Absolute Must Read

[Centinel]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Centinel
So noone cares that the Iraqis deserve an election?

Is it only Iraq that deserves one?

Of course not. However Iraq is the only country that we have a direct ability to make sure such elections happen.

I dont see your point.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: her209
I like the hypocrisy here... remember all these war hawks were just saying exactly the opposite (when speaking about Vietnam) and they were blasting Kerry for it. Burning villages and shooting civilians?

I don't think anyone attacked Kerry for that. They attacked him for stabbing his comrades in the back with his testimonies.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: BBond
Helping others by razing their cities and killing the inhabitants -- and all based on a pack of lies.

If you think that is what is going on, you are an idiot. Yes, people are being killed and things are being destroyed, but that is war, and it is not the intent of the military.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Centinel
Perknose: I read it, and I reject your premises. They are simply incorrect.

Coming from someone who has an educaction background in foreign and security policy, I will say the Bush administration made the correct decision based on information at hand AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

Notice the emphasis. That information turned out to be wrong...which is unfortunate. I'm disappointed in my leaders for allowing a system to develop in the intelligence community that led to the faulty information. Am I mad at them? No. Do I wish things had turned out differently? Yes.

Noone is perfect. Not them, not me, not you.

I have answered your question Perknose, now you answer mine.

Coming from someone who has an honors degree in Political Science from Swarthmore College, someone who was accepted into the International Law program at Stanford (but who chose not to go), your "educaction" (sic) background simply does not impress me in the "shock and awe" way that your enviable if somewhat pompous self-esteem might condition you to expect. But, hey, thanks for playing!

As for the 'substance" of your reply, what can I say? You obviously live in the twilight zone inhabited by those Bush administration apologists who deny THE WELL DOCUMENTED FACTS, repeated and linked to in this forum over and over and over and over, from high placed career operatives in the CIA, the State Department, and the Pentagon warning the Bush boyz well in advance of their excellent adventure that it was supremely ill advised, and would lead to EXACTLY the dog of a situation we now have.

Key members of the intelligence community repeatedly TRIED to give them the correct information and analysis, but anything that didn't jibe with their neocon agenda was systematically repressed.

Hell, the Shrub's own Daddy outlined the reasons why this dog of a war was a non-starter:

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.

We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well.

Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

As Colin Powell himself said of Iraq prior to the invasion, "You break it, you own it."

There is none so blind as those who will not see, my friend.

Finally, "coming from someone whose second major was English Literature", my perhaps superior reading comprehension skillz allow me to point out that I DID answer your question, as best it can be answered, by bolding and pointing out to you my previous statement.

Please don't play your little "Coming from someone who has an educaction background in foreign and security policy" card again, Centinel. You have done it FAR too many times, and it has grown tiresome and annoying.

 

[Gamingphreek]

For those who are whining about how many Iraqi citizens have died:

Well.... there is a difference between killing. Saddam was killing on purpose, we are trying to free these people and they are dieing. Its War it happens, if people didn't die it wouldnot be war anymore. I am saddened at all the lives Iraqi and American alike, however you people are making it sound like we are evil and just go over there to cap some Iraqis in the head.

Some of you need to think before you post because your logic is completely screwed up.

-Kevin

 

[Gravity]

Very good read! Thanks for the article.

 

[IAteYourMother]

It's just collateral damage.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daniel1113
As I said before, if our current military was allowed to fight the war correctly, this war would be going much smoother. The military doesn't need more men, it needs politicians to get off of its back and let it fight.

For example?

Abu Ghraib.

W-T-F ?

I seriously hope I'm just misunderstanding you. You just have to clarify this answer for me.

 

[HalosPuma]

When looking at this Iraq War, I am often reminded of the opening scene from Gladiator where Quintis states to Maximus as they are about to defeat the Germanics: People should know when they are conquered.

Iraq will be a better place once it comes under American influence. They will be modernized, be moved into the 21st century, and could be viable trading partner just like Canada.

 

[bdude]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
When looking at this Iraq War, I am often reminded of the opening scene from Gladiator where Quintis states to Maximus as they are about to defeat the Germanics: People should know when they are conquered.

Iraq will be a better place once it comes under American influence. They will be modernized, be moved into the 21st century, and could be viable trading partner just like Canada.

Funny you should mention the Roman Empire. I wonder where they are now.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
When looking at this Iraq War, I am often reminded of the opening scene from Gladiator where Quintis states to Maximus as they are about to defeat the Germanics: People should know when they are conquered.

Iraq will be a better place once it comes under American influence. They will be modernized, be moved into the 21st century, and could be viable trading partner just like Canada.

Do you remember what those Germanics did to the Romans later on? I guess they didn't know when they were conquered after all.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
When looking at this Iraq War, I am often reminded of the opening scene from Gladiator where Quintis states to Maximus as they are about to defeat the Germanics: People should know when they are conquered.

Iraq will be a better place once it comes under American influence. They will be modernized, be moved into the 21st century, and could be viable trading partner just like Canada.

Do you remember what those Germanics did to the Romans later on? I guess they didn't know when they were conquered after all.

He doesn't know because it wasn't in the movie.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
When looking at this Iraq War, I am often reminded of the opening scene from Gladiator where Quintis states to Maximus as they are about to defeat the Germanics: People should know when they are conquered.

Iraq will be a better place once it comes under American influence. They will be modernized, be moved into the 21st century, and could be viable trading partner just like Canada.

Do you remember what those Germanics did to the Romans later on? I guess they didn't know when they were conquered after all.

He doesn't know because it wasn't in the movie.

First degree pawnage, that was.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daniel1113
As I said before, if our current military was allowed to fight the war correctly, this war would be going much smoother. The military doesn't need more men, it needs politicians to get off of its back and let it fight.

For example?

Abu Ghraib.

W-T-F ?

I seriously hope I'm just misunderstanding you. You just have to clarify this answer for me.

Forget it. This guy is just another cardboard cut-out brainwashed neocon who wants to see leads attached to some guy's testicles and the other end to a car battery to see if he has anything worthwhile to say. Possibility of innocence doesn't even factor into it. Remember these are the same people who suggested, when the story broke, that the ends justify the means even though it turned out some 90+% of those at the prison were in fact innocent civilians whom were later let go due to the public outcry.

I absolutely would pay to see people like this have their testicles attached to a car battery for a couple of months and see how they feel about this subject afterwards.

 

[yllus]

The old man should have read the bilingual notices that American soldiers tack to their rear bumpers in Iraq: ?Keep 50m or deadly force will be applied?. In Ramadi, the capital of central Anbar province, where 17 suicide-bombs struck American forces during the month-long Muslim fast of Ramadan in the autumn, the marines are jumpy. Sometimes, they say, they fire on vehicles encroaching within 30 metres, sometimes they fire at 20 metres: ?If anyone gets too close to us we fvcking waste them,? says a bullish lieutenant. ?It's kind of a shame, because it means we've killed a lot of innocent people.?

And not all of them were in cars. Since discovering that roadside bombs, known as Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), can be triggered by mobile telephones, marines say they shoot at any Iraqi they see handling a phone near a bomb-blast. Bystanders to an insurgent ambush are also liable to be killed. Sometimes, the marines say they hide near the body of a dead insurgent and kill whoever comes to collect it. According to the marine lieutenant: ?It gets to a point where you can't wait to see guys with guns, so you start shooting everybody...It gets to a point where you don't mind the bad stuff you do.?

Sorry guys, but while the deaths of any innocent is regrettable this is also realistic. A couple of car bombs under your belt and you'd shoot out anyone who got within 20 meters of your convoy too. Even then, "anyone" is not exactly being used as a precise term. The fact that the statement also included "we fvcking waste them" should make this obvious. Frankly, yes, the Iraqis should for now scatter when an American convoy approaches. Less mistakes happen that way.

When fired upon, they retaliate by blitzing whichever buildings they think the fire is coming from: charred shells now line Ramadi's main streets. ?Sometimes it works in the insurgents' favour,? admits Rick Sims, a chief warrant officer. ?Because by the time we've shot up the neighbourhood, then the guys have torn up a few houses, they're four blocks away, and we just end up pissing off the locals.?

A reality of modern warfare. Short of, "Duh, let's pull out!" does anyone have an alternative?

In Fallujah, 40 miles (64km) east of Ramadi, the marines who survived the fierce assault on the town in November have a sardonic acronym for the skills it taught them: FISH, or Fighting In Someone's House. FISH involves throwing a hand grenade into each room before checking it for unfriendlies, or ?Muj?, short for mujahideen, as the marines call them.

Jesus. Couldn't they learn the phrase, "Come out with your hands held above your head or you're dead!" and shout that first? I'm playing second-guesser here though - who's to say warnings haven't been given in the past leading to bad things?

Thus the 18-year-old Texan soldier in Mosul who, confronted by jeering schoolchildren, shot canisters of buckshot at them from his grenade-launcher. ?It's not good, dude, it could be fatal, but you gotta do it,? he explained. Or the marines in Ramadi who, on a search for insurgents, kicked in the doors of houses at random, in order to scream, in English, at trembling middle-aged women within: ?Where's your black mask?? and ?Bitch, where's the guns?? In one of these houses was a small plastic Christmas tree, decorated with silver tinsel. ?That tells us the people here are OK,? said Corporal Robert Joyce.

While these anecdotes are appalling, they are merely anecdotes spoken by invididuals and not corroborated.

In bold contrast to his masters in Washington, General George W. Casey Jr, the commander-in-chief of coalition forces in Iraq, credits foreigners with a minimal role in the insurgency. Of over 2,000 men detained during the fighting in Fallujah, fewer than 30 turned out to be non-Iraqi.

I would assume that foreign insurgents would be more mobile or to-the-death than to get detained, but the General obviously would know best. If so, tactics may need to be changed.

According to official American reports, the insurgency is relatively concentrated: 14 out of Iraq's 18 provinces are said to see fewer than four attacks on coalition forces per month. But this includes several potentially volatile Shia provinces, like Dhi Qar and Maysan, parts of which are run by the still-armed Mahdi Army militiamen loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia cleric who made mayhem between April and August. Only four provinces?Baghdad, Anbar, Salah ad Din and Ninewa?see many more attacks. But as they include the capital city, the third-biggest city (Mosul) and the homeland of most of the country's Sunnis, they are no small problem: the equivalent in the United States might be an insurgency raging in those states that voted Democrat in November, and sporadic lawlessness in many of the rest.

Good thing you Democrats are wusses in comparison. Kidding, kidding! Yeah, this is the worst thing I've read in this article. That's a fscking LOT of rebellious people. If stuff doesn't start to settle down after the election plus, say, eight months, then the U.S. may need to seriously look at pulling out early.

Thus harried, American commanders have abandoned the pretence of winning the love of Iraqis ahead of the scheduled vote. ?Our broad intent is to keep pressure on the insurgents as we head into elections,? says General Casey. ?This is not about winning hearts and minds; we're not going to do that here in Iraq. It's about giving Iraqis the opportunity to govern themselves.?

Realistic, and good enough. Iraqis are too politically savvy to think that Iraq was invaded merely to free them from a dicatatorship - don't insult their intelligence. Now that the U.S. has done that dirty job, fall out of view as quickly as possible and let them attain a state of legitimacy by governing themselves ASAP.

The town's English-speaking former mayor, Abdullah Fahad, was frank about the town's allegiances. ?There are terrorists here, not from Syria, not from Mosul, but from Baij. Some are Baathists and some are Islamists and before they hated each other but now they work together, and they tell people that if they don't work with them they will kill them.?

Elections as quick and as secure as possible can only help in this case, no? Erode the support of the Baathists as a new government cements itself in place and even the Islamists will fall in line and form their own party.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Hearts and minds.

That's the war they lost that they should have been fighting for.

Now they are in a world of hurt.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I think you lack the courage to back your convictions

I think you're an idiot, but that's neither here nor there.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
For example?

Abu Ghraib.

:roll: And you think I'm an idiot?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Yawn.

Probably isn't as interesting to you as Halo huh?

No... there's just nothing of value in this article. The entire thing could be re-written with three words: "War is Hell." I think we all know that.

More accurately:

An ill-advised war waged with ill-prepared plans results in the outrageous loss of civilian lives and turns us into a hated occupying force that has installed an untrusted puppet goverment.

Oh, and this ill-advised war has also resulted in the actual creation of more terrorist groups and more acts of terrorism than it was purported to be destroying.

 

[BBond]

War may soon be more hell for Gurad and Reserve troops...

Officer: Army May Change Reserves Policy

Posted on Thu, Jan. 06, 2005

ROBERT BURNS
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army is considering a National Guard and Reserve policy shift that could result in part-timers being called to active duty multiple times for up to two years each time, a senior Army general said Thursday.

The officer, who discussed the matter with a small group of reporters on condition of anonymity because the matter has not been fully settled inside the Pentagon, said the Army probably will ask Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in the next several months to change the policy.

The officer also said it appeared likely that the Army will ask Congress to permanently increase the statutory size of the Army by 30,000 soldiers, to 512,000. He said that decision would be made next year.

The Army has the authority to add 30,000 soldiers, but arranged for it to be only a temporary boost because it did not want a long-term commitment to the cost of a larger force. But now it appears that the Army has no choice but to accept a permanent increase, the general said.

The Army estimates that a permanent increase of 30,000 soldiers will cost it about $3 billion a year.

One reason that the National Guard and Reserve have been used so heavily over the past three years is that the active-duty Army is too small to meet the demands of war - particularly in Iraq, where troop levels have far exceeded original predictions - while also maintaining a presence in traditional areas of influence such as Europe and the Korean peninsula.

The Army now has about 660,000 troops on active duty, of which about 160,000 are members of the Guard and Reserve.

The Army wants them to be eligible for an unlimited number of call-ups, so long as no single mobilization lasts more than 24 months, the general said.

Under current policy set by Rumsfeld, a Guard or Reserve member is not to serve on active duty for more than 24 total months. Thus, for example, if a Guard or Reserve member was mobilized for six months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and later for nine months in Afghanistan, then that person is off limits for duty in Iraq because a yearlong tour there would exceed the 24-month limit. A standard tour in Iraq, for both active-duty and reserves, is 12 months.

If the limit were set at 24 consecutive months, with some break between tours, then in theory a Guard or Reserve member could be mobilized for multiple 12- or 24-month tours in Iraq or elsewhere.

That is the kind of flexibility the Army has decided it needs in order to sustain the forces needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the officer said. He stressed that the Army would make only sparing use of the authority to call up soldiers for longer tours because it would not want to alienate soldiers.

The National Guard, with about 350,000 members, and the 200,000-strong Reserve already are seeing signs of a slide in recruiting and retaining soldiers. Some may question whether a policy change that results in longer mobilizations could further erode the Guard and Reserve's ability to attract new soldiers and keep the ones it has.

The Guard in particular has been used so much in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Army now has deployed - or put on notice of plans to mobilize in 2005 - all 15 of its main combat brigades.

 

[Centinel]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Centinel
Perknose: I read it, and I reject your premises. They are simply incorrect.

Coming from someone who has an educaction background in foreign and security policy, I will say the Bush administration made the correct decision based on information at hand AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

Notice the emphasis. That information turned out to be wrong...which is unfortunate. I'm disappointed in my leaders for allowing a system to develop in the intelligence community that led to the faulty information. Am I mad at them? No. Do I wish things had turned out differently? Yes.

Noone is perfect. Not them, not me, not you.

I have answered your question Perknose, now you answer mine.

Coming from someone who has an honors degree in Political Science from Swarthmore College, someone who was accepted into the International Law program at Stanford (but who chose not to go), your "educaction" (sic) background simply does not impress me in the "shock and awe" way that your enviable if somewhat pompous self-esteem might condition you to expect. But, hey, thanks for playing!

As for the 'substance" of your reply, what can I say? You obviously live in the twilight zone inhabited by those Bush administration apologists who deny THE WELL DOCUMENTED FACTS, repeated and linked to in this forum over and over and over and over, from high placed career operatives in the CIA, the State Department, and the Pentagon warning the Bush boyz well in advance of their excellent adventure that it was supremely ill advised, and would lead to EXACTLY the dog of a situation we now have.

Key members of the intelligence community repeatedly TRIED to give them the correct information and analysis, but anything that didn't jibe with their neocon agenda was systematically repressed.

Hell, the Shrub's own Daddy outlined the reasons why this dog of a war was a non-starter:

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.

We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well.

Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

As Colin Powell himself said of Iraq prior to the invasion, "You break it, you own it."

There is none so blind as those who will not see, my friend.

Finally, "coming from someone whose second major was English Literature", my perhaps superior reading comprehension skillz allow me to point out that I DID answer your question, as best it can be answered, by bolding and pointing out to you my previous statement.

Please don't play your little "Coming from someone who has an educaction background in foreign and security policy" card again, Centinel. You have done it FAR too many times, and it has grown tiresome and annoying.

I simply refered to my educational background. You were the one that had to name drop, so you can take your accusations of pompous self esteem somewhere else. Now, back to the main issue.

You did NOT answer my question. Are american lives more important than Iraqi lives?

I am not a Bush apologist. Did you even bother to read what I posted? Apparently you didnt. I want to see a link that specifically details exactly where Bush and his direct administration knew that the information was not getting to the higher ups in the intel community. We know NOW that it didnt happen....and I pointed that out in my quoted post. So where are these "WELL DOCUMENTED FACTS?"

I read the 9/11 Commission Report. I read the Senate Select Committe Report on the Intelligence Community. Did you? because honestly I see nowhere in there linking the Bush Administration with willfully ignoring Intelligence recommendations. I read a breakdown of communications within the various intelligence communities, as well as a problem of information not being passed up. I also read information being passed up as "possibly" happening and being tagged as "definately". This happened in the intelligence community itself. Do you even know anything about how the intelligence community operates? Do you know anything of the command structures? What agencies have what authority and areas of expertise? Under what situations information can be passed from one agency to another? Which agencies handle SIGINT or HUMINT? Which agencies are under the direction of the DCI, and which agencies are under the DoD?

From that last bolded quite i'm assuming you are advocating staying in Iraq and helping the people form a democracy. Why could you not have just answered my question simply without all the other vitriolic and partisan BS? Is it really that hard to stick to one simple question without degrading and name calling?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Centinel
I am not a Bush apologist. Did you even bother to read what I posted? Apparently you didnt. I want to see a link that specifically details exactly where Bush and his direct administration knew that the information was not getting to the higher ups in the intel community. We know NOW that it didnt happen....and I pointed that out in my quoted post. So where are these "WELL DOCUMENTED FACTS?"

Start reading:

THE STOVEPIPE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

The new Pentagon papers - By Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski
http://www.salon.com/opinion/f...2004/03/10/osp_moveon/

Hijacking Catastrophe - by Karen Kwiatkowski (Lt. Col. USAF retired)
Hijacking Catastrophe is powerful, understated, straightforward and educational. In a single meticulously organized hour of evidence and analysis, viewers are treated to a thoughtful explanation of modern American empire, neo-conservatism as a driving force for the current Bush administration.
http://www.informationclearing...e.info/article6895.htm
Video (right-click and Save As)...this requires Real Player (I use Real Alternative) to view
http://www.informationclearing...jacking_catastrophe.rm

PBS Frontline Documentary - Rumsfeld's War
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/

 

[Centinel]

That's nice and all, but I prefer to trust the analysis of the Senate over a journalist.

You know, a senate committee made up of democrats and republicans, from all sides of the political spectrum?

Now, that link to "Rumsfeld's War" was interesting, and I have read other stuff on him and his crusade to change the military from a heavy cold-war style force to a more lightly-armed and more maneuverable one. My only question is why did you include that?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Centinel
That's nice and all, but I prefer to trust the analysis of the Senate over a journalist.

You know, a senate committee made up of democrats and republicans, from all sides of the political spectrum?

Now, that link to "Rumsfeld's War" was interesting, and I have read other stuff on him and his crusade to change the military from a heavy cold-war style force to a more lightly-armed and more maneuverable one. My only question is why did you include that?

The 9/11 Report is an excellent piece and it has not much to do, really, with the Iraq invasion. We didn't invade Iraq over 9/11, unless you're one of the sheep that believes we did.

As for Rumsfeld's War, watch it and you'll see how it fits.

 

[Centinel]

conjur:

I'm not talking about the 9/11 commission report.

I'm talking about the Senate Select Committee Report on the Intelligence Community released July of 2004.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Centinel
conjur:

I'm not talking about the 9/11 commission report.

I'm talking about the Senate Select Committee Report on the Intelligence Community released July of 2004.

And you're still ignoring many other sources because it doesn't fit your apologist viewpoint.

Personally, I don't think we'll ever know the full truth as the Bush administration is very adept at protecting the PNAC neocons who formed the bulk of the intelligence "analysis" in the run-up to the invasion.