Someone's always getting a larger piece of the pie: more of why the war sucks!

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, August 20, 2007 00:19
VIEWED: 3793
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 7:41 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-08-15-iraqcontracts_N.htm
?csp=34

Quote:
Corruption in Iraq — dubbed the "second insurgency" by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) — has been the target of numerous congressional hearings critical of the slow pace of prosecutions. Pentagon auditors have questioned $4 billion in contractors' bills for work in Iraq. So far, 29 people have been charged or convicted, seven in July.

Looks like the government is having as much success in this area as in the professional running of Abu Ghirab and the suppression of violence on the ground in Iraq.

C'mon boys, let's hear how this is GOOD for America, and the peeps of Iraq!! Wow, we're really WINNING this for Haliburton and Cheney and all the peeps that keep America second to none!!!

And Iran action is just AROUND THE CORNER!!!
Like Oldman said in Fifth Element, "Destruction promotes growth!"

Bushites UNITE!!!!

Snark-festering Chrisisall

Note: Thanks to Askama at the other site!

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:11 PM

Quote:
And Iran action is just AROUND THE CORNER!!!

Whackos on the Left have been saying that since just before the '04 election, the '06 election....Seems you're getting your claim in early. Congrats.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

....Seems you're getting your claim in early. Congrats.

Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, pal...

http://www.axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/12006
"Bush had said during a visit with Karzai in Washington last week that while Karzai had his view towards Iran, Bush had his own and that didn't include believing that Iran was helping to prevent terrorist attacks but was supplying terrorist organizations instead."

Reason to attack?

You bet Chrisisall

RUE

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:23 PM

Remember how Bush ramped up his stance against Iraq ? He's doing the same with Iran ...

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103643.html

President Bush designated Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization.

Bush named the 125,000-strong Guards, loyal to the clerical strata in Iran's hierarchy, as a "specially designated global terrorist" group and froze its U.S. assets, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

ANY COMMENTS, RAP ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103643.html

President Bush designated Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization.

Well aren't they?

RUE

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:03 PM

From 20 years ago ? "International" in the sense they crossed their border in the ME ? Having "a role" all those decades ago ?

Aren't there DANGEROUS global terrorists to look after, rather than a trivially involved has-been regular army ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103643.html

President Bush designated Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization.

Well aren't they?

Why ? because they are accused by the US in assisting insurgent groups in Iraq?

By that standard the US is the worlds biggest terrorist organization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

flaunting international convention and law...

Such double standards are a leading cause of your war of terror...

" Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack

Run to the hills run for your lives "

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/ironmaiden/liveafterdeath.html#12

RUE

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:19 PM

I was going to say that, but I figured it would go right by.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Aren't there DANGEROUS global terrorists to look after, rather than a trivially involved has-been regular army ?

I would hardly call the IRG a has-been regular army. There are reports that part of the IRG, the Quds force, is active in training and supplying Shia militias in Iraq. There is also speculation that the IRG is active in Afghanistan as well. Making it harder to train and equip the Mahdi army could perhaps be considered a good thing, at least if you are a soldier on the ground.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103643.html

President Bush designated Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization.

Well aren't they?

Why ? because they are accused by the US in assisting insurgent groups in Iraq?

By that standard the US is the worlds biggest terrorist organization

This is what I mean by the Left cheering on the terrorist. Trying to equivocate their actions, true terrorism, to what we do. It simply speaks for itself.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Why ? because they are accused by the US in assisting insurgent groups in Iraq?

Yes. These groups are responsible for destabilizing the acknowledged government of Iraq. Sounds like a terrorist organization to me.

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
By that standard the US is the worlds biggest terrorist organization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

flaunting international convention and law...

Such double standards are a leading cause of your war of terror...

And I'm sure several groups have deemed the US as such. Too bad they do not have the financial clout to make it more than a designation.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I was going to say that, but I figured it would go right by.

Since when has that ever stopped you.

RUE

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:39 PM

The post before Ginos. Or don't you know how to read ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The post before Ginos. Or don't you know how to read ?

I can read quite well thank-you. Perhaps my riddle solving ability is lacking though.

RUE

Thursday, August 16, 2007 12:09 AM

Ok BiggusD

where in here:
"From 20 years ago ? "International" in the sense they crossed their border in the ME ? Having "a role" all those decades ago ?
Aren't there DANGEROUS global terrorists to look after, rather than a trivially involved has-been regular army ?"

do you find this:
"Why ? because they are accused by the US in assisting insurgent groups in Iraq?
By that standard the US is the worlds biggest terrorist organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
flaunting international convention and law...
Such double standards are a leading cause of your war of terror..."

So, to highlight the conclusion which you seem to have such a hard time grasping -
Ergo, I refrained from saying that in my post.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

MALBADINLATIN

Thursday, August 16, 2007 12:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall: Corruption in Iraq — dubbed the "second insurgency" by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR)
And Iran action is just AROUND THE CORNER!!!
Like Oldman said in Fifth Element, "Destruction promotes growth!"

Gary Oldman ROCKS! in The 5th Element! One of the best sci fi villains ever. Anywho.....

They don't know what corruption is over there Chris. It's just like most 3rd world countries, they're paid so little at thier jobs that bribery and kickbacks are NOT considered immoral and nobody would tell the police because the police would say "so what! Why are you trying to get me involved" That's what a Turkish cop told me one day when my ex wife's purse got snagged in downtown Istanbul. Mexico, Iraq, Morrocco, etc.....all the dusty places......

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Why ? because they are accused by the US in assisting insurgent groups in Iraq?

Yes. These groups are responsible for destabilizing the acknowledged government of Iraq. Sounds like a terrorist organization to me.
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
By that standard the US is the worlds biggest terrorist organization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

flaunting international convention and law...

Such double standards are a leading cause of your war of terror...

And I'm sure several groups have deemed the US as such. Too bad they do not have the financial clout to make it more than a designation.

Well I agree with your assessment that in many facets US foreign policy is morally wrong and generates the backlash, and is the net cause of your war of terror...

But to think that " financial clout " raises these said actions above international law or any recourse... is what generates terrorism.

To truly end the war of terror, effective peaceful opposition must be made available to resolve disputes. If the might makes right principle is the rule of law, well Rome fell... The US may only be a few decades away.

" Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack

Run to the hills run for your lives "

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/ironmaiden/liveafterdeath.html#12

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

This is what I mean by the Left cheering on the terrorist. Trying to equivocate their actions, true terrorism, to what we do. It simply speaks for itself.

Not speaking stictly in the now, but the U.S. has been EVERY BIT the terrorists we claim to hate. We have activly supported KILLERS and MURDERS in Nicaragua, for one BIG example (thanks, Reagan). Your obvious lack of historical knowledge betrays you, boy.

Put you thumb back in your mouth and stay off my thread if all your going to spew is "Ya see, you love terrorists"; it's old, untrue, and ignorant to boot.

Yeah, MY thread ya little punk

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:

They don't know what corruption is over there Chris. It's just like most 3rd world countries, they're paid so little at thier jobs that bribery and kickbacks are NOT considered immoral

I just expect better from our too-well-paid government servants, I guess

.

Leelooisall

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
But to think that " financial clout " raises these said actions above international law or any recourse... is what generates terrorism.

I said no such thing. One of the main reasons to designate a group a terrorist organization is to freeze that groups assets. Since most money goes through the American system, the US can and will freeze those assets. Not saying it's right or wrong, just sayin is all.

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
To truly end the war of terror, effective peaceful opposition must be made available to resolve disputes. If the might makes right principle is the rule of law, well Rome fell... The US may only be a few decades away.

You ever heard of proportionate response? If your peace envoy is beheaded do you continue to send more? Drastic example, I know, but both sides must be fully invested to peacefully resolve disputes IMHO.

RUE

Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:46 PM

"If your peace envoy is beheaded do you continue to send more?" Has that happened to any US peace envoys ? Just curious.

The OTHER thing that resolution does is get everyone else on your side, isolate the terrorists and reduce their suppport. What the US is doing is the exact opposite.

It's not so much a question of right or wrong, it's a question of effective or shooting yourself in the foot.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:56 PM

Problem with that, is we don't send peace envoys, we send arrogant racist jackasses like Bolton to make demands - that's not diplomacy, it's extortion.

We also don't have any credibility left, muchlike we did with the Native Americans, if you don't hold to treaties, break your word time and time again, no one is going to make a deal with you because they do not believe you'll stick to it, and we don't - case in point, we cite UN resolutions as partial justification for Iraq, but when a certain ally who shall not be named runs afoul of them, we just look the other way.

No country in the past decade has hacked off the head of an official diplomatic envoy mind you, although I'm sure Bolton and crew tempted a lotta folk to think about it, mostly they just smile politely and ignore em, cause they know it's a pack of lies and we won't hold to any deal we make.

What we need to do, before we have *any* hope of negotiation, is restore our diplomatic credibility, cause at the moment, we have none whatsoever - and that means making agreements and sticking to them, something I don't have much confidence that this administration can do.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

HERO

Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
C'mon boys, let's hear how this is GOOD for America, and the peeps of Iraq!! Wow, we're really WINNING this for Haliburton and Cheney and all the peeps that keep America second to none!!!

Hmm...I note for the record that the article you cited does not mention in any form either Haliburton or the Vice President.

It does mention the gross overcharging by a Houston based food provider, a huge bribery arrest of a US General, and some kickbacks similar to what you'd find in any major government undertaking (especially in Democrat Big Cities).

I think fighting the war on terror is good for America. I think helping the Iraqis reconstruct after decades of brutal dictatorship resulted in the near destruction of their nation is good for Iraq and America. I think the prosecution of people breaking the laws against fraud, bribery, and kickbacks is good for America (regardless of whether its in Iraq, Washington DC, or Cleveland, OH).

There was a case in World War II of a soldier who murdered a German family and then stole from them. He was tried and executed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Under your logic that illigal act invalidates the entire American war effort.

H

RUE

Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:02 PM

"I think helping the Iraqis reconstruct after decades of brutal dictatorship resulted in the near destruction of their nation is good for Iraq and America."

"Hero" - you're delusional.

After Gulf War the First, Iraqis themselves rebuilt in months - repaired electricity, water, medical services, schools, industries, police, jobs - everything you expect in a modern nation.

After Gulf War the Second - and YEARS later - Iraqs have less water, electricity, jobs, security, no medical services, people too afraid to send their children to school (when they're staffed), no industry, - AFTER the US threw BILLIONS of our tax dollars at US contractors to do the job.

No wonder many Iraqis are saying ...

***************************************************************
"things were better under Saddam."

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I think helping the Iraqis reconstruct after decades of brutal dictatorship resulted in the near destruction of their nation is good for Iraq and America."

"Hero" - you're delusional.

After Gulf War the First, Iraqis themselves rebuilt in months - repaired electricity, water, medical services, schools, industries, police, jobs - everything you expect in a modern nation.

After Gulf War the Second - and YEARS later - Iraqs have less water, electricity, jobs, security, no medical services, people too afraid to send their children to school (when they're staffed), no industry, - AFTER the US threw BILLIONS of our tax dollars at US contractors to do the job.

No wonder many Iraqis are saying ...

***************************************************************
"things were better under Saddam."

Rue, the Iraqis tried to rebuild but were cut off from vital supplies by the sanctions.

Little things like chemicals for their water purification plants was denied, resulting in Chorea outbreaks amongst others.

They rebuilt the best they could, but by no means did recover completely, hell they even attempted to clean up all the DU they were bombed with, protective equipment and meds being denied to them as well.

Hero will deny all of this I'm sure, and I could quote United Nations reports, but I'm sure those aren't proof enough.....

Edit: If anyone but the great United States was behind this it would have been called a genocide, no wonder folks want to kill Americans

no point in debating this

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

no wonder folks want to kill Americans

So you want to kill Americans now???

*HA! Got that in before the others

*

I don't care what videos show, the Iraqis are living a fine life now due to our help! And don't listen to blogs from vets; they're paid by MoveOn!!! And don't listen to UN reports- they just hate Bush!

It's my God-given right to be just as clueless as AU & Hero!!!!

Facts are futile Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

There was a case in World War II of a soldier who murdered a German family and then stole from them. He was tried and executed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Under your logic that illigal act invalidates the entire American war effort.

Hero, who are those guys standing around you? Oh, I forget, you like to surround yourself with strawmen....

If you only had a brain Chrisisall

HERO

Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hero, who are those guys standing around you? Oh, I forget, you like to surround yourself with strawmen....

If you only had a brain Chrisisall

Its you who are hiding behind strawmen. Thats you sticking your fingers in your ears and humming really loud when anyone takes your own words and applies them to the real world.

It may be you are just anti-war or perhaps simply anti-American (I don't impune your character here, I know thats often done in these situations, but rather I am commenting on what I observe of the practical effect of your argument on this issue).

The premise of this thread is that profiteering and illegal activity by Americans makes the war unjust. Since profiteering and illegal activity have occurred in every American war, then your argument is that all American wars have been unjust. If that is not in fact your argument then you have to admit my point that profiteering
and illegal activity are not dispositive of the justness of this or any other war. I can make that argument without making the larger one of arguing the justness of the war, which I believe in but which also is a seperate issue.

H

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

It may be you are just anti-war or perhaps simply anti-American

I am anti-a**holes, and unfortunately, they seem to be in every administration of most governments. Just a particularly high quotient of them in our present one. Enough to get peeps killed needlessly. I got no problem with jacking the terrorists, but that's not what Iraq is all about.

Quote:

The premise of this thread is that profiteering and illegal activity by Americans makes the war unjust.

Where in "more of why the war sucks!" is that implied, sir? The premise of this thread is that we have even MORE reasons to get out....
Our troops at risk
No end in sight
Faulty reasons for going in the first place
AND NOW
Lots of exposed corrupt profiteering

I was merely adding to the preponderance of the evidence, councelor.

I rest my case Chrisisall

RUE

Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:56 PM

"Since profiteering and illegal activity have occurred in every American war, then your argument is that all American wars have been unjust."

War profiteering during WWII was illegal.

"When he heard rumors of such profiteering, Truman got into his Dodge and, during a Congressional recess, drove 30,000 miles paying unannounced visits to corporate offices and worksites. The Senate committee he chaired launched aggressive investigations into shady wartime business practices and found "waste, inefficiency, mismanagement and profiteering," according to Truman, who argued that such behavior was unpatriotic. Urged on by Truman and others in Congress, President Roosevelt supported broad increases in the corporate income tax, raised the excess-profits tax to 90 percent and charged the Office of War Mobilization with the task of eliminating illegal profits. Truman, who became a national hero for his fight against the profiteers, was tapped to be FDR's running mate in 1944."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 16, 2007 6:04 PM

Bush could do that too, I mean, if he wanted...

Chrisisall

HERO

Thursday, August 16, 2007 6:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Our troops at risk

Hard to have a war where the troops are safe and sound. Then again, sometimes peace puts troops at risk too. USS Cole is a good example and the murder of US servicemen in Berlin that led to the attack on Libya and the barracks attack in Saudi Arabia in 1996, oh and Lebanon (but there was a war going on there) ummm...Pearl Harbor happened before war and so on...

Quote:

No end in sight

The end of a conflict is never really in sight until your right up on it. In WW2 we were faced with the very real prospect of a long and costly campaign on the Japanese home islands. Then, suddenly the end was right there all along and nobody really saw it coming.

Quote:

Faulty reasons for going in the first place

Thats always been debatable. I say its no longer relevant. We're there now, Al Queda is there now, there is where the fight is...now.

Quote:

Lots of exposed corrupt profiteering

Thats no reason to stop a war. It is a reason to crack down on corruption.

You name a whole lot of issues. One is political, the others relate to the nature of war and humanity. I note for the record that an American withdrawl this conflict will not correct any of the problems you mentioned. We cannot guarrantee an end to corruption or risk by withdrawing. The end of American involvement in Iraq is no guarrantee that the conflict there will end or that it wont spread to other locations. And the reasons for going to war have come and gone, right or wrong, and would remain right or wrong and certainly gone regardless of what we do from now on.

H

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
We're there now, Al Queda is there now, there is where the fight is...now.

I'd like to see the latest intel indicating THAT!!!
Al Qaeda is in the hills, man. We're just keeping a very rusty lid on the powderkeg of civil war in Iraq. We either wipe out one entire side or let 'em have at it. We can't keep up what we're doing there now forever....
And there's real terrorists that need huntin' down...

Let's use Airwolf Chrisisall

Edit: Plus, we got this to deal with now, another terrorist non-issue, except in a tertiary way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007
081502199.html

Quote:
America's allies are increasingly concerned about the Bush administration's plans to unilaterally escalate pressure on Iran, fearing that an evolving strategy may also set in motion a process that could lead to military action if Iran does not back down,

SERGEANTX

Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
This is what I mean by the Left cheering on the terrorist. Trying to equivocate their actions, true terrorism, to what we do. It simply speaks for itself.

I agree that it's not fair to compare our current leadership with the terrorists. The terrorists are desperate and powerless in conventional terms. By contrast we have the worlds most powerful military. We go where we want and do what we want.

There's no cheering going on here Au, it's just that some of us remember a time when things like morality, virtue, fairness, etc... were part of the American ethos.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

HERO

Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I'd like to see the latest intel indicating THAT!!!

Well...let me just add a link here to the CIA's top secret Al Queda Wiki...

No. I can't do that...but I can cite a couple news stories from todays headlines:

Quote:

US mounts major assault on Al-Qaeda in Iraq

BAGHDAD. UNITED States troops in Iraq launched a major assault against Al-Qaeda-linked militants and alleged Iranian-aided extremist groups yesterday as a Sunni leader accused Iran of plotting genocide against his people.
US mounts major assault on Al-Qaeda in Iraq

And...

Quote:

Al Qaeda likely suspect for major Iraq bombings: U.S. By Paul Tait
Wed Aug 15, 4:33 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. military said on Wednesday al Qaeda was the "prime suspect" in suicide bombings overnight on an ancient minority sect that Iraqi officials said killed more than 175 people in northern Iraq.

Oh...can't forget:

Quote:

Reinforcements ready for dead al Qaeda leaders

1 day ago Petraeus adviser: Al Qaeda weakened by troop surge
2 days ago » Reinforcements ready for dead al Qaeda leaders «
49 days ago U.S. raid unravels al Qaeda bomb factories

Aug 14, 2007 9:36 AM (2 days ago)
by Rowan Scarborough, The Examiner
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - U.S. and Iraqi units have killed or captured nearly 20 senior al Qaeda leaders in Iraq since July 1, but if the past is any indication, Osama bin Laden will be able to quickly replace his emirs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The U.S. military said

Thanks for your work, but official news is as trustworthy as Pravda IMO.

"Chrisisall captures terrorist group suspected in having Al Qaeda ties; says "It was nuthin'.""

See how easy that is?

But probably some of it is based on fact...

Chrisisall, a hero

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:17 PM

So a source is only legitimate if it says what you want it to say? Just trying to clarify for future discussions.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
So a source is only legitimate if it says what you want it to say? Just trying to clarify for future discussions.

I don't want to hear from the Army that the Army is doing well- that's just common sense. Conflict of interest, y'know. Just like I don't want to hear from Skippy how their peanut butter is the best.

Grain (or mountain) of salt Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Friday, August 17, 2007 1:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
This is what I mean by the Left cheering on the terrorist. Trying to equivocate their actions, true terrorism, to what we do. It simply speaks for itself.

I agree that it's not fair to compare our current leadership with the terrorists. The terrorists are desperate and powerless in conventional terms. By contrast we have the worlds most powerful military. We go where we want and do what we want.

There's no cheering going on here Au, it's just that some of us remember a time when things like morality, virtue, fairness, etc... were part of the American ethos.

SergeantX

B]

You speak as if those things aren't with us anymore. I disagree, save for one area. Fairness. I don't want to be 'fair' when it comes to terrorism. I want to obliterate them with more force than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, x 1000. It doesn't have to mean we use nukes all over the Mid East with out regard, but I want to target those Islamo-nazis and erase them from the Earth.

Few see the real threat that we're facing. It's not Iraq, nor the civililans of Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan. It's radical Islam.

Christopher Hithchens, no fan of Bush, sees this clearly .

How the N.O.W. gang doesn't see the threat Islamic fascists pose to women world wide is a tremendous mystery.

Sadly, too many are so engulfed w/ the anti Bush hatred to see what we're up against.

I only trust that they see the error of their ways before it's too late.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

LEADB

Friday, August 17, 2007 2:16 AM

I agree, the threat is Radical Islam.

The solution is... hmmm. Let's see, if we blow them up and do a lot of collateral damage, we inspire more radicals... need something better...

AURAPTOR

Friday, August 17, 2007 9:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I agree, the threat is Radical Islam.

The solution is... hmmm. Let's see, if we blow them up and do a lot of collateral damage, we inspire more radicals... need something better...

Can't negotiate with them. Tried that already. They're interested in only 2 things. Converting us or killing us. I'll take option 3, killing them instead.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Friday, August 17, 2007 5:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Few see the real threat that we're facing. It's not Iraq, nor the civililans of Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan. It's radical Islam.

Holy crap, Batman! I'm in total agreement with AURaptor on something!!!

Astonished Chrisisall

HERO

Friday, August 17, 2007 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
The solution is... hmmm. Let's see, if we blow them up and do a lot of collateral damage, we inspire more radicals... need something better...

Actually if your premise is true, the we are not causing enough damage. Perhaps we should remind the world just what Total War is all about. I'm not talking about wiping them out, after all we never wiped out the Japs or the Germans (and the Japs were as fanatical as anybody). We merely inflict enough damage upon them to either eliminate their means to make war or their will to continue the conflict.

It is possible that we may never break their will. If that is the case then they will be wiped out. That is ultimately their choice. I note for the record that were roles reversed they would not give us to come to terms, they would wipe us out utterly and for all time save for that tiny spark of liberty that survives in all mankind regardless of the bondage they labor under.

H

RUE

Friday, August 17, 2007 5:51 PM

Sigh.

Whata buncha bull.

It takes roughly 10% of popular support to keep a guerilla war going. At this point in Iraq, everybody knows somebody who was killed either by the US directly or by the chaos the US failed to quell. Simply hammering them harder isn't going to 'wipe them out'. It's going to piss off a whole lot more people.

What the US is NOW doing is living among Iraqis and providing security. That is improving relations, allowing a more normal life, and leading to (safe) cooperation by Iraqis with the US in finding terrorists. It's working and it doesn't fit into your model of hammer, hammer, hammer.

***************************************************************
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

CHRISISALL

Friday, August 17, 2007 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It's working and it doesn't fit into your model of hammer, hammer, hammer.

You see things getting better over there, Rue? Think we oughtta stick around?

Curious Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, August 17, 2007 8:52 PM

$177,000,000.00 USD *per DAY* to remain there, in a vain and foolish attempt to stuff a really pissed off Djinn(Genie) back in it's bottle ?

Oh hell no.
Out.
Now.

-F

CHRISISALL

Friday, August 17, 2007 8:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
a vain and foolish attempt to stuff a really pissed off Djinn back in it's bottle ?

I'm convinced we can have it all calmed down and orderly there in just a couple of decades, you lack patience, Frem...

Chrisisall

RUE

Friday, August 17, 2007 9:08 PM

"You see things getting better over there, Rue? Think we oughtta stick around?"

It's really hard to say. The problem is the only people who are saying it's better are Bush appointees. And some of what they're saying doesn't make sense, or isn't borne out in the news.

Supposedly there are sections in northern Sunni Iraq that were just rife with insurgents and now they aren't. But then, Iraq just had the most deadly single attack ever in that area. Another thing the US is said to be doing differently is take and hold, rather than fight and move on. But take and hold didn't work well with Fallujah so why it would be working better anywhere else is a mystery. And sooner or later they will have to move on, b/c there simply aren't enough troops to take and hold the whole country. What US troops are said to be living in towns and providing local security rather than hunkering in US installations. But a problem we've been hearing about all along is lack of translators. How can they be interacting with civilians without translators?

So, my opinion is - wait and see. Whenever there's news that doesn't add up to me (Hussein with WMDs) it sets my alarms off.

But, figuring Hero just sucks up whatever the administration puts out, he can suck on the 'new and improved' US tactic for a while.

***************************************************************
When did I get so cynical ?

CHRISISALL

Friday, August 17, 2007 9:26 PM

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/07/4865_iraq_status_
duc.html
"More than four years after the U.S. invasion, embassy staff are being asked to don helmets and flak jackets whenever they step outdoors."

I dunno, sounds like lack o' progress ta me.....

Blue Djinn Chrisisall

RUE

Friday, August 17, 2007 10:01 PM

Well, you know what they'd say - that's Bagdhad, not where we're doing our 'new and improved'.

But I've noticed that generally, when items disappear off the news - Fallujah, Tikrit, southern Iraq where the Brits were - things aren't going so well. And there just hasn't been that much press about the 'new and improved', the surge, the embassy (which is a major fortification), the Sadr army ...

I guess to sum up - it all smells of manufactured news.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, August 19, 2007 5:44 PM

Why not ask a couple grunts, then ?
Bout time someone did, you ask me.
-F

-----------------------------
The Iraq War As We See It
Sunday, August 19, 2007

Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is surreal.

Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched.

As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins.

It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at U.S. taxpayers’ expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: Had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: One of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, a U.S. Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on August 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 19, 2007 6:32 PM

Quote:
Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

Over a year ago, I posed that we may wind up arming Sunnis in order to counterbalance the Iranian-dominated Shiite militias. At the time it seemd a surreal option.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, August 19, 2007 6:33 PM

As always, thanks Frem, you bring sharp clarity to an otherwise fuzzy debate.
Personally, I can take this article as more or less the last word; thanks for finding it.

Let the peeps dealing directly with the mess tell us the way through it, says I.

Appreciative Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Sunday, August 19, 2007 6:52 PM

So, does this mean that the troops hate the troops? It's all so confusing.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, August 19, 2007 7:06 PM

It's obviously a fraud, lies told by anti American, freedom bashing, lib left homos with a UN taking over the world agenda..........

Sorry, thought I would just head off the inevitable

CHRISISALL

Sunday, August 19, 2007 10:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
anti American, freedom bashing, lib left homos with a UN taking over the world agenda..........

You got a problem with my organization, Gino????

Finally, to rule Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, August 20, 2007 12:19 AM

Yah, reality is never as pretty as the media would like to paint it - and in this case it's so messed up hardly anyone knows who's side anyone else is on unless they know em personally, a total breakdown of all society larger than tribe or family.

That's not something we can rebuild as outsiders unfamiliar with the cultures and local pressures, they gotta do it themselves.

We need to get the hell out of the way and let em.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it