So we have former Pres Bill "Good morals no required" Clinton spouting off at the mouth in the United Arab Emirates this last week. Obviously playing hard left for his wife's upcoming Pres run. Personally he should be whipped about the head and shoulders for his lil speech and I can tell you that there are alot of folks recently returned from that area that want his head on a pike.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=news&start=1&num=3&q=http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/ny-woclin174516090nov17,0,7399995.story%3Fcoll%3Dny-lipolitics-print&e=9878

Then we have Rep Murtha running his mouth and sobbing about how we need to immediately withdraw from Iraq. That the freedoms of Iraq can't begin till we end the US Occupation.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/murtha.iraq/index.html

WTF you ignorant bastards, how many troops lives will be ended by your bullshit. How many folks over there will be reinspired by your need to further your political agendas.

Fuck both of you, may you rot in a special hell full of angry Muslims...

Oh, and yes I'm ranting and yes I'm pissed. This has nothing to do with the argument ...should we be there or not....It's about endangering my friends ,families and countrymen for the sake of their fucking egos...

oh, and Clinton's paid speech fees.....fucker

And to think I voted for that sob....

Fandros

Here comes Bylimet's "don't be petulant" speech...

How many folks over there will be reinspired by your need to further your political agendas.



OMG politics using something for there own personal gain? That doesnt happen.

WTF you ignorant bastards, how many troops lives will be ended by your bullshit.
I'll take a wild guess: Fewer than would be ended by "staying the course" for another 10 years.

And I don't know how you can call Murtha ignorant. He's a decorated Marine who re-enlisted to fight in Vietnam. He's been to Iraq. He's about as hawkish as they come among Democrats. But no, you're going to listen to George "Thanks for the Guard job, daddy" Bush and Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney for your informed decisions?

Clinton and Murtha's egos aren't going to kill your friends, but Bush and Cheney's certainly will.

I'm not certain Bill or Hillary Clinton have much to gain by getting on a soapbox in the UAE, but I do agree it seems a tad bit inappropriate. I'd gather that US citizens need to hear that speech more than those folks to. I'm not sure where your anger at Murtha is coming from, though. I'd gather that he made that statement because it's something he felt needed to be said. It definitely doesn't strike me as irresponsible political ambition (granted, I think the removal of all US troops from Iraq in 6 months seems a tad unrealistic).

Since McCain is so loved by some of you...

Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police force, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they read that the Senate is pressing for steps toward draw-down?

Are they more or less likely to side with a government whose No. 1 partner hints at leaving?

The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.

We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.

Americans may not have been of one mind when it came to the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But, though some disagreed, I believe that nearly all now wish us to prevail.

Because the stakes there are so high - higher even than those in Vietnam - our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success, and we will win this war.

Can't get a link, but it's in NYPost today. And in this one thing, McCain is right. Being wobbly does not help at all.

Nah, no harm done here! No surprise he's getting play time with Al Jazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/94B17C40-260B-4CAB-B653-70845E9ED97B.htm

Thanks Murtha.

Some counterarguments:
1) Presenting a timetable for leaving forces the Iraqis to stand up for themselves, to decide whether to sink or swim, to choose self-determination or dissolution. The current ideology suggests that we can make that decision for them (as Saddam did -- and no, I'm not comparing the US to Saddam), but ultimately, if the various ethnic divisions in the country consider their own interests above those of the nation, our long-term efforts will be for naught anyway.

2) At least one poll shows 80% of Iraqis are against the occupation and 45% believe insurgent attacks are justified. If those numbers are anywhere near accurate, they support the view that our presence only spurs the insurgency and breeds terrorists out of otherwise indefferent individuals.

3) What constitutes victory for the administration? That is, what formal conditions have been set by which we could declare "Mission Accomplished?" Again.

BTW, here's a link (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/31358.htm) to the article akipt cited (requires registration). It's called "Aiding and Abetting," a title which McCain termed "outrageous" on Hardball.

Presenting a timetable for leaving forces the Iraqis to stand up for themselves, to decide whether to sink or swim, to choose self-determination or dissolution. This argument had merit a year and a half ago, before 3 national elections, a constitution, and coming soon in December yet another national election with plenty of purple fingers that the media will hardly even notice.

At least one poll shows 80% of Iraqis are against the occupation and 45% believe insurgent attacks are justified. In regards to the occupation, it should be 100% against it. I'm against an occupation too, so it's all about perspective which most of the polls have shit for merit.

In regards to the '45% say insurgent attacks are justified', I call bullshit. Terrorism and civilians being bombed justification polling has dropped tremendously all across the Middle east since we went into Iraq, and from all that I have seen, the same by even a greater margin with those polled in Iraq.

It's called "Aiding and Abetting," a title which McCain termed "outrageous" on Hardball.

He didn't like the title of his own Op ed ?

Sorry Thor I'll have to call bs on the 45% statement as well. Yes, you are spoon fed video about how we're not wanted....and no you don't have the ground intel that says different. Not your fault, I blame the fucked up "if it's bad news play it till you puke, but if it's good sshhhh it" mindset of today's media cartels.


Fandros

What I likely should have said , in regards to Clinton's political asperations, is that perhaps he's setting himself up for Annan's replacement. Putting his goals up infront instead of his countrys.

There is no arguement for what he did. Nothing you can say that'll have me saying..>OoOo good call Slick Willy.

It was a ignorant, selfish, shortsighted, and greed driven act. To say such shit for speech bucks is bullshit. Especially in light of the venue/locale.

New slogan for Billy Clinton..."Hellpit 8 please, party of 1!"

Fandros

This argument had merit a year and a half ago, before 3 national elections, a constitution, and coming soon in December yet another national election with plenty of purple fingers that the media will hardly even notice.
And it still has merit, because we've been unable to train and equip a functional Iraqi fighting force even close to the scale required for self-policing.
In regards to the '45% say insurgent attacks are justified', I call bullshit. Terrorism and civilians being bombed justification polling has dropped tremendously all across the Middle east since we went into Iraq, and from all that I have seen, the same by even a greater margin with those polled in Iraq.
Yes, across the Middle East people don't like being bombed. Morocco and Jordan have had recent demonstrations after they were hit. But we're talking Iraqi perceptions of Iraqi insurgents, not what the rest of the people out there think. If you have contradicting polls, by all means post them. Here's (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051022/ts_nm/iraq_britain_dc) a reference to the one I alluded to, conducted "by an Iraqi university research team, was commissioned by the Ministry of Defense."
He didn't like the title of his own Op ed ?
Editors often (perhaps always) choose the headlines.
Sorry Thor I'll have to call bs on the 45% statement as well. Yes, you are spoon fed video about how we're not wanted....and no you don't have the ground intel that says different.
Do you think an Iraqi university research team are spoonfed? Does the British Ministry of Defense not have ground intel?

Better article on the poll here (http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml).

Back on point please. This is not a thread on whether or not we should be there or if we're loved even.

It's about Clinton ( major) and Murtha (minor) playing into Al-Jezera's hands. Perhaps you don't agree with Bush's plans there, and by all means I'd have to agree. But certainly you could agree to a person that their actions are inappropriate and their crys for withdraw more politically driven than intellgence.

Fandros

I think the operative question here is, who has to say the war is a bad idea before Fandros and Gass are allowed to consider it? From evidence, people in Iraq, people in the military, people who fought in other wars in all branches of the service, people who commanded ground troops in other wars, people who study what politicians do instead of what they say, and volumes of military history are not sufficient, so what exactly would be enough to convince you guys that maybe, just maybe, there is a problem with how we're going about this?

Think on this in the meantime: It would be cheaper to leave and reinvade two years later if we didn't approve of the results of the civil war, than stay and try to pretend it's not happening.

edit: removed extraneous 'and'

But certainly you could agree to a person that their actions are inappropriate and their crys for withdraw more politically driven than intellgence.
How can you unreservedly state that Murtha's comments are politically driven rather than the result of careful assessment of the situation? I notice that you've not addressed anything Murtha specifically said, just called him ignorant and politically motivatd.

And I find these "playing into Al-Jezera's hands" comments absurd. Assuming you're conflating that Middle Eastern news source with Al-Qaeda, what better ways to play into their hands than:
*reduce our focus on Afghanistan (which has its own troubles (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-11-16-afghan-insurgents-inside_x.ht)) and the hunt for bin Laden in favor of a major military effort against Iraq?
*Pass up on a chance (three chances, in fact) to bomb Zarqawi pre-war because it might reduce support for invasion?
*Include torture as a matter of policy?
*Persist in a war that has led to an increase in terrorist attacks worldwide and otherwise served swell the ranks of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers (a trend which we can only hope events in Jordan and Morocco will reverse)?
*Villifying our own countrymen for speaking their minds?

Malse, I'm not sure why I'll reply to you. You are , by all my records/opinions, spoonfed every single ideal.

I'm EXMILITARY AND A WAR VET FROM THE GULF. Gods ya tard, I'm also in direct daily contact with folks returning from the gulf.

Fuck your lil antiFandros bullshit and fuck the politicians bud. I'm speaking for the folks that were there and are there and are returning.

So , in this thread, I do have better info than your drudge fed bullshit.

Now I realize you are a bit daft and well anti establishment ( let up on the bowl there bud) but please to realize I don't need a college forcefed turd to tell me how military folks are feeling.

Where do I take exception with Murtha's statement? Right about where he said , and I paraphrase, that until the American OCCUPATION ends Iraqi freedom can't begin. Errrrrr we're there by invite atm Thor no matter your so called legit poll says.

Oh, and Thor, attacks here in the US are down huh, so worldwide is kinda stretching it a bit. France made it's own bed and I don't think you'll find anyone with a spine claiming that we should bend the fuck over and let the Terrorists have their way with us...

Fandros....

I agree that Clinton could have chosen a different venue for his comments.

I do not see any motivation behind Murtha's comments other than a need to express a change of heart.

I do not think Fanny's post is petulant, Akipt. Rather, it is a venting of his anger at something he perceives to be against what he believes. Nothing wrong with that. Pres Bush on the other hand continues to behave like a petulant child, and it is very easy to see him sticking out his lower lip and stamping his foot in his indignation that some in the Senate dare to disagree with or question him.

Maybe when he finishes this latest tantrum he might address a point that has been raised: "What will constitute Victory?" Obviously we cannot leave without that, so what needs be done to achieve it? How are we defining it?

Clinton is a polarizing figure, and it is easy to believe that he does nothing without it being part of something larger; he does tend to think things out a bit further then our current Pres, so the idea that this speech was in part the laying of groundwork for something else down the road is not that far-fetched. But it is really time to stop raising his morality all the time, since his two chief accusers (Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich) were both eating crow within a year of his public come-uppance for their own infidelities.

Murtha is a solid, down to earth individual who seems to have changed his mind after reflecting on the issue and seeing new information (death toll, insurgency/terrorist actions, lack of a strategy post Saddam, etc.). I really do not think he merits vilification for having a change of heart.

Ahhhh and before anyone trys to turn this into "Fandros hates the statement so he must hate the man and therefore must hate the military"

Nothing but mad respect for anyone serving period. Nothing but greater respect for a war vet.

But anyone can tell you that cutting and running now would lead to a greater disaster...

Anyone can tell ya, hell even some from Murtha's own party are doing so, that leaving anytime soon would be irresponsible.

I might be overstating how Murtha's info will play out into Al Jezera's news.

But, having been over there and hearing their rants I doubt it.

Hell, they'd turn a Boy Scouts jamboree into a clandestine military meeting plotting to overthrow Saudi Arabia...

Fandros

<---All for clearly defined guidelines/dates and expectations btw...

So in that regard I'm clearly not following the party line.

Fandros

Things said about war in Iraq:


"capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq." (said in 1992)

"The last thing you want to do is to read the latest poll and then base policy on that,"

"Presidents are generally ineffective if they spend all their time reading the polls and trying to make policy accordingly.

"We are doing what we believe is right. We're convinced it's right. We're convinced that in fact we'll achieve our objectives."

"The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

"They're living in the tropics. They're well fed. They've got everything they could possibly want"

"But those who have predicted the demise of our efforts since 9/11 -- as we have fought the war on terror, as we have liberated 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan -- did not know what they were talking about."

"The president of the United States took advantage of every possibility to try to resolve this without having to use military force. It wasn't possible in this case."

Thanks Dick for the expertise in management and fanatical patriotism you have brought to this country.

If the election were held today...I'd still vote for Kerry.

That is something I have been saying from the beginning Fandros.. if we pull out, the terrorists win. For them, victory is the US leaving with their tails between the legs. Hell, just look at Vietnam, since we pulled out and left those in the south to fend for themselves. Ya, that was real "highroad" of us. The only way to defeat terrorism is not to show fear, or a failure of resolve. But all they are seeing is how our own people and minority branch of government is calling for us to run away and hide. They know the longer they can keep in the news, the more they will win... that is what is killing our troops... not the ego of the current adminstration. Does anyone really believe that the terrorists will leave us alone if we leave Iraq?? I will ask that question again when the golden gate bridge gets taken out...


BTW ,, I am sick and tired of hearing this "death toll" thing. For gods sake, I regret the loss of life just like the next guy, maybe more since I am close to it, but we have been at war for over 2 years, and we have only lost 2300 soldiers in both conflicts. Many of them have died do to accidents, and not even enemy contact. We lost more then that on SEPT 11, and in single conflicts in other wars. Oh, and before anyone accuses me of being cold hearted, let me reiterate that i have lost a few friends in Iraq, and seen many injured. But we need to stick this out, and if I have to go back I will, but I would NEVER want us to bow down to any terrorist organization.

Let me point out that this is a very close parallel to what was happening forty years ago. It would have been extremely interesting, and maybe I would go as far as to say exciting, if the internet had been available then for us to share opinions and emotions and positions on that conflict as we are so easily able to do now.

What has not changed is that those who actually serve (past and present) seem to see things a bit differently from those who have not served. I try to look at this the same as I do when someone who was not alive in the days when cars came without seat belts argues with me that children were never allowed to lay up in the back window on long car trips; they were not there to see it as a common occurrence, so they have little to offer on the subject. But getting worked up over them arguing with me that it could "never" have happened is just not worth my emotional energy.

Not the best analogy, I know, but I think it makes my point. Getting worked up and arguing with someone about fighting in a war that has not been there just keeps you fighting that war on and on and on........

Where do I take exception with Murtha's statement? Right about where he said , and I paraphrase, that until the American OCCUPATION ends Iraqi freedom can't begin. Errrrrr we're there by invite atm Thor no matter your so called legit poll says.
There by invite... Well, I'm sure the current Iraqi leadership likes having us around for the most part, but we're still an occupying force throughout the country, and our presence is inflammatory as I noted previously.
Oh, and Thor, attacks here in the US are down huh, so worldwide is kinda stretching it a bit. France made it's own bed and I don't think you'll find anyone with a spine claiming that we should bend the fuck over and let the Terrorists have their way with us...
Er...worldwide means...the world. The total number of attacks around the world (much of which, in fact, is neither in the US nor France) have increased every year, and increased substantially since the invasion.
<---All for clearly defined guidelines/dates and expectations btw...

So in that regard I'm clearly not following the party line.
Not Bush's party line anyway. The Senate has a proposal to request (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/politics/15cong.html?hp&ex=1132117200&en=1b0f7720627f5fd3&ei=5094&partner=homepage) more info from the White House on a quarterly basis, among other things culled from a Democratic proposal (you know, that party of no ideas) that went further to demand established dates for phased withdrawal.

But for hyperventilating attacks on war critics, you're doing Cheney proud in this thread. Just a shame you have to rely on insults, "Clinton!!!!!", holier-than-thou posturing and the brushing off of contradictory but pertinent data to achieve your rhetorical ends.

But props for not mentioning Ted Kennedy...yet.

I think Murtha's stab at a six month withdrawal was definitely unrealistic, but I would refer to it as erroneous, not irresponsible, and certainly not selfish. I agree a great deal with his reasoning, in that we're quite possibly no better off than we were before, but I don't believe that means we should just give up and 'surrender.' It's not like our only two options are to fight like animals or haul ass and cower in a corner. There are infinitely more options than that.

This is essentially what seems so fucked up to me. Rather than weigh out the numerous number of possible solutions to this problem, we're becoming more polarized, or at least seemingly so - that's all the media seems to be showing us, anyways. A small minority says we must leave Iraq immediately, and an opposing minority retorts with "you evil, traitorous bastards, how dare you?"

Both statements are equally destructive. The most harmful thing anyone in Washington can do right now is get so caught up in the fray of shit-slinging that we neglect realistic solutions.

Both parties do this crap. Republicans derile Clinton for getting head from an intern, and Democrats respond by saying, yeah, well Bush Sr. had an affair, too. Bush did coke, but Clinton smoked weed. As if any of it really matters; as if anyone is somehow more valid by nature of their opponent being just as bad as they are.

I feel like we could do ourselves a whole lot of good by coming up with an eventual exit strategy, and by trying to improve our relations with the rest of the world so we don't keep garnering so much hatred. I would imagine the vast majority of Washington feels the same way, but they're not the ones getting any press, and because of that, we cater more and more to the most extreme people of both parties.

if we pull out, the terrorists win.

You guys do realize that there the collection of peoples normally lumped into that modern Orwellian semantic locution are not all on the same side, and in fact many of them hate each other as much as they hate us? The insurgency in Iraq is not a unified group of people, it's a half dozen political forces fighting for control of the country with us caught in the middle.

If "the terrorists winning" constitutes any backdown by the United States on foreign policy, they have in fact already "won" and did so before the invasion of Iraq. The terrorists won when we waged an examplary war on Iraq instead of pressing Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran. The terrorists won when we cut the budget of civil administrations and sold our civil liberties to the Department of Homeland Security. The terrorists won when it wasn't politically expedient to depose Saddam the first time around. The terrorists (whomever they are today!) win every time we let them counter our democratic process by shouting down opponents of bad policy in their name.

The unheralded tragedy of this war has been in the extreme polarization of American politics that will likely take years to heal, and in those terms, the terrorists definitely won, but the terrorists in this case are members of the political elite within America itself ... and they're on both sides of the party line.

You guys do realize that there the collection of peoples normally lumped into that modern Orweillian semantic locution are not all on the same side, and in fact many of them hate each other as much as they hate us? The insurgency in Iraq is not a unified group of people, it's a half dozen political forces fighting for control of the country with us caught in the middle.

And this is exactly what gets overlooked so often. The Sunni/Shiite/Kurd/Jew/Christian animosities are going to remain a sticking point to any security solutions in this region, just as the Serb/Croat/Muslim/Christian animosities which tore apart central Europe. It is very arrogant, and naive, to say we can achieve a peace here based on our ideas of democratic processes. These are different cultures with strong basis in their religions, and we have yet to grasp how to effectively relate to, let alone deal with, that idea.

There are feuds in this region that go back further than the history of our own country. That alone is one of the reasons we are looked down on by many in the region as interfering and ignorant; and in all honesty they are accurate in that assessment, for the most part.

I don't see anything wrong with what clinton said. The article doesn't mention anything about him saying we should withdraw. He just says we fucked up the invasion, which is pretty damned obvious to anyone that doesn't watch Fox news all day.

I don't see anything wrong with what clinton said. The article doesn't mention anything about him saying we should withdraw. He just says we fucked up the invasion, which is pretty damned obvious to anyone that doesn't watch Fox news all day.

The venue in which the comments were given is the focus of most folk's ire, I believe, rather than the content of the speech. Saying the U.S. screwed up with it's invasion planning of Iraq to a crowd of UCLA or Harvard students is one thing, but going to the middle of the Muslim world and saying it to a crowd of Arab college students is another.


And, on a side note, a very poignant point was made during the heated debate in Congress yesterday: "Those gravestones don't say Democrat or Republican, they say American."

My problem with the war is not that we are there. Sure we got suckered into it with cooked intelligence, and some 100,000 humans are either dead or injured, but whatever today's excuse for being there was done with good intentions right? Anyway, I really have a problem with the money. If you were an investor of a business, and the ceo of that business kept coming to you asking for more money, you would ask for some progress reports before giving any more. What if this ceo had no real metrics to quantify his progress? What if when you asked to see his financial reports he told you to 'go fuck yourself'. What if, as you stand outside trying to look through a window because they won't let you in, you see the ceo's friends and other companies ceo going in the back door and then leaving with bags of your money? It should piss you off, and it certainly pisses me off.If the American people are going to support the war, Bush needs to open up his notebook. He needs to give us real progress reports, real casualty reports, not give tax cuts during war time, while at the same time cutting budgets of programs to help the poorest people and throwing bags of money at corporate welfare. Bush's low approval rating is not just about the war, it's about his entire presidency being so detrimental to families and so beneficial to big business.

I don't see anything wrong with what clinton said. The article doesn't mention anything about him saying we should withdraw. He just says we fucked up the invasion, which is pretty damned obvious to anyone that doesn't watch Fox news all day.

EXACTLY!!

When we invaded Iraq the powers that be made at least one HUGE error in their planning.

They completely, totally ignored history.

The thinking had to be this: In 1991 the Iraqi military collapsed before our eyes. So in this one it will be the same. We will be liberators to the oppressed.

The difference in '91 was the Iraqi powers were in effect defending conquered lands in Kuwait, they were not defending the total homeland or political structure of Sadam or the government. So they bailed on giving their lives in the defense of Kuwait.

Other ignored aspects: Sadam was equally threatened by Islamic Jihad in the way that most middle eastern nations are and it was the mere presence of the Sadam government that kept the Jihadists out of any form of power or out of any ability to disrupt the status quo in Iraq. As brutal as the government in Iraq was it did not allow for an insurgency to come to the surface and exert any type of control of daily life.


The history lesson most ignored was this: Vietnam

If the populace in a country do not want you to be there, they don't care what type of weapons you use against them, be it, napalm, WP, high explosives, laser guided and satelite guided munitions. They will throw rocks if that is all they have to fight you. They will use suicide attacks to get you to leave.

The strategy of the insurgents is quite simple: A strategy of attrition. 1 insurgent with 1 bomb kills 10 US troops. (A strategy perfected by the Vietnamese)

The Score:

USA - 10 Dead

Insurgents - 1 Dead

I read news reports that say things like: US bombs bridge leading into Iraq from Syria effectivly cutting off the flow of foriegn fighters and supply from that point.

Believe me when I tell you, bombing that bridge had absolutely no effect on the insurgency. If anyone thinks that insurgents were ditty bopping across that bridge at anytime of day or night on the way to Fallujah or any other place in Iraq let me know, I can sell you a replacement bridge, you just have to ship it in from Brooklyn.

Whether you support the war or not it is a basic fact. We screwed up BIG TIME and are at this very moment still screwing up. The troops themselves are supported by America, we know that it's not like a bunch of guys in the military were sitting around saying: Hey we're bored lets go pick a fight with Iraq, and stole some planes, boats and tanks and started this. We understand that they are not to blame for us being there.

The blame lies entirely on the Bush administration (like it or not its fact) and their mismanagement of not only the war but the mismanagement and myopic thinking that we can do what we want when we want and to who we want.

Why this is all politics:

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/003853.html

November 21, 2005
Unspinning the Troop Rotations
Greyhawk

Last week's congressional shenanigans regarding American troops in Iraq successfully obscured the real news about that topic. In an under-reported story earlier this month the DoD announced the units designated to deploy in the next rotation for Operation Iraqi Freedom. DoD Press Release, 7 November 2005 (http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20051107-5075.html):
DoD Announces Units for Next Operation Iraqi Freedom Rotation
The Department of Defense announced today the major units scheduled to deploy as part of the next Operation Iraqi Freedom rotation. This announcement involves several combat brigades, headquarters elements, and combat support and combat service support units and approximately 92,000 service members as presently envisioned. The scheduled rotation for these forces will begin in mid-2006. Decisions made by the Secretary of Defense at the recommendation of military commanders in Iraq may result in changes to this rotation and may affect units now being identified and advised to prepare to deploy.

There's a key number in the above quote; "92,000 service members" - that's down significantly from this year's figure, approximately 140,000 with boosts to 160,000 for election periods (created by overlapping deployments).

But don't start thinking "drawdown" just yet. Because there's another key phrase that follows that number: "92,000 service members as presently envisioned". Here's what's happening. The DoD says they want to see how things go through December's elections in Iraq, then give commanders on the ground an opportunity to make deisions on who's needed where.

It's the obvious strategy, although it opens Don Rumsfeld to accusations of "passing the buck" from the same folks who accuse him of being a "micromanager". And if additional numbers are added later they will likely be labeled as an increase in the number of troops due to initial requirements being set too low - and the "no end in sight" argument will be invoked. Likewise there's always the possibility that if things go wrong the troop strength levels (Too high! Too low! Too late!) will be cited as primary cause. But conversely, if things go right they'll be declared wrong anyway - so the above arguments are essentially moot. And besides, torture is wrong!

Why I don't listen to your people Malse: (probably replying in the wrong thread, but I don't care. Hope you don't.)

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20051120.aspx
Journalism Versus Reality in Iraq
November 20, 2005: American troops are developing a hate-hate relation with journalists. The basic problem is that soldiers and marines in Iraq have access, usually via the Internet, to what the mass media is saying about what they think is happening in Iraq. These news reports, all too often, do not reflect what the troops experience. It gets uglier when the troops realize that reporters are spending most of their time in the Green Zone or some well guarded hotel, leaving it to local Iraqi stringers to collect information and photos for the reporters stories. Relations are a bit better with the few embedded journalists who still travel with the troops out in field. But even the embeds are often mistrusted and disliked, because some of them are blatantly out for dirt, not an accurate story.

Few of the troops understand that the news business is driven by dramatic events, not the tedious kind of process the troops go through every day to defeat the terrorists. To the troops, the war is being won. They see bad guys killed in large numbers, and few Americans getting hurt (it’s fairly common for their to be about twenty enemy dead for each American loss). The troops see tangible evidence, every day, of Iraqis having a better life. The troops cannot understand why that is not news, and why journalists always seem to be looking for a negative angle. To the average G.I., the attitude is, “what are these reporters looking for?” They are looking for a story, and bad news is a story. Good news is not. As a result of this clash of cultures, reporters are increasingly seen as a potentially dangerous enemy. For the troops, this is already accepted as true for many Arab journalists. Some of those have been arrested for hostile activity, or later revealed as al Qaeda agents. European journalists are seen as particularly clueless, so wrapped up in their anti-American fantasies, that communication is nearly impossible. But after watching a CNN clip on the net, or viewing an online story from the New York Times or Washington Post, it’s hard to view U.S. journalists as fellow Americans.

But let's cut and run... because you have to read to page fucking 2 before you see things aren't doing so bad there afterall...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10118733/site/newsweek/page/2/
On the ground, the shrewder analysts say, it's not entirely clear that U.S. policy has "failed." The TV news, not to mention Al-Jazeera, doesn't regularly summarize the stunning changes in Iraq, many of them morally and politically worthy. Saddam Hussein is gone and awaiting trial. Schools, hospitals and other institutions are operating in most parts of the country. Voters have adopted a constitution. And even many Sunnis are gathering in political parties that are maneuvering in advance of the Dec. 15 national elections. After the elections, the plan is that Coalition forces will use the growing number of capable Iraqi units to "clear, hold and build" a peaceful Iraq.

Next year Bush will start drawing down the troop levels in Iraq, just as he's said he would all along AFTER the Iraqi forces will be able to take care of themselves, and of course the Dem's will brag that they forced Bush to do it. Which is bullshit politics, but there you have it.

It doesn't matter anyway, because soon some of these heroes are going to come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, look around and see the bullshit that was played in politics in their name and they'll run for governor or Senator or president.... and I don't have to say which party they'll run under. What's Bush's approval rating in the military again? Yeah, he really knows how to fuck them over huh.

You mean that the troops will come home and some will run for office based on their experience in Iraq?

Like this guy: http://www.hackettforohio.com/

Or This Guy: http://www.davidasheforcongress.com (http://www.davidasheforcongress.com/)

Or this Guy: http://www.dunnforcongress.com (http://www.dunnforcongress.com/)

Or This Guy: http://www.murphy06.com (http://www.murphy06.com/)

Or Maybe this guy: http://www.lentzforcongress.com (http://www.lentzforcongress.com/)

or this one: http://www.timwalz.org (http://www.timwalz.org/)

even this guy: http://www.carneyforcongress.com (http://www.carneyforcongress.com/)

or this guy: http://www.massaforcongress.com (http://www.massaforcongress.com/)

I guess you mean guys like that...funny thing...they are all running as democrats...go figure. Must be these guys haven't been paying attention to Fox news. :(

Why I don't listen to your people Malse: (probably replying in the wrong thread, but I don't care. Hope you don't.)


This is what gets me laughing so much about all this. I don't have "your people." I don't even watch TV news, and I don't like CNN .. it's almost as bad as FOX. I'm merely applying gradeschool level critical thinking skills you could get out of Encyclopedia Brown novels to the reality distortion field that has been set up around the White House and the sensationalism of modern American media. Read a little here, a little there, sift the facts from the opinions, compare the opinions and where they come from, and you too can build a fairly clear picture (at a high level) of the state of things.

You obviously can't take any sort of analysis seriously if it uses phrases like "the terrorists" without even disambiguating who the boogey-man is today, and can work on the spin instead. This whole political farce has been a stage-show from the word go, and that's what gets me so angry. Yeah, it's great that GI Joe and Jane are out helping the Iraqis and Afghans, it really is. I read a great thing about the engineering units building roads and civil infrastructure in Afghanistan and rebuilding hospitals and schools in Iraq that had been out of comission since the first Gulf War - that's the real positive effect of our military involvement. I'm sure the world honestly is a better place every time we put another crazy militant in the ground too. But that has never been the stated or even implied reason for our involvement, and now we've got something like 25,000 veterans coming back minus arms, legs, eyes, hands, bones, and friends who bled out over there for what? To kill a completely replaceable group of rabid fundies who would have been just as happy to blow each other up as us? And we've spent untold billions of dollars we had to borrow from our children's government to do it, and the net result is an Iraq just as fractured as it has been since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and a total dissolution of all our of international reputation as the good guys.

I guess you mean guys like that...funny thing...they are all running as democrats...go figure.That's cool. Maybe the Democrat party will grow some balls and forsight now.

I'm merely applying gradeschool level critical thinking skills you could get out of Encyclopedia Brown novels to the reality distortion field that has been set up around the White House and the sensationalism of modern American media.... where you finally come to your real issue...
...and now we've got something like 25,000 veterans coming back minus arms, legs, eyes, hands, bones, and friends who bled out over there for what?
Hmm, sensationalism and 'for what'?

Thanks for proving Bin Laden right.

We just let the terrorists win. :(

Iraqi leaders interested in a timetable (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5431131,00.html) for withdrawal. The most interesting quote (emphasis mine):
The final communique, hammered out at the end of three days of negotiations at a preparatory reconciliation conference under the auspices of the Arab League, condemned terrorism, but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

Semantics that the crazy crew will hide behind till we're gone. Then boom...


Fandros

Those semantics were made by the leadership on behalf of the "crazy crew." Our new best friends have, essentially, advocated the insurgency.

What they've done is create language that'll allow them to be pardoned if they only kill us and not them.

Fandros

If you're trying to ease my concern you're doing a terrible job of it. ;)

Admit that your concern is never eased. If it's not this, you'll find another BBC report to get all worked up about.

Iraqi leaders interested in a timetable (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5431131,00.html) for withdrawal. The most interesting quote (emphasis mine):

Yes, and with the "insurgents" defining whether the target was an innocent civilian or a collaborator I am sure the acts will always be justified.

I would be curious to know what the justification for bombing the mosques the other day was, as I am unaware of any U.S. military being inside them.

Once again, I support fully the military folks over there, but I condemn this atrocious war and it's stated purpose of fighting the terrorists over there; none of these bombings and assassinations of police officers and politicians and acts of terrorism were taking place before we entered the picture. 125 Iraqi civilians were killed from Friday to Sunday alone. Yes, Saddam was brutal and did horrible things, but look at how many have died, Iraqi and American, due to this poorly planned measure to remove him from power.

We were sold a lemon disguised as a hot rod, and now we must do what we can to keep it running with duct tape and baling wire......unfortunately, the costs to keep it running keep going higher.

Hmm, sensationalism and 'for what'?

Thanks for proving Bin Laden right.

Thanks for electing the guy who let him get away, too? I don't understand your non-response at all.

Yes true, I voted for Bill Clinton who wavered so much that Bin Laden got away.

But then again hindsight is 20/20 huh, and attempting to appear savant simply because it's hindsight "Monday morning" coaching simply doesn't wash with me.

Fandros

Admit that your concern is never eased. If it's not this, you'll find another BBC report to get all worked up about.

Right, because our new special friends advocating attacks on our troops is a non-issue. Keep huffing that party Kool-Aid.
I would be curious to know what the justification for bombing the mosques the other day was, as I am unaware of any U.S. military being inside them.
From what I understand, the religious centers (in a town about 6 miles away from Iran) belonged to Faili Kurds, a Shiite minority sect in that population. So it could have been an attack on Kurds, an attack on Shiites, a sectarian attack within the Shiite community or one of the above with the larger goal of goading the various factions into civil war.

But hey, just another hundred dead. Nothing to "get all worked up about."

Thanks for electing the guy who let him get away, too? I don't understand your non-response at all.Grow up please? And please graduate from your, what did you call it? "gradeschool level critical thinking skills."

Here, let me help you...

Murtha calls for pull out, just like he did for Clinton in Somalia...

“Foes of America's lingering military involvement in Somalia will force the first congressional debate on the policy this month, just as some senior Democrats begin to question President Clinton's open-ended troop commitment,” reported the Washington Times on September 6, 1993.

“House aides say other senior Democrats, like Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, are privately expressing concerns.”
“Murtha, who has urged Clinton to withdraw U.S. forces from Somalia, recalled that President Bush told him last December, when troops first were sent to the war-torn region, that they would be out by Inauguration Day.
“‘I don't know whose inauguration,’ Murtha quipped," reported by the AP on September 6, 1993.
“‘Our welcome has been worn out,’ Mr. Murtha said on NBC's ‘Today’ show, adding that Mr. Clinton has been ‘listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly.’
“With those comments, Mr. Murtha joined a small but influential list of Democratic lawmakers who have publicly urged the president to change the mission in Somalia.”Fast forward to 1996 and bin Laden's Fatwa (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html) against us ...

“Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that 'the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists.'
http://images.chron.com/content/news/photos/01/11/03/osama.jpg

“We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!

"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the ‘heart’ of every Muslim and a remedy to the ‘chests’ of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu."
And another interview (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html)...
Question: Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.
Bin Laden: After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families.
Whether you want to believe it or not, there is REAL progress being made in Iraq. Even the summet thing Thormir just linked to is a tremendous improvement from this time last year when we couldn't even get the Sunnis into the same room with Kurds and Shias unless they had a pack of explosives strapped to their backs.

But continue to play the politics and give OBL his victory dance.

If the Liberal left doesn't puff up and dance about they'll have no stance to use as their platform come 2008.

Yes, it is much better over there now than it was. It's a tough situation and not one that we're allowed to see improve.

Fandros

I say blame Reagan and Bush Sr. both of them equipped Bin Laden. Then Clinton let him get away (from exactly where?) Then Bush Jr. comes in and lets him get away from us in Tora Bora (this time we knew where he was) But outsourced it to Taliban sympathizers (who were not very sympathetic to us)

But continue to play the politics and give OBL his victory dance.


You're putting words in my mouth and saying I'm supporting terrorist boogeymen but *I* need to grow up? Why not just call people card-carrying communists and skip the retail-middle-man for the full effect.

The UN mission to Somalia was a smaller mess of the same sort we have in Iraq. We don't have enough people on the ground there, nor are we ever going to, to actively suppress the population there. Notice how we killed something like 15,000 Somalias to our 20, and yet still managed to affect no change in the overall political landscape? Notice how we're killing "teh terrorists!" by the hundreds but that isn't stopping them from killing Iraqis?

I believe I can see where Murtha is coming from, and it's not so much that I'm agreeing with him but I can see his point of view. You should try it sometime. We have too few people in Iraq to realistically stabilize it. I believe one former US general even mentioned a million, or 7-10 times what we have now. When the Allies occupied Germany piecemeal in 1945, there were something like 3 MILLION soldiers there for a less hostile population that was not divided into multiple antagonistic ethnic groups and there was still a minor insurgency that ran into 1946 or so. We don't have the deployment to "win," ergo there is no point in being there longer to drag out "losing."

Of course, we can't even support our current deployment levels in Iraq, much less the bigger ones we'd need. We had to pull people from hunting your favorite towel-head, giving him more than ample victory dance opportunities. I don't see how it's politics since that's been my opinion of the whole farce since 2003 when we blew up both Iraq's tanks and then stood around saying "well, now what?" while religious extremists and organized crime filled the power vacuum. Trying to play the summit attack into "we're winning the war" is damn specious because it illustrates that insurgents have the run of the countryside and can shell anyone they feel like. If you're holed up in bunkers and fortresses and your enemies do whatever they want outside, you have lost the intiative. If they have millions of potential local recruits with religious leaders telling them it's A-Ok to blow you up as long as they don't catch any mosques in the crossfire, plus people coming in from other countries, and you do not, you will lose the war of attrition too.

As an aside, I realize "playing politics" is the attack phrase du jour, but I don't think it means what you think it means. You can keep going on about how we need to stay the course in the stream or whatever that dippy electioneering phrase was, but that doesn't change that more and more Americans are becoming disgusted with the war and it's not because CNN has a Iraq Body Counter running 24/7. Maybe when we finally get done with whatever it is we're supposedly doing in Iraq (Big W won't tell us), we can get back to the war everyone was supporting against Al Qaeda.

Maybe when we finally get done with whatever it is we're supposedly doing in Iraq (Big W won't tell us) My point proven again. You're not listening.

Comments on this Posthttp://www.ayonae.ro/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gifYou're such a god damned toolPussy.

In other news...

When U.S. forces officially hand over Forward Operating Base Danger to the Iraqi government on Tuesday, it will be the 29th time an American base in Iraq has been relinquished. But, officials said Monday, handing over FOB Danger will be “the most significant transition of real estate thus far.http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?article=33173

Nothing to see here, move along.

I still think you're a tool, wasn't going to post it because i'd be derailing - but had to take the heat off of the other people who probably think you're a tool as well, so that they don't have to defend themselves.

Feel free to vent your emotional hatred anytime. It's a liberal victory celebration.

More news not worth mentioning...

Iraqi troops are now in full control of Kut as the Ukrainian garrison there is preparing to leave the country.

It is the first major city where security is wholly in Iraqi hands. Kut, 160 kilometers south of Baghdad, is a strategic city as it borders Iran and several major provinces in the south, including the capital Baghdad.

Kut, home to nearly 500,000 people, is the capital of the province of al-Wasit.http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news\2005-11-19\596.htm

Hopefully, those Iraqi troops will be able to function alone (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=1316059) within the next few years.

Likely we'll be out within the year. Sadly the war to win offices here at home has hurt our reputation as a fine fighting force globaly.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/slasheastasia_1.htm

Grats to those fighting for those that would have us subjugated. I hope you have your place secure. You deserve it...

Fandros

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot23nov23,0,1306469.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions



WHEN IT COMES to the future of Iraq, there is a deep disconnect between those who have firsthand knowledge of the situation — Iraqis and U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq — and those whose impressions are shaped by doomsday press coverage and the imperatives of domestic politics.

...

American soldiers are also much more optimistic than American civilians. The Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations just released a survey of American elites that found that 64% of military officers are confident that we will succeed in establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. The comparable figures for journalists and academics are 33% and 27%, respectively. Even more impressive than the Pew poll is the evidence of how our service members are voting with their feet. Although both the Army and the Marine Corps are having trouble attracting fresh recruits — no surprise, given the state of public opinion regarding Iraq — reenlistment rates continue to exceed expectations. Veterans are expressing their confidence in the war effort by signing up to continue fighting.

WHEN IT COMES to the future of Iraq, there is a deep disconnect between those who have firsthand knowledge of the situation — Iraqis and U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq — and those whose impressions are shaped by doomsday press coverage and the imperatives of domestic politics.
One could argue that being the nose in the grass or 10.000 feet above a field doesn't give you a good vision of it. Maybe a average between "knowledge" and "impressions"? :)
The Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations just released a survey of American elites that found that 64% of military officers are confident that we will succeed in establishing a stable democracy in Iraq.I may be a "half empty glass" person, but that means that 1/3rd of US soldiers serving in Iraq aren't confident in their own mission. Isn't it... scary?

Feel free to vent your emotional hatred anytime. It's a liberal victory celebration.

I need to ask this, then perhaps vent.

Why do you consider it liberal to be anti-war? Have you ever fought in a war or witnessed one first hand as a non-combatant?

The 'modern" present day SO CALLED conservatives are so far from the real true conservatives. It is like comparing apples to orangutangs, really it is be honest.

Take a serious look at the crap being spewed by the Bush regime.

Originally, they said there was irrefutable evidence that Sadam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 and was training Bin Laden and his crew on how to construct and deploy WMD's.

We are told that Congress and the Senate had the exact same intelligence as Bush and Cheney had. We know this not to be true. What the Congress and Senate had was the final intelligence reports that were PREPARED by Bush/Cheney. But with the expertise of Goebels, the propaganda machine was turning and building up a war fervor not seen since Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

We now KNOW that the intelligence was not only flawed, but some of the prime examples put on public display, as reason enough to invade Iraq, were known at the time by Bush/Cheney to be not only innacurate BUT to be outright false.

Call it liberal to disagree with Bush, call it whatever you want. It doesn't change the FACT that the information used by Bush/Cheney to justify invasion was WRONG. It also does NOT change the fact that invasion of Iraq was not looked at as a last resort it was what was going to happen come hell or high water.

The war was supposed to be against Al Quaida (however the fuck its spelled) and it was suddenly changed to a war against Sadam Hussein. Why? Explain please. I think there is a fairly large majority of Americans who want to understand this. The reasons that are given by Bush/Cheney are not acceptible, senseless and just plain lack in fact.

Americans, even those of us labeled as liberal whiners by the powers that be do not support the war in Iraq, but we do support the war against Bin Laden. We DO support 100% the troops that are fighting this war, we just really want to know that they are fighting in the right place against the right enemy. Iraq, unfortunately does not appear to have been the right place.

Please, if you choose to answer the questions I've asked here please don't do the following:

Do not blame Clinton

Do not blame Michael Moore

Do not blame John Kerry

Please do the following in your answers:

Stay on topic

Take into account that both Bush and Cheney are accountable for their actions.

WHEN IT COMES to the future of Iraq, there is a deep disconnect between those who have firsthand knowledge of the situation — Iraqis and U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq — and those whose impressions are shaped by doomsday press coverage and the imperatives of domestic politics.

...

American soldiers are also much more optimistic than American civilians. The Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations just released a survey of American elites that found that 64% of military officers are confident that we will succeed in establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. The comparable figures for journalists and academics are 33% and 27%, respectively. Even more impressive than the Pew poll is the evidence of how our service members are voting with their feet. Although both the Army and the Marine Corps are having trouble attracting fresh recruits — no surprise, given the state of public opinion regarding Iraq — reenlistment rates continue to exceed expectations. Veterans are expressing their confidence in the war effort by signing up to continue fighting.

The lack of fresh recruits has to do not only with public opinion but also knowing that running into IAD's are a shitty way to die.

The re-enlistment rate of the military is caused mostly by 2 things. To be discharged means mostly that you will be "extended" in your obligation to active duty and still be in Iraq and if you re-enlist at least you get a fairly large financial bonus for doing so. (the latter is capitalism at its finest)

Maybe a average between "knowledge" and "impressions"? I'll never give too much merit to the academics and talking heads who have repeatedly been wrong throughout history. Good point though.

Why do you consider it liberal to be anti-war? I don't, nor do I consider it unpatriotic. What I do consider liberal is someone who calls me a "g-d damned tool" without the balls to argue their views publicly on this board like I do. I hope everyone here reads and posts to this board because they enjoy it, not because they feel some need to denegrate someone else's view.

So Rover, since you want me to stay on topic of your post and since you can't stay on topic yourself (hint: we're not talking about why we went to war in Iraq) I'll humor you. This is what, the billionth time these questions have been posted here?

Originally, they said there was irrefutable evidence that Sadam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 and was training Bin Laden and his crew on how to construct and deploy WMD's.False, I nor anyone else I know ever said Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. There is a mountain of evidence going back many years that Saddam was involved in Al-queda, however. The administration on numorous occasions on Sunday morning talk shows explicitly made that distinction clear.

We are told that Congress and the Senate had the exact same intelligence as Bush and Cheney had. We know this not to be true.Yeah, damn Bush for not releasing the even more highly alarming intelligence data assessments.

...were known at the time by Bush/Cheney to be not only innacurate BUT to be outright false. That would be a lie. Show us where Bush/Cheney lied and you'll make the 6 oclock news.

The war was supposed to be against Al Quaida (however the fuck its spelled) and it was suddenly changed to a war against Sadam Hussein. really? Perhaps you didn't listen to his speeches? I thought it was called the war on terror. And don't take this personally Rover, but I can understand not wanting to be called a Kool Aid drinker. Someone has to do it for the people who think Bush isn't telling them what they want to hear.

really? Perhaps you didn't listen to his speeches? I thought it was called the war on terror. And don't take this personally Rover, but I can understand not wanting to be called a Kool Aid drinker. Someone has to do it for the people who think Bush isn't telling them what they want to hear.

Thats funny!

Anyway, what I want to hear would be something like this:

American forces liberated Iraq today. The outpouring of emotion by the Iraqi people was overwhelmingwith publicdisplays of affection not seen since the liberation of europe in World War II.

Sadam Hussein surrendered his forces unconditionally with a pledge to help America re-build and set in place a truly free government.

Millions of people across the Muslim world have started to turn in the Al Qaeda cells in their countries with a cry for no longer supporting terrorism in the world.

But this is what I hear:

Our strategy to win in Iraq is to win in Iraq.

We had poor intelligence, but so did Clinton.

We thought they had WMD's.

Kerry voted for the war also.

John Murtha is just like Michael Moore.

We now know we were wrong but so was Clinton.

blahblahblah...it just drones on and on and has absolutely no real substance or strategy attached to it (Other than "swift boating" those who disagree)

Same kind of shoddy word play is on both sides of the fence Rover. Careful not to spin the dogma in an effort to fight one you dislike.

Neither is helpful.

Fandros

Same kind of shoddy word play is on both sides of the fence Rover. Careful not to spin the dogma in an effort to fight one you dislike.

Neither is helpful.

Fandros

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this.

My problem is this. The buck should stop with Bush and he passes it along. Thats why I dont like him.

Have you ever fought in a war or witnessed one first hand as a non-combatant?




I have...

That being said, I do not consider it being liberal to be anti-war. There are plenty of conservatives that are anti-war also, but that still does not excuse the politics that are going on, and when they use it in order to win elections, may they burn in hell. The facts are simple. We are in a war, whether you agree or not, to pull out now would be a HUGE mistake. The vermin called terrorists (or freedom fighters for the insane) live to see the day that we back down again.


The re-enlistment rate of the military is caused mostly by 2 things. To be discharged means mostly that you will be "extended" in your obligation to active duty and still be in Iraq and if you re-enlist at least you get a fairly large financial bonus for doing so. (the latter is capitalism at its finest)


Do you even have a clue?? First off, many of the people that join the military do it for many reasons. Whether that is education, or bonus, or just a job, many join because they want to be part of the military. There are those that join for the excitement and the ability to see the world. Now, if you said they extend in country so that the bonus is TAX FREE, then I agree with you. As far as the National Guard worked, if you were due to ETS during the tour, you were extended BEFORE you got in country. So people extending over there did it on thier own accord. Contrary to what you think, most of the people in the military love being there, and they take pride in it, and they extended because the WANTED to..

Do you even have a clue?? First off, many of the people that join the military do it for many reasons. Whether that is education, or bonus, or just a job, many join because they want to be part of the military. There are those that join for the excitement and the ability to see the world. Now, if you said they extend in country so that the bonus is TAX FREE, then I agree with you. As far as the National Guard worked, if you were due to ETS during the tour, you were extended BEFORE you got in country. So people extending over there did it on thier own accord. Contrary to what you think, most of the people in the military love being there, and they take pride in it, and they extended because the WANTED to..


Well I'm glad you came back from that war.

Yes I have a clue, as much of a clue that you have. I understand that there are people in the military for many different reasons and that those who re-enlist do it for their own reasons. It seems to me that the biggest players of politics and using the war to win the election has been the Bush/Cheney crew. Do I think Murtha is saying what he says due to politics? no, I believe he is using his own experiences of having been in a war in a similiar environment to speak out.

I don't think that saying the war is wrong is unpatriotic nor do I think saying it is right is unpatriotic. I think that blaming the troops on the ground for any of their individual actions in combat is wrong and judgemental of a situation that only those who were right there can accurately judge.

I understand that young men and women tend to see things differently than us old geezers, but that change can often come with age, experience and hopefully the added wisdom the 2 former life happenings should bring.

I also know that 25 years later I have a different way of looking at my experiences in the Marine Corps than I did then. I can sum this up by relating this story:

When I was 17, I decided (along with my father) that I needed a kick in the ass.

My Dad was a very typical WW II vet who had fought in the pacific. Although he never related direct combat experiences to me at that time, it never occurred to me that on our many summer vacations at the Jersey shore or Cape Cod that he would rarely if ever go to the beach with us. I thought it was because he just didn't like sand. It wasn't until later in life, and after having similiar intense experiences (though not on a beach) that it occured to me, he couldnt stand the memories.

The same goes for my uncle, who like me, is a former marine. He is a veteran of the Korean war and growing up as a kid I had thought that we had simply pulled back from the Chosin reservoir because of a political decision. My uncle explained to me in very terse terms that we had not pulled back from the Chosin reservoir but had been pushed back and that those Marines and Army troops who were there were in fact lucky to be seeing the light of day.

With that said, I understand what a war can do to those who fight it, it may not be the way YOU will handle your experiences. Everyone handles things in their own way. I do know this though, war sucks, it should be a last resort or our hand should be pushed to that point as it was in Afghanistan.

In Iraq our hand wasn't pushed, nor was it the last resort. In saying that I understand the implications on either an immediate troop pullout or a pullout in 6 months, neither way is good. But somehow, somewhere the douchebags who started this in Iraq should be held accountable for it. I mean my God, we watched as Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job. What would you pay to have the biggest political issue in this country to be a blow job in the oval office.

And droning on...blaming Clinton for Bin Laden is like saying that had Newt Gingritch and the republican congress not been so concerned about the Lewinsky crap maybe they could have seen the Bin Laden debacle...after all...they all get the same intelligence...don't they?

http://www.netmediazone.net/a18/a18root.gif

By the time I arrived in Viet Nam, the politicians already had a firm hold of the reins determining courses of allowable action by the military; needless to say the level of optimism among those actually doing the fighting was not great, knowing the politicians were hand-cuffing the military commanders.

I do not know if we ever could have won that conflict, but I firmly believe if the "suits" in Washington had kept their noses in their own realm and not done so much armchair quarterbacking, we may have had a better chance at it. We were kept so busy fighting the enemy on his terms that we never were able to seriously move against North Viet Nam; and, the media played a role in forming public opinion against the war, making it even more difficult for the politicians to not stick their noses into the mix, lest they lose their cushy seats of power.

I raise that bit of history to make the comparison to what is going on now. We have a much better equipped and trained force fighting in Iraq, yet we are stymied by the same triad which we were not prepared for in the last conflict: guerrilla warfare, political pandering and interference, and media influenced public opinion.

Modern technology has made modern warfare a no-win proposition.

Modern technology = televison/satellites = Joe and Sally Shmoe being force fed the war with their evening dinner while watching the news. A five-minute firefight will be spun a dozen different ways by the varied media outlets, politicians, special interest groups, etc. The war being fought in whatever country invariably will create as much conflict within our own country as it does in the actual theatre of action, because it is all right there in people's faces day after day after day.

Sorry for the long winded post.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. And Trikki and everyone else over there, keep your heads down, and come home safe.

Just a note for a special 'anon' friend, I can see who gives me rep. Thanks. ;)