Letter from Iraq.

[Suff]

Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.





In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.




Read it! If you can handle the truth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

[boxcar]

Oh yeah, I get it: We should let the opinions of these few dictate foreign policy. :rolleyes:

Quick -- in the interest and spirit of the "Fairness Doctrine", would someone dig up a letter by another handful of soldiers giving an opposing view? Thanks.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?ex=1187668800&en=f7179f862e875115&ei=5070

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

[Light]

^^^^^^^^^
Keep dreaming.

[bigmack]

^^^^^^^^^
Keep dreaming.
You've got two op/ed pieces from The Times. Is one all truth and the other a complete fabrication? Much to your delight there are things that are going very poorly and much to your chagrin there are some that are doing well. No great surprise. Just leave the window open a crack to let in a bit of air with your "light".

[lsbets]

Now Suff, are you capable of handling the truth from others who are there right now and have reached completely different conclusions?

You and I both know you are not.

[ddog]

I was going to post something completely different, but then I saw it as a lost cause as it would require reading comprehension to follow it.


Box- did you read the op-ed Suff posted?
if you did can you not understand that the foregin policy goals that are set out in the op-ed he posted are the BUSH GOALS FOR IRAQ.
Have you ever heard of "as they stand up we will stand down".
That is still the BUSH policy.

They seem to be saying to me that the Iraqi people need to be given more leaway and that we should not try to dictate the methods they use to achieve what WE want or SAY we want and that US metrics to measure OUR success will not impress the average Iraqi.

If they don't want the oil split the way we do then that's their business if they are to be a sovergin country.
You don't think we should impose our values and our gvt on them even if their ELECTED leaders don't feel they want it do you?

I don't see how that can even be argued.

We are legally an occupying force, we had to go to the UN to get so described to be street legal, so that is not open to debate either.
We asked for that role.

[GaryG]

When I say the title and author of this thread I thought Suff went to Iraq to straighten things out...:eek:

[DanG]

Quote:
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.


Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
Two very well written thought provoking paragraphs and completely legitimate points of view IMO.

[skate]

Quote:
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

what self-respect?

we help them out and then we expected them to "take the bull by the horns".

they did not. perhaps for good reason, since they were not permited to act on their own while under Saddamy.

now the Iraqis have been taught a lesson by al quida, and they are turning themselves into a united force.

looks real good from here.
actually, the more we hear from the media and the demos., with their anti war talk, the "suff-erless" we'll become.

[Gibbon]

Why do we fight? Possibly because we have not been hit since 9/11.
Results speak louder then NY Times futile wordsmiths.


Bob Brinker interviews Steven Emerson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Emerson) author of “American Jihad.”

http://rope.kgoam810.com/archive/kgo15.asx
Windows Media Audio file. Interview starts right after the news.
Link good for the next 24hours only.

Enlightening discussion on political correctness inside intelligence agencies and the complete lack of discourse within democrat circles.






___________________________
A people who's primary aims are driving, shopping, and television are subject to terrorism at any time. ~ Steven Deitz

[DanG]

Why do we fight? Possibly because we have not been hit since 9/11.
Results speak louder then NY Times futile wordsmiths.
By your rational if we were at war in Iraq on 9/10/2001 we would not have been attacked?

I will never understand the simplistic rhetoric of “were fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here”. If you really think about the fanaticism and mobility of radicals that ‘bumper sticker slogan has no basis in reality IMO.

[Snag]

By your rational if we were at war in Iraq on 9/10/2001 we would not have been attacked?

I will never understand the simplistic rhetoric of “were fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here”. If you really think about the fanaticism and mobility of radicals that ‘bumper sticker slogan has no basis in reality IMO.

I don't think they have the resources to "fight" us in both places right now. They went to Iraq because it was less costly than trying to set up an attack in the US. Based on what I know, the English and Spain attacks were done by cells already in place.

To your point, I feel that if we had done more before 911, ie. fighting them, 911 would have been much harder for them to carry out.

[DanG]

I don't think they have the resources to "fight" us in both places right now. They went to Iraq because it was less costly than trying to set up an attack in the US. Based on what I know, the English and Spain attacks were done by cells already in place.

To your point, I feel that if we had done more before 911, ie. fighting them, 911 would have been much harder for them to carry out.
You could very well be right Snag;

While I don’t agree this issue is too complex to state very much with complete certainty.

From my perspective this battle should never have been fought in such a public manner. When I look at the demographics in the Muslim world their numbers below 20 something's are just staggering. To make this conflict a nightly TV show is a propaganda tool that fanatics dream of.

Side bar; In about 2003 I visited a good friend in Melbourne Florida and he took me to a restaurant / bar where we met an Irish gentleman who was providing security. If anyone remembers a group called Thin Lizzy, the singer Phil Lynott was a dead ringer for this man except with short hair and the build of an athlete. (His name is TJ)

It turns out TJ is in an elite special forces unit with England and we spent the remainder of the night discussing Iraq as he is fluent in Arabic and was awaiting his next assignment. He didn’t even have a drink with us because he said once he gets the 1st call he is on standby for deployment. (He received that call a few weeks before our conversation).

My roundabout point is…After spending time with this man and other navy seals our family knows it becomes obvious we have the capabilities to fight this war in the shadows, infiltrate these cells and deal with them in the harshest terms possible.

Many CIA op’s claim that Vietnam for example would have had a very different campaign if they were allowed to continue their very effective missions with the initial bombing runs that completely changed the dynamic of the conflict.

“Shock and Awe” was a strategic mistake in my eyes. Men like TJ are trained and more than willing to play this deadly game on their terms and after talking to these men, I’m betting on our side. You know the type of men I’m discussing. When you look into the eyes of a true solider it is not someone you would want unleashed on you.

When I asked him “Why is it so difficult to capture Bin Laden” he responded…”Because, we haven’t been asked”. I then asked…”Could you capture him if orders came down.” TJ said…”What size platter would you like his head on”?

I’m not smart enough or have enough hours in the day to follow every nuance of this very complicated issue, but I feel strongly that if the TJ’s of this world where given a green light, we would win both the conflict and the crucial propaganda war that is influence millions as we speak.

[Suff]

Why do we fight? Possibly because we have not been hit since 9/11.
Results speak louder then NY Times futile wordsmiths.


Bob Brinker interviews Steven Emerson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Emerson) author of “American Jihad.”


You may want to read things before commenting on them. The NY Times Wordsmiths?? The NY Times only printed a letter from Soldiers who were recently serving in Iraq.


As an aside to you, as well as other freedome fighters. The US Military has waived its age requirement to 42, and anyone of any age can serve if they get a letter signed by thier Congress Person. You may not even go to Iraq, you may serve Stateside in support of the mission.

So the excuse is gone.....Anyone can serve. Show me how much you back up words by making your next post from Bagdhad. Until then pipe down with your "why we fight". Who is we? You? You signed up for Iraq?

In gambling they call it Betting Blind. I bet MY NUTS blind that have not and will not.

And that goes for all you other armchair warriors out there......If you truly believe its the war for civilization, if you truly believe we are fighting them there so they will not come here..... If you believe what you say. I don't give a F'k if your 63 years old. Get your ass down to the recruiters office now.

[Suff]

I don't think they have the resources to "fight" us in both places right now. They went to Iraq because it was less costly than trying to set up an attack in the US. Based on what I know, the English and Spain attacks were done by cells already in place.

To your point, I feel that if we had done more before 911, ie. fighting them, 911 would have been much harder for them to carry out.


19 guys hijacked planes with Box-cutters. Resources? I pray to God you don't honestly believe that the US military can do anything to prevent Terrorist attacks in the USA by fighting in IRAQ?

9-11 could have been prevented with one simple flip of a switch. LOCK THE CABIN DOOR. Very simple. The FAA should have issued that dictate based on the reports it was getting.

You have to look around at history , and in a very short period of time, you draw the conclusion that you cannot solve terrorism militarily. It cannot be done. Matter of fact, it fuels it when used incorrectly. The United States Military will have little success in eliminating terrorism.

Its border line comical to think a Terrorist in Iraq would rather be facing an M-1 Abrams tank in Iraq, than a $9.00 an hour security guard at Rose Bowl Stadium.

[Suff]

and have reached completely different conclusions?

You and I both know you are not.


Which conclusion is treasonist?

[Gibbon]

...I will never understand the simplistic rhetoric... I wonder if you’re not confusing simplicity with effectiveness. While we in the west have the luxury of endlessly debating Abu Ghraib prison scandal – radical Islam is planning their next attack.

Allow me a simple question, what is the symbol of Islam? Christian have a cross, Jews have a star, Islam has a …... a Scimitar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar) ! This is appropriate for wherever Islam moves the sword follows.

I could go on to nauseating extremes about Gandhi and Islam. That right, Gandhi who literally wrote the book on passive resistance against British rule. However, was seriously considering aggressively fighting the Muslim League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_League) for control of India.

I wrote about Islam extensively in the past under a different pseudonym. You may not like it but the Bush Doctrine just plain works.







__________________
A people who's primary aims are driving, shopping, and television are subject to terrorism at any time. ~ Steven Deitz

[DanG]

I wonder if you’re not confusing simplicity with effectiveness. While we in the west have the luxury of endlessly debating Abu Ghraib prison scandal – radical Islam is planning their next attack.

Allow me a simple question, what is the symbol of Islam? Christian have a cross, Jews have a star, Islam has a …... a Scimitar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar) ! This is appropriate for wherever Islam moves the sword follows.

I could go on to nauseating extremes about Gandhi and Islam. That right, Gandhi who literally wrote the book on passive resistance against British rule. However, was seriously considering aggressively fighting the Muslim League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_League) for control of India.

I wrote about Islam extensively in the past under a different pseudonym. You may not like it but the Bush Doctrine just plain works.

Well Gibbon,

These are clearly debatable points and we have both articulated our positions. Saying this policy “just plain works” doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for dialogue when one talks in terms of absolution. All humans except for the criminally insane believe their approach to be correct and we just choose to disagree.

The fact that I recommend infiltrating and cutting throats is hardly evidence that I don’t recognize the threat.

In terms of methods, I too believe in a simplistic / yet clandestine approach. You chose to take one sentence from my quote and it was a bit out of context. It’s the rhetoric I was implying was simplistic, not the policy per say. The policy is extremely complex and has opened up issues that apparently we did not anticipate.

[Gibbon]

19 guys hijacked planes with Box-cutters. Resources? I pray to God you don't honestly believe that the US military can do anything to prevent Terrorist attacks in the USA by fighting in IRAQ? In a post 9/11 world we could not allow a renegade dictator to potentially gain access to WMDs.

Sure we should have locked cockpit doors. This speaks more of bureaucracy and incompetence at govt. agencies. To reference just 19 hijackers is childish thinking.

What has occurred in France, Belgium and other part of Western Europe involved hundreds of thousand emboldened by those infamous 19.

“They” are fighting the very same conquests begun in year 750 with the attempted assimilation of Spain. “They” are commanded to subdue the entire Globe.

Suff, you and I have the luxury afforded us by modern Christian and Western Capitalist nations. Radical Islam have no such niceties. The fashion in which you filter facts will lead to our demise.






______________________
A people who's primary aims are driving, shopping, and television are subject to terrorism at any time. ~ Steven Deitz

[Gibbon]

All humans except for the criminally insane believe their approach to be correct and we just choose to disagree. Of course there is always room for dialog among civilized people. I have been and will continue to be critical of the Bush Doctrine. Dan, you speak of a “correct approach.” I speak to results. Do you handicap using a “correct approach” or are you a result oriented handicapper?

We have avoided the bloodshed on our soil compared to Western Europe and the Far East. Results speak for themselves.







___________________________
Our enemies are fully aware that they can use oil as a weapon against America. And if we don't take this threat as seriously as the bombs they build or the guns they buy, we will be fighting the War on Terror with one hand tied behind our back. ~ BARACK OBAMA, speech, Feb. 28, 2006

[Snag]

19 guys hijacked planes with Box-cutters. Resources? I pray to God you don't honestly believe that the US military can do anything to prevent Terrorist attacks in the USA by fighting in IRAQ?


You are correct Suff. But it took money and training for these guys to do what they did. It was not an overnight action. If their attention and resources were diverted elsewhere, 911 might have had a different outcome.

[DanG]

Of course there is always room for dialog among civilized people. I have been and will continue to be critical of the Bush Doctrine. Dan, you speak of a “correct approach.” I speak to results. Do you handicap using a “correct approach” or are you a result oriented handicapper?

We have avoided the bloodshed on our soil compared to Western Europe and the Far East. Results speak for themselves.

Point taken;

In the interest of time (post time is approaching) and without getting into detail; I personally am not satisfied with the results and feel they will have long lasting negative implications.

You choose to believe otherwise. We will have plenty of time to hash out the issues as this will play out over the remainder of our lifetimes and more than likely beyond.

[delayjf]

I will never understand the simplistic rhetoric of “were fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here”. If you really think about the fanaticism and mobility of radicals that ‘bumper sticker slogan has no basis in reality IMO.

Up until recently my Initial reaction was to agree with you. However I have recently read (at this moment, I'm not sure where) that Osama has ordered that Iraq become the Focus of Main effort for Al Quada as he feels it offers the best oppoutunites to strike at the US. If that's true, then I'm now inclined to reconsider.

[delayjf]

“Shock and Awe” was a strategic mistake in my eyes. Men like TJ are trained and more than willing to play this deadly game on their terms and after talking to these men, I’m betting on our side. You know the type of men I’m discussing. When you look into the eyes of a true solider it is not someone you would want unleashed on you.
I believe there is strategic value to “shock and Awe”. To begin with, It did motivate Libya into giving up their WMD programs – which were much more advanced than intelligence sources believed. It also puts the US in a position to deal more effectively with a bigger threat to U.S. security, Iran.
When I asked him “Why is it so difficult to capture Bin Laden” he responded…”Because, we haven’t been asked”. I then asked…”Could you capture him if orders came down.” TJ said…”What size platter would you like his head on”?
Having been around a few SF types myself (Navy seals, Green Berets, Army Rangers, British Royal Marines, etc), that is a typical response. I do not question their bravery or ability, but I’ve never meet a Marine, Soldier, Airmen or Sailor who didn’t think their branch or combat specialty couldn’t win this war if they were only allowed to do that voodoo that they do.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I would be curious as to how they would do that – would it involve the use of questionable tactics. Did he offer a reason as to why it has not already been done? The task is more daunting than most believe. Remember the Soviets couldn't defeat the Mujhadeen and they were not fighting the war constrained by politics.

[robert99]

Up until recently my Initial reaction was to agree with you. However I have recently read (at this moment, I'm not sure where) that Osama has ordered that Iraq become the Focus of Main effort for Al Quada as he feels it offers the best oppoutunites to strike at the US. If that's true, then I'm now inclined to reconsider.

I think it is a mistake to underestimate the power of jihadists to strike anywhere and at random. They exploit any complacency. That they have not struck successfully in USA since 9/11 does not mean they are not capable of it - UK citizens of Pakistani origin have moved over to USA as UK citizens under the visa waiver system. The borders, like ours, are porous in any case. The small matrix cells they form are opportunist and they learn fast from any mistakes of others. The potential number of targets and myriad ways of committing evil are enormous. In our little country we are having to employ 40,000 counter intelligence agents to keep, we can only hope, a small step ahead. In population and geographical terms then USA might need to employ up to 1 million.

[delayjf]

I think it is a mistake to underestimate the power of jihadists to strike anywhere and at random

Believe me I don't. I have no doubt they can strike anywhere. My only point was that if in fact Iraq is the battle ground where Osama wants to fight - we should fight him there.

[lsbets]

Which conclusion is treasonist?

I never said anything was - I asked if you were capable of hearing the opposite view. That's your response? You're pathetic.

[Tom]

Jeff - all the more reason for wire taps, waterboarding, profiling.

[Gibbon]

...In gambling they call it Betting Blind. I bet MY NUTS blind that have not and will not... You assume far to much. I served my country right after High School. Later paving the way for a master’s degree.

But that really is beside the point. Why is there a vitriolic hatred of military serves by the American left? Seen so prominently displayed on college campuses across America. Suff, I suspect you may have had the privilege of growing up in lavish surroundings in some splendid Massachusetts suburb – I had no such luxury.

The American right goes on about its business of serving. Is it any wonder military personal vote Republican? Is it any wonder Gore refused to count absentee military ballots from the state of Florida in his defeat? Is it any wonder those who contribute their time and financial resources represent Christian right idols far more then lefties. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm

You see, while the American Left talks and talks – the American right do!

Suff, while Clinton bombed eight sovereign nations {including among them Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/) and China (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/9/newsid_2519000/2519271.stm) } in his eight years in office, did you also protest democratic military strikes?






______________________________
Terrorism [takes] us back to ages we thought were long gone if we allow it a free hand to corrupt democratic societies and destroy the basic rules of international life.~ JACQUES CHIRAC, speech, Sep. 24, 1986

[ddog]

Believe me I don't. I have no doubt they can strike anywhere. My only point was that if in fact Iraq is the battle ground where Osama wants to fight - we should fight him there.

I believe military doctine and tactics would prove that wrong over history.

You fight them when YOU want and WHERE you want not the other way around.

Believe me , if we had stayed in Afghanistan we would be much better off.
You don't think that Sadam after seeing that Afghanistan was turned around couldn't have been influenced by some back-door diplomacy to see things our way?
He was our boy and was scared to death of Iran.
There were so many other ways to play this.

GW and him got into a pissing match and that was that.
It will rebound to our detriment, I don't think OBL and his kind are all idiots.
They knew what was coming.
They are looking at a 20-50 year plan rightly or wrongly, they are not going anywhere.
We on the other hand.......

Also, mark this down, and I hope I am wrong, we will be hit before GW is out of office.

[ddog]

[QUOTE=Gibbon]You assume far to much. I served my country right after High School. Later paving the way for a master’s degree.

But that really is beside the point. Why is there a vitriolic hatred of military serves by the American left? Seen so prominently displayed on college campuses across America. Suff, I suspect you may have had the privilege of growing up in lavish surroundings in some splendid Massachusetts suburb – I had no such luxury.

The American right goes on about its business of serving. Is it any wonder military personal vote Republican? Is it any wonder Gore refused to count absentee military ballots from the state of Florida in his defeat? Is it any wonder those who contribute their time and financial resources represent Christian right idols far more then lefties. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm

You see, while the American Left talks and talks – the American right do!

Suff, while Clinton bombed eight sovereign nations {including among them Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/) and China (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/9/newsid_2519000/2519271.stm) } in his eight years in office, did you also protest democratic military strikes?



every study i have seen is that campus life is trending more conserative all the time. They are interested in jobs , not protests OR military service.
The faculty, well that's another story I guess!

The disguised hatred of the military is just as prevelant on the right as the left.
You would think that given the vast numbers on the right of doers that there would be no enlistment shortages and we wouldn't need to have a mercenary force, which for all intents we do.

the overseas terrorists strikes for the most part were from home-grown legals I thought?

Clinton was a gutless coward, so what?
Anyone looks good compared to him.

[JustRalph]

Also, mark this down, and I hope I am wrong, we will be hit before GW is out of office.

No way. they want a Dem to win.

[delayjf]

You fight them when YOU want and WHERE you want not the other way around.
Isn't that what we are doing? Is it not better to fight Al Quada in Iraq then to endure their attacks here in the US.

Believe me , if we had stayed in Afghanistan we would be much better off. You don't think that Sadam after seeing that Afghanistan was turned around couldn't have been influenced by some back-door diplomacy to see things our way? He was our boy and was scared to death of Iran. There were so many other ways to play this.
If Sadam wasn't motivated by the 1st Gulf War, I don't think anything that happened in Afghanistan would deter him either. The Soviets had a lot more troops in Afghanistan for than the US currently has now and they couldn't tame the wild wild west. The problem is the politics involved with regards to going into Pakistan. Simular to the situation in Vietnam - The VC were always able to run across the border into Laos and Cambodia knowing we would not pursue.

[Gibbon]

The disguised hatred of the military is just as prevelant on the right as the left...... Of course this war is unpopular on both sides of the political spectrum. I believe this speaks more to our fumbling and bumbling political leaders. Our pusillanimous leaders are an embarrassment to our great history. We are involved in a war where our politicians lack the political will to finish. Political correctness may disrupt military recruitment for years to come.

Although Bush’s initial goals were in fact noble. Preemptive strikes are a time honored military tactic. Our inability to complete what we started is the single prevailing point for low recruitment levels. Who in their right mind would want to fight on behalf of this commander and chief?

Now you find a Patton and command him to win – recurtment should double overnight.




_______________________________
Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him? ~ Blaise Pascal

[jognlope]

Has anyone read the Bob Woodward book? He's a good writer, but I don't trust him.

[JustRalph]

Isn't that what we are doing? Is it not better to fight Al Quada in Iraq then to endure their attacks here in the US.

I think this is a great point that gets glossed over.

Imagine the flip side. Jihadist attacking your local mall. They have two options. Suicide bombers and just plain "bombs"

This would change the attitude of the country. It would also reveal the lack of taste this country would have for fighting in the streets. This would be the worse thing that the Jihadist could do. They know it. That's why we haven't seen it yet. But I wouldn't rule it out, for effect, in certain situations. It would be a watershed moment.

[46zilzal]

Has anyone read the Bob Woodward book? He's a good writer, but I don't trust him.
Documented to the eyeballs by others who have substantiated content over and over.

The last one State of Denial is the most telling: hire experts in their field, study a problem and have them report to you. The cabal that is the rutabaga and his henchmen, just got more experts and then didn't listen to any of them either.

I have had patients like this that we call 'shoppers." They keep going to different doctors until they hear what they want to hear.

FIGHT them over there so you won't fight them here. Vietnam to a fault. Horse crap is horse crap no matter how one cuts it.

[46zilzal]

Another book by a well noted author more or less says the same thing: poorly conceived, poorly planned, NO one responding to the experts in the field. The book Fiasco covers it as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/07/07/DI2006070701061.html

[JustRalph]

Another book by a well noted author more or less says the same thing: poorly conceived, poorly planned, NO one responding to the experts in the field. The book Fiasco covers it as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/07/07/DI2006070701061.html

yeah, yeah! we know what side your on.........give it a rest.........

[delayjf]

FIGHT them over there so you won't fight them here. Vietnam to a fault.
Hardly the same thing, Vietnam did not attack the US, how many times has Al Quada attached us?
hire experts in their field, study a problem and have them report to you. The cabal that is the rutabaga and his henchmen, just got more experts and then didn't listen to any of them either.
You forget what a political world we live in. Our military has the capability to take care of Iraq and Afghanistan, but can you imagine the out cry.

Documented to the eyeballs by others who have substantiated content over and over
That Woodward could find bureaucrats and Military personnel who did not like Rumsfield and were willing to talk about is not surprising. What little I read, I found it interesting that Woodward was able to read the minds of people and tell the reader what they were thinking. Must be psychic, its a good read, but take it with a grain of salt a lot of people have agendas.

[46zilzal]

Hardly the same thing, Vietnam did not attack the US, how many times has Al Quada attached us?


Neither did Iraq or any Iraqis

[Tom]

But Al Qeda is there now, and we are there by the permission of the legally elected Iraqi government.

[jognlope]

I just remember Woodward saying bush wouldn't give him an interview, so a bell went off like maybe he was going to get even in his book.

[JustRalph]

I just remember Woodward saying bush wouldn't give him an interview, so a bell went off like maybe he was going to get even in his book.

he wouldn't give him "another interview" they already damn near wrote a book together....the book woodward released right before this one......look it up........

[PaceAdvantage]

Neither did Iraq or any Iraqis

Well now, that's not true, is it 46? They attacked our boys patrolling the no-fly-zone after Gulf War 1, for starters.

[Tom]

If you look back, I was saying that that alone was more than enough reason to resume the war. They violated terms of the cease fire. End of story.

[jognlope]

http://www.glennbeck.com/realstory/iraq-video.shtml

[jognlope]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/09/iraq-030924-rferl-160009.htm

[46zilzal]

Well now, that's not true, is it 46? They attacked our boys patrolling the no-fly-zone after Gulf War 1, for starters.
it's fun to retro-fit reasons for a war ain't it?

[Tom]

it's fun to retro-fit reasons for a war ain't it?

See Post 47, 46.
Do a search - I said more than once this was al the reaosn we needed. It was a topic of conversation vack then. No retro-fitting at all. Just you being unaware of what you post.....again!:lol:

[delayjf]

it's fun to retro-fit reasons for a war ain't it?

It's only fair, the lefts uses hindsight to attack the war - forgetting that they voted for it as well.

[jognlope]

Well they voted on it based on the false information, partly for this reason, that he had WMD. But they still blame Bush for the lie, when he was going on the same false information.

Well at last TV has done one thing, gotten everybody on top of the world situation, and I don't mean the "Another World" situation. :)

[46zilzal]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.democracy/index.html

another BIG surprise!!
QUOTE:"exasperated front-line U.S. generals talk openly of non-democratic governmental alternatives, and while the two top U.S. officials in Iraq still talk about preserving the country's nascent democratic institutions, they say their ambitions aren't as "lofty" as they once had been."

It is obvious what is going to happen, the rutabaga will never fix the mess he created and it will become someone else's problem.

[Tom]

Kind of like how Clinton left Bin Laden for Bush, huh?

BTW, a part of the newly released CIA papers reveals that Billy Boy lied, not too long ago, about his attempts to kill Bin Laden - remember when he had his little hissy fit on Fox News Sunday? He said he tried numerous times to kill OBL, yet the CIA papers reveal he NEVER attempted to kill him - all his attempts were only aimed at capture.

I only mention this because I know how much you lefties enjoy catching
people in a lie.

Enjoy!:kiss:

[JustRalph]

Well they voted on it based on the false information, partly for this reason, that he had WMD. But they still blame Bush for the lie, when he was going on the same false information.

18 other countries had the same info and thought it was true. The entire G-8 admits that their intel was hosed. Not to mention the Dems for the entire 2nd half of Clinton..........

PA..............where is that damn video? :lol:

[46zilzal]

From the Boston Herald: "Wednesday’s deaths raised to at least 3,721 members of the U.S. military who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count."

All because of no-fly zone incidents according to the historical revisionists.

[hcap]

No-fly' zone perils were for Iraqis, not allied pilots
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/29/Columns/_No_fly__zone_perils_.shtml

By SUSAN TAYLOR MARTIN
Published October 29, 2004

Among the reasons U.S. Senate candidate Mel Martinez supported the war in Iraq was the alleged danger faced by U.S. and British pilots who protected "no-fly" zones in that country before the 2003 invasion.

In his first debate with Betty Castor, the Orlando Republican said that pilots were fired on "almost daily" and that "our men and women in uniform flying those aircraft were risking their lives."

Technically, that's true. But a closer look at the history of the no-fly zones shows that the real risk was to innocent Iraqis. Over an 11-year period, hundreds of civilians, including children, were killed or injured by U.S. and British airstrikes, while not a single allied pilot was shot down or killed by Iraqi fire.

"The casualties were in the very areas allegedly established to protect people," Hans von Sponeck, then coordinator of the U.N. humanitarian program in Iraq, said in 2002. "The cruel reality is that people are dying as a result of these no-fly zones."

From Wiki......
The Iraqi no-fly zones (NFZs) were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by US, UK and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorising the operations, the resolution contains no such authorization. The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal"
.................................................. .......................
Not "everybody" got it wrong.

It was obvious to the 20+MILLIONS of people, world wide, that protested prior to the invasion, that these SONS A BITCHES IN THE WHITE HOUSE WERE AT LEAST EXAGERATING< IF NOT LYING TO US

In the months prior to the invasion, the world had an easy and effective way to learn the truth, short of war. The U.N. inspectors were on the ground and, partly due to the threat of war, Saddam was giving them relatively broad access to suspected weapons sites. Tragically, it was cut short by the trigger-happy thugs in this Administration. Saddam even INVITED the presence of CIA observers to travel with the UN inspection teams.

It appears from things like the Downing Street Memos that the Bush Administration was trying to provoke Saddam Hussein and fully expected him to say no when the UN asked him to allow inspectors back in. That would have been sufficient cause for war. That Saddam Hussein said yes to UN inspections should have made an honest and rational administration pause in its rush to war. No such thing happened. Instead, a combination of lies and self-delusions kept us marching to war.

"A major problem for the Bush Administration occurred when the UN inspectors went in and found Iraq's uranium stocks still under seal and fully accounted for. If the uranium was under seal, this was hardly evidence of a reconstituted uranium program. But to keep the drums of war beating, a 'reconstituted nuclear program' was needed.

'But the Bush Administration was hardly stumped. If the uranium stocks were under seal, then where would Saddam Hussein get his uranium for his aluminum tubes if those tubes were to be used for uranium enrichment (one can't have a reconstituted nuclear program unless some tubes got through or some other method is available to enrich uranium; you can't talk about having a bomb in a few years unless you are presently and continuously enriching uranium)? That's where the Niger/Iraq yellowcake story comes in. It's a convoluted and farcical argument but the Bush Administration was arguing that Iraq was trying to get a secret supply from Niger when a untouched supply of uranium already existed in Iraq. Of course there would have been nothing secret about a Niger uranium deal since the mines are controlled by the French and it would have involved somewhere around half of NIger's uranium production. The only purpose of such a claim was to confuse and scare the American people. It was essential to create the impression that Saddam Hussein had indeed reconstituted his nuclear program."


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/09/carnegie_study_calls_arms_threat_overstated/

Carnegie study calls arms threat overstated

By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | January 9, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Bush administration officials exaggerated the threats from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and failed to uncover any links between President Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, a private nonpartisan research organization concluded in a report released yesterday.
Article Tools

The study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace states that "administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile program" by treating possibilities as fact and "misrepresenting inspectors' findings in ways that turned threats from minor to dire."

...."We believe that in 2002, the intelligence process began to be politicized," Carnegie's president, Jessica T. Mathews, said in a telephone interview. "They were under intense pressure to produce something that buttresses policy makers' beliefs. This is an old story [in government]. This just happens to be an egregious case with extreme consequences, namely going to war."


http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd75/75aojc.htm

...'On January 8, 2004, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace released a 107-page report, WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implication, authored by Jessica Mathews, George Perkovich, Joseph Cirincione and Alexis Orton. The report, available from the Carnegie website, distils a massive amount of data into side-by-side comparisons of pre-war intelligence, the official presentation of that intelligence, and what is now known about Iraq's programmes. The review concludes that senior administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's programmes and recommends that an independent commission be established to establish a clearer picture of what the intelligence community knew and believed it knew about Iraq's weapons programmes prior to the war, and how administration officials used this intelligence


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s012604.html
Congressional Record: January 26, 2004 (Senate)
Page S224-S226

HUSSEIN'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Dr. Kay also reported that Iraq attempted to revive its
efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2000 and 2001, but
never got as far toward making a bomb as Iran and Libya did.
He said Baghdad was actively working to produce a
biological weapon using the poison ricin until the American
invasion last March. But in general, Dr. Kay said, the C.I.A.
and other agencies failed to recognize that Iraq had all but
abandoned its efforts to produce large quantities of chemical
or biological weapons after the first Persian Gulf war, in
1991.


Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation (or Iraq Dossier for short) was a 2003 briefing document for the Blair Labour government. It was issued to journalists on 3 February 2003 by Alastair Campbell, Blair's Director of Communications and Strategy, and concerned Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Together with the earlier September Dossier, these documents were ultimately used by the government to justify its involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier

Channel 4 News coined the term Dodgy Dossier when its reporters were made aware of Glen Rangwala's discovery[1] that much of the work had been plagiarised from various unattributed sources. The most notable source was an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi entitled Iraq's Security & Intelligence Network: A Guide & Analysis[2], which was published in the September 2002 issue of the Middle East Review of International Affairs.[3]

Whole sections of Marashi's writings on "Saddam's Special Security Organisation" were repeated verbatim including typographical errors, while certain amendments were made to strengthen the tone of the alleged findings (eg. "monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq" became "spying on foreign embassies in Iraq", and "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes" became "supporting terrorist organizations in hostile regimes").
.................................................. ...............................................


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0804-11.htm

http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0306iraqgate_body.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0206-06.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1028114,00.html

[46zilzal]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655111,00.html

quote: "The distance between Washington rhetoric and the reality of the Iraq war has always been vast. But even by that standard, President Bush's latest remarks are notable for their detachment from the facts on the ground."

WHAT ELSE IS NEW?

[hcap]

From the "gathering storm cheerleader....

http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,eventID.274/transcript.asp

"DR. KRAUTHAMMER: Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem. I don't have any doubt that we will locate them. I think it takes time. They've obviously been deeply hidden, and it will require that we get the information from people who know where they are."

Yes there is a credibility problem
After the war, more credibility problems.

[delayjf]

Over an 11-year period, hundreds of civilians, including children, were killed or injured by U.S. and British airstrikes, while not a single allied pilot was shot down or killed by Iraqi fire.

"The casualties were in the very areas allegedly established to protect people," Hans von Sponeck, then coordinator of the U.N. humanitarian program in Iraq, said in 2002. "

Nice Spin,

Does that 11 year period include the 1st Gulf War? Does the article say these women and children were killed post gulf war by Coalition aircraft. Is it common for Iraqi women and childred to play around Air to Air missle sites? Especially sites that are actively launching missles?

"The cruel reality is that people are dying as a result of these no-fly zones
absolutely true, the soldiers manning the AA batteries and firing on Coalition aircraft were in fact PEOPLE.

[hcap]

The no fly zones were established after the first Gulf war, and were never endorsed fully by the UN....

Over an 11-year period, hundreds of civilians, including children, were killed or injured by U.S. and British airstrikes, while not a single allied pilot was shot down or killed by Iraqi fire.

"The casualties were in the very areas allegedly established to protect people," Hans von Sponeck, then coordinator of the U.N. humanitarian program in Iraq, said in 2002. "The cruel reality is that people are dying as a result of these no-fly zones."

Iraq was never a threat to "coalition" aircraft. Although bush tried to portray it as such. And evidentily convinced you and others that by itself it was a justification for war.

Of course the "no-fly" threat would not "fly" with the American people or congress. That's why WMDs were exaggerated-particularly the bogus nuclear threat, and the suggestion that there were real ties to Al Qada

[hcap]

http://www.russfound.org/www.russfound.org/www.russfound.org/Enet/Sponeckpap.htm

The No-Fly zones were established unilaterally in 1991/1992 by the US, UK and French governments.(3) The three governments maintaining the two No-Fly zones argued at the time that this would help to protect a Kurdish population in the North and the Shi'ite population in the south. There was no United Nations mandate for such exclusion zones. Resolution 688 of April 1991 is cited by the US and UK governments as legitimization for the maintainance of such zones. There is no enabling wording in this resolution or any other UN resolution and certainly none for the type of aggressive engagement perpetuated by the coalition forces in the No-Fly zones, particularly in the 2002/03 run up to the March 2003 war.

Since the December 1998 US Operation Desert Fox, US/UK pilots have used the No-Fly zones under enlarged rules of engagement. This resulted in a sharp increase in civilian casualties and distruction of non-military property. In 1999 the UN recorded 144 civilian deaths and 446 civilian injuries in the two No-Fly zones as a result of US and UK air force attacks.(4)

4) Prepared by the UN in Baghdad entitled “Air Strikes in Iraq/Reported Civilian Casualties and Damages, 28 December 1998 to 31 December 1999”.

[Gibbon]

Hcap, I for one can understand some of your points. I have been a critic of the obvious mismanagement in Iraq. Sure, civilians die. Every war from human history is replete with civilian casualties.

But,

I am forced to remind you under Saddam’s 25 year rule, it’s estimated by politically nonpartisan groups, 1 million Iraqis were tortured, maimed and murdered. That’s 1,000,000 people exterminated directly because Saddam and his two sons ruled Iraq all the while accumulating large hoards of American cash. By your reasoning, the world community of man should not intervene in Darfur.

It is clear you hate the current occupant in the White House. By logical extraction, since 50% voted for Bush, you probably hate my country.

Pity, you propagandize our generosity while taking sides with murders. One wonders what Tenzin Gyatso would say?







___________________________
Politics is when you say you are going to do one thing while intending to do another. Then you do neither what you said nor what you intended. ~ Saddam Hussein

[Secretariat]

I just finished Jules Archer's book The Plot to Seize the White House ,a fascinating book written in the 70's about the attempt by a group of businessmen to entice General Smedley Butler to take over as a dictator of the country in a new Secretary of General Affairs positin under Roosevelt. Thankfully Butler revealed the plot to Congress.

But a section of Butler's speech in 1936 to the Third U.S. Congress Agaisnt War and Facism was eerie. I quote General Butler below:

"See that our Congress writes into law a command that no American soldier, sailor or Marine be used for any purpose except to protect the coastline of the United States, and protect his home -- and I mean his home - not an oil well in Iraq, a British investment in China, a sugar plantation in Cuba, a silver mine in Mexico, a glass factory in Japan, an American owned share of stock in a European factory -- to short, not an American investment anywhere, except at home! ... Let Congress say to all foreign investors: 'Come on home or let your money stay out of the country -- we will not defend it!"

It is so ironic that Butler could be making the same basic speech today. THe General was beloved by the men he served, and the businessmen approached him because they knew he was the only General who could enlist a half a million men to trust him. He fought tirelessly for WW I veterans to get their bonus while guys like MacArthur attacked the vets.

As I read many of these same posts and then this book, I realize we've been in this situation many times before. General Butler, tired of the same obscene profits made by corporations such as DuPont in WW I as the Halliburtons of today (and beleive me they were obscene). In fact General Butler advocated that management in corporations should only make the same amount that a soldier makes in times of war. After all he said ,what could be more supportive in a war effort than to not take more compensation than a soldier in the field who was in harms way was making. As General Butler said, if corporations had to do that, there'd be a helluva lot fewer wars.

[JustRalph]

yeah, I am sure the General had a real handle on Multi-national commerce and what it was going to be like in the year 2008?

He could foresee overnight delivery across the atlantic and he knew right off the top of his head that China would emerge from being a century behind the rest of the world?

I am sure he realized that Nuclear weapons were going to change the world balance of power and that every weapon in the 1936 U.S. military could be defeated with just one bomb.............that backwards countries like Pakistan and India (backwards in 1936) could annihilate each other and most of Europe with the push of a button?

Amazing how you find some sliver of information from a bygone era to promote your current world view or political posture and post it like it is going to lead to some enlightenment of never before seen dimensions.

If you really want to know how screwed up they were back in the 20's and 30's try reading this.

http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Man-History-Great-Depression/dp/0066211700

Allowing these guys to dictate or influence a foreign policy discussion of today is akin to allowing the first cave man to harness fire, a chance to tune up the engines on the space shuttle..............get real...............

[hcap]

Hcap, I for one can understand some of your points. I have been a critic of the obvious mismanagement in Iraq. Sure, civilians die. Every war from human history is replete with civilian casualties.

But,

I am forced to remind you under Saddam’s 25 year rule, it’s estimated by politically nonpartisan groups, 1 million Iraqis were tortured, maimed and murdered. That’s 1,000,000 people exterminated directly because Saddam and his two sons ruled Iraq all the while accumulating large hoards of American cash. By your reasoning, the world community of man should not intervene in Darfur.

It is clear you hate the current occupant in the White House. By logical extraction, since 50% voted for Bush, you probably hate my country.

Pity, you propagandize our generosity while taking sides with murders. One wonders what Tenzin Gyatso would say?


DALAI LAMA: It is unfair to blame everything on Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein without this powerful army he can't be dictator. Without military sophisticated weapons it's impossible to build a powerful army. So, these weapons are not produced there, but come from the West. And one time when the Lebanon Civil War was going on, I met one French lady. She told me in one city, one site people, innocent people killing. One site some business making business selling weapons, bullets. If you truly analyze how this dictatorship developed, from many causes, many conditions, including western nations’ own contribution. So that's my view. Since it's such a complex, it is easy to eliminate one person or small group of people, but unless very sort of carried that message realistically without emotion possibly more compassionate, more wisdom, eliminate ten people it creates hundred people. Hundred people eliminate thousand people. This would go.

JR...
I am sure he realized that Nuclear weapons were going to change the world balance of power and that every weapon in the 1936 U.S. military could be defeated with just one bomb.............that backwards countries like Pakistan and India (backwards in 1936) could annihilate each other and most of Europe with the push of a button?Stalin and Mao killed 100x the number Saddam killed. Had 1,000,000 x the WMds. Were a real threat.

Somehow we avoided war. The neocon agenda used Iraq as an "example".
Because they thought it was gonna be easy pickings, and never looked at the moral implications of invasion. And those implications are what will prevent an occupier from setting that very example.

[hcap]

I guess all the conservative foreign policy experts who took part in this study are chicken livered, cheese eating surrender monkeys, and should be tried as traitors and be forced to sell their upper west side elite diggs to TRUE Americans

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/20/terrorism-index-3/

REPORT: 68 Percent Of Foreign Policy Experts Favor Redeployment From Iraq

Their conclusions are deeply critical of the Bush administration’s national security priorities. The war in Iraq, however, received the harshest criticisms:

On Iraq:

92 percent said the war in Iraq negatively affects national security.

53 percent oppose decision to increase troops in Iraq (up 22 points from six months ago).

68 percent favor redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq over the next 18 months.

64 percent of conservative experts say the surge is having either a negative impact or no impact. 25 percent of the conservatives favor immediate withdrawal.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/tindex8.gif

So Ralph, Tom, Ls, Pa, delayjf, Gibbon you weren't asked to vote in this study? How could they pass up youse guys collective wisdom?

I guess they use Past Performances of all youse wise neocons as we use those of da ponies!

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, I know...I'm feeling more and more insecure all the time. :rolleyes:

When is the last time a news organization polled the US population with this question:

"Do you feel more safe or less safe since 9/11"

What do you think the results of that poll would be, and why haven't we seen such a poll.

My guess is that a solid majority would say "more safe." How could they not? Nothing has happened to make them feel less safe.

[delayjf]

while not a single allied pilot was shot down or killed by Iraqi fire.

So what, somebody’s shooting at your house, are you going to wait until your daughter is hit before firing back – obviously you feel US pilots are expendable.

Since the December 1998 US Operation Desert Fox, US/UK pilots have used the No-Fly zones under enlarged rules of engagement. This resulted in a sharp increase in civilian casualties and distruction of non-military property. In 1999 the UN recorded 144 civilian deaths and 446 civilian injuries in the two No-Fly zones as a result of US and UK air force attacks.(4)
As much as you like to pin this on President Bush, obviously Operation Desert Fox occurred on Clinton’s watch. You failed to mention in your previous post how Clinton lied to the American People about Saddam’s WMDs to justify the attacks. Below is a quote from Madeleine Albright, Sec of State.

"I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is - I think - we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. [. . .] [W]hat it means is that we know we can't get everything, but degrading is the right word."


It is unfair to blame everything on Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein without this powerful army he can't be dictator.
Your support for Saddam pretty much says it all. You are obviously anti-American. I’m sure the Kurds, Shia, and the Kuwaits would take issue with your miss-placed sympathy for Saddam.


Without military sophisticated weapons it's impossible to build a powerful army. So, these weapons are not produced there, but come from the West.
Hcap, as I’ve pointed out before, Saddam’s army was strictly eastern bloc. The United States does not manufacture T-72 tanks, SU-27 and MIG-29 fighters.

Stalin and Mao killed 100x the number Saddam killed. Had 1,000,000 x the WMds. Were a real threat. Somehow we avoided war.
Obviously the stakes are much higher when you consider Nuclear Armageddon. So I guess your point is that if the US is not willing to go to war with Russia or China we have no right to use our military any where.
Wrong, We do what we likes, and we likes what we do.

[46zilzal]

the rutabaga, in his usual fashion, does not know how to read, let alone interpret.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/washington/23history.html?em&ex=1188014400&en=94cb59430f3958f2&ei=5087%0A

QUOTE:"“It is undoubtedly true that America’s failure in Vietnam led to catastrophic consequences in the region, especially in Cambodia,” said David C. Hendrickson, a specialist on the history of American foreign policy at Colorado College in Colorado Springs.

“But there are a couple of further points that need weighing,” he added. “One is that the Khmer Rouge would never have come to power in the absence of the war in Vietnam — this dark force arose out of the circumstances of the war, was in a deep sense created by the war. The same thing has happened in the Middle East today. Foreign occupation of Iraq has created far more terrorists than it has deterred.”

open Pandora's box and all manner of crap flies out.

[delayjf]

and I mean his home - not an oil well in Iraq, a British investment in China, a sugar plantation in Cuba, a silver mine in Mexico, a glass factory in Japan, an American owned share of stock in a European factory -- to short, not an American investment anywhere, except at home!

So, according to you, if the US is attacked, Our military should never operate in an offensive manner as we did in WWII - but only stand guard at the border. Mean while, Japan and Germany are free to rape, pillege and murder the world. Where's your humanity??

I understand your hatred for corporate american but who do you think is going to pay for all this socialized medicine your advocating? It certainly won't be you or I.

[Greyfox]

Your support for Saddam pretty much says it all. You are obviously anti-American.

.

Sorry delayjf, I didn't read that hcap supported Saddam at all. He/She quoted the Dalai Lama, who cogently pointed out that it takes a system to support a dictator. ( I thought that was unfair editing in a quote on your part and makes it appear that hcap was a supporter.)

Being against the war at this point does not make one anti-American.
Nor does loathing Bush mean one loaths the electorate who voted for him.
Nor does it mean that one hates America as one other poster suggested.

My problem though is that hcap keeps throwing out evidence of what most of us already know. He/She keeps finger pointing in the rear view mirror stating
"Oh look at that awful mess behind us."

But I know hcap is bright.
I want to hear what solutions hcap has to offer.
Discussing the mess at the dinner table ain't gonna get the dishes washed.
What are your suggestions hcap?

[delayjf]

:"“It is undoubtedly true that America’s failure in Vietnam led to catastrophic consequences in the region, especially in Cambodia,” said David C. Hendrickson, a specialist on the history of American foreign policy at Colorado College in Colorado Springs.
If you read that again, he’s agreeing with President Bush. If we win in Vietnam – the killing fields never happen.

If you will recall, it was the Hanoi Jane and the liberal left’s that were responsible for the US withdrawal from Vietnam. Therefore, the responsibility for atrocities in SE Asia falls upon the lefts defeatist feet

[46zilzal]

If you will recall, it was the Hanoi Jane and the liberal left’s that were responsible for the US withdrawal from Vietnam. Therefore, the responsibility for atrocities in SE Asia falls upon the lefts defeatist feet

Bull shit. It was droves of every day citizens who recognized Vietnam was a sham and spoke up about it.

I love revisionists who were never there doing what Winston Smith did in 1984: "correct history."

[delayjf]

Doesn't he realize that if the U.S. had stayed in Vietnam longer, they would have killed more people?" said Vu Huy Trieu of Hanoi, a veteran of the communist forces that fought American troops in Vietnam. "Nobody regrets that the Vietnam War wasn't prolonged except Bush."

I love the above quote from a NVA soldier. No shit, if we stayed in Vietnam more communist soldier would have been killed.

[46zilzal]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/17/eveningnews/main563822.shtml
Morale is not high or even low. Our morale is non-existent. We have been told twice that we were going home, and twice we have received a stop movement to stay in Iraq. Where is the honor and integrity the army preaches to soldiers in Basic Training? The closer you get to the front lines, the worse the soldiers get treated. Every single one of my men has diarrhea, because none of us on the front lines have had a single fresh vegetable in over a month. Meanwhile MG Blount and his cronies are enjoying Burger King at Baghdad International Airport (which we captured). The 3rd Infantry Division soldiers feel betrayed, and forgotten. Many of our brothers in arms have paid the ultimate price to help liberate this country.

Every one of us has made sacrifices, and what is our reward? Being
treated like farm animals. We have had more support from the press, who were embedded with us throughout the fight, than we have ever received from our chain of command. —

Our troops, and our equipment are worn out. Many of our troops have been through some truly terrible experiences; They have been told by mental health professionals that they need to get out of this environment. They however, either don’t care about those of us out here on the front lines or they have been lied to by their subordinates and have passed those lies on to the rest of the world.

In closing, all I am really trying to ask for is your help. Please send this letter on to your representatives in congress and to your local media, and ask them to get the 2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division home. Our men and women deserve to be treated like the heroes they are, not like neighborhood mongrels. Our men and women deserve to see their loved ones again and deserve to come home. Thank you for your attention,

Sincerely,

The Soldiers of 2nd Brigade, 3rd ID.

No change. Treated like the pawns Kissinger spoke of in times past.

[46zilzal]

From: Michael W
Sent: Tuesday July 13 2004 12.28pm
Subject: Dude, Iraq sucks


My name is Michael W and I am a 30-year-old National Guard infantryman serving in southeast Baghdad. I have been in Iraq since March of 04 and will continue to serve here until March of 05.

In the few short months my unit has been in Iraq, we have already lost one man and have had many injured (including me) in combat operations. And for what? At the very least, the government could have made sure that each of our vehicles had the proper armament to protect us soldiers.

In the early morning hours of May 10, one month to the day from my 30th birthday, I and 12 other men were attacked in a well-executed roadside ambush in south-east Baghdad. We were attacked with small-arms fire, a rocket-propelled grenade, and two well-placed roadside bombs. These roadside bombs nearly destroyed one of our Hummers and riddled my friends with shrapnel, almost killing them. They would not have had a scratch if they had the "Up Armour" kits on them. So where was [George] W [Bush] on that one?

It's just so ridiculous, which leads me to my next point. A Blackwater contractor makes $15,000 [£8,400] a month for doing the same job as my pals and me. I make about $4,000 [£2,240] a month over here. What's up with that?

Beyond that, the government is calling up more and more troops from the reserves. For what? Man, there is a huge f*****g scam going on here! There are civilian contractors crawling all over this country. Blackwater, Kellogg Brown & Root, Halliburton, on and on. These contractors are doing everything you can think of from security to catering lunch!

We are spending money out the ass for this shit, and very few of the projects are going to the Iraqi people. Someone's back is getting scratched here, and it ain't the Iraqis'!

My life is left to chance at this point. I just hope I come home alive.

[46zilzal]

From: Kyle Waldman
Sent: Friday February 27 2004 2.35am
Subject: None

As we can all obviously see, Iraq was not and is not an imminent threat to the United States or the rest of the world. My time in Iraq has taught me a little about the Iraqi people and the state of this war-torn, poverty-stricken country.

The illiteracy rate in this country is phenomenal. There were some farmers who didn't even know there was an Operation Iraqi Freedom. This was when I realised that this war was initiated by the few who would profit from it and not for its people. We, as the coalition forces, did not liberate these people; we drove them even deeper into poverty. I don't foresee any economic relief coming soon to these people by the way Bush has already diverted its oil revenues to make sure there will be enough oil for our SUVs.

We are here trying to keep peace when all we have been trained for is to destroy. How are 200,000 soldiers supposed to take control of this country? Why didn't we have an effective plan to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure? Why aren't the American people more aware of these atrocities?

My fiancee and I have seriously looked into moving to Canada as political refugees.

[46zilzal]

From: Andrew Balthazor
Sent: Friday August 27 2004 1.53pm
Subject: Iraqi war vet - makes me sound so old

Mr M., I am an ex-military intelligence officer who served 10 months in Baghdad; I was the senior intelligence officer for the area of Baghdad that included the UN HQ and Sadr City.

Since Bush exposed my person and my friends, peers, and subordinates to unnecessary danger in a war apparently designed to generate income for a select few in the upper echelon of America, I have become wholeheartedly anti-Bush, to the chagrin of much of my pro-Republican family.

As a "foot soldier" in the "war on terror" I can personally testify that Bush's administration has failed to effectively fight terrorists or the root causes of terror. The White House and the DoD failed to plan for reconstruction of Iraq. Contracts weren't tendered until Feb-Mar of 2003, and the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (the original CPA) didn't even come into existence until January 2003. This failure to plan for the "peace" is a direct cause for the insecurity of Iraq today.

Immediately after the "war" portion of the fighting (which really ended around April 9 2003), we should have been prepared to send in a massive reconstruction effort. Right away we needed engineers to diagnose problems, we needed contractors repairing problems, we needed immediate food, water, shelter, and fuel for the Iraqi people, and we needed more security for all of this to work - which we did not have because we did not have enough troops on the ground, and CPA decided to disband the Iraqi army. The former Iraqi police were engaged far too late; a plan should have existed to bring them into the fold right away.

I've left the military. If there is anything I can do to help get Bush out of office, let me know.

[46zilzal]

From: Sean Huze
Sent: Sunday March 28 2004 7.56pm
Subject: "Dude, Where's My Country?"

I am an LCPL in the US Marine Corps and veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Please keep pounding away at Bush. I'm not some pussy when it comes to war. However, the position we were put in - fighting an enemy that used women, children, and other civilians as shields; forcing us to choose between firing at "area targets" (nice way of saying firing into crowds) or being killed by the bastards using the crowds for cover - is indescribably horrible.

I saw more than a few dead children littering the streets in Nasiriyah, along with countless other civilians. And through all this, I held on to the belief that it had to be for some greater good.

Months have passed since I've been back home and the unfortunate conclusion I've come to is that Bush is a lying, manipulative motherf***er who cares nothing for the lives of those of us who serve in uniform. Hell, other than playing dress-up on aircraft carriers, what would he know about serving this nation in uniform?

His silence and refusal to speak under oath to the 9/11 Commission further mocks our country. The Patriot Act violates every principle we fight and die for. And all of this has been during his first term. Can you imagine his policies when he doesn't have to worry about re-election? We can't allow that to happen, and there are so many like me in the military who feel this way. We were lied to and used. And there aren't words to describe the sense of betrayal I feel as a result.

[Tom]

He's off his rocker again.
I can just see him sitting at his keyboard, looking just like that guy at the end of Reefer Madness (B&W verison) having a drug induced breakdown playing the piano frantically.

46, you gonna post one from everyone who was there, or just those who agreed with you?

If you are trying to make a point, believe me, you HAVE!:lol:

[46zilzal]

Evidence that supports a point of view always gets those who do not have that perspective in a tizzy.

IF I could find the 'warm and fuzzy' letters, I would list those too.

[Tom]

From: Frank Lee Tru
Sent: Friday June 27 2005 2.57 pm
Subject: My Safety

I finally feel safe here in Baghdad. There was this nutcase back home in Canada who was really on the edge, all the time having fits and really scaring the crap out of me.

I am so happy to get oout of there.No telling what those nut cases will end up doing.

[delayjf]

It was droves of every day citizens who recognized Vietnam was a sham and spoke up about it. love revisionists who were never there doing what Winston Smith did in 1984: "correct history."

Commie Jane's foray into N. Vietnam did more to win the war for Vietnam than the Tet Offensive. According to Ho Chi Man,The VC knew they could not defeat us militarily rather only by eroding US resolve which they did with the help of Jane Fonda and the liberal hippie left.

Pol Pot was supported by China and NV, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that he would have come to power anyway. The only way to prevent the massacre in Cambodia was to defeat NV. The American public led by the liberal left defeated the US in NV. Odd, I recall Joan Biaz protesting outside the White House - wanting the US to do something about Cambodia - what a joke.

[46zilzal]

Commie Jane's foray into N. Vietnam did more to win the war for Vietnam than the Tet Offensive. According to Ho Chi Man,The VC knew they could not defeat us militarily rather only by eroding US resolve which they did with the help of Jane Fonda and the liberal hippie left.


A fellow on the other side of the world telling us what U.S. sentiment was doing. How amazing is that?

MOST of us, who were not all that aware of what was going on, depended upon the first hand experiences of our friends returning (many scarred for life) to base our responses to that stupidty.

No reason to be there, NO threat except the fiction of the Gulf of Tolkien .....sounds a heck of a lot like IRAQ!!

Not alone there.http://www.progress.org/2004/fpif48.htm

quote:In retrospect, it is clear we had no idea what we were getting into when we marched into Vietnam, and the same appears true in Iraq. In reference to Vietnam, President Johnson pledged in April 1965: "We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement." Four decades later, President Bush pledged: "We’ve got to stay the course and we will stay the course" in Iraq."

[Greyfox]

"We’ve got to stay the course and we will stay the course" in Iraq."


And it appears that he's going to. Drudge is reporting "No pullout while I'm President."

But what is developing.....breaking news.....
Iran leaflets threaten Kurds in northern Iraq with 'cleansing'

Iran is denying this. In the meanwhile,
http://www.reuters.uk (http://www.reuters.uk/) is reporting:
"Hundreds of villagers have fled their homes in Iraq's mountainous northeast while others hid in caves after what local authorities earlier this week said was days of intermittent shelling by Iran across the border."

[46zilzal]

Hardly a new finding. Kurds have been no ones friends for thousands of years and that region has been under waring factions for as long has history has been recorded. Let them figure it out.

[delayjf]

From: Sean Huze
Sent: Sunday March 28 2004 7.56pm
Subject: "Dude, Where's My Country?"

By the way, how's Sean Huze's movie / play deal going. I'll bet with Hollywood support he's really raking it in (Gee, no ulterior motives here ;)

A fellow on the other side of the world telling us what U.S. sentiment was doing. How amazing is that?

Why not, your doing the same thing from Canada.

[46zilzal]

Why not, your doing the same thing from Canada.
I was there, sweating out the draft, right along side of all the other poor slobs being thrown into yet another fictional war. Seven in my high school class never saw their 25th birthday for what? helicopter contracts? IT was all bull shit just like this one.

Your source was on the other side of the earth.

[46zilzal]

The picture these soldiers paint of the situation in Iraq is far bleaker than the propagandists in the Bush administration would lead U.S. citizens to believe. Additionally, the juxtaposition of this article compared to the expected report from Gen. David Petraeus (the U.S. command
er in Iraq) should show just how unwilling the Bush administration is to accepting the reality in Iraq.

http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000680.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html

or http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003627854

[46zilzal]

Outside the biased position domestically are some realistic assessments from others around the world in responses to letters from soldiers in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19000257/site/newsweek/

[46zilzal]

And now Senator Warner wants a time table to pull out as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/23/warner.iraq/index.html

[Gibbon]

speaking about Polls;

August 21, 2007
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
by Jeffrey M. Jones
Just 18% approve of job Congress is doing
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28456

I forgot, remind me which party rules congress?





__________________________________
“Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain."

[46zilzal]

I forgot, remind me which party rules congress?

_
It is called the corruption party, all members are part of it, both sides of the aisle, and it is never listed next to their names on the ballot.

[Tom]

Your source was on the other side of the earth.

And yet he was correct.

[Tom]

And now Senator Warner wants a time table to pull out as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/23/warner.iraq/index.html


Got to hurry and lose it before we win it-times a wasting for the dems. They cannot afford victory.

[46zilzal]

And yet he was correct.
Hardly, not even close, nada, never.

Domestic involvement, grass roots maneuvering changed the tide of support to that stupidity. Troops coming home telling whomever would listen what it was really like and not the spoon fed propaganda that seems to stream like cow crap from those who want the fat defense contracts to keep them in private jets.

[Tom]

The picture these soldiers paint of the situation ....

And thier picture is NOT the one painted by others who have been there or are there now. You try to find a few letters that support your warped mind and try to pass it off as proof of something. You're a tired old man, 46 - a tired old warn out grumpy old man who lives in misery tasting bile every day as your inerds revolt on you. A Gollum for the ages. Possed, obsessed, and twsted by your hatred of someone who who so obviously smarter than you and your ilk you cannot stand it. Bush thwarts you and your kind every day and you know there is nothing you can do about it, yet cannot live with that fact.

I enjoy reading your daily misery! :lol:

[46zilzal]

No I am disgusted by war and the stupidity of it. Was then, am now.

I don't hate the dyslexic clown as I have too much enjoyment pointing out his imbecilic ways.

"And their picture is NOT the one painted by others who have been there or are there now".: all evidence to the contrary....

but then idiots believe in intelligent design despite all the facts.

[46zilzal]

another excerpt:"Before I ever knew of your work I was one of those "Closed-Minded Southerners" (I'm originally from South Carolina) who was an extremely right-winged-"let's get those bastards" kind of person. I supported the war and I supported Bush but it wasn't until a friend of mine showed me your work. I borrowed every DVD he had of yours and watched them all in a three day stretch.

I was shocked.

I couldn't believe that I had been so easily fooled. What a country we live in to where the leader of the strongest nation in the world can lie to his people to get his war and even when the people realize that he lied, he still he sits in his throne in the White House, smoking away on his cigars, laughing it up with family and friends, and complaining about how his poor knees hurt while Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines by just the wave of his hand are sent off to die."

[46zilzal]

Your hero is talking

I didn't die for my country, I died for his greed.

Blaming some "enemy," making us follow his lead.
I knew it was my duty, to fight in our wars,

But I trusted in him to take the right course.
I guess I was wrong to think he valued our creed,

To deter war if at all possible, fight only in need.
A great lesson is learned by watching our man,

He acts on his own and endangers our land.

Stand by the soldiers that signed up to serve,

Vote for justice and our lives to preserve.
I am not a pawn to be lost while the "king" simply kneels,

His party striving for power, while our country reels.
Pray to Allah this murderous plot comes to an end,

For God's name is marred with every troop that he sends.
I would have gladly paid taxes and bought gas at two-seventy-five,

To have a better economy and still be alive.
Don't blame the "enemy" for my shortened life,

Reserve that blame for the one that concocted this strife.

Osama Bin Laden was the one we fingered for blame,

Saddam Hussein was not even in the game.
I see the connection between your father and you,

If I were alive, I could tell you the truth.

Keep fighting YOUR wars with American lives,

But shiny new boxes can't comfort our wives.
To elect someone else is my only hope,

You should be glad that dead men can't vote.

"Dead American soldier"

[46zilzal]

Radical news sources like the Christian Science Monitor are all in on it too. Troop morale is hitting rock bottom, but it must be all made up, like the rutabaga's alternate reality of the world.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0707/p02s01-woiq.html

"In some units, there has been an increase in letters from the Red Cross stating soldiers are needed at home, as well as daily instances of female troops being sent home due to pregnancy.

"Make no mistake, the level of morale for most soldiers that I've seen has hit rock bottom," said another soldier, an officer from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq."
The open-ended deployments in Iraq are lowering morale among some ground troops, who say constantly shifting time tables are reducing confidence in their leadership. "The way we have been treated and the continuous lies told to our families back home has devastated us all," a soldier in Iraq wrote in a letter to Congress.

Security threats, heat, harsh living conditions, and, for some soldiers, waiting and boredom have gradually eroded spirits. An estimated 9,000 troops from the 3rd Infantry Division - most deployed for at least six months and some for more than a year - have been waiting for several weeks, without a mission, to return to the United States, officers say.

In one Army unit, an officer described the mentality of troops. "They vent to anyone who will listen. They write letters, they cry, they yell. Many of them walk around looking visibly tired and depressed.... We feel like pawns in a game that we have no voice [in]."

[delayjf]

No reason to be there, NO threat except the fiction of the Gulf of Tolkien .....sounds a heck of a lot like IRAQ!!

quote:In retrospect, it is clear we had no idea what we were getting into when we marched into Vietnam, and the same appears true in Iraq. In reference to Vietnam, President Johnson pledged in April 1965: "We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement." Four decades later, President Bush pledged: "We’ve got to stay the course and we will stay the course" in Iraq."

Easy to say with hindsight. The US involvment in Vietnam was never that simple. Our policy was shaped by world events at that time. Given the horrors of the Purges, the aggressive expansion of Communism all over the world - my point is, it was never as simplistic as you make it sound. We certainly did go into Vietnam for the rice.

[Tom]

He can't get past simple. He is done in a blink!:lol:

[delayjf]

as well as daily instances of female troops being sent home due to pregnancy.
So whats new, we sent home 43 women who got pregnant in Somilia - in only 4 months. No doubt long deployments get old and are a strain on families. Is that how you would conduct your foreign policy - take a poll, ask the troops if they're tired and want to go home. Good thing Lincoln didn't take a poll after Chancellorsville. This ain't no party - this ain't no disco

[lsbets]

Funny how with all of the people there right now that I communicate with on a daily basis, I never hear the despair that 46 believes there is. Odd that when speaking directly to friends, and their families back home, I don't hear those sentiments. But, then again, what do I know, I'm not reflecting the preferred view.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Funny how with all of the people there right now that I communicate with on a daily basis, I never hear the despair that 46 believes there is. Odd that when speaking directly to friends, and their families back home, I don't hear those sentiments. But, then again, what do I know, I'm not reflecting the preferred view.

Maybe you and DelayJF should write letters instead of internet posts. Maybe then they'll believe you. :bang:

[ddog]

Isn't that what we are doing? Is it not better to fight Al Quada in Iraq then to endure their attacks here in the US.

If Sadam wasn't motivated by the 1st Gulf War, I don't think anything that happened in Afghanistan would deter him either. The Soviets had a lot more troops in Afghanistan for than the US currently has now and they couldn't tame the wild wild west. The problem is the politics involved with regards to going into Pakistan. Simular to the situation in Vietnam - The VC were always able to run across the border into Laos and Cambodia knowing we would not pursue.

I just don't believe those were the only two options we had.
They are now of course.
I think we could have used the various players in the region to help us if we would have done it under the covers so to speak after Afghanistan was secure or as secure as we could make it.



The Soviets posed no threat to Sadam they were buddies. He bought their arms as I recall.

Strange as it may sound I was back then for using Iran after we secured Afghanistan to keep the pressure on Saddam. He was heading into the pits and it was given at least a 50-50 chance at the time to fall apart anyway.
I would have ridden that chance out for a long time before going in.

The ultimate problem in my opnion and you state it well above is that we could NOT WIN as win seemed to be defined when we went in.

Our generals even knew that a full scale gulf war2 style effort, but done in the middle of a mass population center would doom the effort to failure and even if any metric of victory was achieved, the tribal instinct is just so strong, not there but everywhere that in order to "win" on the ground(i never thought we could) you will alienate so many others in the populations you are "defeating" that you will raise the chances of home-grown stuff here.

In other words , fight them there and grow them here.
I am certain we have done some of that anyway.
We will see what becomes of it.
You can't have your own "tribe" killed and not feel some anger.

On a small point, I am certain we did pursue into Cam-Laos.
We didn't do it on a mass scale, again one must know going in what your options really are since the support here makes the policy possible.

Normally this was thought to be a restraining influence on going into a conflict until you had no choice.
911 should not have changed that to the degree it did.

I still say and they are STILL not doing it today, that unless you are willing to say that come the surge report date there are still no sure things and that even if it seems to be working that can be for many other reasons we can't control and that if it blows up this winter we will still be there for many years in force if not decades then you will never get a backing here to support the thing longterm.

people can rail about left this and commie that, but those are not the people that will determine this or that did determine the Vietnam conflict.
if that were so then you could never have the string of leaders elected nationally that have been in the last 40 years.


I don't recall many of them as being card carrying commie slimballs?
:confused:

[ddog]

Of course this war is unpopular on both sides of the political spectrum. I believe this speaks more to our fumbling and bumbling political leaders. Our pusillanimous leaders are an embarrassment to our great history. We are involved in a war where our politicians lack the political will to finish. Political correctness may disrupt military recruitment for years to come.

Although Bush’s initial goals were in fact noble. Preemptive strikes are a time honored military tactic. Our inability to complete what we started is the single prevailing point for low recruitment levels. Who in their right mind would want to fight on behalf of this commander and chief?

Now you find a Patton and command him to win – recurtment should double overnight.


_______________________________
Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him? ~ Blaise Pascal


Gibby, that's my problem , the support here will dry up altogether if we are seen to be air bombing whole population centers.
The command to win is from another war.
There just is not a way(we can stomach?) to win this militarily, even the "Pattons" seem to agree on that point.

This thing will end up a Balkinized set of territories with us playing the good cop roll at a terrible expense for a long time.
The effect of our surge from what I hear is to expedite the separation and increase the "local" read that tribal rule.
that's part of the same game many have tried in the past.
They are just going along to get along right now.

[46zilzal]

Funny how with all of the people there right now that I communicate with on a daily basis, I never hear the despair that 46 believes there is. Odd that when speaking directly to friends, and their families back home, I don't hear those sentiments. But, then again, what do I know, I'm not reflecting the preferred view.
Strange I did not write a single one of those letters nor make up one of the quotes. All that is from the people there & oh yes, radical sources like The Christian Science Monitor, a REAL biased source!!

[46zilzal]

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/10/060410fa_fact2
McMaster is a West Point graduate who earned a Silver Star for battlefield prowess during the 1991 Gulf War: his armored cavalry troop stumbled across an Iraqi mechanized brigade in the middle of a sandstorm and destroyed it. That war was a textbook case of what the
military calls “kinetic operations,” or major combat in relatively uncomplicated circumstances; the field of battle was almost easier, some Gulf War veterans say, than the live-fire exercises at the National Training Center, in Fort Irwin, California. After the war, McMaster earned a
doctorate in history from the University of North Carolina. His dissertation, based on research in newly declassified archives, was published in 1997, with the title “Dereliction
of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam.” The book assembled a damning case against senior military leaders for failing to speak their minds when, in the early years of the war, they disagreed with Pentagon policies. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, knowing that Johnson and McNamara wanted uncritical support rather than honest advice, and eager to protect their careers, went along with official lies and a split-the-difference strategy of gradual escalation that none of them thought could work. “Dereliction of Duty” won McMaster wide praise, and its candor inspired an ardent following among post-Vietnam officers.

But then again, Woodward outlines many of these same
honest attitudes presented to the inner cabal who chose to believe what they wanted rather than what these experienced soldiers knew to be correct. Stupidity at the top, not in the field.

[Secretariat]

So, according to you, if the US is attacked, Our military should never operate in an offensive manner as we did in WWII - but only stand guard at the border. Mean while, Japan and Germany are free to rape, pillege and murder the world. Where's your humanity??

I understand your hatred for corporate american but who do you think is going to pay for all this socialized medicine your advocating? It certainly won't be you or I.

Not according to "me". According to General Smedley Butler who won two Congressional Medals of Honors, was beloved by his troops, and said if Hitler tried coming over here he'd be waiting on the shores of Atlantic City to fight him. He just didn't beleive in fighting over there to protect France and Britain who refused to pay to build up their own national defense strongly enough. so we're stuck going in with our men.

Butler's assertions were that we can't keep fighting other nation;s wars. That we had American businessmen supporting the Hitler buildup of munitions which helped make him a miltiary power. THe same with Mussolini which had large businesses applauding the Mussolini use of Fascism in the early 30's.

So when you speak of "my" hate for corproate America, prlase realize I am quoting probalby the most loved and respected Marine General of all time. Old Gimlet Eye was loved by his troops, and business knew it and tried to buy him and failed. I posted the Archer book so that others could investigate Butlers words himself (again not mine...his).

Read Butler's words. We are in Iraq in the same way Butler got stuck propping up a puppet government in Haiti and Nicaragua, and fighting in China to protect British and American interests such as Standard Oil. These aren't my words, but his. The fact that a half a million men trusted Butler and considered him beyond reproach speaks volumes for his humanity.

[Secretariat]

I love the above quote from a NVA soldier. No shit, if we stayed in Vietnam more communist soldier would have been killed.

Bush has no problem now staying in Vietnam 30 years ago, yet chose not to volunteer to go over there and fight. Instead he was delivering pamphlets for Roy Blount's poltical campaign in Alabama. Rove had a deferment, so did Cheney in fact multiple ones as did Wolfowitz, etc....Yet, NOW, GW says we should have stayed in Vietnam Guess what GW, you never made it there. How can you stay someplace you never had the guts to go to?

And the irony of it all is that Bush is the first President to open up TRADE with same regime he says we should have kept fighting. Let me get this right. Republican Nixon opens up trade with China, a supporter of arms to the North Vietnam, in the middle of the war WITH North Vietnam, and Republican GW opens up trade relations to take jobs away from Americans with the same nation that so many Americans lost their lives and limbs fighting against while he partied.

But now he pulls out the flag, and tries to make a comparision between Iraq and Vietnam (after he said for the last six years there was no comparision)This is the height of hypocrisy. This guy would sell out his own mother if Wall Street asked him.

[Secretariat]

So, according to you, if the US is attacked, Our military should never operate in an offensive manner as we did in WWII - but only stand guard at the border. Mean while, Japan and Germany are free to rape, pillege and murder the world. Where's your humanity??

I understand your hatred for corporate american but who do you think is going to pay for all this socialized medicine your advocating? It certainly won't be you or I.

Again, these are Butler's comments, not mine.

However, Butler never said that if another nation declares war on us or atrtacks us we should not go on the offensive. And in WW 2, the US attmepted to maintain neutrality until Pearl Harbor and Germany subsequently declaring war on us. When another nation decalres war on you of course you go on the offensive. Butler never said otherwise. His objection was the use of the military and soldiers lives to help US corporate financial interests abroad by propping up puppet gvernments so these corprs could get rich via war profiteering, and getting a taxpayer miltiary as security for their products.

Now, let's talk about humanity. Butler had no objection to protecting the US, or fighting a nation who has declared war on us. But let me ask about your humanity. Using your analogy, why isn't our military in Darfur? These's a genocide there. Why isn't it freeing the Cuban people of an unscrupulous tyrant? Why aren't we in Rwanda? How can we allow the people of north Korea to live under such a ruthless tyrant? How can we permit the people of North Vietnam to live under communism? In fact shouldn't we invade China to free people to live in a democracy such as in Taiwan? How can we stand by and allow these people to be used for cheap labor without the right to vote? Where is your humanity to look away from this?

See, we're Americans. George Washington warned in his farewell address the danger of foreign entanglements. He was a General who knew combat. Esienhower warned of the dangers of the military industrial complex on his farewell address. He was a general who knew. And Butler who had seen too much action to count knew as well. As well as General Shoup in Vietnam.

And JR, post 2001. I got news. In WW I, they faced WMD's. Here's a few:

"The effects of chlorine gas were severe. Within seconds of inhaling its vapour it destroyed the victim's respiratory organs, bringing on choking attacks. (

Phosgene as a weapon was more potent than chlorine in that while the latter was potentially deadly it caused the victim to violently cough and choke.
apparently healthy soldiers were taken down with phosgene gas poisoning up to 48 hours after inhalation.

Mustard gas, an almost odourless chemical, was distinguished by the serious blisters it caused both internally and externally, brought on several hours after exposure. Protection against mustard gas proved more difficult than against either chlorine or phosgene gas.

The use of mustard gas - sometimes referred to as Yperite - also proved to have mixed benefits. While inflicting serious injury upon the enemy the chemical remained potent in soil for weeks after release: making capture of infected trenches a dangerous undertaking."

So JR, they understood WMD's quite well. And they understood a nationa lmergency that affected everyone called the Great Depression in which many more died than in the trade centers horrific as it was. So don't belittle what these people understood. They faced a much graver danger than a bunch of thugs from the Mid-East.

[hcap]

Yes, I know...I'm feeling more and more insecure all the time. :rolleyes:

When is the last time a news organization polled the US population with this question:

"Do you feel more safe or less safe since 9/11"

What do you think the results of that poll would be, and why haven't we seen such a poll.

My guess is that a solid majority would say "more safe." How could they not? Nothing has happened to make them feel less safe.

Really?
The only thing "solid" is between your ears.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/06/opinion/polls/main1975940.shtml
Poll: Many Americans Feel Less Safe
Five Years After 9/11, Many Feel Terror Threat Has Grown

NEW YORK, Sept. 6, 2006

Fast Fact

By a four-to-one margin (48 percent to 12 percent), Americans think the war in Iraq has made the threat of terrorism against the United States worse rather than better.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/16769

More Americans Feel Unsafe in Post 9/11 Era
August 8, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many people in the United States feel their country is less safe now than six years ago when, it was the target of a major terrorist attack, according to a poll by Hart/Newhouse released by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News. 37 per cent of respondents feel the U.S. is more vulnerable today, up 14 points since September.

Conversely, 34 per cent of respondents think the U.S. is safer now—down eight points in 10 months—and 27 per cent believe the country is about as safe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40571-2004Mar31.html

Most Say They Are Not Safer Since 9/11

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 1, 2004; Page A03

Fewer than half of all Americans think the country is safer now than it was on Sept. 11, 2001, and more than three-quarters expect the United States to be the target of a major terrorist attack at home or abroad in the next few months, according to a new poll.

[lsbets]

COL McMaster is one of General Petraeus' closest adivsers. He is one of the guys who helped develop the strategy being implemented today. The strategy that some folks desperatly want to see fail, because as the 3rd ranking Democrat in the house said - success in Iraq would cause problems for his party. He has had two commands in Iraq and has performed brilliantly, especially in Tal Afar. Do you ever know what you're talking about?

[hcap]

Originally by delayjf.....

So what, somebody’s shooting at your house, are you going to wait until your daughter is hit before firing back – obviously you feel US pilots are expendable.

Yeah we flew close to 300,000 sorties, not one injury or damage to our aircraft. Our daughters were very safe until georgie boy decided to invade


delayjf.....

As much as you like to pin this on President Bush, obviously Operation Desert Fox occurred on Clinton’s watch. You failed to mention in your previous post how Clinton lied to the American People about Saddam’s WMDs to justify the attacks. Below is a quote from Madeleine Albright, Sec of State.

I was no great fan of Clinton, that is until georgie boy took over.
Was not in favor of Sanctions and thought Albright very wrong, but using "Clinton did it too, does not excuse the escalation of gross miscalculations by the neocons

delayjf.....

Your support for Saddam pretty much says it all. You are obviously anti-American. I’m sure the Kurds, Shia, and the Kuwaits would take issue with your miss-placed sympathy for Saddam.

I never "supported" Saddam.You can be against both parties without giving one favor. But yeah Saddam was worse.


delayjf.....

Hcap, as I’ve pointed out before, Saddam’s army was strictly eastern bloc. The United States does not manufacture T-72 tanks, SU-27 and MIG-29 fighters.

Are you saying Saddam came to power due to the Soviets? Keep dreaming.
He was our monster, but was an equal opportunity monster. dealt with everyone for cash

delayjf.....

Obviously the stakes are much higher when you consider Nuclear Armageddon. So I guess your point is that if the US is not willing to go to war with Russia or China we have no right to use our military any where.
Wrong, We do what we likes, and we likes what we do.

You likes what you do and now close to 75% of the American people and the world have been alienated. Nuclear Armageddon?

I guess your gonna levitate with Boxcar when the end comes. Exaggeration is the name of your game, and how you helped the loonies "conquer the world"

[hcap]

Sorry delayjf, I didn't read that hcap supported Saddam at all. He/She quoted the Dalai Lama, who cogently pointed out that it takes a system to support a dictator. ( I thought that was unfair editing in a quote on your part and makes it appear that hcap was a supporter.)

Being against the war at this point does not make one anti-American.
Nor does loathing Bush mean one loaths the electorate who voted for him.
Nor does it mean that one hates America as one other poster suggested.


Thankyou



My problem though is that hcap keeps throwing out evidence of what most of us already know. He/She keeps finger pointing in the rear view mirror stating
"Oh look at that awful mess behind us."

But I know hcap is bright.
I want to hear what solutions hcap has to offer.
Discussing the mess at the dinner table ain't gonna get the dishes washed.
What are your suggestions hcap?

As the rear passengers in a car driven by a madman and his pals wildly careens towards an abyss shout and plead for the loonies to look further than 10 feet ahead, they madly scribble a new "anti-bush" foreign policy doctrine....

As George Costanza learned...

"George C: Why did it all turn out like this for me? I had so much promise. I was personable, I was bright. Oh, maybe not academically speaking, but ... I was perceptive. I always know when someone's uncomfortable at a party. It became very clear to me sitting out there today, that every decision I've ever made, in my entire life, has been wrong. My life is the opposite of everything I want it to be. Every instinct I have, in every of life, be it something to wear, something to eat ... It's all been wrong.

"George : Elaine, bald men, with no jobs, and no money, who live with their parents, don't approach strange women.

Jerry : Well here's your chance to try the opposite. Instead of tuna salad and being intimidated by women, chicken salad and going right up to them.

George : Yeah, I should do the opposite, I should.

Jerry : If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.

George : Yes, I will do the opposite. I used to sit here and do nothing, and regret it for the rest of the day, so now I will do the opposite, and I will do

something!


FIRST CHANGE THE DRIVER and his buddies

[Greyfox]

FIRST CHANGE THE DRIVER and his buddies


Thank you hcap. Excellent analogy and you've offered a possible concrete solution.

[Tom]

Again, these are Butler's comments, not mine.




I would expect nothing less! :lol:

Drive-by poster!

[PaceAdvantage]

Really?
The only thing "solid" is between your ears.

More Americans Feel Unsafe in Post 9/11 Era
August 8, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many people in the United States feel their country is less safe now than six years ago when, it was the target of a major terrorist attack, according to a poll by Hart/Newhouse released by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News. 37 per cent of respondents feel the U.S. is more vulnerable today, up 14 points since September.

Conversely, 34 per cent of respondents think the U.S. is safer now—down eight points in 10 months—and 27 per cent believe the country is about as safe.


Nice insult Hcap to start your reply. You're a helluva guy....I'll remember that the next time I reply to one of your posts.

So, this most recent poll has 37% feeling the US is more vulnerable. That means 63% feel the US is less vulnerable in some respect. Interesting....

It's good to know that revisionist history tactics aren't working on the majority of Americans.

[Lefty]

As to Iraq, even Hillary tempering her speeches with 'the surge, in some respects, is working.'

[46zilzal]

Do you ever know what you're talking about?
You don't read too well as the quote:"Stupidity at the top, not in the field." gave him credit for noticing, in Vietnam, what is happening here: the folks who know what to do to help a screwed up situation are not being heard. Just like Vietnam.

SAME thing that Woodward's last book found over and over. If the opinions of the experts you hire to evaluate a situation don't give you the pre-determined answer you are looking for, just find new experts who will.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/60minutes/main2047607.shtml
For example, Woodward says an intelligence report classified secret from the Joint Chiefs
of Staff concluded in large print that "THE SUNNI ARAB INSURGENCY IS GAINING STRENGTH
AND INCREASING CAPACITY, DESPITE POLITICAL PROGRESS."

And “INSURGENTS RETAIN THE CAPABILITIES TO…INCREASE THE LEVEL OF VIOLENCE
THROUGH NEXT YEAR.”

But just two days later a public defense department report said just the opposite. “Violent
action, will begin to wane in early 2007,” the report said.


Did not fit the pre-determined plan that all is rosey, so they
continue to spoon feed crap to the people. It is a total
sham and has been since day one.

[46zilzal]

book review from the NY Times: "As depicted by Mr. Woodward, this is an administration in which virtually no one will speak truth to power, an administration in which the traditional policy-making process involving methodical analysis and debate is routinely subverted. He notes that experts -- who recommended higher troop levels in Iraq, warned about the consequences of disbanding the Iraqi Army or worried about the lack of postwar planning-- were continually ignored by the White House and Pentagon leadership, or themselves failed, out of cowardice or blind loyalty, to press insistently their case for an altered course in the war.

Mr. Woodward describes the administration's management of the war as being improvisatory and ad hoc, like a pickup basketball game, and argues that it continually tried to give the public a rosy picture of the war in Iraq (while accusing the press of accentuating the negative), even as its own intelligence was pointing to a rising number of attacks against American forces and an upward spiral of violence. A secret February 2005 report by Philip D. Zelikow, a State Department counselor, found that ''Iraq remains a failed state shadowed by constant violence and undergoing revolutionary political change'' and concluded that the American effort there suffered because it lacked a comprehensive, unified policy."

[Lefty]

zilly, there are not many qb's but millions of wannabe Monday Morning QB's. This Pres has been denigrated mightily by the left and the leftwing media before he ever took offioce. Too have such resolve and aplomb in the midst of all the "slings and arrows" that have been directed his way shows he has the qualities we need. Thank God, we have him and if i have offended any liberals, then, swell.

[46zilzal]

zilly, there are not many qb's but millions of wannabe Monday Morning QB's. This Pres has been denigrated mightily by the left and the leftwing media before he ever took offioce. Too have such resolve and aplomb in the midst of all the "slings and arrows" that have been directed his way shows he has the qualities we need. Thank God, we have him and if i have offended any liberals, then, swell.

Ah the facts of a failed war, and worse yet, not even allowing the experts you hire to run it because they are telling you things like the truth, makes it all the more ridiculous.

This prez is the biggest fool ever to have taken office in the past century and that is only because Warren G. Harding never started a war.

[Tom]

46 seems to be obsessed posting stuff from 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006......trying to ignore today's reality? That the surge is working?:lol:

[46zilzal]

46 seems to be obsessed posting stuff from 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006......trying to ignore today's reality? That the surge is working?
The reality is that we should never had put all those troops in harm's way for NOTHING. That has no temporal component. Wrong at the outset, still means wrong. Totally without a shred of reasonable evidence to have sacrificed all those lives.

[46zilzal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15103632/site/newsweek/page/2/

Every president wants to be a big-time leader; presidential power is almost a narcotic. It’s very hard. As Bush once told me, he was bubbled in after 9/11, and it’s hard to work your way out of that bubble. It’s not about process as much as it is about personality. You have to have strong personalities at all levels. One of the things my reporting shows is that the uniformed military has been too weak. The military is best when there are strong, sometimes difficult leaders in uniform—George Patton, Douglas MacArthur, even Dwight Eisenhower. Those were people who sometimes had to be put on shorter leashes. The point is you need someone who is going to get in your face. That doesn’t mean defiance or breaking the law, that means just saying, ‘Wait a minute,’ and having evidence and knowing your business. Having the chairman of the Joint Chiefs as the principal military adviser to the president, the National Security Council and the secretary of Defense—which is what the Goldwater-Nichols Act requires—means that, by law, he must present independent advice, and the record shows that Rumsfeld bleached this out of the system. And in the end, President Bush, Rumsfeld, and certainly the public lost a great deal when that independent voice was shut down. Presidents cannot have yes-men and do their job well.

but the rutabaga tries: "Brownie, yur doin' a heck if a job there."

[46zilzal]

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3205
"I hear a lot of talk about the effectiveness of the so called troop surge but I hear of no facts to verify this. I want to know, just what is being effective about this action? It seems to me that if it were being effective then the soldiers’ and civilian deaths would be going down instead of staying the same or rising."

letter from a vet

another http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3329
They are not supposed to talk like this. We are driving and another of the public affairs
team adds bitterly: 'We should just be allowed to tell the media what is happening here.
"Let them know that people are worn out. So that their families know back home. But it's like we've become no more than numbers now.'

The first soldier starts in again. 'My husband was injured here. He hit an improvised explosive device. He already had a spinal injury. The blast shook out the plates. He's home
now and has serious issues adapting. But I'm not allowed to go back home to see him. If I wanted to see him I'd have to take leave time (two weeks). And the army counts it.'"

[46zilzal]

Veterans, who were there, have a website with this as their purpose (abbreviated).Veterans Against Iraq War is a coalition of American veterans who support our troops but oppose war with Iraq or any other nation that does not pose a clear and present danger to our people and nation.

Until and unless the current U.S. Administration provides evidence which clearly demonstrates that Iraq or any other nation poses a clear, direct and immediate danger to our country, we oppose all of this Administration's pre-emptive and unilateral military activities in Iraq. Furthermore, we cannot support any war that is initiated without a formal Declaration of War by Congress, as our Constitution requires.

Although we detested the dictatorial policies of Saddam Hussein and sympathized with the tragic plight of the Iraqi people, we opposed unilateral and pre-emptive U.S. military intervention on the grounds that it established a dangerous precedent in the conduct of international affairs, that it could easily lead to an increase of violent regional instability and the spread of much wider conflicts, that it places needless and unacceptable financial burdens on the American people, that it diverts us from addressing critical domestic priorities, and that it distracts us from our goals of tracking down and destroying international terrorists and their lairs.

Furthermore, we do not believe that the American military can or should be used as the police force of the world by any administration, Republican or Democrat. Consequently, we believe that the lives and well being of our nation's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines should not be squandered or sacrificed for causes other than in the direct defense of our people and nation."


They understand all too well that they are being USED.

[Secretariat]

Is the surge working?

Well, on the political front, even Petraeus says the Iraqi government has got to do more, even GW says that as PM Maliki continues to drag feet as well as Iraqi President Talaban-i. (Amazing we'd create an Iraq with a guy named Talaban-i becoming President.

Anyway, so on the Iraqi government doing it part - as expected, nothing - why we needed results tied to their actions.

OK, what about tactically.

This is an interesting assessment from Washington Monthly on whether Iraq is safer.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_08/011931.php

Overall violence up, and infrastructure metrics show less fuel available, and less electricity.

[Tom]

The reality is that we should never had put all those troops in harm's way for NOTHING. That has no temporal component. Wrong at the outset, still means wrong. Totally without a shred of reasonable evidence to have sacrificed all those lives.

Your opinion. Not everyone's.

[Tom]

Is the surge working?

Well, on the political front, even Petraeus says the Iraqi government has got to do more, even GW says that as PM Maliki continues to drag feet as well as Iraqi President Talaban-i. (Amazing we'd create an Iraq with a guy named Talaban-i becoming President.

Anyway, so on the Iraqi government doing it part - as expected, nothing - why we needed results tied to their actions.

OK, what about tactically.

This is an interesting assessment from Washington Monthly on whether Iraq is safer.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_08/011931.php

Overall violence up, and infrastructure metrics show less fuel available, and less electricity.

The surge is not about infratructures of fuel. The Iraqi Parliment has done a lot more than your democratic congress has!:lol:

Do you pay all these people who talk for you? :confused:

[46zilzal]

The surge is not about infratructures of fuel. The Iraqi Parliment has done a lot more than your democratic congress has!:lol:


That difficult to realize it has not worked and will not work? Even the troops loyal to the idea are beginning to ask the same questions as they did in Vietnam: What the heck are we doing here????

[Snag]

That difficult to realize it has not worked and will not work? Even the troops loyal to the idea are beginning to ask the same questions as they did in Vietnam: What the heck are we doing here????

Not all of us ask that question 46. Once again you make statements you can't back up.

[46zilzal]

"As a soldier who served in the U.S. Army for ten years, including a combat tour in Iraq, and as a citizen who has defended the constitution by voting and speaking about the truth for many years, I am disgusted that this has been allowed to happen in our country. Congress needs to find the intestinal fortitude to stand up and do what is right in this situation, regardless of their political fortunes.

The American people have spoken and it is time for those in the government to do what our constitution so plainly requires them to do; the will of the American people."

Kevin Benderman

Another guy telling how the SURGE troops are being used:"This is the part that blows my mind. My company, plus parts of a few other units, were tasked out to provide security, in what some would call one of the most dangerous cities in the world, to a group of people wishing to get married. Now I understand that the point of the surge is to improve the overall security in areas of Baghdad and the rest of Iraq, but I feel this has gone too far. General security situation, ok, but to risk my life and the lives of other soldiers so people can get married; I truely can't believe it. Not only is it shocking to myself, but also to everyone else in my platoon. There is not a single person that feels this was an appropriate mission for us to be doing. See thats the thing around here lately. What we have been doing is having no real purpose and just risking lives, with nothing in my opinion to show for it. Don't get me wrong, I'm a full supporter of the troop surge and I feel we need to stay in Iraq still until the ISF (Iraqi Security Forces) can handle things on their own, but right now we are not doing a job the US Military should be doing."

amongst many many others.

[Greyfox]

Don't get me wrong, I'm a full supporter of the troop surge and I feel we need to stay in Iraq still until the ISF (Iraqi Security Forces) can handle things on their own, but right now we are not doing a job the US Military should be doing."[/b]

amongst many many others.

Mr. Benderman definitely sounds demoralized, yet he sends a double message.
Message 1 We shouldn't be here.
Message 2 We need to stay.

I once worked for a large organization of over 3000 employees.
In that number you will always have a fair percentage of bitchers, gripers, whiners, and complainers.
You will always have a number of gung ho types who'll give one more for the
"Gipper" in any large group as well.

My Question is:

46Zil....Is the ratio of negative pooh poohers in the infantry to gung ho types, any different than any other large organization?
(Or more concretely is the percentage of boo birds in the infantry growing?)

[46zilzal]

Another guy telling how the SURGE troops are being used[/B]:"This is the part that blows my mind. My company, plus parts of a few other units, were tasked out to provide security, in what some would call one of the most dangerous cities in the world, to a group of people wishing to get married. Now I understand that the point of the surge is to improve the overall security in areas of Baghdad and the rest of Iraq, but I feel this has gone too far. General security situation, ok, but to risk my life and the lives of other soldiers so people can get married; I truely can't believe it. Not only is it shocking to myself, but also to everyone else in my platoon. There is not a single person that feels this was an appropriate mission for us to be doing. See thats the thing around here lately. What we have been doing is having no real purpose and just risking lives, with nothing in my opinion to show for it. Don't get me wrong, I'm a full supporter of the troop surge and I feel we need to stay in Iraq still until the ISF (Iraqi Security Forces) can handle things on their own, but right now we are not doing a job the US Military should be doing."

amongst many many others.

did you misread the opening line?

[46zilzal]

2nd message from a different person. The part right after ANOTHER GUY......etc.

[Tom]

That difficult to realize it has not worked and will not work? Even the troops loyal to the idea are beginning to ask the same questions as they did in Vietnam: What the heck are we doing here????YOU say. Obviously, you do not speak for them all. Everyone I have spoken to -not read letters from - takes the exact opposite opinion that you have. The common thread amoung them all is that the wnat to cut loose to "kick ass and get the job done."

All but one are at least two-timers over there.

[Greyfox]

YOU say. Obviously, you do not speak for them all. Everyone I have spoken to -not read letters from - takes the exact opposite opinion that you have. The common thread amoung them all is that the wnat to cut loose to "kick ass and get the job done."

All but one are at least two-timers over there.

Absolutely right on Tom. Had this been 1942-45, this war would have been over.
Political correctness has paralyzed infantrys who follow the protocol of it.
So the reality is the soldiers are being asked to kick ass with one hand tied behind their backs (sometimes two).
Hence, independent of the morality of being their in the first place, it has become a war that cannot be won. Sooner or later, America will have to withdraw from Iraq. When it does, the Civil War that is oppressed at the moment will flare up. Just as it would have had Saddam died of old age.
This region is going to be boiling for years to come.
Iran is eyeing it.
Jordan is eye Iran.
Israel is eyeing both and others.
I still stick to saying "Seal the borders. Let the Civil War flow."
And tell Iran "Hands off."
If Iraqi's want democracy, then fight for it. Or should it be three separate states?
That's what my crystal ball sees.
America won the war with Iraq. That's over. They can't win the Peace because 1500 years of hostility are fuelling it.

[Snag]

YOU say. Obviously, you do not speak for them all. Everyone I have spoken to -not read letters from - takes the exact opposite opinion that you have. The common thread amoung them all is that the wnat to cut loose to "kick ass and get the job done."

All but one are at least two-timers over there.

Thanks Tom. 46 paints with such a big brush that he feels justified in making statements that support his positions. I think he forgets that many of us make up our minds and form opinions based on personal experiences and not quotes and blogs from others.

[lsbets]

What I find funny is a guy who looks upon soldiers with nothing but disdain, and who I seriously doubt knows any soldiers, sitting in Canada telling me and delay how the soldiers feel.

[Snag]

What I find funny is a guy who looks upon soldiers with nothing but disdain, and who I seriously doubt knows any soldiers, sitting in Canada telling me and delay how the soldiers feel.

Yep. Trying to tell me what I said or how I should feel takes alot of balls.

[delayjf]

Again, these are Butler's comments, not mine.
I’m assuming you would not post his comments unless you agreed. Correct?
why isn't our military in Darfur? These's a genocide there. Why isn't it freeing the Cuban people of an unscrupulous tyrant? Why aren't we in Rwanda? How can we allow the people of north Korea to live under such a ruthless tyrant? How can we permit the people of North Vietnam to live under communism? In fact shouldn't we invade China to free people to live in a democracy such as in Taiwan? How can we stand by and allow these people to be used for cheap labor without the right to vote? Where is your humanity to look away from this?
Good questions Sec, what do you suppose old Smedley would do? I wonder what Smedley's attitude would have been after the Beirut Barrecks bombing, Kobal Towers bombing, the attack on the USS Cole. Obviously the US cannot over throw every tyrant in the world. But we’ve done our share, I wonder if Smedley would have supported going into Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, or Vietnam. The US gained nothing economically in those conflicts, so you see Sec, it’s not all about oil. Where is the UN or the African Union, why aren’t they in Darfur or Rewanda?
And they understood a nationa lmergency that affected everyone called the Great Depression in which many more died than in the trade centers horrific as it was.
Not sure how the depression relates here, but if the depression was so devastating then the US had best look after our own interest to insure it does not happen again.
Yeah we flew close to 300,000 sorties, not one injury or damage to our aircraft. Our daughters were very safe until georgie boy decided to invade.
Yes, and we got shot at everyday as well. I’d rather read about my enemies funeral than attend one of my friends or families. Maybe if that was you getting shot at.
Are you saying Saddam came to power due to the Soviets? Keep dreaming. He was our monster, but was an equal opportunity monster. dealt with everyone for cash.
Wrong, he brutalized his way to power. The US may have supported him once he was their leader because it was either him or Iran with whom we were at odds with. Did Russia put him in power? IMO No, but the Soviets and China did sell him a lot of Tanks, Jets and AK-47s. Again, the US supplied less than 10% of his conventional / unconventional hardware, look it up. You are the one that keeps equating the supplying of military equipment to the installation a government; by your own standard – then the Soviets are responsible. Regardless of where he got his weapons, He and He alone is responsible for their deployment. It was Saddam that brutalized his people, it was Saddam that invaded Kuwait, It was Saddam who ordered the use of Gas on the Iranian and then the Kurds. I for one do not buy into the “blame the gun for the murder mentality”.
You likes what you do and now close to 75% of the American people and the world have been alienated. Nuclear Armageddon?
What do you suppose those polls would read had we found massive amounts of WMDs? They would be in full support of the War. Their disagreement is an indictment on the outcome (not finding the WMDs and the Intel that supported their existence – not the reason for attacking Iraq (to prevent WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorist.) I take it from your posts that you would not support regime change in Iraq whether WMDs existed or not. Nuclear Armageddon – the probable outcome of a direct confrontation with China / Russia.
Ah the facts of a failed war,
By your standards then you could clump the Poster Boy for the Democratic party, JFK, right besides Bush. I know you prefer that do nothing Clinton, but perhaps a truck bomb that collapses a few Canadian hospital or a few suicide bombers at a peace rally might adjust your perspective.

[Lefty]

zilly, no evidence? For nothing? I guess he shoulda just ignored all the warnings that the Dems in Clinton admin gave him and the intel given him by most of the free world. If he had ignored all that, you would be chastizing him for that after Saddam hit us with something as bad or worse than 9-11. You're not even a GOOD Mon Morn QB.

[lsbets]

Our troops have earned more time
By Brian Baird

Special to The Times

Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver

The invasion of Iraq may be one of the worst foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. As tragic and costly as that mistake has been, a precipitous or premature withdrawal of our forces now has the potential to turn the initial errors into an even greater problem just as success looks possible.

As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued support and more time to succeed.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003850954_bairdop24.html

[Secretariat]

.
I’m assuming you would not post his comments unless you agreed. Correct?

Let's make this clear. I posted what Butler said, and your response was "So, according to you, if the US is attacked, Our military should never operate in an offensive manner as we did in WWII - but only stand guard at the border. "

I simply stated that a respected Marine Corps General who has won two Congressional Medals of Honor stated something quite differently than involvement in premeptive wars such as Iraq.

Do I agree with Butler's remarks? Many of them. Certainly his reference to the dangers of involvement with nations like Iraq as the British learned a long time ago.

.Good questions Sec, what do you suppose old Smedley would do? I wonder what Smedley's attitude would have been after the Beirut Barrecks bombing, Kobal Towers bombing, the attack on the USS Cole. Obviously the US cannot over throw every tyrant in the world. But we’ve done our share, I wonder if Smedley would have supported going into Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, or Vietnam. The US gained nothing economically in those conflicts, so you see Sec, it’s not all about oil. Where is the UN or the African Union, why aren’t they in Darfur or Rewanda?

If you read Butler, it's obvious what he would do. Butler was not a pacifist nor one to shy away from any fight inclduign fighting for the bonus for WW I vets which both Hoover and FDR vetoed. In today's questions Butler would protect Americans, and American embassies. He would NOT protect American corporate interests abroad. Beirut bombing? He'd have not run off to Granada. This was an attack on Marines. However, Butler would never have placed our Marines in that situation in the first place. The attack on the USS Cole. Butler would not have our warships in the waters over there in the first place to protect Exxon. He'd say let Exxon hire their own security, not the US Navy paid for by the federal taxpayer. Butler would NOt have supported US incursion into any of these: into Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, or Vietnam. The UN has no meaningful Army to handle Darfur.


Not sure how the depression relates here, but if the depression was so devastating then the US had best look after our own interest to insure it does not happen again.


I couldn't agree more. My mention was to dismiss the JR notion that somehow post-2001 was the worst disaster America has ever faced. It was horrific, but primarily affected NYC, the pentagon and Shanksville. The Depression hit the entire country.

Yes, and we got shot at everyday as well. I’d rather read about my enemies funeral than attend one of my friends or families. Maybe if that was you getting shot at.

I've been shot at. Seen too much needless death, like Butler did. One begins to examine whether they died needlessly, not whether they died heroically, and who was reponsbile for them being there and why.

Wrong, he brutalized his way to power. The US may have supported him once he was their leader because it was either him or Iran with whom we were at odds with. Did Russia put him in power? IMO No, but the Soviets and China did sell him a lot of Tanks, Jets and AK-47s. Again, the US supplied less than 10% of his conventional / unconventional hardware, look it up. You are the one that keeps equating the supplying of military equipment to the installation a government; by your own standard – then the Soviets are responsible. Regardless of where he got his weapons, He and He alone is responsible for their deployment. It was Saddam that brutalized his people, it was Saddam that invaded Kuwait, It was Saddam who ordered the use of Gas on the Iranian and then the Kurds. I for one do not buy into the “blame the gun for the murder mentality”.

The man had nothing to do with America. Period. He was not a WMD threat to us even accordingto GW's own inspectors. When you say it was either him or Iran, Butler would scoff, what in the world does that have to do with us? Let them fight it out in their own local politics. Neither is invading the US. Again, you selectively choose Saddam brutalizing his people, but seem in no hurry to invade Sudan to deal the biggest 21st century with genocide. Why is that? Instead it's the UN's responsiblity to you.



What do you suppose those polls would read had we found massive amounts of WMDs?

But we didn't find any massive stockpiles of WMD's did we?

I take it from your posts that you would not support regime change in Iraq whether WMDs existed or not. Nuclear Armageddon – the probable outcome of a direct confrontation with China / Russia.

Commie China has the capabiltiy to hit us with WMD's and has the ICBMs to actually deliver them upon us, yet we do business with them. Frankly, regime change in Iraq has led to a massive amount of violence in a short period of time than what it took Hussien to do over 20 years.

By your standards then you could clump the Poster Boy for the Democratic party, JFK, right besides Bush. I know you prefer that do nothing Clinton, but perhaps a truck bomb that collapses a few Canadian hospital or a few suicide bombers at a peace rally might adjust your perspective.

I ddi not approve of JFK's Bay of pigs invasion and it failed. However, when Kruschev puts nuclear weapons in a striking position of the US then witohut question you have an imminent threat to the US. All nations that have the abilty to do that must be addressed. Iraq was never close. As to Clinton, he is not my hero, but so many fewer soldiers died in an unnecessary combat. Bosnia did not involve American casualties.

As Butler said, "When Hitler comes to attack the US I'll be waiting at Atlantic City to fight him." As GW said in 2000, we are not the world's polciemen, but that's exactly what we've become...and the cost is high!

[Secretariat]

Our troops have earned more time
By Brian Baird

Special to The Times

Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver

The invasion of Iraq may be one of the worst foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. [/url]

Well, he got the first sentence right.

[Secretariat]

Bush has no problem now staying in Vietnam 30 years ago, yet chose not to volunteer to go over there and fight. Instead he was delivering pamphlets for Roy Blount's poltical campaign in Alabama. Rove had a deferment, so did Cheney in fact multiple ones as did Wolfowitz, etc....Yet, NOW, GW says we should have stayed in Vietnam Guess what GW, you never made it there. How can you stay someplace you never had the guts to go to?

And the irony of it all is that Bush is the first President to open up TRADE with same regime he says we should have kept fighting. Let me get this right. Republican Nixon opens up trade with China, a supporter of arms to the North Vietnam, in the middle of the war WITH North Vietnam, and Republican GW opens up trade relations to take jobs away from Americans with the same nation that so many Americans lost their lives and limbs fighting against while he partied.

But now he pulls out the flag, and tries to make a comparision between Iraq and Vietnam (after he said for the last six years there was no comparision)This is the height of hypocrisy. This guy would sell out his own mother if Wall Street asked him.

[Secretariat]

The War As We Saw It
August 19, 2007
written for New York Times by:

Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant. (interesting... infantrymen and noncommissioned officers )

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?em&ex=1187755200&en=d7c043df97c7aa3e&ei=5087%0A

"VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day."

[46zilzal]

To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day."
but, of course, we both made all this up as well!

[Lefty]

GOd save us from liberal defeatism. Amen.

[hcap]

HTTP://WWW.BARTCOP.COM/LEFT-VIETNAM807.GIF

You tell'em georgie.
And while your at it explain your personal exit stratergery you employed so successfully.

And while your at it tell'em about cheneys' too

Don't forget bout Rushs' ass pimples. That got him out.

Or about all them GI Joes you employ in the WhiteHouse, who also chickenhawked out.

Liberal defeatism? More like the ASS PIMPLE brigade, led by a pretend cowboy, warrior and "war" preznit.....

George W Churchill.

[46zilzal]

Today on Meet the Press, Bob Woodward described how Vice President Dick Cheney called him 10 days ago about Woodward’s new book State of Denial. Woodward says Cheney cursed at him (”he said what I was saying was bull-something”) and then hung up the phone.

Woodward called Cheney’s behavior a “metaphor for what’s going on. Hang up when somebody has a different point of view or information you don’t want to deal with.”

In his book, this was the standard operating procedure: Ask the expert, but only selectively listen when the regurgitate the pre-determined answer.

[Tom]

Good for Chenney.
Book reviews are always helpful.

[hcap]

Good for Chenney.
Book reviews are always helpful.Yeah, but you are 'sposed to read it first

http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/nucleus/media/4/20070127-Cheney-sleeping.jpg

[Lefty]

Good luck in finding a review of a book written by a conservative and if you do, it won't be nice.
Yes, LIBERAL DEFEATISM! Sadly, it exists. Hillary, ever the opportunist though, is moderating her speeches to say the surge is working in some places. Leave it to a Clinton to always cover both sides of any issue.

[Tom]

Like a fat lady's cheeks sliding down a banister - she's got it all covered! :eek:

[Secretariat]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070826/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_counting_the_dead

Iraq body count running at double pace
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 10 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - This year's U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.

[Tom]

Do you masterbate when you post this stuff?
What kind a sicko-nut case are you anyway?

[Lefty]

Can't help but wonder what the body count would be here and there if Saddam still ruled? You libs' speculate about everything else but give this scenario, nary a thght.

[Tom]

Lefty - he is just happy because it could buy his looneys a vote or two.

Can you image his kind in power??????
We would be FRENCH!

[Greyfox]

Gentlemen, Please.


The problem at the moment in Baghdad is that as one neighbourhood is cleared our of insurgents, apparently, they for the most part lie low in another.
Who are these insurgents? Are they Al- Queda, Sunni's, Shites....?
Who knows? We only know what we're told.

The British troops are now withdrawing from Basra.
Basra is now being infiltrated by insurgents as they leave.

Iraq, for 1500 years or more, has been a tribal society.
Those tribes hate each other's guts. It's just that simple.
The whole country was drawn up by Winston Churchill and others after World War 1 , without any understanding of the tribal differences.

However he did it, asshole Saddam, kept an Iron Fist rule.
The War itself was easy. It was over within weeks.
The Peace will never be easy.
These tribal groups continue to fight over an event that took place in
600 and something AD. Yet they believe the same religion.

Until they resolve their internal differences, this region is going to be
a Powderkeg.
Trying to impose Democracy on them, when they believe in Theocracy
is quite a challenge. When one believes in a Theocracy, as some
fundamentalists do in America, they give up their IDENTITY.
The CAUSE becomes bigger than the person.

The fact that the current President of Iraq has little influence on matters of
State leaves the fictious country of Iraq putty like leadership.
The Government itself decided to take the summer off. The teeth of the operation - The Police and Army seem to be very slow in being trained. Why?
Because they are going through the "motions" as long as someone else is willing to do the dirty work. i.e. American G.I.s

In the meanwhile, there are billions of dollars missing from the Iraq oil field monies. Major corporations are making hay while the sun shines under the
protection of U.S. Troops. (And , in my viewpoint that is what this was all about in the first place....$$$$) The troops protecting these truckers and
other workers are making a pittance in comparison. Go figure.

Iran is eyeing the region.
Jordan is eyeing Iran. And rightly so as Jordan is a pretty shakey or light
regime.
The Turks are eyeing the Kurds. The Kurds eye Southern Iraq and on it goes.
Israel has to keep their eye on everyone.

Trying to understand the mentality of each of these given groups is beyond my comprehension. But then I don't live on a sandhill dust blowing piece of land where few flowers grow.

Oh. That reminds me poppies still grow in Afghanistan an area that should
have been cleaned up years ago but the task force shifted. And the
Taliban are still very much active there. Why? Because that job wasn't finished along with the search for Public Enemy # 1.

But it goes on....

China is supplying arms to Iran. Iran is forwarding them to the insurgents
in Iraq. How are they getting through? Who is funding them?
Trace the money. Seal the supply lines. That ain't happening.

The bottom line is, how big is a city? How big is Baghdad?
If the best infantry in the world cant' even control a city, how
can they control a country?

My view is simple and I have never been to Iraq.
One way or another Civil War is inevitable.
Today, tomorrow, ten years. Who knows?
The G.I's will be recalled some day. And then within 1 year, all hell will break loose at the earliest opportunity.

In the meanwhile, Civil War, makes Iraq vulnerable to Iran.

In my mind the solution, as I have stated earlier is:

1. Seal The Borders. ( And Yes Tom, this can be done, independent of the faint hearted attempts to stop Mexican cabbage pickers in.)
2. Let The Civil War occur.
3. Tell Iran "Hands Off."

Anyone else got some positive solutions.
I'm tired of you guys slinging shit at each other.

[Lefty]

Tom, OUI, OUI.

[hcap]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070826/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_counting_the_dead

Iraq body count running at double pace
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 10 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - This year's U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2893884.ece

US surge sees 600,000 more Iraqis abandon home
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 25 August 2007

The scale of the human disaster in the Iraq war has become clearer from statistics collected by two humanitarian groups that reveal the number of Iraqis who have fled the fighting has more than doubled since the US military build-up began in February.

The Iraqi Red Crescent Organisation said the total number of internally displaced has jumped from 499,000 to 1.1 million since extra US forces arrived with the aim of making the country more secure. The UN-run International Organisation for Migration says the numbers fleeing fighting in Baghdad grew by a factor of 20 in the same period.

These damning statistics reveal that despite much- trumpeted security improvements in certain areas, the level of murderous violence has not declined. The studies reveal that the number of Iraqis fleeing their homes * not intending to return * is far higher than before the US surge.

[hcap]

Iraq body count running at double pace
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 10 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - This year's U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.

.................................................

Here's Tommy responding to Sec linking to above article.

Do you masterbate when you post this stuff?
What kind a sicko-nut case are you anyway?Way to go asshole. I'm sure you employ Mrs Palmer and her five daughters, when you post nookular bombimgs of cities and grovel happily in genocide and slaughtering children.

Over and over again.

[hcap]

The Neocons fell for it...

Osama Wanted US
To Invade Iraq
By Nick Juliano
Raw Story
8-26-7

The only western journalist to interview al Qaeda's leader says the US invasion of Iraq "fulfilled Osama bin Laden's wish."

In a recent interview with Australian television, Al Quds editor Abdul Bari Atwan claimed that the terror leader had sought to draw US troops into a fight in the Middle East.

"He told me personally that he can't go and fight the Americans and their country. But if he manages to provoke them and bring them to the Middle East and to their Muslim worlds, where he can find them or fight them on his own turf, he will actually teach them a lesson," Atwan said. "It seems the invasion of Iraq fulfilled Osama bin Laden's wish. That's why the Americans are losing in Iraq."

Atwan said al Qaeda did not have any connection to Iraq before the US invasion, which destabilized the country and allowed for an influx of foreign fighters who have pledged loyalty to bin Laden's group.

"Iraq is a safe haven for Al Qaeda because it has about 50 million pieces of arms. It has about five million tonnes of ammunition left by Saddam Hussein regimes and also the Sunni community, which was deposed from power by the American invasion, and they were actually very, very frustrated, very humiliated," he said. "So it was the best environment for Al Qaeda to set up its bases there."

[hcap]

Ok, bushie boy compares Iraq basically to every war since Homer trying to tell all that oppose the "war effort"-ya know gotta plant dem victory gardens and while your at it, salute Rosie the Riveter, all youse who dare deny the greatness of da war-youse are all traitors.
Modern mass communications enabled politicians and ideologues to whip up war sentiment and castigate those who criticized the move to war as traitors.
So says historian John W. Dover, who was quoted by Bush recently in a speech justifying the unjustifiable war in Iraq. See we brought Democracy to Japan so we can bring it to Iraq. One wishes that Bush had read Professor Dover's article A WARNING FROM HISTORY:

Don’t expect democracy in Iraq, first published in the Feb/March 2003 issue of Boston Review, from which the above quote was taken. By the way, he was describing developments in Japan leading up to the launch of their disastrous war of aggression.

[Tom]

Not impressed wtih 4 in a row, hcap....we got 7 in row in horse racing, 8 out of 9, and 10 out of 12.

Not impressed at all here.:D

[Secretariat]

So says historian John W. Dover, who was quoted by Bush recently in a speech justifying the unjustifiable war in Iraq. See we brought Democracy to Japan so we can bring it to Iraq. One wishes that Bush had read Professor Dover's article A WARNING FROM HISTORY:

Don’t expect democracy in Iraq, first published in the Feb/March 2003 issue of Boston Review, from which the above quote was taken. By the way, he was describing developments in Japan leading up to the launch of their disastrous war of aggression.

Japan after WW 2 is entirely different than Iraq. Japan had two nuclear weapons dropped on them, AND Tokyo was fire-bombed to annihilation. Japan was crushed, and Japan was protected on all borders by the sea. Additionally, there was no religious fanatic element to deal with. Iraq on the other hand is all about religion, and power and money grabbing. Iraq was also was not devastated even remotely to the point Japan was, and it certainly has very porous borders. These kinds of attempts by GW to obfuscate illustrate the desperateness of his propaganda post-Rove.

[Tom]

1/2 truths here, Sec.

[46zilzal]

The Iraq war, a colossal mistake, and the clowns who believed in this crap scramble to create an alternate reality that makes it a rational choice. It's fun to see the weakly innovative logic, or more often the lack thereof, implemented to overlay a tragic situation and compare it to times that have no correlation at all other than being called a war.

In the case of Japan, a real war for real reasons.

[Snag]

The Iraq war, a colossal mistake, and the clowns who believed in this crap scramble to create an alternate reality that makes it a rational choice. It's fun to see the weakly innovative logic, or more often the lack thereof, implemented to overlay a tragic situation and compare it to times that have no correlation at all other than being called a war.

In the case of Japan, a real war for real reasons.

"...the clowns..." do you really believe this 46? Who do you referr to? I feel you have a no idea who was behind the Iraq war. You did not listen to the UN debate nor the sound bites from your stupid libs butts who said the same thing that President Bush told us before going into Iraq. You apparently feel justified in putting down those of us that have some idea of the problem. No one person has all the answers here. Don't even think that giving up here is the answer. This is not the end. This is only the beginning.

[Tom]

PA has repeatedly poset a video of prominent dems proclaiming SH a threat and the need to topple him.

Perhaps 46 could post a similar video of proiminent dems saying it was not a good idea, to let him stay in power, that were no WMD - all BEFORE the war of course?

[PaceAdvantage]

You mean this one that Dick Schmidt kindly brought to our attention?

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv (http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv)


I could watch this video all night long and not get bored.....

[Tom]

I'm already popping corn! :lol:



46.....how about it?

[Snag]

I'm already popping corn! :lol:

46.....how about it?

Can I have butter on mine Tom?

46 may want some oil to make that crow go down a little easier!

[DanG]

You mean this one that Dick Schmidt kindly brought to our attention?

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv (http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv)

I could watch this video all night long and not get bored.....
With all due respect as I know this is well traveled ground…

I must say I find it interesting that people are using statements of people they don’t respect to defend a policy of those they do.

I respect neither administration and still through all of the rhetoric maintain that this “war” should have been stealth. Instead we have chosen the front pages and are using a young “national” guard that is propped up by grown soldiers with families.

Incredibly flawed policy in my view; on so many levels.

[Lefty]

How the hell do you have a stealth war? Hell, the only thing the lib press is keeping secret is the ending to the newest Harry Potter book.

[Tom]

Not at all. I do not respect these people and do not give crap what they think say or do. We keep rehasing it because the simpler minded amoung us keep forgeting EVERYONE was saying the same thing, but now, when the going gets tough, the feebleer minded try to re-write history. We won't allow the spinless cowards to do that. They want to say Bush this and Bush that, well, face facts - he was not the first to think it, he was the first with a spine to stand up and do something about it. Frankly I think is stands as a great reminder why one should never listen to a dems and never vote for one.

[Tom]

How the hell do you have a stealth war? Hell, the only thing the lib press is keeping secret is the ending to the newest Harry Potter book.

It should have been nuclear from day one.
And not only Iraq.

[DanG]

How the hell do you have a stealth war? Hell, the only thing the lib press is keeping secret is the ending to the newest Harry Potter book.
Study the CIA’s role in Vietnam before the first bombing campaign….That’s one of many examples.

[DanG]

It should have been nuclear from day one.
And not only Iraq.
Tom,

We respectfully disagree to put it mildly.

[Gibbon]

Study the CIA’s role in Vietnam before the first bombing campaign….... Terribly difficult to compare time periods. Who was faster Man o War or Seattle Slew? The CIA of 35 years ago is not the same agency today.

From what I’m able to discern based on open sources of information, mid level CIA analysts and to a smaller degree, military intelligence -- were NOT surprised over 9/11. As the information disseminated to superiors {politically correct career minded bureaucrats} information was intentionally filtered to exclude the most damaging assessments. Incredibly, since the firing of then CIA director George Tenet, {Clinton appointee} our CIA has disbanded the unit responsible to capture Osama bin Laden.






_______________________________
"The perfect bureaucrat everywhere is the man who manages to make no decisions and escape all responsibility."

[Greyfox]

They want to say Bush this and Bush that, well, face facts - he was not the first to think it, he was the first with a spine to stand up and do something about it..

Huh?
Hmmm. If memory serves me correct you were saying something re:
Bush this and Bush that regarding his "amnesty" for aliens.
Now. I'm a bit confused.
Tom....please clairify what was the it?
What was the "it" that Bush had the spine to do something about?

[PaceAdvantage]

I must say I find it interesting that people are using statements of people they don’t respect to defend a policy of those they do.

It's a well-worn tactic that we borrowed from the left....and it's about time I might add...

[DanG]

It's a well-worn tactic that we borrowed from the left....and it's about time I might add...
This part of off-topic I always find challenging.

For example;

I see very little connection to true conservative ideology in our current administration to be frank. Fiscal responsibility, states rights and the incredible increase in the sheer size of our federal government are not representative of conservative principals IMO.

Yet, if one chooses to question (or support) the current administration’s policy and or / execution of; the adjectives “left / right” are continually brought up in response. Maybe because I often disagree with the far left & far right that I’m too sensitive to it.

My hunch is more would participate in open dialogue if this wasn’t the case. Crossfire was a fun show at times, but there really is a voice in the center and most issues are not either / or IMO.

PS: This is just an observation on life in general of which this board often reflects. (Thank goodness BTW) :ThmbUp:

[46zilzal]

Crossfire was a fun show at times, but there really is a voice in the center and most issues are not either / or IMO.



Ever see Crossfire when Jon Stewart showed up? He made both sides look stupid as he was serious and the regulars thought he was there only to joke about important topics.

[Tom]

Huh?
Hmmm. If memory serves me correct you were saying something re:
Bush this and Bush that regarding his "amnesty" for aliens.
Now. I'm a bit confused.
Tom....please clairify what was the it?
What was the "it" that Bush had the spine to do something about?

The video about SH.
"It" was doing something about him besides talking about it.
We have people on video claimng SH had WMD back then who now try to claim he was no threat. Like the Butt Head Kerry saying there was no bloodbath after Viet Nam. A pathological liar who will say anything for politcal reasons.