# And just HOW is the war going?



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 28, 2004)

Freedom is on the march!

*Iraqi Public Opinion*

** Only 33 percent of Iraqis think they're better off now than before the war, as a Gallup poll discovered.

** Just 36 percent believe the interim government shares their values.

** 94 percent say Baghdad is more dangerous than it was before the war.

** 66.6 believe the US occupation could start a civil war.

** 80 percent want the US to leave directly after the January elections. 

*What else?*

** 400,000 Iraqi children suffer from chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein, according to a UN development report. Iraq's child malnutrition rate now roughly equals that of Burundi--a war-torn central African nation--and is far above both Uganda and Haiti. 

** 60 percent of rural residents and 20 percent of urban dwellers have access to nothing but contaminated drinking water. 

** Hepatitis outbreaks have doubled since the war began. 

**Murder, rape, and kidnapping have skyrocketed since March 2003, forcing Iraqi children to stay home from school and women to stay off the streets at night. Violent deaths rose from an average of 14 per month in 2002 to 357 per month in 2003. 

**The New England Journal of Medicine reported in July 2004 that 1 in 6 soldiers returning from war in Iraq showed signs of post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression, or severe anxiety. Only 23 to 40 percent of respondents in the study who showed signs of a mental disorder had sought mental health care.

** One hundred and six US soldiers died in November, making the not-yet-completed month the deadliest since April's 135 deaths. Forty-one Americans died and 425 were wounded in the battle for Falluja, raising total US killed to 1,227. 

** Iraqi civilian casualties range from 15,000-100,000. John Hopkins University estimates the figure at over 40,000 with 90 percent certainty. 

** According to military statistics, the number of insurgents has quadrupled since last year, from 5,000 to 20,000. A British general places the insurgency at 40-50,000 fighters. 

** A confidential Marine report predicted that the insurgency would continue to grow in the run-up to the January 30 election. According to director of reconstruction William Taylor, security "is worse today than it was, and we are having greater difficulties" compared to six weeks ago in cities such as Bagdhad, Falluja, Ramadi, Samarra and Mosul. 

** The US has trained only 145,000 of the 270,000 Iraqi security forces needed to establish order for the upcoming elections. 

** The Iraqi police has only 41 percent of the weapons, 25 percent of the vehicles, and 31 percent of the body armor identified as necessary by US forces. 

** Of the $18.4 billion in reconstruction funds allocated last year by Congress, the US has spent only $1.7 billion. 

** Nationwide electricity levels are down 25 percent since the prewar days, and 66 percent lower in Baghdad. 

**Non-Iraqi Contractor Deaths Have Also Been Highest During the "Transition": There has also been a huge increase in the average monthly deaths of U.S. and other non-Iraqi contractors since the "transition." On average, 17.5 contractors have died each month since the June 28 "transition," versus 7.6 contractor deaths per month during the previous 14 months of occupation.

**As of September 22, 2004, there has been an estimated 154 civilian contractors, missionaries, and civilian worker deaths since May 1, 2004. Of these, 52 have been identified as Americans.  Journalist Deaths: Forty-four international media workers have been killed in Iraq as of September 22, 2004, including 33 since President Bush declared the end of combat operations. Eight of the dead worked for U.S. companies. 

**A March 2004 army survey found 52 percent of soldiers reporting low morale, and three-fourths reporting they were poorly led by their officers. Lack of equipment has been an ongoing problem. The Army did not fully equip soldiers with bullet-proof vests until June 2004, forcing many families to purchase them out of their own pockets. 


Sources

http://icasualties.org/oif/

http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/failedtransition/index.htm

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?pid=2028


Regards,


Steve


----------



## GAB (Nov 28, 2004)

Hi Steve,

A lot of information there, thanks for sharing.

This is not a war, it is a media blitz.

Regards, Gary


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 29, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> Hi Steve,
> 
> A lot of information there, thanks for sharing.
> 
> ...




I agree the media does get on my nerves to, but to say this isn't a war is just not acurate. I didn't lose friends just to hear someone say this isn't a war. If this isn't a war then what is it? Really?

Rynocerous


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 29, 2004)

Technically, this is the rebuilding/stabilization phase for the sake of political discussion.  Given the nature of the daily experience for the troops I still refer to it as a war.

The problem with the stats that are presented is the accuracy of the 'before' stats that the 'after' stats are being held up to in this case.

Honestly, under SHussein, how much of this crime rate, humanitarian concern/health issues....stuff was being accurately and honestly tracked in a valid way?  They guy dooped the entire first world about the time/possession of WMD's and he isn't going to play with numbers that make his leadership look good?

I don't know what the rules of engagement are now, but I know from being in Bosnia that we were not allowed to interfere with local law enforcement and other issues.  The same issues that affected military operations in Somalia and other 'Stabilization' efforts...

Now, the question is do we really do the 'marshal law' thing and take charge - risking being accused of an empire builder?  Or, do we leave these people to deal with the details of reconstructing their nation and get accused of being negligent and unsympathetic?

It can't be both ways....but either way the media will spin it to sell.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 29, 2004)

Personally, many of us had heard that Hussein was a murdering, torturing creep since about 1984. Where were you?


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 29, 2004)

????????????Who was that question directed to???????????????


Rynocerous


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 29, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> Hi Steve,
> 
> A lot of information there, thanks for sharing.
> 
> ...




Gary,

As the data I provided shows, it is really very much a war.

What saddens me is how people put "Support our troops" bumper stickers on their cars, the yellow ribbons and all...and they likely can't tell you how many have died in the last month.  Some of them, I wager, would have trouble finding Iraq on a map.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 29, 2004)

I wonder when it began, that you had to be among the intellectual elite to support the troops, and then only when your political party says it's OK?


----------



## bignick (Nov 30, 2004)

I beleive HHJH was referring more to shallow displays by people that put on the sticker or the magnet just so other people will know, "Hey, I support the troops"...just slap it on and there, you've done your part. Certainly, the stickers and signs and magnets serve as a reminder, but how long can you actually go now without thinking about the situation in Iraq and across the globe.  And who said you needed to be among the "intellectual elite", however you determine that, to support the men and women overseas and at home serving their country.

and as far as the number of casualties...we're at 133 in November the last time I checked, the all time record being 133 in a month...


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 30, 2004)

Shallow displays of yellow ribbons? How do we know who is and isn't? Are there zogby polls for this? I dunno, to come up with the determination that there are enough people out there that this warrants even mentioning just sounds like there is some underlying political motivation - You don't here theis about the gay pride and AIDS ribbons. But throw on a yellow one and you must be some Bush loving redneck with an IQ of 20.

It's a shame.


----------



## bignick (Nov 30, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Shallow displays of yellow ribbons? How do we know who is and isn't? Are there zogby polls for this? I dunno, to come up with the determination that there are enough people out there that this warrants even mentioning just sounds like there is some underlying political motivation - You don't here theis about the gay pride and AIDS ribbons. But throw on a yellow one and you must be some Bush loving redneck with an IQ of 20.
> 
> It's a shame.


The reason that you didn't hear it about the gay pride, AIDS, breast cancer awareness ribbons, etc, etc...is because we weren't talking about them.  They have nothing to do with this discussion.  I was wondering, where, in my post or HHJH's did either of us bring up the connection between "Bush loving redneck" and the yellow ribbon?  Or where in this thread is there any mention of any political party.  The only references I can find are in your posts.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 30, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Personally, many of us had heard that Hussein was a murdering, torturing creep since about 1984. Where were you?


And he was the ruler of the nation.  That means that any statistics/information or trends that he would allow to go public are questionable as 'before' information to make a valid comparison/contrast discussion.

I was talking about information validity coming from a known corrupt, murdering torturer, what were you implying with that comment?  Tag, your it!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 30, 2004)

Mike likes red herring, Nick.  It adds Omega-3 fatty acids to his diet and keeps him "heart healthy" and possessed of clear skin and bright shining countenance.

He wrote "I wonder when it began, that you had to be among the intellectual elite to support the troops, and then only when your political party says it's OK?"

Let me turn that around a bit.  

"I wonder when it began, that you had to be among the conservative right to support the troops, and then only when the Republican party says it's OK?"

My point here is that questioning the war is often met with staunch and angry responses of "support our troops!"  I've heard this one, too, which dates back to the Vietnam era, "America!  Love it or leave it!"   Supporting our troops, it seems, requires that we keep them in harms way in a war many of us feel is unjustified and unwise.

And no, Mike...those "Support Our Troops" ribbons are on SUV's in my town, driven by soccer moms whose husbands are in the highest tax bracket.  Hardly rednecks.  When I talk to them about the war, though, their eyes almost cross.  Sorta like Bush when he's required to give an extemporaneous answer to a challenging question.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## raedyn (Nov 30, 2004)

Saying 'bring them home' can be a legit way to 'support our troops'.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 30, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Sorta like Bush when he's required to give an extemporaneous answer to a challenging question.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> ...


There is some value to being articulate without being extemporaneous or 'verbose/boorish' as well.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 30, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> The reason that you didn't hear it about the gay pride, AIDS, breast cancer awareness ribbons, etc, etc...is because we weren't talking about them.  They have nothing to do with this discussion.



Nor was the original post about yellow ribbons, not until post #7. I see that didn't upset you though. Hmm.



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> I was wondering, where, in my post or HHJH's did either of us bring up the connection between "Bush loving redneck" and the yellow ribbon?  Or where in this thread is there any mention of any political party.  The only references I can find are in your posts.



Well, to be accurate, I don't think I mentioned a specific party but did draw some conclusions upon other threads where Red/Blue states and IQ charts were posted. That combined with some outside sources stating most republicans are un/mis-informed annnnnd again back to post #7 which inferred that many could not read a map. Does that help?


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 30, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> When I talk to them about the war, though, their eyes almost cross.



You know, I really have no reason to doubt you there.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 30, 2004)

www.icasualties.org is reporting 133 U.S. fatalities in November. That's Bad.

www.icasualties.org is reporting 646 casualties from 10/27 - 11/23 that did not return to duty. That's Bad.

www.icasualties.org is reporting 530 casualties from 10/27 - 11/23 that did return to duty. That's not too bad. 

Except, one of those, Travis R. Desiato of Massachusetts was apparently injured in early November, and then returned to duty, and was killed on 11/15. That's Bad.

More than 1000 US fatalities since the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military challenged "Bring them On" to the dead-enders, or insurgents, or enemies of freedom.

More than 850 US fatalities since Saddam Hussein was taken into custody.

400 U.S. fatalities since Iraq 'Sovreignty' was restored to the Iraqi's. Soldiers dying in a foreign land, under foreign control. 



			
				New York Times said:
			
		

> These days, the biggest risk may come from the small but growing contingent on the left that wants to bring our troops home now."


This small contingent on the left thinks the war is a disaster and getting to be a bigger disaster each day.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 30, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> You know, I really have no reason to doubt you there.




Oooh.  Nice dig.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 1, 2004)

If you want a casualty count you can get it at www.mandateTHIS.org.  It's updated daily.

You sure won't get it at WhiteHouse.gov.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 1, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I wonder when it began, that you had to be among the intellectual elite to support the troops, and then only when your political party says it's OK?


When was being informed about a war - which some people used as the main issue for who they voted for in 2004 - being part of an "elite"?  Everyone should keep themselves at least marginally informed of what is happening in Iraq, since so many of our citizens, and so much of our country's wealth, is over there.  

And I don't get the political party reference.  Repubs and Dems both do the "support our efforts in Iraq" thing.

And, I'd like to say, I'm tired of the "intellectual elite" thing.  I love the fact that educational status - or whether you tend to think critically about your world or not - can be used to slam people.  Some of the brightest folks I know aren't the ones with years of schooling or PhDs, they are intellectuals who would hardly call themselves "elite".


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 1, 2004)

Thank you, Feisty Mouse.  

I went to PUBLIC SCHOOL my entire childhood, and got LOANS, which I paid back, for my professional education.  No Yalies in my family--most of my ancestors got booted out of their homes in the shtetl, and came over in steerage.  Not very elite.

That's the cool thing about getting an education in America.  You don't have to be "elite" to be educated and informed.  You just have to want it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 1, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Thank you, Feisty Mouse.
> 
> I went to PUBLIC SCHOOL my entire childhood, and got LOANS, which I paid back, for my professional education.  No Yalies in my family--most of my ancestors got booted out of their homes in the shtetl, and came over in steerage.  Not very elite.
> 
> That's the cool thing about getting an education in America.  You don't have to be "elite" to be educated and informed.  You just have to want it.




That's right, Phoenix44.  And in our country, even a dimwit can become President.  We're the land of equal opportunity...and that's why we're so great.

Sorry.  Got a bit jingoistic there.

Oh...yeah...how's the war going?  Reports indicate malnutrition is soaring in Iraq.  It has doubled since we invaded:

http://www.indystar.com/articles/6/196420-4126-010.html

Probably just another report from the _media elite_.  Those damned elites.  They're just popping up everywhere.  


Harrumph.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## auxprix (Dec 1, 2004)

1,500 more troops to go to Iraq.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/01/iraq.main/index.html

Certainly not a sign that things are going well...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 8, 2004)

According to the CIA, things are not going well in Iraq at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/international/middleeast/07intell.html?ei=5094&en=78f41ffc3ad43b8a&hp=&ex=1102482000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position=


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 9, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> According to the CIA, things are not going well in Iraq at all.


 But what does the CIA know?  Those traitors didn't think that it was necessary to invade Iraq in the first place.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 13, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> But what does the CIA know? Those traitors didn't think that it was necessary to invade Iraq in the first place.


Yeah.  That's probably why they've been purged.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 23, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Those traitors didn't think that it was necessary to invade Iraq in the first place.



Well maybe _this_ is one of the reasons why... socioeconomicpolitical pressure mebbe?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 25, 2004)

Well, I suppose when the architect of the war starts blaming the natives, you have to assume the project is progressing just swimmingly.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6751599/



			
				excerpt said:
			
		

> MOSUL, Iraq - In his Christmas eve encounters with U.S. military commanders and hundreds of their troops, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld heard  and said  little about armor or troop shortages, issues that have made him a political target in Washington among both Democrats and Republicans.
> 
> His main message over a four-city tour was quite different: that the insurgency has staying power and a seemingly endless supply of weapons, and the time has come for ordinary *Iraqis to realize that they  not the Americans  will *ultimately* decide who prevails in this conflict*.


Has any administration of the United States ever passed the buck more ?

Mike


----------



## GAB (Dec 26, 2004)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> I agree the media does get on my nerves to, but to say this isn't a war is just not acurate. I didn't lose friends just to hear someone say this isn't a war. If this isn't a war then what is it? Really?
> 
> Rynocerous


Hi,

I should have gotten back to this sooner, should have used    along with my remark.

Yes, it is a war. Defined by the dictionary it is truly a battle, we have not lost many, considering the extent of damage we have inflicted.

What I find very disturbing is the way we continually are diluged with the information from a political stand point, not the fact that we are at this as a
line in the sand.

Very difficult to seperate the spins that are put on most of the information.

The ones bad mouthing the administration that is currently involved would be the first to be taken out by other type of government's. 

Can you imagine living in Russia even now and saying what is said on these boards.

I feel freedom of speech is the greatest thing going, must be one of the reasons it was so important to the founders of this country.

Freedom of religion also, pretty hard to force it on others though, as we are finding out.

Regards, Gary


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 26, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> Yes, it is a war. Defined by the dictionary it is truly a battle, we have not lost many, considering the extent of damage we have inflicted.
> 
> What I find very disturbing is the way we continually are diluged with the information from a political stand point, not the fact that we are at this as a line in the sand.
> 
> ...


This is no longer a war (if it ever was ... I don't recall Congress so declaring it). We are now in the midst of Nation Building. Whatever it was in the beginning, that has ended, or so we were told. But not by the spin masters.

There should be less spin, we agree on this. Let's turn to our highest authority on the subject. Certainly, his statements will be free of spin.




			
				George W. Bush - President of the United States - Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces said:
			
		

> Admiral Kelly, Captain Card (ph), officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, *major combat operations in Iraq have ended.* In the battle of Iraq, *the United States and our allies have prevailed.*
> 
> And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
> In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other made this day possible.
> ...


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 27, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> Freedom of religion also, pretty hard to force it on others though, as we are finding out.



Interesting concept, "forcing freedom of religion."

When did the Iraqis ever not have that?  It seems as though the various Iraqi religious groups are quite comfortable with their own religions, and it's not clear the Iraqi state ever pushed one religion over another.


----------



## The Kai (Dec 27, 2004)

Lets hope this isn't percieved in the future as "Empire Building"

BTW the murdering torturing CIA backed, with us weapon creep
Todd


----------



## GAB (Dec 27, 2004)

The Kai said:
			
		

> Lets hope this isn't percieved in the future as "Empire Building"
> 
> BTW the murdering torturing CIA backed, with us weapon creep
> Todd


Hi all,

I am not sure that "Empire Building" is right, or left. 

Many reasons we went to this location to address this situation. 

Todd did you stop? Hit the wrong key? :idunno: 

I am wondering about "forcing freedom" of any kind, does it work on nations that are so insecure as to want to be completly controlled? 

I am talking about the inability of the country itself to desire freedom...

I feel that this is such a hidious location to live that any type of controlling
government will be seen as the victor...

When America looked for freedom it was a very small minority that were seeking it. We did not vote on it as a nation of individuals. 

It will be very interesting to watch this unfold, I am very sorry for the amount of nonaggressive persons dying. 

If you look back on our own 'Civil War' it was very brutal, it was also fought over human rights issues (among other issues/items).

Like I said, I believe this is a line in the sand. 

It will not be over any faster than the fight for Israel. That particular war is on going and will never end, this is just one of the numerous battles, since we stepped up to the plate and helped them get their piece of dirt again. IMO...

In some respects the South has risen again. Pretty scary for freedoms sake.

Regards, Gary


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 27, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> It will not be over any faster than the fight for Israel. That particular war is on going and will never end, this is just one of the numerous battles, since we stepped up to the plate and helped them get their piece of dirt again. IMO...



Gary,

Which "we" are you talking about?  The US assistance of Israel came very late in the game, well after Israel had fought several wars for her existence.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 29, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Interesting concept, "forcing freedom of religion."
> 
> When did the Iraqis ever not have that?  It seems as though the various Iraqi religious groups are quite comfortable with their own religions, and it's not clear the Iraqi state ever pushed one religion over another.




Iraq was a secular nation prior to the invasion.  Saddam paid lip service to Islam, but there wasn't any favoritism shown.  His persecution of Shias was politically--not religiously--motivated.  The Shias had the support of Iran...Saddam's enemies...so he and his sons rounded them up and disposed of them whenever they acted up.  It had nothing to do with a preference for Sunni Islam.  

As for TheKai's fears that our actions there will be viewed as empire building in the future...it is being viewed as empire building _now_ by factions on both the left and the right.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## GAB (Jan 3, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Gary,
> 
> Which "we" are you talking about? The US assistance of Israel came very late in the game, well after Israel had fought several wars for her existence.


PeachMonkey,

I figure we stepped up and got them started again when Pres. Truman signed
the dotted line, creating quite a problem in some circles.

We are a young nation and never really showed any inclination for the world situation until after WW ll...I think considering where it has come and where it is going we were very supportive.

It is a very complex situation and by the way we reelect every couple of years it is a wonder we are still headed down a not so crooked path/\/\/\/\-----/\/\----- left, right, left, middle etc...

Regards, Gary


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 3, 2005)

GAB said:
			
		

> I figure we stepped up and got them started again when Pres. Truman signed the dotted line, creating quite a problem in some circles.


 I'm still not quite sure what you're talking about.

 The United States only really seriously began supporting Israel during the 1973 war.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 7, 2005)

This little piece deserves a full reading from anyone interested in this thread.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?bid=13&pid=2106




			
				The Nation said:
			
		

> Since President Bush's now infamous proclamation aboard the USS Lincoln on May 1, 2003, 1,242 US troops have died. Since then, a pattern has emerged. With each new major development--hailed by the President as a decisive step toward freedom--conditions deteriorate further.
> 
> "The administration has suggested that Iraq would move closer to stability as it reached one milestone after another," wrote Richard Stevenson in _The New York Times_. "The capture of Saddam Hussein; the handover of sovereignty and the appointment of an interim government; the deployment of Iraqi security forces; the military campaign to expel the insurgents from strongholds like Falluja; and the first round of elections. Yet most of those milestones have passed with little discernible improvement in the security situation."
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 8, 2005)

Of course, it's not going to well for some Iraqi's either....


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6727646/



> Errant U.S. airstrike kills at least 5 near Mosul
> AITHA, Iraq - An explosion at a house south of Mosul killed 14 people and wounded five early Saturday, the owner said. The U.S. military confirmed that an air strike hit the building, but said five people died.
> 
> During a cordon and search operation to capture an insurgent lead, a U.S. air force F-16 dropped a 500-pound guided bomb in the area south of Mosul on the house intended for search, a military statement said.
> ...


----------



## Bester (Jan 9, 2005)

So, the solution is clear.



Bush needs to stop talking.  Obviously the news media is fabricating all this to make him look bad.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 10, 2005)

And today we see this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/ 



> The Salvador Option
> The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq
> Jan. 8 - What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagons latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we cant just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last Novembers operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgencyas Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the timethan in spreading it out.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 10, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And today we see this:
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/


 Look how well our policies in Central and South America worked.... unless, of course, you're into mass murder, which most of the Republican administrations of the 80s and early 90s most certainly were.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 2, 2006)

More Money, More Money, More Money. 

The President is requesting additional money to continue the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

70 Billion more to get us to September. 

50 Billion more after that, to get us from September to December. 

This is above and beyond the normal Defense Appropriations amount of 558 Billion Dollars. It is still amazing to me that the war in Iraq requires SUPPLEMENTAL appropriations.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 23, 2006)

Reuters News Service is reporting some very disturbing news. It may be lost through the Israel - Lebanon conflict.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21908240.htm



> BAGHDAD, July 21 (Reuters) - Iraqi leaders have all but given up on holding the country together and, just two months after forming a national unity government, talk in private of "black days" of civil war ahead.


 
There is some discussion among experts that Grand Ayatollah Sistani may be getting close to 'giving up' on Iraq. Sistani is one of the, I believe, 12 Grand Ayatollah's in Islam (8 of whom live in Iran). One of the quotes from 'The Chris Matthews Show', is that if the Grand Ayatollah "decides the game is up, the game is up."

The talk about Iraq, in Iraq now, is to divide the country into Sunni & Shi'ite enclaves ... dividing Baghdad in half - East / West ... to separate the two groups. 

And, also below the radar screen, there has been some aggression from Turkey toward the Kurd's in Northern Iraq, and vice versa.


----------



## Kensai (Jul 23, 2006)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Iraq was a secular nation prior to the invasion.  Saddam paid lip service to Islam, but there wasn't any favoritism shown.  His persecution of Shias was politically--not religiously--motivated.  The Shias had the support of Iran...Saddam's enemies...so he and his sons rounded them up and disposed of them whenever they acted up.  It had nothing to do with a preference for Sunni Islam.
> 
> As for TheKai's fears that our actions there will be viewed as empire building in the future...it is being viewed as empire building _now_ by factions on both the left and the right.
> 
> ...



Spot on. One of the most astute posts made on this topic IMHO. Especially the current perception of embire building being done now.


----------



## jazkiljok (Aug 2, 2006)

Re: And just HOW is the war going?



just check the news this morning.  it still sucks.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 3, 2006)

About a hundred a day dying.

12 people, mostly children, dead in a soccer field bombing.

People being abducted, and beheaded.

A 1,300 year old religious rivalry exploding out of control.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 5, 2006)

I found this chart interesting.


----------



## matt.m (Aug 5, 2006)

Steve,

Let me first say that I agree with you totally.  I did 2 med tours, went to haiti, albania, bosnia twice, israel, turkey, liberia, tunisa etc. 

I had my fair share of trouble spots while in the Corps 92-97. I was never in support of the Iraq invasion. Sorry, I am a former Sergeant etc. So before anyone calls me a traitor or something to that effect let me assure you I am not. 

There was no point into going into Iraq, yes the trade centers were an absolute horrible tragedy. However, I am under the firm belief that Saddam was a ruler much like Castro. Not the nicest guy, however he liked things the way they were and was not rocking the boat.

Afganistan and the fall of the Al Quada is another issue entirely. What begs the question though, "If Al Quada and the Taliban were fighting the Russians, until Russia gave up. Why, if they saw Russia as the 'Evil' supremeist etc, then why would they not view America in the same way?"

It just seems that National Security should have been better. I believe during the Clinton era that it was. Sorry, just my opinion. Plus civil liberties losses were not in place the way they are now.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 6, 2006)

Matt,

Former military people who knock the war often get the accusation "traitor" leveled at them.  One can't be pro-military and be anti-Iraq war, it seems.  

To me, those who are serving, or served, and who insist that we blindly follow the President down this path are betraying nothing more than mindless jingoism.  It is as if they'll lose their sense of identity and purpose if they don't toe the party line.

I'm of the opinion that casting a vote requires we become part of the "informed electorate" envisioned by the Founding Fathers.  

That acquisition of information is a process without an endpoint.  If our search leads us to independence of mind and we find ourselves at odds with the status quo...goodness, we've become Americans.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 6, 2006)

Steve,

For those who are serving, following the President down a foolish path, if the President chooses one,  is required. The President is the Commander in Chief. As I understand it, following orders, so long as they are lawful orders, is not an item open to the soldiers discretion.

They may be able to vote for someone else once at the polling place, but after the President takes the oath of office, mindless jingoism is mandated for soldiers.

If I am incorrect in this assessment, if you have served or are serving and have a different understanding, I look forward to being corrected.

Mike


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 6, 2006)

_ but after the President takes the oath of office, mindless jingoism is mandated for soldiers._

There is a huge difference between 'mindless jingoism'  and 'fullfilling a sworn oath of service and self-sacrifice'

I served in the Air Force under Clinton and there was a big difference between how he was thought of as a person and how he was respected as the elected President Of The United States and Commander In Chief


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 6, 2006)

And how relevant was the opinion of soldiers concerning President Clinton as a person?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 6, 2006)

_And how relevant was the opinion of soldiers concerning President Clinton as a person?_

When it came to fullfilling their oath to the United States by obeying the orders of the Commander In Chief of the US Military, not a bit.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 7, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> For those who are serving, following the President down a foolish path, if the President chooses one,  is required. The President is the Commander in Chief. As I understand it, following orders, so long as they are lawful orders, is not an item open to the soldiers discretion.



True.  To do otherwise would risk a court martial.  That is not, however, what I was referring to.




			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> They may be able to vote for someone else once at the polling place, but after the President takes the oath of office, mindless jingoism is mandated for soldiers.



No, it is not.  

Of the two friends I have who have served over there, only one follows the "yessir, no sir, three bags full, sir" attitude I call "mindless jingoism."  The other was harshly critical of the war in his personal correspondence home.

Both are now retired colonels.

Expect a yellow ribbon bumper sticker from the one.  Expect a book from the latter.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## jazkiljok (Aug 7, 2006)

matt.m said:
			
		

> Steve,
> 
> Let me first say that I agree with you totally.  I did 2 med tours, went to haiti, albania, bosnia twice, israel, turkey, liberia, tunisa etc.
> 
> ...



the grand hypocrisy of taking down Saddam was the reversal with Gaddafi, (the daffy duck, i mean mad dog of the dessert.)-- the man openly supported terrorist attacks against the US, used his power to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths and suffering in neighboring countries. taylor, sankoh and kabila all trained in libya and we're backed by Gaddafi. 

but now he's having tea with tony blair (while being accused by the saudi crown prince of plotting to kill the saudi king no less.)

before kuwait (where saddam actually believed he got some sort of green light from the US), saddam was consider more ally than enemy and who forgets the photo of rumsfeld and saddam shaking hands.

the realpolitik games being played out in the mideast has always been about a permanent state of slight destablization-- the goal is to never have anyone nation completely disabled to cause anarchy but to constantly weaken the players influence so that the oil continues to flow and no one nation gains dominance in the region.

jaz


ps- i've never known any friend in the military that wasn't educated, opinionated and independent in their ideas.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 7, 2006)

jazkiljok said:
			
		

> the realpolitik games being played out in the mideast has always been about a permanent state of slight destablization-- the goal is to never have anyone nation completely disabled to cause anarchy but to constantly weaken the players influence so that the oil continues to flow and no one nation gains dominance in the region.


 
:asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 8, 2006)

Oh, and then there is this ... 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=Aho2oE0qj2PtJFGn98zquJ.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-



> BAGHDAD, Iraq - *Iraq*'s prime minister sharply criticized a U.S.-Iraqi attack Monday on a Shiite militia stronghold in Baghdad, breaking with his American partners on security tactics as the United States launches a major operation to secure the capital.
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...


 
This can't be good, right? I mean, the guy we got put in power in Iraq, is telling all of the people in Iraq (including the insurgents) that the United States won't launch any more major operations. I wonder if there is a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking the hand of Prime Minister Al Maliki?

Former Senator Gary Hart called it a couple of weeks ago; Karl Rove will devise a totally fabricated reason to withdraw troops before November's election. Yesterday, Presidential Aides floated the idea that American Troops would not stay in Iraq if a Civil War broke out; no definition on what a Civil War will look like, yet. 

It seems that stage is being set for President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to 'Cut and Run' ... I believe that is the phrase.


----------



## jazkiljok (Aug 8, 2006)

Dick Cheney and the "definition of quagmire"

Once youve got Baghdad, its not clear what you do with it. Its not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one thats currently there.... How much credibility is that government going to have if its set up by the United States military when its there?.... I think to have American military forces engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion.


Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense-when he said this on April 29, 1991, explaining why Operation Desert Storm did not expand into taking over Iraq. 

I miss that Dick...


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 9, 2006)

Dick Cheney under Bush Sr was articulating the views of his boss
Dick Cheney under Bush Jr is implementing the views of his boss

Remember that Bush Sr, candidate, called Reaganomics "Voodoo Economics", before he was Bush Sr, vice-president.

Welcome to politics, where conviction is expediency


----------



## jazkiljok (Aug 17, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Dick Cheney under Bush Sr was articulating the views of his boss



ok



			
				FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Dick Cheney under Bush Jr is implementing the views of his boss



Dick Cheney has a boss? well, that'll be news to him 

so-- let's check in again on the war's progress.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/17/iraq.main/index.html


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 18, 2006)

How's this metric ...

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.
Victory in Europe (VE Day) was declared on May 8, 1945.

Do the math ... that is less time than we have spent in Iraq (March 20, 2003 to August 18, 2006).

I suppose in a few months, we can compare Iraq to our struggle against Japan (December 7, 1941 to August 14, 1945).


----------



## jazkiljok (Aug 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> How's this metric ...
> 
> Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.
> Victory in Europe (VE Day) was declared on May 8, 1945.
> ...



Germany... no, not a true comparison.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I suppose in a few months, we can compare Iraq to our struggle against Japan (December 7, 1941 to August 14, 1945).



Japan,  no...

Korea? no, not it.

i know there are similarities to some recent war we had, just can't remember which one...

i tell you what, give me another 15 years, it'll come to me.


----------



## jazkiljok (Aug 25, 2006)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14499338/

is your psyche less strained?


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Aug 25, 2006)

matt.m said:
			
		

> Steve,
> 
> Let me first say that I agree with you totally. I did 2 med tours, went to haiti, albania, bosnia twice, israel, turkey, liberia, tunisa etc.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you. :asian:


----------



## crushing (Aug 25, 2006)

matt.m said:
			
		

> It just seems that National Security should have been better. I believe during the Clinton era that it was. Sorry, just my opinion. Plus civil liberties losses were not in place the way they are now.



It has been a gradual process for decades independent of the party holding the Presidency.  The Patriot Act didn't just come out of the blue, it especially builds on the the post '93 WTC bombing and OKC bombing reaction and resulting legislation (remember, when national security was better?).  FBI wiretapping was dramatically increased, the Brady law with crackdowns and raids on gun retailers, no to mention the whole Waco deal, etc.  Then, like now, was all done for our own safety.  It's all the same, only the names have changed.

The difference is that opponents of such bills were characterized as right-wing anti-government militia types.  Now, opponents of similar types of legislation are lableled traitors and anti-American.

Yeah, I think there's a Bon Jovi quote in my post.  hehe


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2006)

crushing said:
			
		

> It has been a gradual process for decades independent of the party holding the Presidency. The Patriot Act didn't just come out of the blue, it especially builds on the the post '93 WTC bombing and OKC bombing reaction and resulting legislation (remember, when national security was better?). FBI wiretapping was dramatically increased, the Brady law with crackdowns and raids on gun retailers, no to mention the whole Waco deal, etc. Then, like now, was all done for our own safety. It's all the same, only the names have changed.
> 
> The difference is that opponents of such bills were characterized as right-wing anti-government militia types. Now, opponents of similar types of legislation are lableled traitors and anti-American.
> 
> Yeah, I think there's a Bon Jovi quote in my post. hehe


 
The Patriot Act *DID* come out of the blue. It came as a thoughtless reaction to the blue skies over New York City on September 11, 2001. Had members of congress read the USA Patriot Act before voting on it, it never would have passed.

The language of this Bill was completely incomprehensible. Often, it refered to sub paragraphs of other laws, and changed a single word, which created big changes in the meaning of the original law.

Congress did not take the appropriate time to consider and debate this Bill before passage. The only redeeming value for Congress, is that they built in an automatic expiration. We watched that fight this past December didn't we. 

Most citizens are completely unaware of the rights their congress people burned on October 24, 2001 ... just 43 days after September 11, 2001; Out of the Blue.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html


----------



## jazkiljok (Aug 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The Patriot Act *DID* come out of the blue. It came as a thoughtless reaction to the blue skies over New York City on September 11, 2001. Had members of congress read the USA Patriot Act before voting on it, it never would have passed.
> 
> The language of this Bill was completely incomprehensible. Often, it refered to sub paragraphs of other laws, and changed a single word, which created big changes in the meaning of the original law.
> 
> ...




you mean freedom _*is*_ just another word for nothing left to lose?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 26, 2006)

Is there a list of what right have been lost to this act anywhere?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Is there a list of what right have been lost to this act anywhere?


 
I have not seen a clear, CONSICE, breakdown of the new government powers from the USA Patriot Act.

But this page, shows the provisions of the Act in use.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/foia/default.html


EDIT - P.S. 

This link

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/foia/jud_comm_request.html

Reports some of the questions of Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Coyners concerning different sections of the USA Patriot Act. The questions are interesting.

END EDIT


----------



## mrhnau (Aug 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> How's this metric ...
> 
> Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.
> Victory in Europe (VE Day) was declared on May 8, 1945.
> ...



Different circumstances.

We no longer have a formal nation to fight against, rather an enemy dispersed over large areas and never in "uniform". We can't drop bombs on large concentration of combatants, since most of them are not massing together that often. We no longer have borders that must be crossed (at least not of our primary foe), a capital that must be conquered and a peace treaty to sign at the end of hostilities. We fight against a religious idealogy rather than for national goals/agenda. We don't have a "general" or "president" to negotiate with. rather than the enemy dropping bombs, or the enemy sinking our ships with their ships. We now have lone fighters running around with suicide vests, lone/small groups running around planting IED's and hijacking planes. We have DRASTICALLY less casualties so far than WW2. If we had a capital to conquer, a ruler to depose and a general/president to surrender, we could have declared victory in a few weeks. It ain't that easy. We also did not have to fight the media back in WW2, telling our enemies our methods of surveillance. Think Bin Laden is calling the US much or using a cell phone? Sure not anymore!

Different time. Different place. Different enemy. Bad metric.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Different circumstances.
> 
> We no longer have a formal nation to fight against, rather an enemy dispersed over large areas and never in "uniform". We can't drop bombs on large concentration of combatants, since most of them are not massing together that often. We no longer have borders that must be crossed (at least not of our primary foe), a capital that must be conquered and a peace treaty to sign at the end of hostilities. We fight against a religious idealogy rather than for national goals/agenda. We don't have a "general" or "president" to negotiate with. rather than the enemy dropping bombs, or the enemy sinking our ships with their ships. We now have lone fighters running around with suicide vests, lone/small groups running around planting IED's and hijacking planes. We have DRASTICALLY less casualties so far than WW2. If we had a capital to conquer, a ruler to depose and a general/president to surrender, we could have declared victory in a few weeks. It ain't that easy. We also did not have to fight the media back in WW2, telling our enemies our methods of surveillance. Think Bin Laden is calling the US much or using a cell phone? Sure not anymore!
> 
> Different time. Different place. Different enemy. Bad metric.


 
I don't disagree with any of that ...

Therefore, given that the "War" has no state players, what metrics are we using to determine our success? 

Last month, more than 3,000 Iraqi civilians died in violence within the borders of a country the United States invaded and occupies. If we are succeeding, next month, do we expect that number to be lower?

Because the 'War' is a borderless war, how do we account for enemy actors moving across state borders? Are they still legal combatants, and able to be targeted in other countries?

Can we get a clear definition of what this 'War' is? And how to tell if we are progressing or regressing?

Or, do we just blunder along blindfolded, shooting at every creek in the floor, and every shadow on the wall?


----------



## mrhnau (Aug 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I don't disagree with any of that ...
> 
> Therefore, given that the "War" has no state players, what metrics are we using to determine our success?
> 
> ...



I totally understand and agree. Its hard to get a viable metric. Is "success" getting to a state that we can leave and transition to the Iraqi forces? We have pourous borders with Iran. Its hard to guard hundreds of miles of barren dessert. Same problem with Lebanon and the Syria border.

As far as a valid metric, I don't have one to be totally honest. If casualties went down, that would be nice. How much of that is because of our efforts and how much is sectarian violence? Is the place more inherantly violent, or did we just unleash the factions that were restrained by Saddam? Would Civil War be considered a failure? Say we get a three state country. Is that a failure? Lets say our procedures in Afghanistan and Iraq results in no more major attacks in the US. Its hard to directly couple the lack of attacks with the offensive. The opposite might hold true though, that if we did get attacks, we could possibly draw the lines back to Iraq/Afghanistan. If we don't get attacks, is that a success? If we do, is that a failure?

It ain't easy to measure, I'll give you that.

If I had to define the war, it would be an attempt to eliminate a threat from terrorist. But, as just stated, it makes it near impossible to gauge success. If we eliminate enough leaders, is that sufficient? Another one tends to pop right up. Kill enough fighters? You grow a new crop of orphans that grow to hate you... its just messy.

The ideal solution - Stop the violence. Let our troops come home. No more sectarian violence in Iraq. You want to seperate? Do it diplomatically rather than blowing up Mosques. Let the populace rise up and hand over those neanderthals that think they get more rewards from Allah if they blow up enough buildings/children. If you have a point to make, make it with diplomacy. Go to the UN if you want to.

I doubt it will happen, but a guy can dream, can't he? The human race has a habit of not chosing diplomacy very often...


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I totally understand and agree. Its hard to get a viable metric. Is "success" getting to a state that we can leave and transition to the Iraqi forces? We have pourous borders with Iran. Its hard to guard hundreds of miles of barren dessert. Same problem with Lebanon and the Syria border.
> 
> As far as a valid metric, I don't have one to be totally honest. If casualties went down, that would be nice. How much of that is because of our efforts and how much is sectarian violence? Is the place more inherantly violent, or did we just unleash the factions that were restrained by Saddam? Would Civil War be considered a failure? Say we get a three state country. Is that a failure? Lets say our procedures in Afghanistan and Iraq results in no more major attacks in the US. Its hard to directly couple the lack of attacks with the offensive. The opposite might hold true though, that if we did get attacks, we could possibly draw the lines back to Iraq/Afghanistan. If we don't get attacks, is that a success? If we do, is that a failure?
> 
> ...


 
It is unfortunate that we are 40 + months into this war, and 2621 American deaths into this war, and most Americans are only now getting around to figuring out these questions must be asked. 

I choose to draw your attention to this thread. 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=220858&postcount=1

.... and specifically, these paragraphs, which I wrote four years ago. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> At what point does &#8216;pre-emptive self-defense&#8217; simply become the actions of an aggressor nation. My friend believes that we can and should take actions against the government of Iraq. He justifies this belief with the statement, &#8216;we are the Good Guys&#8221;. How can we remain the &#8216;Good Guys&#8217;, when attacking people, within the borders of their country, without their request?
> 
> In America, every discussion about the use of force generally includes question of the &#8216;exit strategy&#8217;. In my observations, the exit strategy discussion is not taking place concerning the proposed Iraqi Regime Change. I believe we must ask not just &#8216;What to Change&#8217;, but also &#8216;What to Change to&#8217;.
> 
> ...


----------



## jazkiljok (Sep 1, 2006)

more than 50 died and more than 200 were wounded in todays' bombings in iraq-- i'm not sure how that's an improvement but i guess in the rubric of what we measure success by-- it's back to good old body counts (in vietnam, the more the better-- in iraq, less.)

but here's an interesting passage...

from the NY Times:

"Things were somewhat brighter on the political front, where Iraqi politicians said Shiite and Kurdish leaders had put to rest, for now, their differences with the speaker of Parliament, a firebrand Sunni Arab, after weeks of pressuring him to step down.

The speaker, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, reached an understanding with the Shiite and Kurdish leaders after meeting with several of them, the politicians said in interviews. The whole issue has been settled, said Hassan al-Shammari, a member of the main Shiite bloc in Parliament. He declined to give details.

*The position of speaker of Parliament is the third highest-ranking job in the Iraqi government*, and an ouster of Mr. Mashhadani would have been the biggest shake-up in Iraqi politics since the government was installed in late May.

A senior Kurdish legislator, Mahmoud Othman, said the Kurdish parties had backed down from their call for Mr. Mashhadani to withdraw after the Shiites made peace with him. The Kurds had simply been supporting the Shiites, Mr. Othman said.

*The Kurds had nothing specific against him, he added.
*
He said the Shiites had become incensed over Mr. Mashhadanis criticism of a possible Shiite autonomous region in the south, an idea championed by the head of the Shiite bloc, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Sunni Arabs are generally opposed to carving Iraq up into autonomous regions because of the lack of oil in provinces where they are in the majority.

Mr. Mashhadani said in an interview on Aug. 14 that he might resign because of the groups pressure.

*American officials have expressed displeasure with the speaker, who earlier this summer called the American occupation the work of butchers and suggested that statues be built for insurgents who kill American soldiers.*

Ali Adeeb contributed reporting for this article.


----------



## jazkiljok (Sep 3, 2006)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14622992/


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 4, 2006)

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani said:
			
		

> "I will not be a political leader any more. I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."


 
With this pronouncement, Iraq is officially in a civil war.

Sistani was a force in Iraq for a peaceful transition from Hussein to something else. He steadfastly refused to talk with coalition forces. For the past three and a half years, any pronouncements issued by Sistani were followed by the 60% of Shia Iraqis, pretty much without question. 

Recent uprisings of Sunni insurgents in Iraq had gone mostly unanswered by the coalition, as we desperately pretended to train Iraqi civil defense forces. As such, many of Sistani's Shia followers have switched their allegience to al-Sadr, and his Mahdi militia. 

Look now for a full scale genocide Iraqi Shia attempting to wipe out Iraqi Sunni. 
Look for the Kurds will secede from Iraq's government.
Look for middle eastern Shia to expand the civil war to a regional conflict, Iran and Syria v Saudi Arabia.

Is this enough of a disaster yet?

Has anyone here seen my old friend Abraham?


----------



## jazkiljok (Sep 5, 2006)

remind me, what did Eisenhower say about the military-industrial complex...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14686871/


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 5, 2006)

I hear talk of the recognition of the three seperate nation states within Iraq. We will simply occupy Kurdistan and slap down up risings in Shii-stan and help when we can with Suni-stan. Its the original plan actualy.
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 5, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:


> I hear talk of the recognition of the three seperate nation states within Iraq. We will simply occupy Kurdistan and slap down up risings in Shii-stan and help when we can with Suni-stan. Its the original plan actualy.
> Sean


 
Whose original plan?

Actually, I don't think we will need to occupy Kurdistan. Currently, there are like 15 Coalition soldiers stationed in Kurdistan (Ok, that's an exaggeration - but not much of one). 

The bigger issue will be if we can convince Turkey to accept an independent Kurdistan. The Turkish Kurds could create a bit of a problem if their brethren South of Border get their own state.

Shiastan - as you call it - will more likely be an annex to Iran. This, of course, would be unacceptable. I am not a religious expert, but I believe that there are twelve Grand Ayatollahs among Shia Muslems. Currently, eight live in Iran. Annexing Southern Iraq would unify the Shia considerably. Saudi Arabia would not like this, nor Kuwait or the UAE and probably some other Sunni states.

Suni-stan would be a problem. There are no known oil reserves in this part of Iraq. All the resource is in Kurdistan and Shiastan. If the Sunni's don't get a piece of the pie, they are bound to make trouble. Assuming they could be convinced the Shia weren't going to exterminate them.

So, again, we must ask, Whose original Plan? 

Certainly, it was not the plan of the President, who two months before the invasion didn't understand the ethnic and religious factions in the country he was about to invade. His incuriousness has injured us all.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 6, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Whose original plan?
> 
> Actually, I don't think we will need to occupy Kurdistan. Currently, there are like 15 Coalition soldiers stationed in Kurdistan (Ok, that's an exaggeration - but not much of one).
> 
> ...


We would occupy Kurdistan at their invitation with almost no opposition, we exit the Shii territory and the Sunni. We have always known a Kuristan was inevitable and embracing it is better than continuing the current plan of action. Since I was taught the Kurdistan problem during the early nineties in college, I imagine someone in the government has prepared for the inevitability and the answer to your question would be "that" person.
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 6, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:


> We would occupy Kurdistan at their invitation with almost no opposition, we exit the Shii territory and the Sunni. We have always known a Kuristan was inevitable and embracing it is better than continuing the current plan of action. Since I was taught the Kurdistan problem during the early nineties in college, I imagine someone in the government has prepared for the inevitability and the answer to your question would be "that" person.
> Sean


 
Sean, 

In the early nineties, there were different people running the executive branch of government. Those people had the wisdom to not invade and occuppy Baghdad.

All of the language that has brought us to this point, by the people who have brought us to this point, has been about a unified Iraq, establishing a Jeffersonian Democracy and stabilizing the region. (How's that workin' out for us?)

And, the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue hasn't shown a tendency to *a)* read reports by prior residences of that address, *b)* be able to change course based on facts on the ground and *c) *recognize incompetent leadership and make changes toward competence.

Oh, and, of course, if we look to the history of this board, you might find an argument or two from yours truly ... a couple of years old at this point ... for the three state solution. So, yes, there are people who have thought about it, but I'm not sure they are the right people, right?

Mike

EDIT 

I did some poking around ... ... found this post, from a couple of years back .... take a look. 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=217003&postcount=29

END OF EDIT


----------



## jazkiljok (Sep 6, 2006)

timelines for success? forget about it. how about failure? 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/06/iraq.main/index.html


----------



## jazkiljok (Sep 14, 2006)

Iraq?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14798662/

Afghanistan?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14813354/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14823099/


----------



## jazkiljok (Sep 15, 2006)

soon to come:  moat with alligators.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14847580/


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 17, 2006)

Although this is not NEW news to anyone who has been paying attention. One has to think what might be different, if different choices related to this article were made three and a half years ago. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193.html

Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq



> The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people


----------



## jazkiljok (Sep 19, 2006)

more troops needed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14912976/

meet the new enemy. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14912050/


----------



## jazkiljok (Sep 26, 2006)

please forgive me for keeping this rather dried up thread alive. 

the war is killing people as we speak and most aren't terrorists, many young men, women, children who may not have had it great under saddam, but certainly didn't have it this bad. and it's costing our country in everyway imaginable; in the lost of american lives, the maiming and suffering that thousands must now endure, the wrecking of careers, families and businesses, the money that is tossed in an endless pit to shady contractors and corrupt officials.

the incompetent, intellectually indolent, self-righteous egoistical people who are running this sad show-- who never planned for anything, gave into whimsical scenarios of quick success, painted rose strewn streets for themselves as they continually disengage from the rest of the planet-- they may be in a dream world which rewards them 50 years from now with their visionary leadership.

but the rest of us have to live with this crap now.



http://www.slate.com/id/2150337/nav/tap1/


----------



## The Master (Sep 27, 2006)

So, with more and more evidence being released that continues to show that reality, and the Bush Administration are no where near each other, at what point can the country demand a recall election?  Can it?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 28, 2006)

The Master said:


> So, with more and more evidence being released that continues to show that reality, and the Bush Administration are no where near each other, at what point can the country demand a recall election? Can it?


 
The United States Constitution does not allow for a 'Recall Election'.

The Remedy offered in that document is Impeachment. Impeahment can be called for any High Crime and Misdemeanor. The President's intentional lies in his State of the Union Address of 2003 are sufficient, in my opinion, to meet that standard.

That the House of Representatives and Senate are controlled by the Republican Party is a principle reason that investigations have not gone forward. The President has exercised veto power exactly one time in almost six years. Logically, we can deduce that the majority party in Congress are working almost exactly in line with the President's desires. If Congress diverged from the President's desires at all over the last three sessions of Congress, the President would have had to use that Veto power more frequently. 

For the past six years, our country has effectively had a one party government. You like ... hmmm... what other one party governments can we think of ... aahhh.... damn, one party govenrments just seem to be escaping me at the moment .... but you know what I mean, right?


----------



## crushing (Sep 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> For the past six years, our country has effectively had a one party government. You like ... hmmm... what other one party governments can we think of ... aahhh.... damn, one party govenrments just seem to be escaping me at the moment .... but you know what I mean, right?


 
Like USA 1993-1994?  

Not that Democrats and Republicans are all that different in the US political duopoly anyway.  Their ideology just shifts a little depending on the party of the sitting president (some call it flip-flopping).  For most of the 90s it was the Democrats that were all for expanding wiretapping and launching preemptive attacks against countries while the Republicans railed against such policies.  In 2001 the Republicans stood on the shoulders of those that came before and ran with it and now the Democrats are opposed.

Anyway Michael, I'm with you on thinking that gridlock isn't a bad thing.  Judging by your quote above, it doesn't appear that you want Democrat or Republican control of all the branches.  Right?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 28, 2006)

crushing said:


> For most of the 90s it was the Democrats that were all for expanding wiretapping and launching preemptive attacks against countries while the Republicans railed against such policies.


 
Conitinuing to spread disinformation, I see.

The Democrats may have been working toward expanding wiretaps .. but always with judicial oversight. You know .. "Warrants", the 4th Amendment. That type of thing. 

And, I think the attacks from the Bill Clinton were "retalitory", not 'Pre-emptive" -- unless you buy the 'wag the dog' theory, so often espoused by the Right --- you know, preemptively distracting from Monica's dress. 

No need to let facts get in the way of a good attack meme.


----------



## crushing (Sep 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Conitinuing to spread disinformation, I see.
> 
> The Democrats may have been working toward expanding wiretaps .. but always with judicial oversight. You know .. "Warrants", the 4th Amendment. That type of thing.
> 
> ...


 
Wow, I thought I was agreeing with you on something and you still try to find a way to try to insult me again.  Oh well, if that is your wont.  With your response I have a feeling that you aren't so opposed to a one party rule, you are just opposed to a 'wrong' party rule.

I'm not talking about Operation Infinite Reach as being pre-emptive.  My comparison of the warmongerig throughout the Clinton/Bush years wasn't between Al Queda/bin Laden and Hussein, but between Milosevic and Hussein.

I'm sure you are familiar with the Clinton Doctrine, upon which the Bush Doctrine is built.

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

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

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/03/29/doctrine.html

I prefer President Clinton over President Bush, but I won't be so loyal to Clinton and his party (or any President and his corresponding party) to not be critical of them when they make mistakes or do things with which I disagree.  In a previous thread you mistakenly saw it as a defense of Bush when I was being critical of both.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 28, 2006)

crushing said:


> Wow, I thought I was agreeing with you on something and you still try to find a way to try to insult me again. Oh well, if that is your wont. With your response I have a feeling that you aren't so opposed to a one party rule, you are just opposed to a 'wrong' party rule.
> 
> I'm not talking about Operation Infinite Reach as being pre-emptive. My comparison of the warmongerig throughout the Clinton/Bush years wasn't between Al Queda/bin Laden and Hussein, but between Milosevic and Hussein.
> 
> ...


 
I understand that you were attempting to agree with me. But you were either unintentionally or deliberatly mis-representing information. You have repeatedly asserted President Clinton's attempt to expand wiretapping, but never mention judicial oversight. Warrants were always part of the plan in the 90's. Under President Bush, such wiretaps have been warrant free, in violation of the 4th Amendment. You may choose to see that as a small matter. I do not. 

The 'Clinton Doctrine' to which you refer, seems to be about humantarian intervention. President Clinton behaved badly in retrospect to Rawanda. (He continues to misreprent what occurred under his watch in '94). I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that the "Bush Doctrine" (aka the 1% Doctrine) about military action is akin to the earlier subject. 

We will pre-emptively act to avoid the Shi'ite from slaughtering the Sunni is the same as we will pre-emptively act to prevent Saddam Hussien from giving imaginary weapons to his imaginary ally, al Qaeda. 

Sadly, the mission in Iraq - Operation Iraqi Freedom - may soon turn to a Clinton Doctrine operation. But it was *never* described or designed as such.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 28, 2006)

Dont forget the Somalia fiasco. 

And never criticize Clinton in front of mike.


----------



## crushing (Sep 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I understand that you were attempting to agree with me. But you were either unintentionally or deliberatly mis-representing information. You have repeatedly asserted President Clinton's attempt to expand wiretapping, but never mention judicial oversight. Warrants were always part of the plan in the 90's. Under President Bush, such wiretaps have been warrant free, in violation of the 4th Amendment. You may choose to see that as a small matter. I do not.


 
It would appear that something in the system is broken if there is no way to get judicial review of policies that violate the 4th Amendment.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 28, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Dont forget the Somalia fiasco.
> 
> And never criticize Clinton in front of mike.


 
I have not forgotten Somalia. 

Who was who sent the US Military to Somalia, again? The First President Bush authorized US troops to the country in August of 1992. In December of 1992 (after being defeated in the Presidential Election) President Bush increased the number of US troops and the scope of their mission. When President Clinton took office in January 1993, he inherited the Somalia situation. 

The question asked last week, is why was their no retaliation for the Cole. The answer is two fold - first, the Intelligence Agencies would not make an ascertation as to whom was responsible until after Clinton left office (January 25, 2001). But, futher, even working from the assumption that it was al Qaeda, President Clinton remembered the foreign policy he inherited from his predecessor. He decided not to begin a campaign which he would have to leave to his successor; especially without the Intelligence Communities backing as to the target of the retaliation being correct. 

The plans for retaliation and roll back of al Qaeda, were created though. They were presented to NSA chief Rice and assistant NSA chief Hadley during the transition.

So,  if you want to critizice President Clinton, go right ahead. But have the facts correct.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 28, 2006)

crushing said:


> It would appear that something in the system is broken if there is no way to get judicial review of policies that violate the 4th Amendment.


 
I agree. 

This is why I think there is a difference between the two program concerning expanded wiretapping. One allows for judicial oversight, one does not.


----------



## HKphooey (Sep 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I have not forgotten Somalia.
> 
> Who was who sent the US Military to Somalia, again? The First President Bush authorized US troops to the country in August of 1992. In December of 1992 (after being defeated in the Presidential Election) President Bush increased the number of US troops and the scope of their mission. When President Clinton took office in January 1993, he inherited the Somalia situation.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah he just refused to send more back up for the troops who were stuck there.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 28, 2006)

HKphooey said:


> Yeah he just refused to send more back up for the troops who were stuck there.


 
This is an interesting supposition, with which I do not know enough of the history to be able to address off the top of my head. You may very well be correct. But, you may also be less than accurate. 

As I recall, there was a general vibe coming from the military that was pretty disrespectful of President Clinton. The whole 'draft dodger', 'pot smoking', 'gays in the military' thing from the campaign certainly set a bad tone for the relationship between the military and its commander in chief. 

That may be why Les Aspin, a Republican, was chosen as Secretary of Defense. Again, it goes back to President Bush deploying additional troops to Somalia in December 1992. The reports we have seen is that the incoming Clinton Administration was expecting that the UN would be meeting the needs in Somalia. 

So, the US did have a policy to get out of Somalia. When the Pentagon asked for tanks to go to Mogadishu, they were turned down. It's unclear from what I have seen whether it was Clinton or Aspin who made that denial. 

After Aideed killed the Pakistani's, however, it seems the Pentagon did not want to play. Admiral Howe apparently went after Aideed, and the Pentagon told him the Special Forces were sufficient. 

Here is what Richard Clarke reports Clinton said, and did, after the Black Hawk Down incident.



> _Okay, here's what we're going to do. We are not running away with our tail between our legs. I've already heard from Congress and that's what they all want to do, get out tomorrow. We're staying. We are also not gonna flatten Mogadishu to prove we are the big badass superpower. Everybody in the world knows we could do that. We don't have to prove that to anybody._
> _We are going to send in more troops, with tanks and aircraft and anything else they need. We are going to show force. And we are going to keep delivering the food. If anybody f***s with us, we will respond, massively. And we are going to get the UN to finally show up and take over. Tell Boutros he has six months to do that, not one day more. Then... We will leave_


 
For what its worth.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 28, 2006)

I almost don't want to post this link. It is the home video of one very scared civilian contractor in Iraq, and what happened to his convoy. 

This article, and its video, are a year old at this point. There are no official comments from the military units involved or the Pentagon. 

Halliburton takes no responsibility - surprise. 

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Home_video_shows_US_troops_abandon_0928.html


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 28, 2006)

"Currently we are infested with a generation of leaders who are not willing to commit to the slaughter. When American bodies were beaten, drug, abused and put on television after the battle in Somalia in 1993, there was no response. Recently in Iraq, four American bodies were burned, abused, hacked and torn apart and hung as trophies. The American military and leadership response was zero. Great rhetoric spewed from the mouths of our military leadership, but nothing happened. This is because we have raised a generation of poilitical ******* that look at their bosses (not leaders) and shrug their shoulders. They are more worried about the "political" decision than doing what their guts tell them."

-MSG Paul R Howe U.S.Army (ret) Delta Force leader in Somalia


----------



## HKphooey (Sep 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> This is an interesting supposition, with which I do not know enough of the history to be able to address off the top of my head. You may very well be correct. But, you may also be less than accurate.
> 
> As I recall, there was a general vibe coming from the military that was pretty disrespectful of President Clinton. The whole 'draft dodger', 'pot smoking', 'gays in the military' thing from the campaign certainly set a bad tone for the relationship between the military and its commander in chief.
> 
> ...


 
I am not for either side.  I see many of your points.  I agree Bush sent them in the first place.  But in you cannot send a firefighter into a burning building with a hose and then turn off the water once he is surrounded by flames; and then say it was the other guys fault.  And I know it will be said Bush is doing the same in Iraq.  To which I agree.  We are either in or out.

I personally think we should take care of our own backyard first.  And then we can listen to the world b*tch that we do not do our part.  We have enough of everything we need on our own turf.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 28, 2006)

HKphooey said:


> I am not for either side. I see many of your points. I agree Bush sent them in the first place. But in you cannot send a firefighter into a burning building with a hose and then turn off the water once he is surrounded by flames; and then say it was the other guys fault. And I know it will be said Bush is doing the same in Iraq. To which I agree. We are either in or out.
> 
> I personally think we should take care of our own backyard first. And then we can listen to the world b*tch that we do not do our part. We have enough of everything we need on our own turf.


 
When the first President Bush sent the US Military into Somalia, the objective was not to capture Aideed (Aidid) or to break up the militia's in the country. It was simply to distribute food. If the goal was to kill the militias then the mission failed. But, that was not the mission. The mission succeeded. At least to the extent that the United Nations was able to take over the rebuilding of the country. The United Nations completed their work (apparently) and withdrew in 1995, a year after the US military withdrew from the country. 




			
				Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> "Currently we are infested with a generation of leaders who are not willing to commit to the slaughter. When American bodies were beaten, drug, abused and put on television after the battle in Somalia in 1993, there was no response. Recently in Iraq, four American bodies were burned, abused, hacked and torn apart and hung as trophies. The American military and leadership response was zero. Great rhetoric spewed from the mouths of our military leadership, but nothing happened. This is because we have raised a generation of poilitical ******* that look at their bosses (not leaders) and shrug their shoulders. They are more worried about the "political" decision than doing what their guts tell them."
> 
> -MSG Paul R Howe U.S.Army (ret) Delta Force leader in Somalia


 
The quote here says "there was no response" ... that is not quite factually accurate is it? 

This from a Frontline Transcript



> *Clinton's response: withdraw troops
> *President Clinton decides to cut his losses. _He sends substantial combat troops as short term reinforcements_, but declares that American troops are to be fully withdrawn from Somalia by March 31.


 
Perhaps MSG. Howe did not like the response, but there was a response. This looks back to what the rank and file military thought about their Commander in Chief, doesn't it.


----------



## jazkiljok (Sep 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> When the first President Bush sent the US Military into Somalia, the objective was not to capture Aideed (Aidid) or to break up the militia's in the country. It was simply to distribute food. If the goal was to kill the militias then the mission failed. But, that was not the mission. The mission succeeded. At least to the extent that the United Nations was able to take over the rebuilding of the country. The United Nations completed their work (apparently) and withdrew in 1995, a year after the US military withdrew from the country.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




there was no clear plan in somalia- blame whoever on that, the UN, Bush Sr., Bill, lack of any American foreign policy in regards to nonstrategic nations. i don't think any mission succeeded there and it's now under the control of a taliban-like islamic group.

and, crushing the local warlord would not have solved anything in the end. 

Not sure when Howe made his comments but levelling fallujah would count as a response one would think. 

Rumsfeld today said that everyone greatly underestimated the strength of the insurgency. i recall clearly a number of retired military men hired as consultants on cnn, fox etc- and David Hackworth specifically talking exactly about this situation just before the invasion-- that because saddam had no chance in a straight out battle- he'd have his forces blend with the civilian population and fight it out like the viet cong. the late Col. Hackworth went as far as to call Rumsfeld an arrogant ******* for not understanding the war he was getting into.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 11, 2006)

While the methods employed in this survey should be viewed sceptically, it does define an outside edge for consideration. 

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Study_estimates_655000_Iraqis_died_due_1011.html



> A new study estimates that as many as 655,000 Iraqis died since the U.S.-led invasion in March of 2003, and roughly ninety percent of the deaths were directly related to violence, primarily victims of gunfire.


 
That is, approximately 1 of every 36 Iraqi's has died since the beginning of the invasion. One wonders how that works toward winning the hearts and minds of the locals.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 11, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> While the methods employed in this survey should be viewed sceptically, it does define an outside edge for consideration.
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Study_estimates_655000_Iraqis_died_due_1011.html
> 
> ...



 Coalition forces blamed for 31 percent of deaths since 2003 invasion
From CNN

31%... while that is alot, do you wonder where the other 69% come from? Sectarian violence, suicide bombings, things of that nature. Even if we were not there and Saddam not in power, alot of these sectarian events would still be happening.

who are those 31% we are actually killing? How many are foreign fighters that came in from Syria/Iraq/elsewhere?


----------



## jazkiljok (Oct 11, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Coalition forces blamed for 31 percent of deaths since 2003 invasion
> From CNN
> 
> 31%... while that is alot, do you wonder where the other 69% come from? Sectarian violence, suicide bombings, things of that nature. Even if we were not there and Saddam not in power, alot of these sectarian events would still be happening.
> ...



yes, if we're not there and SADDAM not in power these killings go on- the point is that we're back to "destroying to save" -- our invasion triggered the mess-- it was predictable what would happen and now here are the consequences. 

make of it as you will.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 11, 2006)

jazkiljok said:


> yes, if we're not there and SADDAM not in power these killings go on- the point is that we're back to "destroying to save" -- our invasion triggered the mess-- it was predictable what would happen and now here are the consequences.
> 
> make of it as you will.



You think Saddam was not killing his citizens? Think the murders started only when we showed up? Think Suni/Shiite violence just started when we invaded?

Yes, our invasion may have triggered the mess, but there was mess there before we came in. Its now just a different kind of mess.

If the local crazies would calm down for a few months, we would get out of there. If they keep killing and going nuts, think we will cut and run? Well, perhaps if the Dems get in power... 

I'm just hoping the Iraqi police forces/armies will be able to calm things down enough where we can legitimately get out. Thigns might require a split up of the nation, but thats not going to be pretty.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 11, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> You think Saddam was not killing his citizens? Think the murders started only when we showed up? Think Suni/Shiite violence just started when we invaded?
> 
> Yes, our invasion may have triggered the mess, but there was mess there before we came in. Its now just a different kind of mess.
> 
> ...


 
Actually, I think that in 2001, 2002, 2003, Saddam Hussein was probably committing very little violence upon his own people. He certainly ruled with an iron hand, and over the preceeding decades (including those decades supported by Reagan and Bush), had committed violence upon his people. 

But to suppose that the level of Iraqi on Iraqi violence now is equivilent to Iraqi on Iraqi violence in the, oh, let's say 8 years before the invasion, is ridiculous and demands evidence. As I understand it ... the locals are regularly pulling between 50 and 100 bodies a day out of the Tigris river. I look forward to your evidence on Hussien's killings at that level in the early part of this decade.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 11, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Actually, I think that in 2001, 2002, 2003, Saddam Hussein was probably committing very little violence upon his own people. He certainly ruled with an iron hand, and over the preceeding decades (including those decades supported by Reagan and Bush), had committed violence upon his people.



Yeah, after we invaded post-kuwait he seemed to calm down a little bit. Was still shooting at out planes, but I'm not aware of what he was doing to his people.



> But to suppose that the level of Iraqi on Iraqi violence now is equivilent to Iraqi on Iraqi violence in the, oh, let's say 8 years before the invasion, is ridiculous and demands evidence. As I understand it ... the locals are regularly pulling between 50 and 100 bodies a day out of the Tigris river. I look forward to your evidence on Hussien's killings at that level in the early part of this decade.



You don't know of his violence? Genocide? Using biological agents in bombings in Iran? How about the large body dumps some of our troops have uncovered? Torturing in the Olympic facilities (and not people taking pictures in their underwear)? People just disappearing? Perhaps you missed the news reports of those things...

Are the numbers equivelant? Probably not. Do you think Saddam gets 100% of the vote in his elections because his people love him? Its fear. Is more violence happening now? I imagine so. We seem to have 1/3 of it. Others located in Iraq are responsible for killing their own people. I'd also love to see how many deaths are coming from foreign fighters.

Like I said before, if they want us out of there, calm down and stop the violence. let the Iraqi police/military gain control and we are out of there. [sarcasm] But NOOO. Lets kill more Americans and innocents! Lets get the US to stay FOREVER! [/sarcasm] Like I said before, I see a split of Iraq. Won't be pretty, but I see it coming.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 11, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Yeah, after we invaded post-kuwait he seemed to calm down a little bit. Was still shooting at out planes, but I'm not aware of what he was doing to his people.
> 
> You don't know of his violence? Genocide? Using biological agents in bombings in Iran? How about the large body dumps some of our troops have uncovered? Torturing in the Olympic facilities (and not people taking pictures in their underwear)? People just disappearing? Perhaps you missed the news reports of those things...
> 
> ...


 
Well, which is it .... did "things" - Hussien's direct violence on his own people -  calm down after he was driven from Kuwait or didn't they. 

And for the sake of discussion, I will even waive the horrific helicopter assualts he launched against the Shi'ite and Kurds in 1992 when President GHW Bush encouraged the uprising of those populations; when the President offered words of backing and support which he reneged upon when he allowed President Hussien to fly his armed helicopters. Hussien's repression of that uprising was quite violent.

As for bringing up any of the battles with the Iranian war, that does not represent violence upon his own people. It was a war. AND, the United States was providing President Hussien with intelligence as to where to drop those "biological agents" - (although I believe it was actually 'Chemical Agents'). 

And, yes, in the past, Hussein has indeed acted violently on his own people; including Chemical attacks on Kurdish villages. That is how dictators establish control and keep control. But, once he had control, the incidents of such violence were proportional to the uprisings. 

I'm wondering why on Earth you believe the United States ever planned on leaving Iraq? The US Military still operates in Japan and Germany. We are there to set up a puppet government. Believing anything else is naive. 

As for thinking Iraq is going to be split up ... that is not news. I have posted that on this board for a couple of years now. I wrote my Senator before the invasion understanding that any attempt to change the regime in Iraq would result in a disaster - that letter is on this board too. 

The truth is Hussien was a brutal dictator. His brutality kept the Shi'ite and Kurds in line. And as long as they behaved, there was relatively little violence. 

First, we liberated the Kurds through our No-Fly patrols, and for 12 years now, they have been living as an independent country. 

Then we removed the control over the State of Iraq. And replaced it with a wish list. That those controls have been removed, the Shi'ite are taking a two pronged approach to their country - revenge upon the Sunni's who controlled under Hussien - utilize militias to create political power (out with the old bastard, in with the new bastard).  

It will take only a moment for this civil war to turn to genocide. And less time for that genocide to turn to World War III. 

So, I guess we'd have to say that we are the 'Road to Victory'. Aren't we.


----------



## jazkiljok (Oct 11, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Well, which is it .... did "things" - Hussien's direct violence on his own people -  calm down after he was driven from Kuwait or didn't they.
> 
> And for the sake of discussion, I will even waive the horrific helicopter assualts he launched against the Shi'ite and Kurds in 1992 when President GHW Bush encouraged the uprising of those populations; when the President offered words of backing and support which he reneged upon when he allowed President Hussien to fly his armed helicopters. Hussien's repression of that uprising was quite violent.
> 
> ...



dictatorships usually have the effect of controlling different religious and cultural groups from killing each other.  yugoslavia was held together by a dictator and when he was gone it take long for the killing to begin. iraq is the same way-- take the strong man out of the picture and we get a torrent of violence.

does this mean we wish to have a dictator back in power? well-- we seem not to mine Perv Musharaff.... Qaddafi's back in our good graces... is there really a democratic gov't in egypt? can't wait to see if Putin ever loses an election. saudi arabia?

this gov't is not ready to do anything about dafur. we of course let rwanda happen, and i guess no one remembers the killing fields of Pol Pot. took our nemesis in vietnam to save the day there.

but my radical view is that we're not the world police. we can't save them all. 

also like to point out that had saddam NOT invaded Kuwait-- there wouldn't even be this discussion of what his kid was doing to their olympic team nor would we care whatever violence he did leash upon his people. he'd probably be having tea with rumsfeld right now, planning with him the invasion of iran.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 11, 2006)

I like to consider myself a realist, and not a cynic ... but I see I have a ways to go, yet.

Thanks - and keep fighting the good fight.


Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2006)

Leaks abound ... 


The 10 Member Baker Commission was assembled to review the current situation in Iraq, and offer the President options to move forward through the war. 

According to a leak to the NY Sun, in an article to be published Sunday, the Baker Commission has decided to put forth two choices. 

Stability First.

Redeploy and Contain. 


Stability First is about securing the city of Baghdad with military forces, allowing the rest of the country, apparently, to go to hell in the proverbial handbasket. Once Stability of the capital city has been established, the American Embassy will work for a political solution with the insurgent forces in the country. 

Doesn't that sound like a great idea ... working to put the Mahdi Militia into political power. Great!


Redeploy and Contain is the phased withdrawl idea that has been floating around Democratic circles for a couple of years; reaching the tipping point of an idea when verbalized by Congressman Murtha. 

Of course, the official report will not be released until after the election. 

Apparently, after mid terms - the President will tell us his plan has always been to Cut and Run.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Apparently, after mid terms - the President will tell us his plan has always been to Cut and Run.


 
Mr. President, the Rapture is not an exit strategy...


----------



## jazkiljok (Oct 12, 2006)

welcome to the coalition of the not-as-willing-as-we-used-to-be.


Report: UK's top general looks for Iraq pullout

The chief of the British Army, calling for a pullout of British troops from Iraq, says plans for post-invasion Iraq were "probably based more on optimism." Gen. Richard Dannatt told a British newspaper: "Our presence exacerbates security problems." Dannatt's views directly contradict the position of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a staunch supporter of the war and President Bush's strategy.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.general/index.html


----------



## jazkiljok (Oct 19, 2006)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/457789p-385241c.html

can't we just all taliban-along.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 21, 2006)

The Bush Administration is now working on its own 'Cut and Run' policy.



			
				New York Times said:
			
		

> Were trying to come up with ways to get the Iraqis to step up to the plate, to push them along, because the time is coming, a senior Bush administration official said. We cant be there forever.


 
Hopefully, Secretary Rice will have convienently forgotten her predecessor's 'Pottery Barn Rule".


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 22, 2006)

This is priceless.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/22/bush-stay-the-course/

The President of the United States saying his administration has:

"never been 'Stay the Course' "

Footnotes proving the President is lying included.


----------



## jazkiljok (Oct 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> This is priceless.
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/22/bush-stay-the-course/
> 
> ...




politicians and presidents lie? well push me over with a feather...

here's another one:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/22/fernandez.statement/index.html

fernandez will of course backpedal on his apology as soon as he retires or gets his bookdeal.

looks like for now- he still needs the job.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2006)

Hey, how about this plan .... 

It's March 18th 2003. 

Your name is Cheney.

You have an 'unconditional surrender' letter from Saddam Hussein.

What do you do?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2006)

The Army Times
The Navy Times
The Air Force Times
The Marine Times


Each paper will publish an editorial on Monday, November 6th, calling for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

This surprises me. 

It tells me that the editorial boards of these military newspapers do not believe the war is proceeding in a positive direction. 



> *Time for Rumsfeld to go.*
> 
> "So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."
> 
> ...


----------



## jazkiljok (Nov 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> The Army Times
> The Navy Times
> The Air Force Times
> The Marine Times
> ...



that the rank and file are now voicing their discontent with the progress, the promises, and the sad realities of iraq is further indication of the absolute failure this war has amounted to. 

it is an extraordinary demand by these publications to ask for the removal of rumsfeld.


----------



## jazkiljok (Nov 5, 2006)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/05/1999-war-games-predicted-_n_33328.html

more things that make you wonder who's paying attention in the white house.


----------



## jazkiljok (Nov 25, 2006)

low-level civil war. that's what they call it now. 


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15889021/


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 25, 2006)

Let's review the 'As they stand up, we'll stand down' fallicy. 

Right now, what the American Military is doing, and the American Public is Paying for, is the arming and equipping of the Shi'ite Militia. We think that we are training an "Iraqi" army and police force. But, the evidence on the ground is that there is no local understanding of "Iraqi". It is a forced Western Construct.

The instant the "coalition" blinks, the people we trained are going to divide into their religious/tribal heritage, and genocide will begin.

Currently, more than 1,000 people a day are making themselves refugees in Iraq. They are leaving their homes and going to communities of like-sect areas. The breakup of Iraq into three parts began over a year ago.

Not only are we left with zero good solutions, every bad solution we are faced with, leads us from bad to worse.

When dealing with the simple premise of 'First Aid', the use of a tourniquet is the correct option when dealing with the immediate threat of loss of life of limb. It is long past time to apply the tourniquet metaphore to Iraq. We are in danger of losing life or limb. It is past time that the United States must take the drastic measure, for our own self-preservation, to cut off the hemorrhaging. 

Iraq will die. Shi'istan will join with Iran; isn't that a pleasant thought. Sunni'stan will, perhaps join with Syria. Kurdistan will continue to stand on its own ... which will create difficulties in NATO, vis-a-vis Turkey.

Our new focus will need to be preventing full out Islam-on-Islam war; especially in a region so important to the global economy.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 25, 2006)

Best line I've heard:

"Stephen Hawking has a better chance of standing up than these people."


Regards,


Steve


----------



## jazkiljok (Nov 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> ]Let's review the 'As they stand up, we'll stand down' fallicy.
> 
> Right now, what the American Military is doing, and the American Public is Paying for, is the arming and equipping of the Shi'ite Militia. We think that we are training an "Iraqi" army and police force. But, the evidence on the ground is that there is no local understanding of "Iraqi". It is a forced Western Construct.
> 
> The instant the "coalition" blinks, the people we trained are going to divide into their religious/tribal heritage, and genocide will begin.


 
yes,shiia militias owe more allegiance to the iranian mullahs than the democracy backing USA. perhaps there are some leaders who see the killing as detrimental to their own future and will not operate in a murderous way.



> Currently, more than 1,000 people a day are making themselves refugees in Iraq. They are leaving their homes and going to communities of like-sect areas. The breakup of Iraq into three parts began over a year ago.
> 
> Not only are we left with zero good solutions, every bad solution we are faced with, leads us from bad to worse.
> 
> When dealing with the simple premise of 'First Aid', the use of a tourniquet is the correct option when dealing with the immediate threat of loss of life of limb. It is long past time to apply the tourniquet metaphore to Iraq. We are in danger of losing life or limb. It is past time that the United States must take the drastic measure, for our own self-preservation, to cut off the hemorrhaging.



bailing out may or may not have horrific consequences. genocide is not a given. syria, iran, jordan, and even the sauds know that they won't be able to let it go without intervention. which is why they don't want us to get up and go just yet. i do think a pan-arab force is what's needed there. U.N. led,, islamic forces on the ground that will make the populace not have US forces to focus their anger on.



> Iraq will die. Shi'istan will join with Iran; isn't that a pleasant thought. Sunni'stan will, perhaps join with Syria. Kurdistan will continue to stand on its own ... which will create difficulties in NATO, vis-a-vis Turkey.
> 
> Our new focus will need to be preventing full out Islam-on-Islam war; especially in a region so important to the global economy.


[/QUOTE]

surrounding nations weren't able to cut up somalia. i don't think the wanted too. kurdistan is already operating independently cause they have no trust in "iraqi" rule, shiia or sunni, and never will. the sunni and shia regions could operate automonously connected to a loose federation that shares in oil profit.

i am waiting for the gate's exit plan. we know it's coming-- isn't that why he was hired?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 26, 2006)

The Commandant of the Marine Corps says the Corps is spread too thin...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2673434&page=1

"The new commandant of the Marine Corps has sounded an alarm about Marine readiness. Gen. James Conway said that the demands of Iraq have put strains on the Corps that threaten its worldwide mission."

Durned liberal turncoat.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## jazkiljok (Dec 2, 2006)

it's now being called a civil war. the killings are taking a massive toll. 

funny how george w. was in vietnam recently extolling their economic virtues... we couldn't leave that place either for all the reasons they're giving for us staying in iraq. 

but we did anyway...


----------



## jazkiljok (Dec 3, 2006)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/02/rumsfeld.memo.reut/index.html

so, rumsfeld realizes now that the socalled strategy isn't working. really. now, he gets it. 

the fact that he sends this memo on his way out of service is just one more indication of the purposeful blinders george and company have worn their entire time in office.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 5, 2006)

jazkiljok said:


> it's now being called a civil war. the killings are taking a massive toll.




Ah, yes.  But we must focus on all the GOOD we've done there, such as the building of hospitals.*

Surely you don't think that Iraq was better off under Saddam, do you?

Oh.  Sorry.  I forgot.  Those catch-phrases are no longer de rigueur, and have gone the way of "Wanted, dead or alive," and "Mission accomplished."


Regards,


Steve

*Which, albeit, are overflowing.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 5, 2006)

hardheadjarhead said:


> Ah, yes. But we must focus on all the GOOD we've done there, such as the building of hospitals.*
> 
> Surely you don't think that Iraq was better off under Saddam, do you?
> 
> ...


 
You know ... if you just run a 'The Google' search on 'Better Under Saddam', you get quite a few reports, from quite a few varied think tanks, press outlets, and foreign governments that argue, for certain parts of Iraqi society, things were indeed 'Better Under Saddam'. 

I wonder when the some of these parts will begin to outweigh the whole; if they haven't already tipped the equation in that direction.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 5, 2006)

When asked "Are we winning in Iraq" in a meeting before the United States Senate today, the candidate for Secretary of Defense, said,

*"No."*


----------



## jazkiljok (Dec 5, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> When asked "Are we winning in Iraq" in a meeting before the United States Senate today, the candidate for Secretary of Defense, said,
> 
> *"No."*




yes, it seems that stating the irrefutably obvious is now the best way to win senate support.

a long time ago before the rise of the new world order fantasists this was always considered a very effective means of expressing oneself and earning the respect of your fellow americans.

i believe it is time again that we should all strive to spot and articulate the obvious.

i for one would like to say that the billions we have already spent in reconstruction in iraq is mostly unaccounted for with a good portion going to line the pockets of corrupt officials.

let me add another clear as day observation- if we spend another 10 billion dollars more there-- it too will be mostly unaccounted for with most of it going to line the pockets of corrupt officials.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 6, 2006)

jazkiljok said:


> let me add another clear as day observation- if we spend another 10 billion dollars more there-- it too will be mostly unaccounted for with most of it going to line the pockets of corrupt officials.


 
Reality Check here ..... 

I think that 10 Billion gets us to about Valentines Day. 

Attention all corrupt official wives ... you should be looking for very big boxes of chocolate next year.


----------



## jazkiljok (Jan 21, 2007)

...it's going to get worse before it gets.. worse.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/21/Iraq.main/index.html


----------



## The Master (Jan 21, 2007)

So at what point do the American People say as one "Enough" and demand this mess end?


----------



## tellner (Jan 21, 2007)

How is the war going? Swimmingly. Couldn't be better. That is, if you're a jihadi or part of the Iranian government. We've provided recruiting material for terrorists and salafists well into the next century. And we've prepared Iraq to be delivered into Persian hands.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 22, 2007)

The Master said:


> So at what point do the American People say as one "Enough" and demand this mess end?


 
I started saying so in September, 2002. 

Currently, the country suffers under the delusions of a Vice President that believes in accumulating power in the 'Unitary Executive'. This presents a problem. More than 65% of the country wish this vast sucking sound that is the war in Iraq, would end, today. But, that may very well be meaningless withour current administration. 

However, I think the American People stayed with 'The Program' as long as they believed was any chance for a positive outcome. That opportunity has long since vanished, if it was ever there to begin with. Our little revolution in Iraq was about changing 'The Parting on the Left', with a 'Parting on the Right'; it was about changing their son of a *****, to our son of a *****. It was about Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitcz believing that the 26 million Iraqis' who lived under Saddam Hussein for 30 years would welcome Ahmed Chalabi as their new leader. 

Bush and Co have been scrambling for a new idea since those Iraqi's said 'sorry, we don't think Mr. Chalabi is a good idea.'.

This thread started 18 months ago. I think it is an interesting look back

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=426970&postcount=1

This quote almost sounds like I knew what the hell I was talking about .. 



			
				michaeledward - post #26 said:
			
		

> What we should be preparing for is Genocide. The Shi'ite militia are going to exterminate the Sunni's. What strange bedfellows we are becoming. That we will be defending the former Baathists against the Mullah's of Iran.


 

All the above being considered, this war has a possibility of ending in the same way the Hostage Crisis in Iran ended; The day the next President takes office.


----------



## jazkiljok (Jan 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I
> All the above being considered, this war has a possibility of ending in the same way the Hostage Crisis in Iran ended; The day the next President takes office.



yeah, that would be fitting, another deal cut with the iranians before the changing of the throne... (or will it be iranians, syrians, russians, sauds, sunni chieftans, shiite mullahs, and daniel ortega :wink2


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2007)

This update is interesting. It comes from an unexpected source with an unexpected cause. It hasn't had any noticable impact on the levels of violence, I think, but it does sound a slightly hopeful note.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ems28jan28,0,4971850.story?coll=la-home-world



> The Shiite Muslim leadership has informally recommended to ministerial and parliamentary delegations heading to Washington that they cultivate closer relationships with Democrats as well as Republicans.
> 
> "They have to see people from both sides, because they are both taking part in the administration of the country," Adeeb said. "Whoever is a decision-maker in America, we have to have relations with."
> 
> ...


----------



## jazkiljok (Jan 29, 2007)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...9jan29,0,4626909.story?coll=la-home-headlines

today we read how our troops along with iraq national forces killed hundreds of insurgents. but who those insurgents are is quite baffling-- iraqi security officials have identified them in no particular order as.... foreign fighters, sunni nationalists, saddam loyalists or messianic shiite death cultists.

they might have well as simply called them men with guns.

we really one day ought to know who exactly we're fighting over there.

and iran-- despite George's orders to kill some of its "agents" in iraq-- have been o.k. by his friends in Maliki's gov't to set up a bank in Baghdad.


----------



## jazkiljok (Feb 2, 2007)

two interesting articles-- one on Bush's strategy that details the generals, the guys he keeps saying he's listening to, objections to his surge plans.

the other about current intel and its dire projections for Iraq... which is getting tiring since dire, disaster, failure, etc has been essentially the only intel we've be reading about since the war began. in all the years this war has be raging-- we've never seen a published or leak report from our intelligence community that had anything good to say about progress and success in Iraq. Just warnings of bad situations getting worst, differing views of the differing enemies and ever changing political landscape that no one has any insight too. and oddly, they keep saying, that it's up to those iraqi fellows living there who are trying to kill each other to decide their future... which is a bit like saying that it's up to the crips and bloods to decide their future. 

read and comment. or not.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/02/dual_command/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020101152.html?sub=new


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 5, 2007)

Today, I find this quote from the current Secretary of Defense.



			
				Secretary of Defense Gates said:
			
		

> "One real possibility is, if we abandon some of these areas and withdraw into the countryside or whatever to do these targeted missions, that you could have a fairly significant ethnic cleansing inside Baghdad or in Iraq more broadly," Gates said in a radio interview yesterday with conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham.


 
This comment came up with regards to the current Supplemental Appropriations Bills passed in both houses of Congress. The President has committed the Iraqi's to making progress. The Congressional Bills put specifics around the Presidents committments. And now the Secretary of Defense is blaming some future possible 'Ethnic Cleansing' on the Congressional Appropriation Bills.

If ever there is an award for 'Blame Game Balls', it would have to be awarded to Secretary of Defense Gates. 

This war was a war of choice, started by President Bush. The consequences of the President's actions belong with the President. 

Where did that buck stop again?


----------



## Ray (Apr 5, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> And now the Secretary of Defense is blaming some future possible 'Ethnic Cleansing' on the Congressional Appropriation Bills.


When you assess the likely consequences of your actions, do you call it "some future possible" or do you call it "planning?"  It's like the 6P Principle.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 5, 2007)

Ray said:


> When you assess the likely consequences of your actions, do you call it "some future possible" or do you call it "planning?" It's like the 6P Principle.


 
If I am working in an Administration that planned for an occupation of a country with 1 soldier for every 190 citizens, I don't call anything planning. I call it 'wishful thinking', or 'make believe'. 

Currently, our military has close to 150,000 Active Duty military soldiers in Iraq. Also, we are paying for approximately 100,000 private military and military contractors. And we have trained close to 400,000 Iraqi police and military. And the death rates per day are rising.

In this instance, it is 'War Mongering' and 'Blame Game'.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 5, 2007)

Interestingly, 
 here  is a copy of a memoranda by Ret. Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, adjunct professor of international affairs at West Point (USMA). While he does go on to  praise Gen. Patreus, and some &#8220;improvements&#8221; since the general&#8217;s takeover, as well as outline a &#8220;strategy&#8221;-which is basically to do as much as the armed forces can before Bush is no longer in office-the opening paragraphs of the report (once you get past the impressive list of people he visited on the ground in Iraq and Kuwait) are a bit telling&#8230;.some tidbits:



> These are the *facts. *
> 
> Iraq is ripped by a low grade civil war which has worsened to catastrophic levels with as many as 3000 citizens murdered per month.
> 
> ...


----------



## jazkiljok (Apr 12, 2007)

the green zone is no longer a safe zone.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18072203/


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 12, 2007)

jazkiljok said:


> the green zone is no longer a safe zone.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18072203/


 
Was it ever?


----------



## michaeledward (May 1, 2007)

*Four Years Ago Today*

We were told that major combat operations had ended, as the Commander-in-Chief stood in front of a banner that read "*Mission Accomplished*"

It appears we are further away from peace than we were on that day.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 29, 2007)

Today, the United Nations official ceased the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. 

UNMOVIC refused to certify that Iraq has no Weapons of Mass Destruction. The United States Iraq Survey Group, however, reached that conclusion in 2005. 

Today, officially, the justification for the war in Iraq has been absolved.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2007)

Hate to drag up this thread again, but .... 

when the former commander from Iraq says this ... 



> After more than fours years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism.


 
And this ... 



> catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan


 
Of course, General Sanchez description has the benefit of hindsight, and there is no indication that he offered any pushback against that "*catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan*".

Just have to imagine it is not a good day if your name is Bush (Unless it is Jena Bush, who seems to be getting lots of good press). 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/w...5966b8d2b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


----------

