded Afghansitan. THe Taliban fought as an ally alongside Al Queda, and we correctly went after them. Columbia? What does that have to do with 911 or an imminent military threat to the US?
My point - either you believe the US is justified in going after anyone who harbors and supports Al Queda, or the US is not. Which is it?
First, the problem is one of definition. When you say "anyone" I think you mean nations, otherwise we had Al Queda living in this country and numerous European countres as well. So if it's nations, Iraq did not harbor and support Al queda. That is just false. Bin Laden and Hussein did not get along at all. In fact Bin Laden wanted to defend Saudi Arabia in the first gulf war against Hussein. There is no Hussein-911 connection.
Second, there are many more Al Queda in Pakistan than in Iraq, and yet our government does not "go after them". And Pakistan is an enemy of one of our major Asian allies - India.
...
I understand your beleif in the "rightness" of the cause in Iraq based on what was told to you by the Prez, but it's time to give it up as many are finally facing the reality that we were duped into a civil war based on bogus WMD claims, and that now, Iraq is actually hurting our fight in the war on terror, not helping it. We've been diverted from the real terrorists on 911 at a very expensive cost in terms of soldiers and dollars.
Secretariat
10-26-2006, 07:30 PM
He's not for any type of war unless its a Democrat war.
His view of neocons illustrates my point.
I was for WW 2 (a Dem war), the Civil War (a Repub war), the Revolutionary War, the First Gulf War (a Repub War)., the Afghansitan War (a Repub war)
I was not for the Vietnam War (a Dem war, and pciked up as a Repub War) and not for the Iraq War (a repub war).
War's should be judged on their issues and not as "party" wars.
My view of neocons has to do with the Iraq War. I don't believe "ANY" foreign nation should be able to manipulate America's decision to go to war. When foreign dollars and foregin intelligence is cooked to cause the death of American lives then yes, I am against that "type" of war.
delayjf
10-27-2006, 02:06 PM
Hagel will run as a Republican, but could still be a Libertarian in philosophy
I'm from Nebraska so I have a little insight on this. There is some dissatifaction with Hagel, being Republican is the only thing keeping him in office. There's talk of Tom Osborne (former NE football coach and current Congressman) running against him, if he does, he's toast.
Not in Iraq he isn't. There were no terrorists from Iraq on the planes during 911.
Al-Zarqawi was Jordanian. It is a well documented fact that suicide bombers from other country's have been and are still being used. Al Queda is in Iraq, Saddam Hussain funded terrorist organizations and paid bountys to the familiies of suicide bombers.
If Iraq does erupt into a full scale civil war than at that point I'd be in favor of withdraw, but for now the US (for humanitarian reasons) needs to do what it can to prevent that.
If we do withdraw, I say we withdraw to Tehran - sooner or later we will be a war with Iran either as an allie with Israel or independantly and given that countries ties to terrorism - they are at the very least as cupable as Afganistan so I'm sure this war will meet with your approval. We owe these guys, just send in the Marines are battle cry will be - "Remember Beirut"
Like who exactly? France? Canada?
My point is that the anti America sediment did not begin with the second invasion of Iraq. Nor am I buying all the supposed "sympathy" the international community expressed in the aftermath of 9/11. As a rule, the international community resents our position, power, and influence in the world. How many countries even offered to help during Katrina? They send their condolences so as not to risk losing the money we give them.
GW claimed those nations who protected those who invaded our shores on 911 would be dealt with. Since the Taliban and al Queda were in cahoots, and the Taliban was ruling Afgansitan, GW correctly invaded Afghansitan. THe Taliban fought as an ally alongside Al Queda, and we correctly went after them. Columbia? What does that have to do with 911 or an imminent military threat to the US?
Given the above statement would you support invasions into Iran / Pakistan?
I do support an invasion of Iran, we need to deal with them. We can do it conventionally or with Nukes if we allow them to develop their nuclear program. I would also cross the Pakistan border to pursue Al Queda, If Pakistan gets in the way, oh well.
Bin Laden and Hussein did not get along at all. In fact Bin Laden wanted to defend Saudi Arabia in the first gulf war against Hussein. There is no Hussein-911 connection.
If Hussein was left alone and we lifted sanctions and went home, how long to you think it would be before they got in bed together. Also, it is a fact that there was a Pakistian / Iraq / Libya project to develop nuclear / biological weapons. Bush never said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, but if left unchecked and allowed to develop its WMD, that entire reqion could explode into a mushroom cloud, not to mention what some of these terrorist organization would do here in the US. The US needs to take on Al Queda where ever they are. This is about preventing a third world war, not starting one. It's not pretty, but the consequences of failure are extreme.
Secretariat
10-27-2006, 05:27 PM
Al-Zarqawi was Jordanian. It is a well documented fact that suicide bombers from other country's have been and are still being used. Al Queda is in Iraq, Saddam Hussain funded terrorist organizations and paid bountys to the familiies of suicide bombers.
If Iraq does erupt into a full scale civil war than at that point I'd be in favor of withdraw, but for now the US (for humanitarian reasons) needs to do what it can to prevent that.
I agree Hussein was a bad guy as are many, many, many other leaders across the world. As GW stated ,we cannot be the worl’d policemen which is exactly what were’ becoming. Also, Syria has been more of a source of terror in the MidEast than anywhere, but we’re not invading them. The truth is Iraq had been contained since the First Gulf War. We know that. The Al Queda that was in Iraq before the war were in the north in the No Fly Zone of Iraq. Why didn’t we take out those al Queda camps first? The bulk of the fighting going on in Iraq is Iraqi against Iraqi.
I believe Iraq is already in a full scale civil war. An exodus of a million people and according to John Hopkins estimates of 500,000 Iraqis dead. What has to happen before you qualifiy it as a civil war? The Sunni and Shia are bombing each toher daily, and the kurds want an indepent state. We’ve lost more in the past month in a very long time. I’ve also not heard wounded this month thus far. Since Zarqawi was Jordnaian, should we have invaded Jordan?
..As a rule, the international community resents our position, power, and influence in the world. How many countries even offered to help during Katrina? They send their condolences so as not to risk losing the money we give them.
This isn't true.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4836525
“More than 40 nations and several international organizations have contacted the State Department with offers of assistance in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Melissa Block and Robert Siegel talk to representatives of some countries wanting to help Americans in time of need.”
This article goes into it in more depth: (quite, quite interesting)
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3575
“When shocking scenes of devastation unfolded on television screens last August, the world was incredulous that the sole superpower could get its own crisis so very wrong. Relief offers poured in from abroad. China chipped in $5 million. Tiny Brunei gave $1 million. Even countries with little to give dug deep. Bangladesh sent $1 million, Rwanda wired $100,000, and Afghanistan coughed up $99,800. The United Arab Emirates was the biggest donor, doling out more than $99 million. By year’s end, the U.S. State Department had received $126 million from 36 countries and international organizations. (Other countries, such as Canada, India, Kuwait, and Turkey chose to donate directly to the American Red Cross or the Bush-Clinton Hurricane Katrina Fund.)”
And it wasn’t just cash that poured in. Other countries sent planeloads of tents, blankets, and Meals Ready to Eat, but the United States was ill-prepared to handle the largesse while residents were still trying to evacuate. Some offers were declined. But oftentimes the government accepted supplies like bandages, food, and cots and then allowed them to sit for months in Arkansas warehouses. According to a report by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) released in April, FEMA and the State Department paid tens of thousands of dollars in warehouse storage fees in the months after Katrina to house unused supplies from foreign countries.
The donated cash met a different fate. By late October, the State Department had allocated $66 million of the $126 million in international assistance to FEMA, which then granted it to the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR), the nonprofit aid arm of the United Methodist Church. With the funds, UMCOR established Katrina Aid Today, a consortium of nine national aid agencies dedicated to case-management work for Katrina evacuees. But to date, only $13 million has actually been disbursed, and it has been allocated almost exclusively to salaries and training for case workers, not to evacuees.
As for the rest of the funds, some $60 million languished for more than six months in a non-interest-bearing account at the U.S. Treasury. Had the money been placed in Treasury securities, the GAO report notes, their value would have increased by nearly $1 million by the end of February. Instead, inflation meant the funds actually decreased in value as the government stalled. In mid-March, the Department of State finally agreed to sign over the remainder to the Department of Education for teacher salaries, books, and new school buildings along the Gulf Coast. But the Department of Education has yet to spend a dime. In response to inquiries from Foreign Policy, a spokesperson said that an announcement will be made this week regarding how the department intends to use the money.
Given the above statement would you support invasions into Iran / Pakistan?
I do support an invasion of Iran, we need to deal with them. We can do it conventionally or with Nukes if we allow them to develop their nuclear program. I would also cross the Pakistan border to pursue Al Queda, If Pakistan gets in the way, oh well.
No, and no. I don’t beleive either coutnry poses an imminent threat to this country. Saying that I have no problem with intelligence operations in Pakistan to get al Queda. Invading an entire country is another proposition.
I’m also for taking on Al Queda whereever they are. I just think we have to be a lot smarter rather than destroying whole nations. This is the Stalin approach who when told there was some traitors in a a city, torched the whole city declaring who cares who dies as long we get the rats.
...
btw.. I appreciate the intellligent questions, and lack of name calling in discussing the issues.
luv_america
10-28-2006, 01:54 PM
My view of neocons has to do with the Iraq War. I don't believe "ANY" foreign nation should be able to manipulate America's decision to go to war. When foreign dollars and foregin intelligence is cooked to cause the death of American lives then yes, I am against that "type" of war.
Secretariat,
That word neocon ("jews") again. You are nearly confirming my belief that many liberals believe Iraq was invaded because the Jews in this country forced it. That view is generally anti-semetic and hateful.
For starters Israel is the only Democratic nation with an accountable govenment in a sea of puke, and should be defended. If we leave the country to your kind, Israel will be defeated and the whole Middle East will fall to the worse than Hitler Islamists. Don't you learn from history? Our will to defend Israel represents our will to defend our whole civilization. Its amazing that you can't see that through your bigotry.
Secretariat
10-28-2006, 04:49 PM
Secretariat,
That word neocon ("jews") again. You are nearly confirming my belief that many liberals believe Iraq was invaded because the Jews in this country forced it. That view is generally anti-semetic and hateful.
For starters Israel is the only Democratic nation with an accountable govenment in a sea of puke, and should be defended. If we leave the country to your kind, Israel will be defeated and the whole Middle East will fall to the worse than Hitler Islamists. Don't you learn from history? Our will to defend Israel represents our will to defend our whole civilization. Its amazing that you can't see that through your bigotry.
I posted a link to the entire history of the word neocon in a previous post. Is it that you don't understand it, or simply don't like the word?
Your generalization that labeling someone a neocon means you are anti-Semetic is exactly why we cannot have an intelligent conversation of Israel in this country.
For example, you infer because I use the word neocon that I am anti-Semetic, and "hate Jews" (other thread). Yet, Russ Feingold, a Jew, voted against the war resolution and many Jews have come out agaisnt the Iraq War. Is Russ Feingold an anti-Semetic Jew? He's used the word neocon. Is that your next claim? Is Fritz Hollings anti-Semetic as the senator from South Carolina? No, they simply realize what exactly is going on. The second largest lobby in Washington is AIPAC. That's a fact. Larger than the NRA. If you do not belevie that lobbies affect policy than you are not living in the real world as you sadi earlier. AIPAC aligns itself with the polcies of Wolfowitz and Feith giving them awards. Wolfowitz was an aide of Scoop Jackson in the 70's where the neocon philosophy was born and was listed the Man of the Year in the Jerusulam Post in 2002..
I post another link on Paul Wolfowitz because he represents the "epitome" of the neocon philosophy today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz
If you read his reasons for attacking Iraq (something Wolfowitz urged Bush to do within 4 days of 911), one of the prime reasons is the defense of Israel, and the establishment of a democracy in Iraq to stabilize the region. This is at the heart of the neocon philosophy. This and pre-emption.
There are four fundamental points to the neocon philosophy.
1. Defense of Israel regardless of cost
2. Stabilzation of Mid-East democracies to create a safety net for Israel and to insure our energy supplies.
3. Pre-emption to address any potential threat before a strike could potentially occur.
4. The enlistment of Christians to defend holy lands at all costs
Results
1. A Civil War in Iraq
2. Massive deficits in every year of GW Bush's office including the 5 highest deficits in American History.
3. A division in the Republican Party between fiscal conservatives under the old Jeane Kirkpatrick Doctrine, and the new neo-conservatives under expansionistic democracies with force and heavy miltary expenditures.
....
I think neocons are quite perceptive. As Richard Perle described his first meeting with George W. Bush:
"Two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much... you got the sense that if he believed something he'd pursue it tenaciously."
luv_america
10-28-2006, 05:43 PM
OK Secretariat. I'll buy the point that you're not anti-semitic, but I will inquire as to what you would do with Israel if it was attacked? What is your plan?
lsbets
10-28-2006, 05:50 PM
"4. The enlistment of Christians to defend holy lands at all costs"
Your choice of words in that point could certainly cause one to wonder if you believe that "neo-conservatisism" is a big Jewish conspiracy. Who is enlisiting the Christians? You are certainly impying there that it is the "Jews". You've used very similar language in the past. To be honest, you seem a like like Light, only with enough sense to be subtle about it.
46zilzal
10-28-2006, 05:56 PM
OK Secretariat. I'll buy the point that you're not anti-semitic, but I will inquire as to what you would do with Israel if it was attacked? What is your plan?
why should HE have any plan? From what we have seen recently, these guys can handle themselves well. Let them do their own thing.
Secretariat
10-28-2006, 07:53 PM
OK Secretariat. I'll buy the point that you're not anti-semitic, but I will inquire as to what you would do with Israel if it was attacked? What is your plan?
Well, that's a good question. Frankly, I beleive the US should take the lead in setting up an immediate major diplomacy effort to the Palestinian situation. Nobody says it is easy. We have got to get agreement on three things first.
1. How do we move Palestine from a poverty ridden land filled with people with no hope to economic stability? How can we reconcile the wealth of Israel next door to a nation of poverty filled with people with little hope?
2. How do we resolve the religious division? Is it possible to get both sides to agree on border issues?
3. Is there a need for a permanet multi-national force in this region along the borders?
If we cannot discuss these matters with the Arab League, and the US and Nato then we should not simply attempt to build a democracy in Iraq because that will do nothing.
We have got to get the Palestinian situation addressed before any of this.
Secretariat
10-28-2006, 07:55 PM
"4. The enlistment of Christians to defend holy lands at all costs"
Your choice of words in that point could certainly cause one to wonder if you believe that "neo-conservatisism" is a big Jewish conspiracy. Who is enlisiting the Christians? You are certainly impying there that it is the "Jews". You've used very similar language in the past. To be honest, you seem a like like Light, only with enough sense to be subtle about it.
Ralph Reed.
Lefty
10-28-2006, 10:38 PM
[QUOTE=Secretariat]Well, that's a good question. Frankly, I beleive the US should take the lead in setting up an immediate major diplomacy effort to the Palestinian situation. Nobody says it is easy. We have got to get agreement on three things first.
How many yrs have we been trying to do this? There comes a time when you have got to realize that diplomacy has failed because the bad guys will never adhere to any agreements they have made. This admin realized that with Saddam.
Secretariat
10-28-2006, 11:29 PM
[QUOTE=Secretariat]Well, that's a good question. Frankly, I beleive the US should take the lead in setting up an immediate major diplomacy effort to the Palestinian situation. Nobody says it is easy. We have got to get agreement on three things first.
How many yrs have we been trying to do this? There comes a time when you have got to realize that diplomacy has failed because the bad guys will never adhere to any agreements they have made. This admin realized that with Saddam.
Lefty,
I beleive war is always the last resort. You try diplomacy over and over again, and you make damn sure you're right when and if you commit to war, because I've seen way too many Americans with their bodies maimed and their minds messed up for way, way too long simply to find out that they went over somewhere for a mistake.
So yes, you work at it and you work at it before American familes have to be told their kid died based on a bogus WMD claim..and that your goal is to work with other nations, not occupy them or strong arm them.
Lefty
10-28-2006, 11:56 PM
[QUOTE=Lefty]
Lefty,
I beleive war is always the last resort. You try diplomacy over and over again, and you make damn sure you're right when and if you commit to war, because I've seen way too many Americans with their bodies maimed and their minds messed up for way, way too long simply to find out that they went over somewhere for a mistake.
So yes, you work at it and you work at it before American familes have to be told their kid died based on a bogus WMD claim..and that your goal is to work with other nations, not occupy them or strong arm them.
And just how many yrs do you talk while your enemy is plotting and growing stronger.
And i'm sick of you libs' idiotic wmd lies. Based on the info, we had to blve he still had em. If we didn't and he nailed us with em you would've called for GW's head on a stick. Also, if memory serves, when he talked about wmd's there also other reasons. So can the b.s.
The fact that the terrorists flooded in after we defeated Saddam's army proves how valuable the region was to them and that GW was right.
[QUOTE=Lefty]
Lefty,
I beleive war is always the last resort. You try diplomacy over and over again, and you make damn sure you're right when and if you commit to war, because I've seen way too many Americans with their bodies maimed and their minds messed up for way, way too long simply to find out that they went over somewhere for a mistake.
Been there done that.
Screw the palestineans. When they stop initiating attacks, we can treat them like human beings. For now, their welfare is the furthest thing from my mind.
Screw the palestineans. When they stop initiating attacks, we can treat them like human beings. For now, their welfare is the furthest thing from my mind.
Or, as our President used to say, stay the course.
luv_america
10-29-2006, 08:37 AM
Secretariat, seriously I think your heart is in the right place. I cannot williningly drown you like the "hit and run" liberals on this board. I appreciate your arguments. However, in our political framework, we have to judge you on your ideas and successes. Your concepts for the Palestinians are good intentions, but have shown over and over to be ineffective.
Well, that's a good question. Frankly, I beleive the US should take the lead in setting up an immediate major diplomacy effort to the Palestinian situation. Nobody says it is easy. We have got to get agreement on three things first.
Do we all remember the Clinton initiative that the Palestinians agreed to but could not live up to, and certainly most recently we are the lead in the existsing diplomacy effort named "Roadmap" as pushed by the Bush administration and agreed to by the Palestinians, and certainly not lived up to.
We have tried over and over again to create an accountable government with realistic goals in that area. It WILL NEVER WORK until a few things happen.
1) accountable government has to come from the people (Iraq too), they have to WANT IT and SUPPORT IT.
2) with accountable government by the people, you get rid of all the terrorists and put them in jail where they belong
3) financial aid or government resources go to the people, not to lining the swiss bank accounts of despots. The PA keeps the people poor to keep their movement and aid going while they get rich.
4) The Palestinians as a people need to completely renounce terrorism. Until then no one will trust them and the walls around their society will get bigger and bigger and they will become more isolated and angry.
5) They need to recognize borders. That's it. The land grab is over.
There are a few ways this can happen.. Some are practical, some are not.
1) The people need to foment a revolution that finds the topping of their establishment and a callout to the world that they need help in creating an accountable government. We'd all come running with help and aid. (not realistic)
2) They existing government could address most of the above and become accountable (not realistic)
3) They need to be invaded, their goverment pushed out forcing the people to recognize their government's tyranny. A new government is created by the occupier and accepted by the people (slightly more realistic, and how most accountable gov'ts were created in the 20th century, Japan, Germany).
I know a few things. Giving more aid to the Palestinians in NOT the answer. In my mind you cut them off entirely. 30 years of aid hasn't done a thing to make that place any better.
I know you libs hate this, but I'm gonna say it anyway. THERE WILL NOT BE PEACE IN THAT REGION UNTIL THERE IS A CLEAR MILITARY VICTORY AND THE PEOPLE DISTRUST THEIR DESPOTIC REGIMES THAT HAVE RUINED THEIR COUNTRIES. What sucks is, someone is going to have to start and end a war there. Until then, enjoy the unrest.
Secretariat, for your benefit, I cannot think of a major conflict that was avoided in the Middle East or one involving Muslims who are at war with their neighbor, where negotiatons helped at all. They certainly haven't helped here. There have been plenty of good intentions, but certainly too much talk.
Secretariat
10-29-2006, 10:11 AM
[QUOTE=Secretariat]
And just how many yrs do you talk while your enemy is plotting and growing stronger.
And i'm sick of you libs' idiotic wmd lies. Based on the info, we had to blve he still had em. If we didn't and he nailed us with em you would've called for GW's head on a stick. Also, if memory serves, when he talked about wmd's there also other reasons. So can the b.s.
The fact that the terrorists flooded in after we defeated Saddam's army proves how valuable the region was to them and that GW was right.
See, it's not bs Lefty. That's just it. Intelligence was cooked such as the phony Niger claim. Differing intelligence assessments were dismissed as many CIA agents have gone on record challenging the WH and Chalabi's and Iraqi dissidents claims. One has to look at the intelligence, where it came from, and what the motivation is behind those supplying the intelligence. I have never criticized GW's decision to invade Afghanistan. I have criticized Iraq, and it's diversion from finishing the job in Afghanistan.
Second, as to WMD's. What are you talking about? Bush's own appointed inspectors, Kaye and then Duelfer found nothing that placed the US in any type of imminent threat from WMD's. They aren't libs, nor appointed by libs. My God, you'd think inspectors appointed by GW and the neocons would go out of their way to find something. They found nothing of significance. Get over it. And the WMD's argument was the reason that many Senators cast their vote to allow the Prez to go to war with Iraq if necessary AFTER inspections had been exhausted. You still think the Iraq War is about fighting all these terrorists who surged in after we defeated Saddam's Army. In other words, they weren't there before we defeated Saddam's Army. Thanks for that admission. The truth is Lefty, Al Queda is not the primary enemy now in Iraq. It is a civil war between rival religious factions. When are you going to get it?
Secretariat
10-29-2006, 10:13 AM
[QUOTE=Secretariat]
Been there done that.
Screw the palestineans. When they stop initiating attacks, we can treat them like human beings. For now, their welfare is the furthest thing from my mind.
Then your policy is perpetual war, and the annihilation of the entire Islamic world?
Secretariat
10-29-2006, 10:41 AM
Your concepts for the Palestinians are good intentions, but have shown over and over to be ineffective.
..
We have tried over and over again to create an accountable government with realistic goals in that area. It WILL NEVER WORK until a few things happen.
1) accountable government has to come from the people (Iraq too), they have to WANT IT and SUPPORT IT.
The concept that democracy will provide the answer is what has proven wrong. Palestine elected Hamas, and Iraq will not go after the people causing much of the unrest like the Sadr militias. If the clerics wanted in Iraq they could take over the will of the entire country, and the elected officials know it. The cheering of the invasion of Israel in Iraq gets us to the fundamental point. Why does that occur? "accountable government" means different things to different people. Hamas was elected. THAT is what the people of Palestine desired. Why is that?
2) with accountable government by the people, you get rid of all the terrorists and put them in jail where they belong
Hamas is the government selected by the people, and it certainly has not got rid of the terrorists. The Iraqi government is of the people and it has not got rif od the terrorists. In fact ,we prop up any vestiges of their abiltiy to even exist within the Green Zone. Putting them in jail doesn't deal with root causes. I agree imprison them, but we've imprisoned thousands and there are more and more. Where do they come from and more importantly WHY?
3) financial aid or government resources go to the people, not to lining the swiss bank accounts of despots. The PA keeps the people poor to keep their movement and aid going while they get rich.
Would the situation be the same if we gave the same amount of financial aid we give to Israel to Palestine? I don't think so. what has happened is like moving people out of Beverly Hills to put them in a ghetto, and then having them come in from the ghetto to support the new residents of Beverly Hills. There is bound to be unrest and resentment. When you add in the religious differnces it becomes explosive.
4) The Palestinians as a people need to completely renounce terrorism. Until then no one will trust them and the walls around their society will get bigger and bigger and they will become more isolated and angry.
This will not happen. Palestine has no military might EXCEPT terrorism. Have you ever watched the people thowing rocks at Israel tanks coming into to destroy buildings on the West Bank? THis is their army. Rocks and explosives. They have nothing else to fight. Only terrorists give them any weaponry. It is their only way of striking back militarily. We fought a guerrilla war in the Revolutionary War and the British thoguht it despicable that we didn't fight fair. There is nothing "fair" or "moral' about attacking civilians in a fight. Unfortunately, they beleive this is the only way they can be heard.
5) They need to recognize borders. That's it. The land grab is over.
Well, the Palestinans have asked the Israelis to move back to the UN borders of 1967, and they will not. Who is the one who needs to recognize borders? Palestine beleives that Israel is in violation of the UN borders.
There are a few ways this can happen.. Some are practical, some are not.
1) The people need to foment a revolution that finds the topping of their establishment and a callout to the world that they need help in creating an accountable government. We'd all come running with help and aid. (not realistic)
Agreed. Not realistic.
2) They existing government could address most of the above and become accountable (not realistic)
Agreed . Not realistic.
3) They need to be invaded, their goverment pushed out forcing the people to recognize their government's tyranny. A new government is created by the occupier and accepted by the people (slightly more realistic, and how most accountable gov'ts were created in the 20th century, Japan, Germany).
Unfortunately, this creates World War 3 unlike anything we're seeing in the Mid-East now.
I know a few things. Giving more aid to the Palestinians in NOT the answer. In my mind you cut them off entirely. 30 years of aid hasn't done a thing to make that place any better.
I don't agree. You attach strong conditions and benchmarks to aid and Israel goes back to 1967 UN borders.
I know you libs hate this, but I'm gonna say it anyway. THERE WILL NOT BE PEACE IN THAT REGION UNTIL THERE IS A CLEAR MILITARY VICTORY AND THE PEOPLE DISTRUST THEIR DESPOTIC REGIMES THAT HAVE RUINED THEIR COUNTRIES. What sucks is, someone is going to have to start and end a war there. Until then, enjoy the unrest.
I appreciate your honesty on this, becasue I think many do belevie that WW 3 is the only way to do it and to destroy Islam. I beleive diplomacy must be treid and tried again even if it only provides a few decades here and there of peace.
Personally, I beleive that I live in America,not Israel, and American lives lost and billions in foreign aid to protect Israel are not worth it. I'd be willing to relocate Israel to someplace like Texas if it meant Amercian lives will be saved.
Secretariat, for your benefit, I cannot think of a major conflict that was avoided in the Middle East or one involving Muslims who are at war with their neighbor, where negotiatons helped at all. They certainly haven't helped here. There have been plenty of good intentions, but certainly too much talk.
I don't agree. Negotiations have helepd in the mid-east. Egypt has remained relatively peaceful as has Jordan, and even Libya has relented. Strides were being made in Lebanon, but now the invasion has strengthened the power of Hezbolah there. Turkey has even become a member of NATO.
Secretariat
10-29-2006, 10:55 AM
btw..when this guy is the major source of our intelligence, we jsut don't have intelligence:
"Chalabi said the need for a new U.S. policy toward Iraq became painfully obvious when the American military recently acknowledged that its efforts to stop sectarian violence involving insurgents and militias in Baghdad had failed.
The coalition has accused Iran of arming insurgents and Shiite militias, but Chalabi, like other officials, believes that the United States should take advantage of Iran's established links with Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish politicians and groups of all kinds in Iraq in an effort to promote its national interests.
He briefly served as Iraq's interim oil minister in 2005 and was a deputy prime minister in 2005-2006. But Chalabi and his INC failed to win a single seat in December 2005 parliamentary elections, and he was not named to a post in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Cabinet.
In addition, Chalabi was convicted in absentia in 1992 by a Jordanian military court of embezzlement, fraud and breach of trust after a bank he ran collapsed with about $300 million in missing deposits. Chalabi, who denies wrongdoing, was sentenced to 22 years in prison in Jordan but has yet to serve a day."
This is a guy we paid more to than President of the US. A guy who lied to use, and shoudl be in prison - both in Jordan and here. Why do we continue to listen to him?
[QUOTE=Tom]
Then your policy is perpetual war, and the annihilation of the entire Islamic world?
If we fought it the right way, it would not be a perpetual war. ;)
Not the whole islamic world, probably, but surely the leader who support terrorism, are dicctators to their own people (Sadaam) those who are trying to prevent innocent people from being free (taliban)
Obviously the palestineans are not civilized at this point in time. Keeping them under control should be our primary goal. whatever it takes.
Left unchecked, just what the hell do you think would happen in the middle east, with the taliban, OBL, Iran......you actually believe if we left they would stop being oppressive dictators, stop terrorism, forget about attacking free people world-wide? You remind me of that idiot who lived withi the bears in Alaska....until the ATE him! What he thought was communication turns out to be palying with your food.
Lefty
10-29-2006, 11:54 AM
sec, and as usual yuou just totally discount the fact thet every high ranking dem also made speech after speech about the danger of Saddam and his WMD's; from Clinton down. Yeah, just forget it happened. Also conveniently forget that WMD's was not the only reason. Also forget that the terrorists rushed in to defend Iraq because it's valuable to them and they want it.
Gee, sec, you've forgotten more than you have ever known.
luv_america
10-29-2006, 01:30 PM
Secretariat,
today's a good horse racing day, so I'm not gonna go full boar here, but I guess you can crystalize your point of view from your posts is that the whole Middle East thing is Israel's fault. Furthermore from your other posts, conservative Jews (as you call them "neocons") push the agenda further.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, If I get you right, Muslims are NOT to blame for this, just Jews.
Also, from you answer I understand you to say that Muslims when left alone, will never choose democracy unless pushed on them, and will choose religious zealots or tyrants every time. Is this what you think?
Secretariat
10-29-2006, 01:30 PM
There is a huge leap from speaking about the need for rigorous inspections to an invasion of a country based on Chalabi intelligence. Hans Blix stated that inspections had found nothing. The problem is GW did not want to beleive that. They pointed out where those weapons were. When UN inspectors went into investigate those places, and found nothing then the refrain was that they had been moved. When GW asked Saddam to come clean, he said he had. Apparntly he was telling the truth to someone who didn't want to hear it as he'd already made up his mind. How could Saddam show his WMD's when he didn't have them?
I don't want to rehash this argument all over again, but OBL, Iran ,Hams, Hezbollah always use the Palestinian situation as the reason for their actions. That is why this situation is the primary one to be dealt with.
Tom, I agree with one thing you say. We are not fighting this war corectly. We have the most powerful military force in the world, and more nuclear weapons than any nation, but we are afraid to unleash the might of that so we fight in a pre-atomic way. The atomic bomb was dropped because Truman said he didn't want 100,000 casualties on an invasion of Japan. Currently, we are using a police action with our armed forces. Why Germany and Japan changed is becasue they were decimated, and Japan was nuked twice. I think this is an absolute last resort, and I don't think we should be in Iraq, but I don't want perpetual casualties over another decade ala Vietnam.
luv_america
10-29-2006, 01:35 PM
Amen, I may agree with you here!!
Tom, I agree with one thing you say. We are not fighting this war corectly. We have the most powerful military force in the world, and more nuclear weapons than any nation, but we are afraid to unleash the might of that so we fight in a pre-atomic way. The atomic bomb was dropped because Truman said he didn't want 100,000 casualties on an invasion of Japan. Currently, we are using a police action with our armed forces. Why Germany and Japan changed is becasue they were decimated, and Japan was nuked twice. I think this is an absolute last resort, and I don't think we should be in Iraq, but I don't want perpetual casualties over another decade ala Vietnam.
Exactly!! Let me add. War is not a game. Its purpose is to kill the enemy and break the will of their people. We're NOT doing either in Iraq right now because in my opinion, we are NOT a unified country. If we all got together and set a timetable and said, lets really unleash the thing and kick butt for a year and leave, we would accomplish our goals. We need to show the terrorists we mean business and will defend our interests, like we did in Afganistan, where there we many less things to break, so we didn't care.
You'll never get guys like 46 to buy that plan though.
Secretariat
10-29-2006, 01:46 PM
Secretariat,
today's a good horse racing day, so I'm not gonna go full boar here, but I guess you can crystalize your point of view from your posts is that the whole Middle East thing is Israel's fault.
Typcial response. When you attempt to deal with the issue other than from Israel's POV then we're blaming Israel for everything. This is why yuo'll never be able to address the root causes. Because you want it all your way.
Furthermore from your other posts, conservative Jews (as you call them "neocons") push the agenda further.
Read the wilkepedia on what a neocon is.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, If I get you right, Muslims are NOT to blame for this, just Jews.
You got me wrong. I never said Muslims are not to blame in this. It is not an either/or situation. There are wrongs on both sides.
Also, from you answer I understand you to say that Muslims when left alone, will never choose democracy unless pushed on them, and will choose religious zealots or tyrants every time. Is this what you think?
It appears that Muslims have not sought out democracyt but mroe autocratic regimes. Although Iran was a democracy until we installed the Shah. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait appear to be monarchies. Iran is really a theocracy which Iraq will become. Palestine is a Hamas democracy. Their government is their religion. it is fundamental to them. Even the Iraqis in their constitution put Islam ahead of everything. That's why seperation of church and state and freedom of religion have helped make this country great. Government does not impose religion, but that' another thread.
Please don't think I applaud the Muslim world. I don't. I despise what occurred on 911. I think they are incredibly misguided and manipulated by Muslim power seekers. BUT, we either annihilate them (which I am not in favor of) OR we find diplomatic ways to deal with those we do not agree with. You do this by dealign with root causes. If we coudl do it with Egypt, and Libya and Jordan without strong miltiary intervention then I'm not ready to give up on Palestine.
...... I think this is an absolute last resort, and I don't think we should be in Iraq, but I don't want perpetual casualties over another decade ala Vietnam.
Sec, maybe if we used it a first resort instead of a last one, these little SOB madmen would think twice before attacking us. The message we have been sending out is one of weakness, and a ajor part of that is the little hissy fits the libs and press had about Abu Grad - a very SMALL minority, and the big git about minor forms of toryure, ie, water-boarding - non-lethal, no permanent injuries, no cruel pain ( who cares about that) and already a PROVEN method of getting information that has stopped 14 in-progress terror attack plans. Hell, I have heard, and will check it out, that our special forces get trained in having WB done to them.
We are fighting an enemy who is not afraind to die, and we tell him we will only go so far to interogate them, and treat them with respect.
Remeber Gulf WarI - the Iraqis were scared to death of us because we led them to believe we would EAT them!
Different image, now.
Like it or not, we are in a war, we have an obligation to see it through, and you libs are aiding the enemy thorugh your weakness.
You guys are Al Qeda's greatest weapon.
Secretariat
10-29-2006, 03:44 PM
You guys are Al Qeda's greatest weapon.
No Al Queda's greatest weapon is our own mistakes (such as Abu Ghraib). Those kind of incidents ignited the situation even worse, and helped foster the insurgency and helped Al Queda enlist more terrorists to its cause. To blame the libs because of the torture that went on Abu Ghraib is the height of folly. People did not speak out when there was torture going on in the German Concentration camps, and now we ask why? I don't ask why. I don't want us to be like them. Maybe that's where we differ.
luv_america
10-29-2006, 04:02 PM
Secretariat,
If you are NOT Al Queda's greatest weapon, please give us your opinion as to why they use your talking points.
I find it absurd that a people who cut the heads of innocent people off with a jagged knife, really get offended when we water board them. Our methods just don't rate on the same moral equivenelce with theirs.
I think the excuse that we're making more terrorists out of Abu Grahib is convienient but wholly an exaggeration.
Oh, and since you're a fan of polls, how come we never get this poll. I'll ask the question and predict the results.
Poll Question:
Without consideration for treaties or laws in the US protecting US citizens or inhabitants, when a terrorist suspect is apprehended, should the US military or CIA use EVERY available means of torture including waterboarding, inflicting wounds or pain, injection of drugs, and possibly loss of life, if it felt by the questioning authority that the person in question is capable of knowledge of a potential terrorist attack against US interests?
I betcha 75% of americans say "YES" to the question.
JustRalph
10-29-2006, 04:22 PM
[QUOTE=Tom]
Then your policy is perpetual war, and the annihilation of the entire Islamic world?
No way that is his policy......!!! That is mine!!!! :lol:
PlanB
10-29-2006, 04:25 PM
I'm inclined to say YES also, but w/ some safeguards. It's a loaded question
because HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THAT HE HELD KNOWLEDGE OF AN ATTACK?
Surely not due to our FBI/CIA intelligence? And, many times, the actual planners of these attacks use minions WHO DO NOT HAVE USEFUL END-GAME
KNOWLEDGE, BUT OFTEN FALSE KNOWLEDGE, IN CASE THEY'RE CAPTURED.
It's a tricky situation; I think we should face the harder job of (a) Securing
our borders and (b) Enlarging our military, maybe w/ some form of a draft and
(c) Improving our relations w/ our European allies and (d) Just being more
diplomatically sensible.
Well tht settles it then.
From now on, we BEHEAD them.
In islamic fashion, that is acceptable treatment.
Sec, you really slay me sometimes. You have to be sitting in a college dorm somewhere, and just before every post, you say, "Wait, wait....check this out!" Then a round of laughter for the room. And someone else says,"Who will reply first......Lefty, Tom, Luv, Ralph"....more laughter.
Secretariat
10-29-2006, 10:41 PM
Secretariat,
I find it absurd that a people who cut the heads of innocent people off with a jagged knife, really get offended when we water board them. Our methods just don't rate on the same moral equivenelce with theirs.
You miss the point. I don't care if "they" are offended or not. I am offended. Simply because some Islamic extremists behead people doesn't motivate me to become them and behead people. That doesn't mean I don't believe in hard interrogation. I do. I jsut don't think we need to torture to do it. You and Tom apparently do. That's where we differ.
I think the excuse that we're making more terrorists out of Abu Grahib is convienient but wholly an exaggeration.
Not according to the intelligence agencies.
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html
Oh, and since you're a fan of polls, how come we never get this poll. I'll ask the question and predict the results.
Poll Question:
Without consideration for treaties or laws in the US protecting US citizens or inhabitants, when a terrorist suspect is apprehended, should the US military or CIA use EVERY available means of torture including waterboarding, inflicting wounds or pain, injection of drugs, and possibly loss of life, if it felt by the questioning authority that the person in question is capable of knowledge of a potential terrorist attack against US interests?
I betcha 75% of americans say "YES" to the question.
You can post a poll here if you like.
I'm not sure I know what you mean "without consideration for treaties or laws protecting US citizens". I assume you mean your poll relates to non-citizens.
Citizens or non-citizens I would answer "no" and I'm glad President Bush is in agreement with me on this. He has gone on the record saying the US does not condone torture. Your question in your poll states use EVERY available means of "torture". I'm sorry in this case you are against both the President and the Geneva Conventions. See even if 99% of Americans are in favor of torture, I am not.
You are entitled to your objections to torture. I am not rally in favor of totrture, but I am in favore doin ghwatever it takes to prevent animal attacks on innocent pepole. There is just no way in hell anyone can ever convince me that water boarding is so bad we would allow antoehr 9-11 to happen rather than use it. Had we not used it, we might well have had another one in LA this year. And bottom line, the guy we did it to was not hurt, disabled, or permentatly affected. He is fine today.
And I totally disagree that the GC are applicable to animal packs.
Lefty
10-30-2006, 09:02 PM
You are entitled to your objections to torture. I am not rally in favor of totrture, but I am in favore doin ghwatever it takes to prevent animal attacks on innocent pepole. There is just no way in hell anyone can ever convince me that water boarding is so bad we would allow antoehr 9-11 to happen rather than use it. Had we not used it, we might well have had another one in LA this year. And bottom line, the guy we did it to was not hurt, disabled, or permentatly affected. He is fine today.
And I totally disagree that the GC are applicable to animal packs.
Yep, yep and yep.
Secretariat
03-30-2007, 07:05 PM
With numerous generals discipliend for covering up the Tillman incident, here's one who tried to inform but apparently was ignored.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070330/ap_on_re_us/tillman_friendly_fire
AP: Gen. tried to warn Bush on Tillman
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer
SAN JOSE, Calif. - Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press.
It was not until a month afterward that the Pentagon told the public and grieving family members the truth — that Tillman was mistakenly killed in Afghanistan by his comrades.
The memo reinforces suspicions that the Pentagon was more concerned with sparing officials from embarrassment than with leveling with Tillman's family.
In a memo sent to a four-star general a week after Tillman's April 22, 2004, death, then-Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned that it was "highly possible" the Army Ranger was killed by friendly fire. McChrystal made it clear his warning should be conveyed to the president.
"I felt that it was essential that you received this information as soon as we detected it in order to preclude any unknowing statements by our country's leaders which might cause public embarrassment if the circumstances of Cpl. Tillman's death become public," McChrystal wrote on April 29, 2004, to Gen. John Abizaid, head of Central Command.
Racer98
03-30-2007, 08:16 PM
Sick... Just Sick. Using his death as a cover-up for a friendly fire accident.
Secretariat
07-15-2007, 07:33 PM
Interesting in lieu of Lt. General MChrystal's memo that the WH is NOW stonewalling the Tillman investigation by invoking Exective Privielege.
They just keep trying to hide everything they know about this despite saying they are forthcoming.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2996532
delayjf
07-16-2007, 11:23 AM
Interesting in lieu of Lt. General MChrystal's memo that the WH is NOW stonewalling the Tillman investigation by invoking Exective Privielege.
I don't know what more there is to say with regards to Tillman's death, he died due to friendly fire. I think the word is out.
Lefty
07-16-2007, 11:42 AM
And this is not the first time or first admin this has ever happened in or during. Some yrs ago Carol Burnett played the mother of a soldier this happened to.
Sec, since you put so much faith in a General's comments, how about the one today who said that the surge is definately working? Do you agree with him too?
Lefty
07-16-2007, 11:49 AM
The movie, I referred to, based on a true story, was actually called, i blve, "Friendly Fire."
Secretariat
07-16-2007, 05:47 PM
I don't know what more there is to say with regards to Tillman's death, he died due to friendly fire. I think the word is out.
Tell that to GW. He refuses to hand over documents relating to his knowledge of the affair. He's invoked Executive Privilege. Coudl it be perhaps that maybe he knew about the friendly fire incident and decided to use it for political gain anyway? Nahh, he'd never do that. :bang:
delayjf
07-16-2007, 07:22 PM
Coudl it be perhaps that maybe he knew about the friendly fire incident and decided to use it for political gain anyway? Nahh, he'd never do that.
This makes no sense to me - honoring any American Soldier that died fighting for his country ( Friendly fire or not) is not justifing a war. He's simply acknowledging his sacrifice. Lots of people honor our Vietman war dead without supporting the war. I can understand the Tillman family's dispare knowing that their Son died as a result of an accident. But I don't recall President Bush claiming we have to continue to fight because the Terrorists killed Pat Tillman.
Tell that to GW. He refuses to hand over documents relating to his knowledge of the affair. He's invoked Executive Privilege. Coudl it be perhaps that maybe he knew about the friendly fire incident and decided to use it for political gain anyway? Nahh, he'd never do that. :bang:
Or could it be just another one the dems' countless investigations that they
are conducting instead of legislating?
It is obvious that this is a failed congress, unable to do squat, and thier only agenda is to keep fishing for anything to "get" Bush on. Maybe it is just that Bush is saying SCREW YOU and refusing to play thier games.
Could crap like this possible be why the approval ratings for Congress are dwarfed by Bush's?
Secretariat
07-17-2007, 12:56 AM
This makes no sense to me - honoring any American Soldier that died fighting for his country ( Friendly fire or not) is not justifing a war. He's simply acknowledging his sacrifice. Lots of people honor our Vietman war dead without supporting the war. I can understand the Tillman family's dispare knowing that their Son died as a result of an accident. But I don't recall President Bush claiming we have to continue to fight because the Terrorists killed Pat Tillman.
Then why he contuinual stonewalling. Why not come clean?
cappoblanca
07-17-2007, 02:05 AM
Several blogs here:
http://whitenoiseinsanity.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/was-pat-tillman-murdered-on-purpose/
www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110605Z.shtml (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110605Z.shtml)
bigmack
07-17-2007, 02:10 AM
Then why he contuinual stonewalling. Why not come clean?
Sec - Do you naturally gravitate towards any story that reflects a negative light on the country you live in?
delayjf
07-17-2007, 11:27 AM
My guess is a) there is nothing to come clean about and b). Why not create an outlet for all the "I hate Bush" crowd conning them into focusing all that superior intellect on a non-issue.
On a related topic, now that the truth of his death is out....will they revoke his Silver Star?
Secretariat
07-17-2007, 11:49 AM
My guess is a) there is nothing to come clean about and b).
If there is nothing to come clean about, then why the need to invoke executive privilege?
delayjf
07-17-2007, 12:25 PM
Again,to keep the liberals guessing and mis-direct their attention... their planning another hurricane. :eek:
JustRalph
07-17-2007, 12:55 PM
If there is nothing to come clean about, then why the need to invoke executive privilege?
because it keeps the inner workings secret. it allows a normal functioning office (not just president, any office in the exec branch) to participate in timely secret discussions that do not reveal motives and plans beyond the obvious. Every executive in the world has this right and it makes the world go round.
I didn't complain when Clinton claimed it on some stuff.........but the outside government stuff is a joke. You can't claim it for hiding your Willie getting horked by the office girl.........because the charges or ongoing investigation are pointed directly are your conduct, as in criminal charges. And if you doubt that.........look it up........the Courts agreed with me.
But for normal functioning government operations, such as a campaign of war, it applies. It has been used since the dawn of our government...see below:
The year is 1796, President Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents relating to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with England. The Senate alone plays a role in the ratification of treaties, Washington reasoned, and therefore the House had no legitimate claim to the material. Accordingly, Washington provided the documents to the Senate but not the House.
Eleven years later, the issue of executive privilege arose in court. Counsel for Aaron Burr, on trial for treason, asked the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum--an order requiring the production of documents and other tangible items--against President Thomas Jefferson, who, it was thought, had in his possession a letter exonerating Burr.
Secretariat
07-17-2007, 06:53 PM
Keep telling yourself that JR, and also that there really are WMD's in Iraq.
You're deluding yourself. Just like Dem's did when they actually beleived Republicans before.
http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/whatever_happened_extraordinary_circumstances?tx=3
Whatever Happened to "Extraordinary Circumstances"?
Submitted by Bill Scher on July 17, 2007 - 1:05pm.
I'll say this for Sen. John McCain. He thinks ahead.
During today's Senate floor debate, Sen. Carl Levin urged McCain and his fellow conservatives to refrain from filibustering his Iraq proposal, and allow for an "up-or-down" vote.
McCain shrugged him off, saying both parties have employed such procedural tactics in the past.
That wasn't McCain's song two years ago, when he joined the "Group of 14."
I saw Dingy Harry wheeling cots into the senate chambers today....what time does he wheel in the hookers?
"Hey Ralph....."
"What Tom?"
"You know what?"
"What, Tom?"
"With all those OLD guys in the senate, staying' up all night...."
"I KNOW!!! they better wheel in BEDPANS too"
"HAHAHAHA!"
"HAHAHAHA!"
lsbets
07-17-2007, 07:53 PM
Keep telling yourself that JR, and also that there really are WMD's in Iraq.
You're deluding yourself. Just like Dem's did when they actually beleived Republicans before.
http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/whatever_happened_extraordinary_circumstances?tx=3
Whatever Happened to "Extraordinary Circumstances"?
Submitted by Bill Scher on July 17, 2007 - 1:05pm.
I'll say this for Sen. John McCain. He thinks ahead.
During today's Senate floor debate, Sen. Carl Levin urged McCain and his fellow conservatives to refrain from filibustering his Iraq proposal, and allow for an "up-or-down" vote.
McCain shrugged him off, saying both parties have employed such procedural tactics in the past.
That wasn't McCain's song two years ago, when he joined the "Group of 14."
I would say that stabbing our servicemen in the back in the name of politics qualifies as extraordinary circumstances, and McCain is more familiar than anyone in the Senate with what it means to be abandoned by your country. All those who voted to allow the surge and told our men and women to fight their asses off only to decide to give it up early, not based on the evidence from the field, but based on selfish political decisions, should be ashamed of themselves and are not fit to serve us as elected officials. They are simply disgusting, wretched human beings not worth one drop of sweat, let alone blood, from those in uniform.
Sa-lute, ls, Sa-lute!
Right ot the point. Reports are coming out that the surge, only a few weeks old at full strength, is WORKING. this is the WORST news the dems could ever have. They have no problem selling out our troops for votes.
It is just amazing that they can say they support our troops with a straight face when in fact, they are only usiing them. I think the Iraqi's have more respect for them than dems do. In fact, I do not doubt it at all.
delayjf
07-18-2007, 11:39 AM
Just goes to show you how invested in defeat the Demwits are.
And how about that cots B.S. That was about the stupidest political move I've ever seen. Does anyone really think Hillary is going to sleep in one of those?? Not if the cameras aren't rolling. I thought they were supposed to be debating all night, if that's the case why would they be sleeping?? All that superior intellect and this is what they come up with??
Secretariat
07-18-2007, 03:07 PM
I would say that stabbing our servicemen in the back in the name of politics qualifies as extraordinary circumstances, and McCain is more familiar than anyone in the Senate with what it means to be abandoned by your country. All those who voted to allow the surge and told our men and women to fight their asses off only to decide to give it up early, not based on the evidence from the field, but based on selfish political decisions, should be ashamed of themselves and are not fit to serve us as elected officials. They are simply disgusting, wretched human beings not worth one drop of sweat, let alone blood, from those in uniform.
Sapre me the indignation. Votevets.org contains many iraqi veterans who feel quite differently than you, and many vets are combat House and Senate members who disagree with your assessment. Why do you assail their patriotism becasue they disagree with you? Many were in combat as well.
Jim Webb has a son over there in combat today who disagrees with your present assessment of the surge.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/world/middleeast/04surge.html?ex=1338609600&en=74f08f5ec541678a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Commanders Say Push in Baghdad Is Short of Goal
BAGHDAD, June 3 — Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment
...........................
The operation “is at a difficult point right now, to be sure,” said Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, the deputy commander of the First Cavalry Division, which has responsibility for Baghdad.
In an interview, he said that while military planners had expected to make greater gains by now, that has not been possible in large part because Iraqi police and army units, which were expected to handle basic security tasks, like manning checkpoints and conducting patrols, have not provided all the forces promised, and in some cases have performed poorly.
............
When planners devised the Baghdad security plan late last year, they had assumed most Baghdad neighborhoods would be under control around July, according to a senior American military officer, so the emphasis could shift into restoring services and rebuilding the neighborhoods as the summer progressed.
“We were way too optimistic,” said the officer, adding that September is now the goal for establishing basic security in most neighborhoods, the same month that Bush administration officials have said they plan to review the progress of the plan.
Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the senior American ground commander in Iraq, said in a brief interview that he never believed that a midsummer timetable for establishing security in Baghdad was realistic. “This was always going to be conditions-driven,” he said, noting that he always had expected it would take until fall to establish security across much of the city.
....
Addiontionally, since the surge the trend has been for more violence in iraq rather than stability according to the Pentagon.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-surge14jun14,1,3126544.story
Iraq violence up since troop increase
More attacks occur in areas that had been relatively peaceful before the U.S. buildup, the Pentagon reports.
WASHINGTON — Violence in Iraq rose slightly in the three months ended in May because of increased attacks in cities and provinces that had been relatively peaceful before the Bush administration's troop buildup, the Pentagon reported Wednesday.
The intense focus on Baghdad and western Iraq by newly arriving U.S. troops pushed insurgent groups into other regions, causing a rise in violence in northern and eastern provinces such as Diyala and Nineveh, the Pentagon said in a quarterly report to Congress on Iraqi security.
The U.S. military repeatedly has touted decreases in sectarian and insurgent killings in Baghdad and Al Anbar province, which have been the focus of the so-called surge that has added 28,500 combat and support troops. U.S. officials have acknowledged problems in Diyala, and the report for the first time documents that rising violence there and in other outlying provinces has largely offset gains in Iraq's center. Overall, the average of more than 1,000 attacks each week represented a 2% increase from the preceding three months.
......
There has been no significant progress since the surge, in fact an increase in attacks.
This is a vast waste of money and manpower and a drain on our economy,, and these Senators who voted with the President are belying the will of the vast majority of Americans.
lsbets
07-18-2007, 04:14 PM
I understand that you are a simpleton Sec and incapable of comprehending virtually anything anybody says, let alone anything complex like Iraq, but I stand by everything in my post that you object to. If you really believe there has been no signifigant progess since the surge began, you are more of an idiot than I previously believed, and I wasn't questioning the patriotism of those who want to pull the rug out from under our soldiers, I was questioning their value as human beings. They are scum, pure and simple.
Lefty
07-18-2007, 04:31 PM
lsbets, about your post 148. Here here, and absofrigginlutely. You're a Great American.
Secretariat
07-18-2007, 06:26 PM
I understand that you are a simpleton Sec and incapable of comprehending virtually anything anybody says, let alone anything complex like Iraq, but I stand by everything in my post that you object to. If you really believe there has been no signifigant progess since the surge began, you are more of an idiot than I previously believed, and I wasn't questioning the patriotism of those who want to pull the rug out from under our soldiers, I was questioning their value as human beings. They are scum, pure and simple.
The typical Isbets response. When fruistrated call people who have fought in wars idiots and scum who simply believe they are keeping soldiers alive by letting iraqis fight their own fight.. A very intelligent and thought out response Isbets. Your regular name calling tirade.
I'll simply post one of many of this man's research. Check it out if you want. It lists failed lie after lie by this administration hiding behind troops (of which they've got zero actually fighting),
*Since 2005, the President has been repeating the ad-jingle-style mantra about the Iraqi military: "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." In fact, $19 billion dollars has already been poured into training, advising, and equipping that military and the Iraqi police. Yet, according to the White House Progress Report, "Despite stepped-up training, the readiness of the Iraqi military to operate independently of U.S. forces has decreased since President Bush's new [surge] strategy was launched in January." Outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Peter Pace, in fact, claims that "the number of Iraqi army battalions that operate independently, with no assistance from U.S. forces, has dropped from 10 to six over the last two months."
*The President promised in January that, in areas touched by his surge plan, American and Iraqi troops would begin to establish real "security," end sectarian cleansing, and allow no place to be a "safe haven" for militias. However, Julian E. Barnes and Ned Parker of the Los Angeles Times, reporting from a militia-controlled Baghdad neighborhood, write: "[A]s the experience of the troops in Ubaidi indicates, U.S. forces so far have been unable to establish security, even for themselves. Iraqis continue to flee their homes, leaving mixed areas and seeking safety in religiously segregated neighborhoods. About 32,000 families fled in June alone, according to figures compiled by the United Nations and the Iraqi government that are due to be released next week."
Also that "America would hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced". Well, the Iraqi government met almsot NONE of those benchmarks, and most recently the US Army was fired on by the IRaqi police.
But I realize this is your idea of success.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174820
lsbets
07-18-2007, 06:36 PM
Again Sec, as people generally on your side of the issues have poitned out, you are too simpleminded to understand basic issues, let alone complex ones, so discussing what happens area by area with you (anyone who wants to can take a look at Ramadi and the rest of Anbar and tell me if things have gotten better there or not) would be a waste of time. You will cherry pick only those things that agree with your predetermined viewpoint and ignore the views you don't like, even if they are based on actual reports from people on the ground there right now.
As far as calling people names - call it what you will, but I don't give a rat's ass what someone did 30 or 40 years ago - if you want to pull the rug out from under our servicemen after telling them to give it their all, you are scum. Period, end of story. If you recall, before the surge was announced I said either go all in or all out, not halfway, and made my thoughts very clear about half assed measures. Of course, I don't expect you to understand what I had said, because that would require thought and deviate from the daily talking points.
Sec, the surge has only been full strength for a few weeks, and violence IS down, saide fro what the LA Times (:lol:) says. the deal was, evaluate it in September, but as soon as thinkgs start to improves, the dems panic, becasue as I have said repeatedly (without links or having someone else talk for me) the dems cannot afford and victory in Iraq.
BTW....nice bitch slapping of the senate dems yet again last night! What WHINNERS! After all those nominations that never got a vote, the dems now cry like babies when it is done to them. Diff is, the repubs are doing it for a good reason, the desm did it becasue they are dems.
I think it is safe to say they will be around more than 8 more years, in spite of what you read elsewhere! :lol::lol::lol:
You guys are really delusional if you think the majority of Americans have adopted your lib ideals - they have NOT.
Secretariat
07-18-2007, 11:28 PM
As far as calling people names - call it what you will, but I don't give a rat's ass what someone did 30 or 40 years ago - if you want to pull the rug out from under our servicemen after telling them to give it their all, you are scum. Period, end of story.
30 or 40 years ago.
Here's words from people who are veterans of Iraq?
http://www.ivaw.org/
"Termed “The New Way Forward,” the surge seemed to suggest a change in political and military action in Iraq. Tragically, the only changes in the conditions in Iraq that we have seen thus far are less security for the Iraqi people and more American service members injured or killed in the line of duty. Iraq Veterans Against the War stands firm in the belief that funding the war is killing the troops – and delaying further any prospects for real diplomacy, reconciliation and peace."
http://www.ivaw.org/faq
http://www.votevets.org/
I suppose these solderis are scum according to you as well, as well as any vet who actually faced combat and disagrees with you. Boy, talk about simpleminded.
btw.. This is an excellent recent article on the surge.
'Surge' a trickle flowing through a torrent of violence
"IN THE Oubaidy neighbourhood of Baghdad, American soldiers hired a local Iraqi man to clean the portaloos at their combat outpost. Before he could start, members of the local Shiite militia threatened to kill him.
The portable toilets are now roped off, and the US soldiers, who could not promise to protect their sewage man, are forced to burn their waste.
As part of the Bush Administration's troop "surge" strategy, the US unit here had moved in hoping to push out the militia, protect existing jobs and provide stability for economic growth.
Instead, militia members stymied development projects, cut off the water supply and executed two young Iraqi women seen talking to US soldiers, sending a powerful message about who really controls Oubaidy's streets.
Officials point to signs of progress scattered across the country: a reduction in death-squad killings in Baghdad, agreements with tribal leaders in Anbar province, offensives north and south of the capital.
But as the experience of the troops in Oubaidy indicates, US forces so far have been unable to establish security, even for themselves. Iraqis continue to flee their homes, seeking safety in religiously segregated neighbourhoods."
.................................................. ........
The bottom line is NOT whether we can militarily control a negihborhood. The question is whether the Iraqis CAN and will maintain a peace. Thus far, they've failed miserably with Iraqi police being inflitrated, easily bribed, and even firing on our troops recently.
It is not us that will win the surge, but the Iraqis willingness to stand up and take over. I have no question our troops will do their job. But until Iraqis stand up, it is all for naught. We're sitting ducks waiting for a nation to take over for themselves. Pace keeps revising estimates down despite 14 billion plus spent on Iraqi training. 14 billion!!!
lsbets
07-19-2007, 06:38 AM
Are they scum? Go back and read who I singled out as being scum. I know it might be hard for you, but basic reading comprehension goes a long way in life. Reading is fundamental Sec, take a night class, do something. Perhaps you can get your comprehension skills up to a third grade level.
With all the links, polls, quotes, etc, it would appear Sec is very insecure in his positons and needs constant re-inforcment.
Or he works for moveon.nuts
Secretariat
07-19-2007, 11:49 AM
Are they scum? Go back and read who I singled out as being scum. I know it might be hard for you, but basic reading comprehension goes a long way in life. Reading is fundamental Sec, take a night class, do something. Perhaps you can get your comprehension skills up to a third grade level.
I hope others read this. Your continual condescension has become tiresome as has your failure to acknowledge any documentation that challenges your position.
You are entitled to your opinion, I respect that. However, in talking with vets, reading what many Generals have said (i.e. Keane, Batiste), looking at what non-military writers who are not compelled to tow the WH line, i have come to different conclusions than you. It appears 3/4 of the population has as well.
There's no point in providing data with your typical juvenile response such as demonstrated above.
Here is your quote:
"If you really believe there has been no signifigant progess since the surge began, you are more of an idiot than I previously believed, and I wasn't questioning the patriotism of those who want to pull the rug out from under our soldiers, I was questioning their value as human beings. They are scum, pure and simple."
Well, since all those vets as votevet.org and Hagel, General Batiste, and Keane beleive no significant progress has been made since the surge and they advocate a timed withdrawal, they classify as scum and you question their value as huiman beings based on your statement above. Enough said.
lsbets
07-19-2007, 11:55 AM
Considering how you rarely ever seem to comprehend what anyone writes, including often times links you provide, I think the suggestion of a reading comprehension class is a helpful gesture on my part. Perhaps it will help you to gain wisdom one day.
And generals there today say there is progress.
And in any event, it is not 9-15 yet.
Secretariat
07-19-2007, 12:01 PM
Considering how you rarely ever seem to comprehend what anyone writes, including often times links you provide, I think the suggestion of a reading comprehension class is a helpful gesture on my part. Perhaps it will help you to gain wisdom one day.
As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again."
Let others read your quote, and make their own determination.
As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again."
Let others read your quote, and make their own determination.
The quote:
I would say that stabbing our servicemen in the back in the name of politics qualifies as extraordinary circumstances, and McCain is more familiar than anyone in the Senate with what it means to be abandoned by your country. All those who voted to allow the surge and told our men and women to fight their asses off only to decide to give it up early, not based on the evidence from the field, but based on selfish political decisions, should be ashamed of themselves and are not fit to serve us as elected officials. They are simply disgusting, wretched human beings not worth one drop of sweat, let alone blood, from those in uniform.
It is obvious to ME who he was talking about- the dems in congress. General don't vote on bills.
Sec – you are wrong. RIF.
46zilzal
07-19-2007, 07:53 PM
When one cannot challenge the message, denigrate the messenger.
lsbets
07-19-2007, 08:04 PM
When one cannot challenge the message, denigrate the messenger.
That does seem to be a pattern of yours.
46zilzal
07-19-2007, 08:20 PM
Messengers like Fox news? Hardly reliable. I doubt I would give them credit for reporting the weather.
GaryG
07-19-2007, 08:59 PM
Messengers like Fox news? Hardly reliable. I doubt I would give them credit for reporting the weather.Only because they are not liberal-biased like you prefer. This post looks like a rerun for about the millionth time. You should try playing the horses or something.
That does seem to be a pattern of yours.
That and posting stuff that has no relevence to the curent topic! :lol:
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.