| Author | Post |
|---|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 15th, 2007 02:37 am |
|
| Enough of a difference for what?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 15th, 2007 02:16 am |
|
Now, this was before the recent offensive....but interestingly enough, they waited until AFTER this offensive to officially call it what the "liberal press" has been saying for years...that Iraq is....in a civil war. Gasp! Shock!
I posted the good news; this was before it. I fear that it will come back with a vengence, but pray that we have made enough a difference.
In its bleakest assessment of the war to date, a quarterly Pentagon report said that last October through December was the most violent three-month period since 2003. Attacks and casualties suffered by coalition and Iraqi forces and civilians were higher than any other similar time span, said the report.
Most of the data in the Pentagon's 42-page report is before President Bush ordered an additional 21,500 troops and thousands of support personnel to Baghdad to deal with the escalating violence there. The report cautions that it should be considered "a baseline from which to measure future progress."
But it added, "Some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a 'civil war,' including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities and mobilization, the changing character of the violence and population displacements."
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 15th, 2007 01:12 am |
|
Similar Kudos Fred. I have a hard time detemining what the left side of the house is spewing in talking points these days myself.
Fred wrote:
CR...you put so much crap out you might forget what you are spewing...
All but afew hundred are for Afghanistan Fred.....stand up for your President and be an officer we can all be proud of. He is your Commander in Chief. Deny it Osama.........
Which, of course, sidesteps the larger question.
MSM is jumping on the positive signs in Iraq....I guess this is solely that when it fails it makes it looks worse for the administration....right, wingers?
Last edited on Thu Mar 15th, 2007 01:13 am by
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 11:19 pm |
|
CR...you put so much crap out you might forget what you are spewing...
All but afew hundred are for Afghanistan Fred.....stand up for your President and be an officer we can all be proud of. He is your Commander in Chief. Deny it Osama.........
Which, of course, sidesteps the larger question.
MSM is jumping on the positive signs in Iraq....I guess this is solely that when it fails it makes it looks worse for the administration....right, wingers?
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 11:14 pm |
|
I don't think Kavips comment was a comparison between the two. Although there are a lot of valid comparisons between the Bush administration and the Third Reich; I don't think there is all that much similarity between Hitler and Bush.
LCR wrote:
Fred what are you talking about? I called kavips a pig for comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler, you were never in the equation.
Fred wrote:
I don't care about CR's personal attacks on me....I have proven my loyalty, courage, and dedication to the cause of this country more than any amount of postings on this board by some can ever hope to accomplish. I let most of the personal crap roll off my back.
However...facts is facts. Things are not going well, the military did not think that this surge was likely to work, and the President is requiring more troops then he said (but still far less then some think it will be required to work). The case for going was based on not just faulty information, but information that was massaged to produce the results the administration wanted.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 10:08 pm |
|
Fred what are you talking about? I called kavips a pig for comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler, you were never in the equation.
Fred wrote:
I don't care about CR's personal attacks on me....I have proven my loyalty, courage, and dedication to the cause of this country more than any amount of postings on this board by some can ever hope to accomplish. I let most of the personal crap roll off my back.
However...facts is facts. Things are not going well, the military did not think that this surge was likely to work, and the President is requiring more troops then he said (but still far less then some think it will be required to work). The case for going was based on not just faulty information, but information that was massaged to produce the results the administration wanted.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 09:40 pm |
|
You're right, bbd, They're soldier's not police.
We need police, not soldiers.
We're playing Whack-A-Mole.
|
bbd
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 736 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 09:20 pm |
|
It is because they finally let lose the Dogs of War
They are soldiers not police
Last edited on Wed Mar 14th, 2007 09:20 pm by bbd
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 08:38 pm |
|
And....drum roll, please....
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/14/iraq.main/index.html
Now...it is waay too early to claim victory...but this is a good sign.
It might only be a temporary respite, but it does give hope that we can get out of there with some dignity intact.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 08:13 pm |
|
Fred wrote: I don't care about CR's personal attacks on me....I have proven my loyalty, courage, and dedication to the cause of this country more than any amount of postings on this board by some can ever hope to accomplish. I let most of the personal crap roll off my back.
Come on, Fred. You know that LCR does not really attack you. He just likes to pull your chain. You are a respected adversary to conservatives, be they Republican conservatives or Independent conservatives. You are nothing like that team mate of yours, Taos Eddy or his cyborg Mendavor. You are liked, at least by me, in spite of your views. Where would salt be without pepper? Chin up.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 07:40 pm |
|
What is interesting is that their attacks, have no factual support. Republicans really are imploding..,,,,,
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 01:55 pm |
|
I don't care about CR's personal attacks on me....I have proven my loyalty, courage, and dedication to the cause of this country more than any amount of postings on this board by some can ever hope to accomplish. I let most of the personal crap roll off my back.
However...facts is facts. Things are not going well, the military did not think that this surge was likely to work, and the President is requiring more troops then he said (but still far less then some think it will be required to work). The case for going was based on not just faulty information, but information that was massaged to produce the results the administration wanted.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 11:10 am |
|
LCR wrote: How dare you compare a President of the United Staes to Adolf Hitler. You are a pig. Go away and swear your allegiance to Osama.
kavips wrote:
LCR wrote: All but afew hundred are for Afghanistan Fred.....stand up for your President and be an officer we can all be proud of. He is your Commander in Chief. Deny it Osama.........
This is from USA Today ----your Newspaper
Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring.
In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting underway in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams.
Fred wrote:
So, no troops are going to Iraq? Or did you happen to notice that the 20K troops happened to leave out the support troops?
And even if all that is true....answer the friggin' question....what does it mean when he has bumped up the numbers? Is this a good sign, or a bad sign?
Put down the Kool Aid, CR.
Silly CR. Hitler was commander in chief of Germans when eleven year boys were doing most of the defensive fighting. Wrong is often done by those who "resort to supporting their commander in chief: Surely you are not implying loyality to a despot always trumps moral principals??????
Fortunately for the world after Hitler's demise, sane heads prevailed. Doesn't it make sense then for today's sane heads, such as Fred, to attempt to prevail BEFORE the damage to this great nation, is done?
The best way to answer that is with humor.......Be I a pig, then you must be a feeding trough. For every time you talk trash, the rest of us just gobble it up, pass it through, and dump it where it belongs.
But just in case anyone else out there has difficulty understanding English, to my knowledge, no one on this forum has ever compared Hitler to Bush, although now that YOU brought it up, CR, I am sure someone out there could find some similarities.
If just in case you so care to reread, what was actually compared, was your exhorting Fred to follow his "commander in chief: despite the proof of that chief's great errors in judgement. That is, like it or not, exactly the same as expecting thirteen year boys to defend the image of a man, who, just days before dying, is isolated in a bunker, tumbling off the edge of reality.
And so, my friend, the sullen irony of your statement now becomes apparent. If Bush has any similarities at all to Hitler, then it is only through your blind allegience to him, that makes him so.
Last edited on Wed Mar 14th, 2007 11:13 am by kavips
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 01:32 am |
|
Please do not ever apologize for injecting stability and wisdom into one of our posts. How often the fat and fed in America forget what war is actually all about.
Halvah wrote:
Please accept my pardon for interjecting something in this thread Fred and LCR, but I thought that this may be an interesting perspective on Iraq and Afghanistan from prominant leadership in the Moslem world.
Following is an excerpt from an interview with Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, which aired on Al-Manar TV on January 19, 2007.
Hassan Nasrallah: The Americans have not come to establish a democracy in Iraq, or even to establish a central democratic state in Iraq. The Americans have come to divide Iraq and the entire region. The American occupation in Iraq poses a danger to the Iraqi people and to the region. Since day one, our statements were clear. We support the option of a comprehensive Iraqi resistance, with all its aspects, especially the military aspect. We believe that the solution in Iraq begins with adopting the option of armed resistance - Jihad against the occupation forces. This is my opinion. Obviously, I cannot impose my view on anybody, but if I am asked, by a brother in Palestine, for example, I will tell him that the resistance is the way to save Palestine. With regard to Iraq, I say that the resistance is the way to save Iraq.
Following are excerpts from footage of a visit by Taliban military commander Mullah Dadallah to an Al-Qaeda base in Afghanistan, including an interview with him. The footage was posted on the Internet, on http://www.tajded.net.tc, on December 28, 2006.
Chants: Oh Muslim, arise, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
Oh Muslim, arise, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
We will return to Kabul – neither Bush nor Powell – oh heresy, don't even try, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
Oh heresy, don't even try, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
Regards to the Taliban, oh blessings of the All-Merciful, the Sunna after the Koran, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
The Sunna after the Koran, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
Regards to the Taliban, oh blessings of the All-Merciful, the Sunna after the Koran, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
The Sunna after the Koran, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
You are sufficient, oh Bin Laden, don't sign a truce, you are sufficient, oh Bin Laden, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
You are sufficient, oh Bin Laden, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
The rule of Jihad today does not require much thought, oh Muslim, arise, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
Oh Muslim, arise, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
[...]
The plane flew above the clouds, and their tower was destroyed in two strikes.
Their tower was destroyed in two strikes. The first strike awoke the sleeping, and the second divided the people into two camps.
The second strike divided the people into two camps.
On the one hand, the camp of Bush and the leaders of darkness, and on the other hand, the camp of the Sheik, with their heads held high.
The camp of the Sheik, with their heads held high.
[...]
Whoever sold his life and his property will buy the blessing of the black-eyed virgins.
He will buy the blessing of the black-eyed virgins.
Whoever sold his life and his property will buy the blessing of the black-eyed virgins.
He will buy the blessing of the black-eyed virgins.
[...]
Oh Bush, you are facing men for whom, oh Crusader, the sound of the bazooka is like music.
Oh Bush, you are facing men for whom, oh Crusader, the sound of the bazooka is like music.
Dadallah greets fighters: May Allah bless you. How are you? Is everything OK?
[...]
Reporter: Al-Sahab for Media Production is pleased to present to its dear nation this blessed interview with the military commander of the Islamic Emirate, Mullah Dadallah. This interview was held during his blessed visit to one of the bases of the mujahideen of the Qaidat Al-Jihad organization in Afghanistan.
[...]
Mullah Dadallah (translated from the Arabic subtitles): The foreign occupation forces in Afghanistan have begun looking for ways and ruses that will pave the way for their withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Americans have managed to deceive NATO. Throughout the past five years, when they thought things were going their way, they did not hand over control to NATO. But when they saw they were facing defeat, they did so. NATO, for its part, regrets having taken this responsibility. It is asking the Taliban to sign a truce in order to get out of this predicament, and escape certain defeat, because they know they are destined to be destroyed if they stay in Afghanistan.
[...]
Reporter: News agencies quoted officials of the collaborating government in Kabul, who said the government was holding truce negotiations with the Taliban. Is there any truth to this?
[...]
Mullah Dadallah (translated from the Arabic subtitles): This is inconceivable and unacceptable. Mark my words: Whoever does such a thing – we will behead him, along with the Americans, Allah willing.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 01:30 am |
|
How dare you compare a President of the United Staes to Adolf Hitler. You are a pig. Go away and swear your allegiance to Osama.
kavips wrote:
LCR wrote: All but afew hundred are for Afghanistan Fred.....stand up for your President and be an officer we can all be proud of. He is your Commander in Chief. Deny it Osama.........
This is from USA Today ----your Newspaper
Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring.
In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting underway in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams.
Fred wrote:
So, no troops are going to Iraq? Or did you happen to notice that the 20K troops happened to leave out the support troops?
And even if all that is true....answer the friggin' question....what does it mean when he has bumped up the numbers? Is this a good sign, or a bad sign?
Put down the Kool Aid, CR.
Silly CR. Hitler was commander in chief of Germans when eleven year boys were doing most of the defensive fighting. Wrong is often done by those who "resort to supporting their commander in chief: Surely you are not implying loyality to a despot always trumps moral principals??????
Fortunately for the world after Hitler's demise, sane heads prevailed. Doesn't it make sense then for today's sane heads, such as Fred, to attempt to prevail BEFORE the damage to this great nation, is done?
|
Halvah
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | Haifa, Israel |
| Posts: | 326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13th, 2007 11:44 pm |
|
Please accept my pardon for interjecting something in this thread Fred and LCR, but I thought that this may be an interesting perspective on Iraq and Afghanistan from prominant leadership in the Moslem world.
Following is an excerpt from an interview with Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, which aired on Al-Manar TV on January 19, 2007.
Hassan Nasrallah: The Americans have not come to establish a democracy in Iraq, or even to establish a central democratic state in Iraq. The Americans have come to divide Iraq and the entire region. The American occupation in Iraq poses a danger to the Iraqi people and to the region. Since day one, our statements were clear. We support the option of a comprehensive Iraqi resistance, with all its aspects, especially the military aspect. We believe that the solution in Iraq begins with adopting the option of armed resistance - Jihad against the occupation forces. This is my opinion. Obviously, I cannot impose my view on anybody, but if I am asked, by a brother in Palestine, for example, I will tell him that the resistance is the way to save Palestine. With regard to Iraq, I say that the resistance is the way to save Iraq.
Following are excerpts from footage of a visit by Taliban military commander Mullah Dadallah to an Al-Qaeda base in Afghanistan, including an interview with him. The footage was posted on the Internet, on http://www.tajded.net.tc, on December 28, 2006.
Chants: Oh Muslim, arise, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
Oh Muslim, arise, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
We will return to Kabul – neither Bush nor Powell – oh heresy, don't even try, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
Oh heresy, don't even try, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
Regards to the Taliban, oh blessings of the All-Merciful, the Sunna after the Koran, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
The Sunna after the Koran, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
Regards to the Taliban, oh blessings of the All-Merciful, the Sunna after the Koran, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
The Sunna after the Koran, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
You are sufficient, oh Bin Laden, don't sign a truce, you are sufficient, oh Bin Laden, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
You are sufficient, oh Bin Laden, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
The rule of Jihad today does not require much thought, oh Muslim, arise, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
Oh Muslim, arise, there is a black-eyed virgin in Paradise.
[...]
The plane flew above the clouds, and their tower was destroyed in two strikes.
Their tower was destroyed in two strikes. The first strike awoke the sleeping, and the second divided the people into two camps.
The second strike divided the people into two camps.
On the one hand, the camp of Bush and the leaders of darkness, and on the other hand, the camp of the Sheik, with their heads held high.
The camp of the Sheik, with their heads held high.
[...]
Whoever sold his life and his property will buy the blessing of the black-eyed virgins.
He will buy the blessing of the black-eyed virgins.
Whoever sold his life and his property will buy the blessing of the black-eyed virgins.
He will buy the blessing of the black-eyed virgins.
[...]
Oh Bush, you are facing men for whom, oh Crusader, the sound of the bazooka is like music.
Oh Bush, you are facing men for whom, oh Crusader, the sound of the bazooka is like music.
Dadallah greets fighters: May Allah bless you. How are you? Is everything OK?
[...]
Reporter: Al-Sahab for Media Production is pleased to present to its dear nation this blessed interview with the military commander of the Islamic Emirate, Mullah Dadallah. This interview was held during his blessed visit to one of the bases of the mujahideen of the Qaidat Al-Jihad organization in Afghanistan.
[...]
Mullah Dadallah (translated from the Arabic subtitles): The foreign occupation forces in Afghanistan have begun looking for ways and ruses that will pave the way for their withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Americans have managed to deceive NATO. Throughout the past five years, when they thought things were going their way, they did not hand over control to NATO. But when they saw they were facing defeat, they did so. NATO, for its part, regrets having taken this responsibility. It is asking the Taliban to sign a truce in order to get out of this predicament, and escape certain defeat, because they know they are destined to be destroyed if they stay in Afghanistan.
[...]
Reporter: News agencies quoted officials of the collaborating government in Kabul, who said the government was holding truce negotiations with the Taliban. Is there any truth to this?
[...]
Mullah Dadallah (translated from the Arabic subtitles): This is inconceivable and unacceptable. Mark my words: Whoever does such a thing – we will behead him, along with the Americans, Allah willing.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12th, 2007 02:07 pm |
|
LCR wrote: All but afew hundred are for Afghanistan Fred.....stand up for your President and be an officer we can all be proud of. He is your Commander in Chief. Deny it Osama.........
This is from USA Today ----your Newspaper
Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring.
In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting underway in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams.
Fred wrote:
So, no troops are going to Iraq? Or did you happen to notice that the 20K troops happened to leave out the support troops?
And even if all that is true....answer the friggin' question....what does it mean when he has bumped up the numbers? Is this a good sign, or a bad sign?
Put down the Kool Aid, CR.
Silly CR. Hitler was commander in chief of Germans when eleven year boys were doing most of the defensive fighting. Wrong is often done by those who "resort to supporting their commander in chief: Surely you are not implying loyality to a despot always trumps moral principals??????
Fortunately for the world after Hitler's demise, sane heads prevailed. Doesn't it make sense then for today's sane heads, such as Fred, to attempt to prevail BEFORE the damage to this great nation, is done?
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12th, 2007 01:58 pm |
|
Boo wrote: kavips wrote: Secondly:
We give Iraqi's ownership over their economy.
A. Create and fund a job corp to put youths 14 to 21 at full employment. Create public works as we did in the 30's in this country.
B. We require our contractors (Haliburton & Co.) to employ 49% Iraqi's. Great works develop great pride.
Employment sounds great as does the 49% figure to employ Iraqis ain private contractor firms, BUT, doesen't that put the cart before the horse, K? There has top be a skill level before anyone is employable so first there must be some sort of training period. Do you agree? That adds yet another step and how much time are we talking about?
Good question: For very skilled jobs, perhaps, but for manual labor. No. The country is in such disrepair and whether this assessment is fair or not, the US is being blamed for its destruction. Demolishing damaged buildings, repairing damaged roads and sewers, digging and reimplimenting drinking water, could be done using local population far cheaper than the current use of KBR employees making
200,000 a year......................This would go a long way in assisting our efforts to seperate the insurgents from the local population, which was Petrius's philosophy in both his book and hearings................
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12th, 2007 01:41 pm |
|
You need to take the various "surge" increases together....
The forces for the surge plan alone, announced at 21,500 by the President in January, are already creeping toward 30,000. Recently, the administration "clarified" all this in a piecemeal sort of way. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England explained to Congress that the surge combat units might well need up to 7,000 more support troops. He suggested this in rejecting "a recent estimate by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that the surge would require an additional 15,000-28,000 support personnel." (Keep that figure in the back of your mind, as surge creep continues.) Then Lt. Gen. Petraeus requested 2,200 extra military police for all the detainees he plans to pick up in sweeps of Baghdad neighborhoods. The President signed off on them this week. Whether they are part of those up to 7,000 support troops or not remains foggy; meanwhile Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, the commander of American forces outside the surge zone in Northern Iraq, just called for reinforcements for Diyala Province where attacks have risen 30%.
I think this was the best chance of victory, but many did not think it enough...and the numbers have continued to creep up.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12th, 2007 01:54 am |
|
All but afew hundred are for Afghanistan Fred.....stand up for your President and be an officer we can all be proud of. He is your Commander in Chief. Deny it Osama.........
This is from USA Today ----your Newspaper
Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring.
In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting underway in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams.
Fred wrote:
So, no troops are going to Iraq? Or did you happen to notice that the 20K troops happened to leave out the support troops?
And even if all that is true....answer the friggin' question....what does it mean when he has bumped up the numbers? Is this a good sign, or a bad sign?
Put down the Kool Aid, CR.
Last edited on Mon Mar 12th, 2007 01:58 am by
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12th, 2007 01:49 am |
|
So, no troops are going to Iraq? Or did you happen to notice that the 20K troops happened to leave out the support troops?
And even if all that is true....answer the friggin' question....what does it mean when he has bumped up the numbers? Is this a good sign, or a bad sign?
Put down the Kool Aid, CR.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12th, 2007 01:46 am |
|
If you actually read the article Fred, the majority of the troops are for Afghanistan with a minor portion being assigned to efforts in Iraq. Most of the Irag contingent is for training of troops and MP's.
Why can't you look beyond USA Today....................................
I love Liberals....you are all so tied to VietNam
Fred wrote:
I guess the surge needs some some more help......
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay — President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January.
Not a good sign.....
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12th, 2007 01:29 am |
|
The skill set exists for the jobs that need to be done....it may or may not be up to our standards, but they have the people they need to rebuild their country...they just have to make it a priority to get it done.
|
Boo
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 19th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 481 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12th, 2007 12:01 am |
|
kavips wrote: Secondly:
We give Iraqi's ownership over their economy.
A. Create and fund a job corp to put youths 14 to 21 at full employment. Create public works as we did in the 30's in this country.
B. We require our contractors (Haliburton & Co.) to employ 49% Iraqi's. Great works develop great pride.
Employment sounds great as does the 49% figure to employ Iraqis ain private contractor firms, BUT, doesen't that put the cart before the horse, K? There has top be a skill level before anyone is employable so first there must be some sort of training period. Do you agree? That adds yet another step and how much time are we talking about?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 11th, 2007 03:40 pm |
|
I guess the surge needs some some more help......
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay — President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January.
Not a good sign.....
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 03:49 am |
|
kavips wrote: Here is what needs to happen in Iraq:
First of all we need to develop an elitism among the Iraqi army.
A. We combine all forces 51%American to 49% Iraqi.
B We give them access to everything we have got. Armor, airbourne, intelligence.
C. We replace their weapons with our better ones. (of which we control the spare parts)
D. We stop bean counting: whatever they want we get it for them.
Secondly:
We give Iraqi's ownership over their economy.
A. Create and fund a job corp to put youths 14 to 21 at full employment. Create public works as we did in the 30's in this country.
B. We require our contractors (Haliburton & Co.) to employ 49% Iraqi's. Great works develop great pride.
C. We do what we did in Alaska. Every citizen gets a piece of the oil revenues on a yearly basis.
Third: militarily.
A Any troops not special forces embedded with Iraqi troops, we pull immediately using a two phased withdrawl.
B. The first phase is withdrawl to a regional base, from which they can be rapidly deployed in case of emergency. Sort of a 911 base. Call for backup.
C. If not used, then we mobilize stage 2 and bring them home, or deploy them elsewhere in the world where they might be needed.
Fourth:
We propose the formation of 3 strong states. Set up a schedule in 8 years allowing them to vote for independence or unification. Each state will be responsible and accountable for it's citizenery, its tariffs, it's internal security.
Sunnis stabilize Sunnis. Shiites stabilize Shiites, and Kurds, well they are there already, having benefited from the no fly zone for 14 years.
This should be our plan. After this, if the Iraqi's insist on their own descent into hell, we need to let them run their course. We had a similar plan in Vietnam. What happened there was that as the local Vietnamese support faded away, we stepped up to take on their battle. All must never lose sight that this is their battle, not ours. It is their loss if things do not turn around for them. Not ours. We won what we set out to do with some of the best men and women ever put on this planet.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 1st, 2007 02:52 am |
|
Exactly what I thought...you have no clue what to do, and nothing to add. Typical.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 1st, 2007 01:43 am |
|
I am content excluding Iran and Syria from negotiation. Let's see....... We have made marvelous strides with the PLO, Syria, Russia, China, Koff me up another buck Annin. What else do you suggest FrEddy
Fred wrote:
Okay, CR....I've given you what we have, and reliance on pure military power hasn't worked. What do you suggest we do?
A mature policy would use all power in an intergrated fashion, providing a multiplier effect. If we had opened discussions with Iran and Syria much earlier, maybe they would have been persuaded by our military force and options. Iran's talking big is because they don't believe we have the capabilities to do much to them...I think they are underestimating us a bit, but it is true we can't do what we did to Iraq to Iran.
So...I've given you the elements of national power. How would you use them to resolve the issue, or are you content with the status?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28th, 2007 11:08 pm |
|
Okay, CR....I've given you what we have, and reliance on pure military power hasn't worked. What do you suggest we do?
A mature policy would use all power in an intergrated fashion, providing a multiplier effect. If we had opened discussions with Iran and Syria much earlier, maybe they would have been persuaded by our military force and options. Iran's talking big is because they don't believe we have the capabilities to do much to them...I think they are underestimating us a bit, but it is true we can't do what we did to Iraq to Iran.
So...I've given you the elements of national power. How would you use them to resolve the issue, or are you content with the status?
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28th, 2007 10:57 pm |
|
Inviting Syria and Iran to the table to help resolve the Iraq problem, is tantamount to inviting Adolf Hitler to your bar Mitzvah
Fred wrote:
HB...typo on my part. We are actually using some of the ISG's work to try to figure a way out.
Again, for those new to the game....there are 4 elements to national power.
Diplomatic/Political
Information
Military
Economic.
While it would be a bit unfair to say that we have neglected 3 of them, I think we can come to a consensus to say that the administration's focus has been on one, while others have been calling for us to use other elements of our power. Getting Syria and Iran to try to solve the problem isn't quitting, it is using another of our abilities...which, unfortunately, have been weakened by not being more intergrated into the others.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28th, 2007 10:41 pm |
|
HB...typo on my part. We are actually using some of the ISG's work to try to figure a way out.
Again, for those new to the game....there are 4 elements to national power.
Diplomatic/Political
Information
Military
Economic.
While it would be a bit unfair to say that we have neglected 3 of them, I think we can come to a consensus to say that the administration's focus has been on one, while others have been calling for us to use other elements of our power. Getting Syria and Iran to try to solve the problem isn't quitting, it is using another of our abilities...which, unfortunately, have been weakened by not being more intergrated into the others.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28th, 2007 09:20 pm |
|
Duncan Idaho wrote:
Taos Eddy wrote: International terrorism is no different. We need to develop increased cooperation between law enforcement around the world and we need a new international legal framework that works to deny terrorists a place to hide anywhere.
The rule of law isn't something to fear. We have our own Constitutional Law that other countries do not have. Many other nations have rules that are rigidly anti-defendant. Cooperation is great but not to subscribe to a one-world international law. Would you like to have Sharia Law?
That's a read herring since the philosophical framework for most international law is in the best tradition of the liberalism that brought our own nation into being.
Increased international legal cooperation is inevitable - the question you should ask yourself is when do we sign on?
Do you believe that we will remain the preeminent world power, or do you think our influence will diminish relative to a rising India, China, Russia and EU?
I think we should take an active role in making it a reality that strongly reflects our values while we have the ability to negotiate from strength.
Of course, that presupposes that GW hasn't already screwed the pooch for us.Last edited on Wed Feb 28th, 2007 09:21 pm by
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28th, 2007 07:43 pm |
|
Taos Eddy wrote: International terrorism is no different. We need to develop increased cooperation between law enforcement around the world and we need a new international legal framework that works to deny terrorists a place to hide anywhere.
The rule of law isn't something to fear. We have our own Constitutional Law that other countries do not have. Many other nations have rules that are rigidly anti-defendant. Cooperation is great but not to subscribe to a one-world international law. Would you like to have Sharia Law?
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28th, 2007 01:35 pm |
|
| You mean discuss Iraq with Syria and Iran? Yeah, they said they'd do that . I'd expect as much help there as discussing Hammas with Hezbollah. The discussion they should be having is how we'll mine the border between those countries and Iraq -or something equally nasty. Only problem is our administration doesn't have the guts to defend our own border, let alone Iraq"s. If there was a choice of which one they should tighten up it would be our own because when we do leave Iraq, it will be decades before they tire of killing each other and decide Allah really meant for them to get along after all.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28th, 2007 12:58 pm |
|
So...the United States agreed to discuss Iran with Syria and Iraq. Jeez....maybe someone should have told them a while ago? That Diplomacy is a means to achieve one's goal?
This is a good sign that the administration is beginning to realize that a pure military option will not work....unfortunately, we now are in a much weaker position dealing with these countries then if we had started years ago, because they now know we need them.
But it is a start for the administration; I will give them credit for that.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 24th, 2007 08:22 am |
|
Taos Eddy wrote: Actually the answer is more international cooperation.
Dig back into our own history and you can see an example of what is required. As the US became increasingly populated, our legal structure developed in response to perceived needs.
We went from frontier
to territories
to scantly populated states with widely separated and isolated population centers
to more populated states with telegraph and railways connecting the population centers
to even more populated states with telephones, radios, automobiles and roads
to even more densely populated states with a national interstate system and instantaneous transmission of any type of data.
Each of those stages opened new opportunities for crime and each of those new opportunities for crime was met with new approaches by law enforcement that enabled greater and greater cooperation by agencies that had not worked together effectively before.
International terrorism is no different. We need to develop increased cooperation between law enforcement around the world and we need a new international legal framework that works to deny terrorists a place to hide anywhere.
The rule of law isn't something to fear.
If this war was not about oil, we could have put it to bed 3 years ago. All we needed to do was to ask China and India to help us stabilize that area, and we could have had a textbook case of stability and rebuilding and freedom and prosperity for all its citizens.
But our Vice President assumed we could establish his claim for the unexplored South Western reserves, the "Holy Grail" among oil men. Halliburton still has the equipment and is currently plans on prospecting in the uninhabited desert for as long as the war continues. For as soon as it stops, we have no authority to drill there.
Perhaps each time he speaks on continuing the war and extending its duration, we should mentally add on this statement, "so I can get my oil."
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 23rd, 2007 05:42 pm |
|
Actually the answer is more international cooperation.
Dig back into our own history and you can see an example of what is required. As the US became increasingly populated, our legal structure developed in response to perceived needs.
We went from frontier
to territories
to scantly populated states with widely separated and isolated population centers
to more populated states with telegraph and railways connecting the population centers
to even more populated states with telephones, radios, automobiles and roads
to even more densely populated states with a national interstate system and instantaneous transmission of any type of data.
Each of those stages opened new opportunities for crime and each of those new opportunities for crime was met with new approaches by law enforcement that enabled greater and greater cooperation by agencies that had not worked together effectively before.
International terrorism is no different. We need to develop increased cooperation between law enforcement around the world and we need a new international legal framework that works to deny terrorists a place to hide anywhere.
The rule of law isn't something to fear.Last edited on Fri Feb 23rd, 2007 05:43 pm by
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 23rd, 2007 05:26 pm |
|
Mendavor wrote: If only we had trusted the United Nations more to oversee the situation we would not have been in this mess. Follow the lead of Britain. Get out now! Are you serious? The UN? They have a horrible track record of ineffectiveness, ineptness, treachery and deceit, and just plain old uselessness, partuicularly in their "peacekeeping" operations.
|
Mendavor
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 298 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 23rd, 2007 01:54 pm |
|
no one else wrote: This is not a massive pullout as you would have us believe, in fact, even Prince William is being deployed there along with his regiment.
You have the wrong prince. It is Prince Harry that is being deployed.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 23rd, 2007 01:41 am |
|
The UK is removing troops for a variety of reasons....some good, some bad....but do you really think the White House wants the UK to leave at this time?
The UK made the Iraqis take responsibility for their activities, and have made them take the lead on patrolling. Granted, their area was not as bad as the areas we are responsible for, but they were a bit harder and demanded more of the Iraqis then we do...that might be the best lesson we can get from that. Make them responsible, let them bear the brunt of the policing, get them the resources, and let them govern...they will make mistakes, but they will be better for it.
And the UK will be around if absolutely necessary...and I would have no problem with that role for the US.
|
no one else
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 401 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 22nd, 2007 07:57 pm |
|
Mendavor wrote: There is all this discussion about the "battle" between the corruptor Dick Chaney and Nancy Pelosi because she advocates a pullout of Iraq the way the Tony Blair is doing with the British. Well, she is making the right statements. We need to pull out right now alongside our British allys. The "enemy" or the "insurgents" are not emboldened any more than they were before. This is not a defeat for America but a victory for world peace. If only we had trusted the United Nations more to oversee the situation we would not have been in this mess. Follow the lead of Britain. Get out now! Britain is removing only SOME of their troops (1500) because there is less of a need for them as there is for troops in Baghdad. Their area of responsibility is pacified whereas our area is not. This is not a massive pullout as you would have us believe, in fact, even Prince William is being deployed there along with his regiment. True, it is not a defeat for America and it does nothing for world peace. I think that a history of the UN will show why your statement is ludicrous.
|
Mendavor
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 298 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 22nd, 2007 06:47 pm |
|
| There is all this discussion about the "battle" between the corruptor Dick Chaney and Nancy Pelosi because she advocates a pullout of Iraq the way the Tony Blair is doing with the British. Well, she is making the right statements. We need to pull out right now alongside our British allys. The "enemy" or the "insurgents" are not emboldened any more than they were before. This is not a defeat for America but a victory for world peace. If only we had trusted the United Nations more to oversee the situation we would not have been in this mess. Follow the lead of Britain. Get out now!
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19th, 2007 01:13 pm |
|
About what? It is going, basically, according to what I said....an initial quiet, followed by a lot more bombings.
You see, CR, I DO want it to work, and I am trying to figure out ways that it might....and that is causing a bit of the schizo thinking, but I like to think that one can hold two opposing thought in the mind at the same time. I don't think there are enough troops at this point to make a difference. The economic help might have been the deciding factor a couple of years ago, but it's impact will be a lot less today.
And when you have Condi basically telling the Iraqis that "some" Americans don't think democracy will work there.....that speaks volumes. It is like calling up a hot line and saying that you have this "friend" who has this problem....
Last edited on Mon Feb 19th, 2007 02:32 pm by Fred
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19th, 2007 02:07 am |
|
Roses are red violets are blue, I'm schizophrenic and so am I. Phew Fred make up your mind.
Fred wrote:
"Battle for Peace"? Jeez, CR, talk about double-speak.....That must have come out of "Animal Farm".
Iran is a problem, and we need to figure out a way to deal with it, if only to keep a lid on them until internal pressures can be used to bring about a change. Our forcing a change on a people will not work.....we keep trying, and it has never worked.
The surge probably will produce some good results, but what I suspect will happen is that either the insurgents will lay low f | | |