Thread: Iraq News

I came across this site (and I have no idea of it's validity) but if the following excerpts have any basis in truth there are people in the US administration and military who should explain themselves. 'Initial war plans for Iraq had an initial American invasion force of about 130,000 soldiers and Marines, which would drop quickly to as few as 30,000 to 50,000 by the end of 2003.' 'As of 01 March 2006 there were 133,000 US troops in Iraq, down from about 160,000 in December 2005 during parliamentary elections. The Pentagon cut Army combat brigades to 15 from 17. The 25th Infantry Division from Hawaii, along with seven other major military units are scheduled to deploy as part of the Summer 2006 troop rotation. The Pentagon hoped to reduce the US presence in Iraq to less than 100,000 by the end of 2006.' Iraq - US Forces Order of Battle I mean ??????

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Well, President Bush is in OZ and the moonbats are out in force down there. So what we gonna do? Fight of surrender?

The practical answer is a bit of both. At least the Pollies will be able to put some spin on it, but lets face it the whole operation has been a failure- one only hopes some lessons have been learnt.

Continue to build up and train the Iraqi security forces, whilst initiating a phased withdrawal. Work closely with the UN. Perhaps at some point even work under the UN, which will mean some swallowing of pride.
In scattered hot spots, use surge tactics to calm them down and give the Iraqi's a chance of keeping order.
Perhaps keep a small presence to guard such things as ports and major petrochemical installations for a while. Prolly best as a UN mission.
Hope for the best. Use US and UN money to try and deliver on some of the failed reconstruction promises, hoping to buy some goodwill and cooperation.

In short, make the best of a bad situation. It's gonna take some years to live this one down, but I suppose you can look at Vietnam as an example of the fact that in due course people just want to get ahead with building the future, not dwellng in the past.

How about these leading Senators after going to Iraq and seeing first hand the surge is working - and praising the results!

btw - this must be the real definition of torture, eh?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

How about these leading Senators after going to Iraq and seeing first hand the surge is working - and praising the results!

Praising, Booners?

...two reported that they are encouraged by the effects of the recent U.S. military surge there, but their enthusiasm is tempered by concerns about Iraq's political climate...

...We remain concerned, however, that in the absence of overall national political reconciliation, we may be inadvertently helping to create another militia which will have to be dealt with in the future," the two said...

Or damning with faint praise? What makes Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich) and John Warner (R-Va) "leading Senators" anyways?

The splurge may succeed in calming down some hot spots, but at what cost I do not know.
The common enemy of the Iraqi government, it's people and the Rest of the World is Al Qaeda. US military efforts should be focused on them, with less stirring the pot about Iran and sectarian stuff.

The surge is a temporary condition, though the US will almost certainly be in the region for years if not decades to come with the alternative being loss of face and influence in the region, and more important Iraqi oil to the free world.

Of course this is subject to the lib/left/looney/dems not being allowed in the win/win situation of doing as they please and taking credit where due the while heaping blame for the blunders onto the current admin.

Far more complex than a couple of sentences, but looks like the free world represented by tatters of the Coalition, is going to bear the brunt of a costly war of attrition, with the outcome pretty clear to all bar fools and politicians.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Or damning with faint praise? What makes Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich) and John Warner (R-Va) "leading Senators" anyways?

Well, if you read the piece you'd see they're both ranking members of the Armed Forces sub-committtee. One a democrat too...

I did read the piece Booners, did you?

Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. John Warner of Virginia, a top Republican on the panel...

So aside from their positions on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I ask again, what makes them "leading Senators"? Is it that they kinda, sorta, but not really simply said something that you took to be supporting the surge (even though actually reading the article reveals it is heavily qualified 'support')?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Or damning with faint praise? What makes Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich) and John Warner (R-Va) "leading Senators" anyways?

Well, if you read the piece you'd see they're both ranking members of the Armed Forces sub-committtee. One a democrat too...

I did read the piece Booners, did you?

Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. John Warner of Virginia, a top Republican on the panel...

So aside from their positions on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I ask again, what makes them "leading Senators"? Is it that they kinda, sorta, but not really simply said something that you took to be supporting the surge (even though actually reading the article reveals it is heavily qualified 'support')?

What makes them leading Senators is they hold 'rank' within they're respective committees and they command respect within a large segment of government. It's like when The Donald talks about real estate in NY for example, one could say Trump is a 'leading' real estate mogul.

...why 'am I explaining this??? Jeeze...........

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Or damning with faint praise? What makes Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich) and John Warner (R-Va) "leading Senators" anyways?

Well, if you read the piece you'd see they're both ranking members of the Armed Forces sub-committtee. One a democrat too...

I did read the piece Booners, did you?

Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. John Warner of Virginia, a top Republican on the panel...

So aside from their positions on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I ask again, what makes them "leading Senators"? Is it that they kinda, sorta, but not really simply said something that you took to be supporting the surge (even though actually reading the article reveals it is heavily qualified 'support')?

What makes them leading Senators is they hold 'rank' within they're respective committees and they command respect within a large segment of government. It's like when The Donald talks about real estate in NY for example, one could say Trump is a 'leading' real estate mogul.

...why 'am I explaining this??? Jeeze...........

Your explaining it because you posted a fluff piece that wasn't really a fluff piece.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Your explaining it because you posted a fluff piece that wasn't really a fluff piece.

Well, the fluff piece is backed up by the CBS News anchor who's so left-wing, she doesn't make right-hand turns remarking that maybe, just maybe there has been some 'progress'?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Well, the fluff piece is backed up by the CBS News anchor who's so left-wing, she doesn't make right-hand turns remarking that maybe, just maybe there has been some 'progress'?

Again, qualified progress Booners. And that has been the point all along.

Several times now you've posted links to articles purporting them to be proof-positive of the resounding success of the surge. On each occasion however even a cursory examination of the actual text of the articles reveals that this is not the entire story and that they are qualified by the systematic failures of government in Iraq. You're cherry-picking bascially. And a more cynical man may wonder if that's why you post only the links, not the full articles.

Originally Posted by keda

Of course this is subject to the lib/left/looney/dems not being allowed in the win/win situation of doing as they please and taking credit where due the while heaping blame for the blunders onto the current admin.

Those looney Democrats, I mean who else could, in six short years-

Turn the worlds biggest creditor nation onto the worlds biggest debtor.
Turn the USD from a strong currency to a weak one.
Send shock waves through the world banking markets with irresponsible monetary policy, precipitating a near global credit squeeze.
Blunder into an ill planned, bloody and disastrous war, losing US face worldwide.

Thank goodness for those mid mannered, sane Conservatives.

Sign of the times, but as to blundering into an ill planned war, whether right or wrong I'd be interested to hear what Dem's believe should have been done not just in the immediate aftermath of the 911 catalyst but overall in dealing with unambiguous islamic airs on global destruction/domination of the infidel.

Otoh some people still regard islamic declarations of intent as little more than posturing that should never have been taken seriously enough to confront, while others go further by claiming yes it is a reality but understandable, and brought about by Western belligerence.

Denial is fine, but as stated before the free world is at a crossroads and both sides are playing for keeps; it is not a computer game that can be reset when things get difficult. It is also a precedent, in that the free world has never before been confronted with such a serious threat to its way of life if not existence, and as such it is difficult if at all possible to properly address within self imposed constraints of democratic niceties.

So, either concern at an islamic threat is in order or it isn't, either something needs to be done or not, and if so, it's not unreasonable to expect the career critics to realise they are part of the free world that is under threat, and invite them to help save us all by putting forward their own solutions if any, rather than point and tut with no positive input.

^what does any of that have to do with Iraq? They had nothing to with 9/11 and there was no Islamic threat there until the USA invaded.

Originally Posted by keda

Sign of the times, but as to blundering into an ill planned war, whether right or wrong I'd be interested to hear what Dem's believe should have been done not just in the immediate aftermath of the 911 catalyst but overall in dealing with unambiguous islamic airs on global destruction/domination of the infidel.

Otoh some people still regard islamic declarations of intent as little more than posturing that should never have been taken seriously enough to confront, while others go further by claiming yes it is a reality but understandable, and brought about by Western belligerence.

Denial is fine, but as stated before the free world is at a crossroads and both sides are playing for keeps; it is not a computer game that can be reset when things get difficult. It is also a precedent, in that the free world has never before been confronted with such a serious threat to its way of life if not existence, and as such it is difficult if at all possible to properly address within self imposed constraints of democratic niceties.

So, either concern at an islamic threat is in order or it isn't, either something needs to be done or not, and if so, it's not unreasonable to expect the career critics to realise they are part of the free world that is under threat, and invite them to help save us all by putting forward their own solutions if any, rather than point and tut with no positive input.

A serious effort in Afghanistan has been suggested , which is what I thought at the time. Instead we got a quick job with no follow up. Install the 'mayor of Kabul' , leave behind some trigger happy air support and move on to a totally ill-planned crusade which has turned into the mother of all fuck-ups. I did actually hear Obama give the Afghanistan answer when he got a 'what would you do' question. He also mentioned a crack at the Pakistani tribal areas which prompted the more staid listeners to throw a few rocks. Although Ms Bhutto seemed ready to lend a hand from the Pak side and she could be heading back to her old job. OK so she's a tad corrupt but that's never bothered the US before. FFS half the US legislature is corrupt.

One thing for sure. An ill considered foray in Iraq which has done nothing except turn Iraq into a 'failed state' waiting to happen , provided Iraqis with 'fruits of democracy' like no electricity or clean water and all the slaughter in the streets you want and finally , cherry on the cake , giving every Islamic hate merchant on the planet an abundance of recruiting arguments is NOT the answer.

Georgia will be sending 1200 troops to Iraq to patrol the border with Iran to beef up the effort to keep weapons out. That's the Georgia that used to be part of Russia.

^ Yes the same Georgia but do you believe they have the capability to do so?

Originally Posted by keda

Far more complex than a couple of sentences, but looks like the free world represented by tatters of the Coalition, is going to bear the brunt of a costly war of attrition, with the outcome pretty clear to all bar fools and politicians.

Much more complex, sure.
Not sure how one can say the coalition represents the "free world", The "free" parts of the world would surely have partaken if they'd agreed with the invasion, but many didn't, using their free self-determination to defy US pressure.
The cost is to a large extend, financially indirectly, otherwise tangibly, borne by everyone whether they like it or not, from cultural conflict polarisation, diminished liberties as a response to increased risks of terror attacks to airtraffic security, you name it...

yes, and security-related will be the growth industry for the foreseeable future.

^
And how much legal accountability does al Sadar have, eh?

Aren't the "representatives of the free world" claiming the moral high-ground, or has this mask fallen by now?

Originally Posted by stroller

Aren't the "representatives of the free world" claiming the moral high-ground, or has this mask fallen by now?

Don't think so. That's the old horse y'all been beating for G_D knows how long.