| Author | Post |
|---|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 16th, 2006 01:02 am |
|
You're right....Off with their heads........demean the women......these people have been wrong for centuries, remember the Crusades? The Muslims do, we defeated them finally in Tours.........
So we should give them Spain back and let them carry on as barbarians.
Maybe we should invite them to lecture at Harvard.....
.............or speak at the UN.......................................Amen
Runnerman wrote:
I heard today on the radio that extremely large numbers of people are leaving Iraq for other countries for their safety. When is the United States of America going to abandon the crazy idea that a "democracy" can be instilled into countries that are Islam or Moslem? Of course, we darn sure wouldn't even think to mention an attempt to instill a true Republic. These people only understand theocracy with a dictatorial essential element and any attempt to convert it to a "democracy" is in total opposition to their religion. Theocracy and democracy or even theocracy and a republic are no more compatible that oil and water. To make a democracy or republic work in Iraq would require a total overthrow of the religious beliefs held by these people and when you mistakenly determine to dilute or change a religious belief and replace it with a government, there is only one available solution. This solution is a dictatorial police state with executions of dissents and many, many years i.e. generations to hopefully effect the desired result, which still may not hold the winning hand.
This is the essential element that makes Islam or Moslems so dangerous in the world because when Islam is introduced into what we perceive as a Republic or even a democracy, we are allowing religious beliefs (theocracy) in our country. If these people were declared a fascist or communist we would be up in arms and stop it immediately, but under the cover of religion we see no perceived harm. This has never worked, it didn't in England with the Church involved in the ruling of people who wanted liberty and free choice of their destiny and religion. Have we no idea of why people left England and Europe for this country?
Have we no sense of the proven past and wonder why there is no state sponsored religion in this country. Yet we elevate the belief of Islam in this country for what desired result I would wonder?
|
curiousindover
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 353 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15th, 2006 10:56 pm |
|
| Amen!
|
Runnerman
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15th, 2006 05:08 pm |
|
I heard today on the radio that extremely large numbers of people are leaving Iraq for other countries for their safety. When is the United States of America going to abandon the crazy idea that a "democracy" can be instilled into countries that are Islam or Moslem? Of course, we darn sure wouldn't even think to mention an attempt to instill a true Republic. These people only understand theocracy with a dictatorial essential element and any attempt to convert it to a "democracy" is in total opposition to their religion. Theocracy and democracy or even theocracy and a republic are no more compatible that oil and water. To make a democracy or republic work in Iraq would require a total overthrow of the religious beliefs held by these people and when you mistakenly determine to dilute or change a religious belief and replace it with a government, there is only one available solution. This solution is a dictatorial police state with executions of dissents and many, many years i.e. generations to hopefully effect the desired result, which still may not hold the winning hand.
This is the essential element that makes Islam or Moslems so dangerous in the world because when Islam is introduced into what we perceive as a Republic or even a democracy, we are allowing religious beliefs (theocracy) in our country. If these people were declared a fascist or communist we would be up in arms and stop it immediately, but under the cover of religion we see no perceived harm. This has never worked, it didn't in England with the Church involved in the ruling of people who wanted liberty and free choice of their destiny and religion. Have we no idea of why people left England and Europe for this country?
Have we no sense of the proven past and wonder why there is no state sponsored religion in this country. Yet we elevate the belief of Islam in this country for what desired result I would wonder?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12th, 2006 05:43 pm |
|
My point was that the same answer would be one of "we need to look at this, review what has gone right, what has gone wrong, blah, blah, blah...." and not really give a clear answer. I suspect the Dems will push for a plan that speeds up the process where the Repubs will be happy with any plan, and would want it pushed out as long as possible (hoping against hope that we can salvage the reputation of the United States AND President Bush).
In addition, I think that the trend in the House is going to speed up the process. If one believes that the situation is hosed up, and you think those in charge bear some responsibility, then a change is traditionally the way the American people show their displeasure. Every politician says they don't look at polls, but they all do, and the handwriting is on the wall.
|
no one else
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 343 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12th, 2006 04:57 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Good question, but I don't think there is any single plan. There are options over there (maybe not as many as face-saving ones as there were before), but if you asked the same question of the Republicans, they would probably give the same answer.....we need to try and work out a plan with the options that are left.
So then it really doesn't matter who gets in as far as Iraq is concerned.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12th, 2006 01:32 pm |
|
To a certain point you are absolutely correct. A lot of the rhetoric IS to score points against Bush, but this is viewed as payback for the political points he garnered all along. He is STILL trying to use it for political points, but it is just not working as well as it did two years ago. What the polls giveth, the polls taketh....
Realize, however, that a large part of the problem over there is the way we managed it, the decisions that were made on how to do the invasion and overthrow the government, how many to use, who to put in charge, and the post-invasion plan. It has seriously limited our options. It would not surprise me to see Rummy step down after the election, which might give the administration the ability to go in a new direction, but it might be too little, too late. It is like a baseball team owner who has made a lot of bad decisions on who to acquire for the team that under-achieves...even if the owner made bad decisions, he isn't going to fire himself, and he isn't going to fire all the players....he is going to fire the manager. The question is whether the general manager and the coaches go as well.
In the end, there is going to have to be a joint solution to Iraq. There are only so many options to choose from, and any success in Iraq has to rely on the Iraqis....sad to say. Heck, it might even mean INCREASING troops in the short term (a suggestion put forth by some Republicans that does have merit). I don't think there is the political will or capital available by either Congress or the President to see this happen, but if it was part of a 5-7 year solution, it might work.
UPDATE....After reading my bloviations, you may want to read this, which is supposedly a summary of James Baker's options for the President...and I read it as being less optomistic then me....
http://www.nysun.com/article/41371
Last edited on Thu Oct 12th, 2006 03:06 pm by Fred
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12th, 2006 02:37 am |
|
Some interesting points, Fred, but I'm confused about how they constitute a new direction. We have been turning over portions of the country to Iraqi forces all along and they have responsibility for large areas of the country now. Rebuilding the infrastructure has been in the works since the end of official hostilities, albiet sometimes with some damn incompetent contractors [foreign and domestic]. Security costs and terrorists blowing up what has been fixed has been the biggest problem there, -not will or direction. The idea of a three part Iraq will be decided by those folks themselves , regardless of how we try to either hold it together or pull it apart. Maybe a summit of some sort would help and Muslim peacekeepers [a contradiction in terms] would be a novel idea but I don't think the Iraqis themselves would be that dumb.
It's a challenging place, certainly, but the solutions that are being bandied about many times seem to be more talk to score points against the Bush administration that viable new directions.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12th, 2006 02:15 am |
|
Good question, but I don't think there is any single plan. There are options over there (maybe not as many as face-saving ones as there were before), but if you asked the same question of the Republicans, they would probably give the same answer.....we need to try and work out a plan with the options that are left.
Look...the Administration is starting to signal that they are looking to change as well. From Condi's discusion with the Iraqis to getting James Baker to come up with options, there is going to be change. I would like the Democrats to take the high road and not rub the President's nose in it, but I am not sure they can resist it being two years until the next Presidental election.
So, what are the options? I think it will be a combination of some of the following:
1. Gradual decrease in troop strength. We have accomplished a lot but we need to turn the responsibility over to the Iraqis, and as long as we are there, they will allow us to do the dirty work. I see a 5-7 year decrease of 15-20 percent reduction per year, giving the Iraqis time to get their internal forces working. This can also be tied into us or the Iraqis.....
2. Asking for external help. The Iraqis should be a seperate country, and they ahve had discussions with Iran. THis gives us the heebie-jeebies for a number of reasons, but if we are not there or on the way out countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Yeman might be willing to provide peacekeeping troops....and I think we will need some help, as I don't think our "coaltion" is going to be together much longer. Someone has suggested bringing in all these countries, including Iran and Syria, to a summit to help come up with the solution in Iraq. I am not wild about the idea, but it may be the only way to stop the terrorists coming into Iraq.
3. Seperate countries. I don't like the idea of going too far with this, as seperate autonomous regions cause their own problems. The Turks and Iranians don't want a Kurdistan...there are many Kurds in areas that border the Kurdish parts of Iraq, and they have made no secret of their desire to join these areas into one country.
4. Public Works. An emphasis on rebuilding the infrastructure Iraq allowing the country to get back to work. In addition to security, the lack of power, water, and jobs is creating a lot of issues in the country. I see us perhaps trading the spending of money on the troops and munitions for these kind of works....and letting the Iraqis know that there is a set amount, and every dollar we don't have to spend on bullets or tanks is a dollar we have to spend on rebuilding their country.
5. Military equipment transfer. One reason that the Iraqis are somewhat reluctant to take on the terrorists are that they are woefully underequiped. We may be well served to get them some more equipment....the problem, of course, is that we don't want to have to take them on in a couple of years.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 461 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11th, 2006 09:12 pm |
|
| So what is the Democratic plan of action? What do you say we should do?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11th, 2006 07:56 pm |
|
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/11/politics/main2081408.shtml
So, Senators Warner (R) and Snowe(R) are questioning the strategy in Iraq, and Woodward, after a couple of very pro-Bush books (I've read them, and the first one is even required in my last military course) comes out with one that questions a lot of the administration's actions. Add that to the administration's selecting James Baker to come up with "options", and what does that tell you?
Last edited on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 10:57 pm by Fred
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 6th, 2006 02:53 am |
|
Hey Fred - Could you please dump the web link on the quoted post. You are making the entire forum difficult to read. It is such a long website we have to scroll to read any furhter posts. I'm sure it's a good source but it is way too long. Maybe a smaller font would work.
Thanks LCR
Fred wrote:
The article talks about the stress on the military force, but one sentence brings up two points....
"Short of obligatory national service, moves such as opening the US military to foreigners with no US ties, but who wish to move toward US residence or citizenship, might be necessary for the Army to grow in a reasonable amount of time...."
In other words, some are looking at either a draft, or the possibility of opening enrollment even further....possibility out-sourcing our military.
Any thoughts on an exchange of a successful 4 year enlistment in exchange for citizenship?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 5th, 2006 03:47 pm |
|
New military doctrine against terrorism. I don't think it is really that new, but perhaps an emphasis on taking care of the locals.
"The doctrine warns against some of the practices used early in the war, when the military operated without an effective counterinsurgency playbook. It cautions against overly aggressive raids and mistreatment of detainees. Instead it emphasizes the importance of safeguarding civilians and restoring essential services, and the rapid development of local security forces.
The current military leadership in Iraq has already embraced many of the ideas in the doctrine. But some military experts question whether the Army and the Marines have sufficient troops to carry out the doctrine effectively while also preparing for other threats.."
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 25th, 2006 01:52 pm |
|
Very astute comment, Newshound...exactly what I was thinking. The Romans also offered the very valuable Roman citizenship to some of these barbarians, with eventual disaster.
The problem with the alternative (the draft) is the effect it will have on the military. Most people in the post draft military (sorry, Tank) do not want the draft. We have a hard enough time with those who want to be in without spending a lot of time and effort on those who have no interest or desire. People are sometimes surprised at the high standards of the military today - ok, they've lessened some in the last couple of years - and even many who want to join are turned down.
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 921 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23rd, 2006 08:51 pm |
|
| The Roman army had a similar problem. They were so overextended that they had to enlist foreigners into their legions. They were granted Roman citizenship, however, they were so diluted that too many of the "new" soldiers had more allegiance to their former conquored countries than to Rome. Do we face the same thing> After all, far too many aliens here, legal or otherwise, have no desire to Americanize but remain loyal to their homelands to our detriment.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 3666 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23rd, 2006 07:25 pm |
|
| I probably would have a problem with this sort of assistance to those currently waiting to get here.............but a serious problem with something like this being offered to illegals.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23rd, 2006 07:06 pm |
|
Well, I may be reading in between the lines, but I think they are thinking of offering such a deal to those not eligible for enlistment right now....you have to be a resident alien to enlist currently, so they must mean those dang illegals, or those currently waiting to come here.
They generally have not had any additional help getting their citizenship, but they have recently started expediting the process for those who want to be citizens. We had quite a few who signed up for this program, which was offered to those over in Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 3666 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23rd, 2006 06:27 pm |
|
Any thoughts on an exchange of a successful 4 year enlistment in exchange for citizenship?
That's a tough one, Fred. For some reason I do believe that military service has helped folks speed up the process of citizenship, but those people had already started the process. (I could be wrong on this, but I'm sure I've read of such cases)
The key word in your question, at least to me, is "successful."
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 23rd, 2006 04:37 pm |
|
The article talks about the stress on the military force, but one sentence brings up two points....
"Short of obligatory national service, moves such as opening the US military to foreigners with no US ties, but who wish to move toward US residence or citizenship, might be necessary for the Army to grow in a reasonable amount of time...."
In other words, some are looking at either a draft, or the possibility of opening enrollment even further....possibility out-sourcing our military.
Any thoughts on an exchange of a successful 4 year enlistment in exchange for citizenship?
Last edited on Fri Oct 6th, 2006 03:12 am by Fred
|
Idaho Observer
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 7th, 2006 05:50 pm |
|
“f we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War.” —George Washington
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 7th, 2006 02:51 pm |
|
A lot of information has been pulled from this report, but thought some might like to read it themselves.....The report indicates both the problems and relative sucessess, although the overall tone of the document, placing a lot of the fault at the hands of the Iraqis for basically not stepping up to the plate, or not having the experience of running a government. I particularly liked the part where they indicate the factors for success, and where the situation stands for each area.
There are also interesting parts that somehow managed to not get reported.....
In addition to loans, Iraq owes nearly US$32 billion in war reparations (as of May 1, 2006). These reparations are the result of claims against Saddam’s regime following the Gulf War in 1991. Every year, 5% of Iraq’s oil revenue goes to repayment of war reparations. As of May 2006, Iraq had paid more than US$20 billion in reparations. The United Nations Compensation Commission,which oversees the payment of reparations, awarded US$21.5 billion in compensation to oil companies, which lost profits and equipment during the Gulf War. Paying these reparations each year, while simultaneously attempting to rebuild its economy, places a significant strain on Iraq’s limited resources.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 18th, 2006 03:56 pm |
|
And while our attention was diverted away from Iraq, this escaped the attention of the Mainstream Media.....
"Turkey and Iran have dispatched tanks, artillery and thousands of troops to their frontiers with Iraq during the past few weeks in what appears to be a coordinated effort to disrupt the activities of Kurdish rebel bases.
Scores of Kurds have fled their homes in the northern frontier region after four days of shelling by the Iranian army. Local officials said Turkey had also fired a number of shells into Iraqi territory.
Frustrated by the reluctance of the US and the government in Baghdad to crack down on the PKK bases inside Iraq, Turkish generals have hinted they are considering a large-scale military operation across the border. They are said to be sharing intelligence about Kurdish rebel movements with their Iranian counterparts."
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 7th, 2006 02:20 am |
|
First, I arrived back home right before last Christmas, for what it is worth. We had just gotten the elections done, after several delays. It was when I felt the most optomistic about the outcome.....it did not last very long, however.
Why the delays, why the grandstanding by Saddam? Very simple, really, but you have to understand how Saddam ran his country, and what he was trying to accomplish.
"Status" is very, very important to Arabs, maybe as much as the Japanese. Saddam also was totally convinced that we would never actually risk a global war by entering, and even if we did....his military would wipe us out. He felt very comfortable bluffing and stalling because the main consumers of this information was NOT us....it was his own countrymen (especially those he was terrorizing), and the rest of the Arab world. His status grew the more he stood up to us......
Another example. Nassar was the leader of Egypt who got his butt kicked by Israel in the Suez Canal War. His troops lost every single war, they did not know how to operate their new equipment, and the British and France were about to take back the canal....but he got most of his terrority back, WE helped him get the Suez Canal back under his control, and he bacame the defacto leader in the Middle East because of this.
Prior to our invasion, he was looked up to by many in the Arab world. He talked a good talk, many in the area liked hearing a guy talk about uniting the Arab world, standing up to the US, and generally thumbing his nose at us. His audience liked it, and he thought that his schtick was enough to keep us out. It was not, of course.
My knowledge comes from several sources.....I've been fortunate to study many of these subjects through my various military courses. I did get to see some classified information regarding weapons searches and claims by military/government officials when I was over there....we saw a lot of these guys putting out their theories, but the official military analysis usually discounted it for a variety of reasons that sites like WND do not provide. The "lead time" for classified information to make it to the press was about 6-9 months.....in other words, we would see or read something, and it would make it out in some form 6-9 months later.
|
CR Voter
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 7th, 2006 12:24 am |
|
| And the tooth fairy is the next secretary general of the UN. Actually the tooth fairy would do a better job..............
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1297 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 6th, 2006 10:30 pm |
|
CR Voter. But I thought that Fred knew EVERYTHING! No mattter the topic he defends the status quo, leans somewhat left, and has the final word on any topic. That's pretty good I think. He is a better Googler than most. Perhaps he shuld be assisting the administration in Washington. He might even have an answer to the Mideast crisis!
|
CR Voter
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 6th, 2006 10:12 pm |
|
Fred knows what he reads and his friends tell him. When were you last on the front in Irag Fred?
Footloose wrote:
Interesting! So Fred. Could you please explain what all the obfuscation was when the Iraqis were delaying and refusing the weapons inspectors access to certain areas? After long delays, they were finally allowed in. After moving on to the next site, the delays began again. Why the delays? What were they hiding ot moving? Some things do not add up here. Since you are in the know it would help if you could clear things up.
Last edited on Mon Aug 7th, 2006 12:21 am by
|
Footloose
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 22nd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 294 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 6th, 2006 08:24 pm |
|
| Interesting! So Fred. Could you please explain what all the obfuscation was when the Iraqis were delaying and refusing the weapons inspectors access to certain areas? After long delays, they were finally allowed in. After moving on to the next site, the delays began again. Why the delays? What were they hiding ot moving? Some things do not add up here. Since you are in the know it would help if you could clear things up.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 5th, 2006 12:20 pm |
|
Give it up on WND.....I love the bit about the sites that were "possibly looted" so there is no way to disprove the contention. Typical WND.....one source, no way to prove or disprove his contention.....
Look.....THERE WERE NO WMDs, other then the 15 year old virtually inert agents that we had sold them when they were our ally against Iran. Right after we took Iraq, we searched hundreds of sites for the weapons, or the residue of the weapons, or the evidence of weapons production. We found NOTHING. We found stashes of cash all over the country....you want to tell me that the generals and soldiers on the ground valued getting the WMDs more then the cash? That after 3 years of war in Iraq and now the war in Lebanon that none of these have been used? That our satellite technology that was used to locate the plane that was buried in the desert has not found any WMD stashes?
The WMD issue is no longer even an issue....it is the planning and resource allocation of the war, and our execution of the occupation.
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 921 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 5th, 2006 11:13 am |
|
Posted: August 5, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A former U.S. federal agent and counter-terrorism specialist deployed to Iraq before the war says he waged a three-year, unsuccessful battle to get officials to search four sites where he believes the former Saddam regime buried weapons of mass destruction.
Dave Gaubatz, an Arabic linguist who now serves as chief investigator with the Dallas County Medical Examiner, told his story to Ryan Mauro of WorldThreats.com.
Gaubatz said the suspected sites have never been searched by the Iraq Survey Group, the fact-finding mission dispatched by the U.S.-led multinational force. Two sites are within the city limits of Nasariyah, another about 20 miles south and the fourth in Umm Qasr, near Basra.
Emphasizing these are sites established by the Saddam regime after the first Gulf War, Gaubatz said he believes they contain chemical and/or biological weapons
The former federal agent said the WMD were buried under riverbeds, and one site has a sewage pipe system. Before the war, he said, he had been briefed to search oil, gas, water and sewage pipes.
"Saddam was very good about hiding and moving WMD," Gaubatz told Mauro. "People need to research how easy it is to do using a gas-oil pipeline."
Providing more details, Gaubatz said the first site is within a couple of miles of several thousand U.S. military personnel at Ali Air Base, previously called Talil Air Base. The WMD are inside concrete bunkers buried under the riverbed of the Euphrates, he said.
The second site is in the sewage pipe system near the Saddam Hospital, where Pvt. Jessica Lynch was held hostage. There are pipes within the pipes, he noted.
The third site has WMD buried in canals, Gaubatz said, pointing out missile imprints were seen nearby.
The fourth site is at Umm Qasr, hidden in the channel. An Iraqi police captain assigned to both Nasariyah and Basra had information on this site, he said, and other Iraqis identified it as well.
Arguing for the validity of the sites, Gaubatz emphasized that many Iraqis risked their lives to identify them to his team.
Illustrating the danger, he told of receiving an e-mail June 23 from a special agent for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations in Nasariyah informing him that many of the Iraqi sources who came forward to help him and other OSI agents had been assassinated by insurgents since 2003.
"All they ever asked is that we, the U.S. government, inspect the sites they were risking their lives to show us," Gaubatz said. "They had heard President Bush say Saddam Hussein had WMD, and they wanted to help America. Now they are dead and the sites remain unsearched."
The Iraqis he interviewed provided many details about the suspected sites, he said. Many of the areas around the sites had been closed for several months while it was excavated to bury the weapons, causing severe hardship to the Iraqis nearby.
High-ranking Iraqi personnel and military trucks come into the area, according to the informants.
"Low-ranking soldiers often talked to the locals about the WMD being buried," Gaubatz explained. "Most people don't realize that alcohol and narcotics were often used excessively by Iraqi civilians, Fedayeen and military personnel. People talk when they are under the influence of drugs and alcohol."
Asked why the Iraq Survey Group and the Bush administration didn't rush to have the sites checked, Gaubatz replied: "Our president only gets filtered information provided to him. Charles Duelfer, the former director of the ISG, provided the information he wanted President Bush to obtain. He never informed President Bush that the ISG was negligent by only searching less than 10 percent of all sites identified."
Duelfer, Gaubatz noted, said at the beginning of the war and in an interview recently that "it was dangerous to go to suspected sites, and is still dangerous; the area is a war zone."
"This is what we were up against," Gaubatz commented. "I have never known of any war that was not dangerous. He should have taken this into consideration before accepting the director position."
Gaubatz touched on the announcement in June by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., of some 500 chemical weapons discovered in Iraq since 2003, calling it "politics for personal gain and personal reaons."
Hoekstra and Rep. Curt Weldon wanted to locate WMD for their own political ambitions, Gaubatz charged.
"The release of the 'breaking news' of 500 WMD shells being found was purely Hoekstra in damage-control mode and old news to anyone who has worked intelligence," he maintained.
Gaubatz claimed the administration does not want to find out the truth because it could jeopardize the Republican Party.
"The sites I identified in 2003 were never searched; there is now a possibility the sites were looted and WMD is in the hands of terrorists," he said.
"Our administration, Weldon and Hoekstra can give 100 speeches about how much we are doing to fight the war on terrorism and how much they support our troops, but until they search the suspected WMD sites only two miles from our troops, they are feeding the American people B.S," he continued.
Gaubatz said he supports Bush, but the president's "advisers prevent the truth and the real intelligence from ever reaching him."
|
CR Voter
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 5th, 2006 02:41 am |
|
Rather than grandstand, if he really stood on principle, he would just quit and walk away. This is politics at its worst. But the media likes it.
Must be Bush's fault....................
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 5th, 2006 02:00 am |
|
No, CR....unfortunately, this has nothing to do with "supporting the troops", or "hating George Bush", or "hating America", or "cut and run", or whatever cute three word Rovian slogan is bantered about. Hagel is just the first senior Republican Senator to face the truth....Our Generals are all but telling us that it is not looking good, and are basically beginning to set the stage for what is to come next. Their tone, the president's tone, and the SecDef is even beginning to change his tone....
Look.....I WANTED this to suceed, for a number of reasons. I had my doubts from the beginning, but thought that, as I was pulling out last December, maybe we had pulled it off. Their constitution had been postponed a couple of times, and they decided to skip decisions on the most contenious parts, but it was something. They postponed elections, and yes, people in some parts were afraid to vote, or even to put their picture out for campain purposes, as they were scared for their lives. Still, I thought, maybe I was wrong all along. Maybe, just maybe, this will work. Sadly, the elections may turn out to be the highwater mark of our involvement in Iraq.
This war was winnable, but we made too many bad decisions early on that have greatly complicated it at this point. Winning itself has to be redefined....remember in the beginning when the NeoCons were saying this war would be short, 90 days at the most? When the war would pay for itself? That we would have a Pro-America ally in Iraq? Those goals, those aims are never to be. We have to ratchet way down what success is.....which would be a self-sustaining government and military that can sort of keep things under control.
Is even that obtainable? Yes, I think we can do it, but am not sure we can or want to afford what it would cost. It would require increasing our presence (I'd say our allies, but they are dropping even faster then Bush supporters here at home) greatly, maybe bringing the strength up to 250,000 troops for 6-9 months to get things under control....and then an orderly, timed-phased operation to force the Iraqi government to take responsibility for their country. It probably would mean re-activating a lot of Reservists and Guardsmen, probably having to get the law changed (as the last head of the Army Reserve wanted done) to allow this to happen, and it would require a ton more money. The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently said that we are "closer to the beginning then the end" of this war....are we prepared to double or triple the cost in money and lives to gain......what?
.
|
CR Voter
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 5th, 2006 12:21 am |
|
Senators like Chuck Hagel need to stop trying to make headline news, and spend some time supporting the American cause. He can go "F" himself along with the other namby pamby members of the Senate. Hagel needs to find a place to go with the "Retired" generals who bad mouth what they can no longer effect.
Even Truman realized that he needed to dump McArthur and win the war in spite of him..........................
Fred wrote:
Sen. Chuck Hagel I guess is trying to either jump on the bandwagon, or avoid being run over by it.
"The United States needs to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within the next six months, Sen. Chuck Hagel said Thursday, rather than ratcheting up its military commitment now.
With Iraq exploding in sectarian violence and “moving closer and closer to a straight-out civil war,” Hagel said, the Bush administration’s decision to transfer nearly 5,000 additional U.S. troops into Baghdad is “only going to make it worse for us.”
And, in what might become the election's clarion call, Sen Hagle also said, when asked what we could the situation in Iraq, said....
“Ask the president. Ask Secretary (of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld. They’re the ones who got us into this.”
The scurrying sound you hear is the rats leaving the sinking ship. This week, two generals and Rummy all sort of said the same thing.....Civil war is kinda, sorta gonna happen, (the 100 Iraqis a day getting killed are merely "sectarian violence"...THAT line is wearing thin), more troops are being put in Baghdad (not mentioning that they are being pulled out of Anwar provence, one of the ones we KNOW the Iraqi's can't handle - we were building it up just last year)....
|
Runnerman
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 5th, 2006 12:13 am |
|
| It was not that long ago that they were clammering for more troops and the administration was taken to task for it. Now they are being taken to task for sending in more. Can this be another quagmire? These Arabs are nuts and this is more of a religious war between two factions. Dare we remain there? Or do we let them to their own demise? It is a shame that American and British lives were lost there but thankfully this war out of all others we were in had the least amount of KIA's. Not much of a consolation but I would hate to see more.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 5th, 2006 12:06 am |
|
Sen. Chuck Hagel I guess is trying to either jump on the bandwagon, or avoid being run over by it.
"The United States needs to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within the next six months, Sen. Chuck Hagel said Thursday, rather than ratcheting up its military commitment now.
With Iraq exploding in sectarian violence and “moving closer and closer to a straight-out civil war,” Hagel said, the Bush administration’s decision to transfer nearly 5,000 additional U.S. troops into Baghdad is “only going to make it worse for us.”
And, in what might become the election's clarion call, Sen Hagle also said, when asked what we could the situation in Iraq, said....
“Ask the president. Ask Secretary (of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld. They’re the ones who got us into this.”
The scurrying sound you hear is the rats leaving the sinking ship. This week, two generals and Rummy all sort of said the same thing.....Civil war is kinda, sorta gonna happen, (the 100 Iraqis a day getting killed are merely "sectarian violence"...THAT line is wearing thin), more troops are being put in Baghdad (not mentioning that they are being pulled out of Anwar provence, one of the ones we KNOW the Iraqi's can't handle - we were building it up just last year)....
|
Current time is 01:57 am | Page:   ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 |
|
|
|