Thread: iraq study group

the army has made it clear they are stretched to the limit. they're still trying to figure out where the 20,000 is going to come from.

i'm not sure how it is possible to support the 'surge' but not enlist....unless of course the person is over 42 years old.

if that's the case (and at the very least), the 'surge protectors' should feel obligated to encourage their kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews, and the children of their friends and neighbors to enlist.

but i suppose that's between them and their consciences.

Originally Posted by surasak

I do think, however, that those who benefit from the war ought to be the ones fighting it

he's certainly not benefitting from it, but it is GWB's war.....apparently the twins are too busy getting drunk in argentina.

Originally Posted by raycarey

i'm not sure how it is possible to support the 'surge' but not enlist....unless of course the person is over 42 years old.

Can't you identify Republican voters and introduce the draft just for those who voted for Bush the second time round?

spoiler alert!

President Bush will announce tonight that the additional American troops he plans to sent to Baghdad will act only in support of Iraqi forces, and that they are being sent only because the Iraqi government has promised a “fundamental” change in policy, a top White House official said this morning.

Troops Sent in Surge to Have Limited Role, Bush Aide Says - New York Times

Again,

I think there is waaayyy too much focus on AMERICAN troops.

This is a political and sectarian issue for the most part, as stated above a few times.

"Surge?" Who cares.

Will it change things in a COIN situation.

No.

Sit back. Enjoy. And watch the same....for a while to come.

It's not about the "troops." It's not about the "surge."

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by RDN

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Originally Posted by raycarey

....

What am I doing? Nothing.
Why do you think I should do something?
You are the severest critic of the war, never at a loss for words when it comes to a solution. WTF are you doing?

Ditto. Please answer the question Carey. WTF are you doing?

i don't support the war, and never have. therefore, i have no moral obligation to do anything in support of it. how is that confusing?

however, for those who supported the invasion at any point, and who now agree that 'an attempt must be made' , it is only reasonable to assume that they are willing to contribute in that attempt....and btw, watching 24 is not really contributing.

so RDN....i've answered your question, i can only hope that you'll answer mine. i posted it earlier, but apparently you missed it, so here it is again....

Originally Posted by raycarey

i, for one, would like to thank sir burr and rdn for all the sacrfices that they're making in this 'attempt' that must be made.

their sense of service is a reminder to us all.

keep up the good work fellas!



ummmmmm.........remind me again what you guys are doing in this attempt that must be made? are either of you under 42? do you have kids under 42? grandkids? nieces or nephews? here's a link....

GoArmy.com > Contact the Army > How to Join

You still didn't answer the question, ray. (unless your sigline is your answer)
Is at least a portion of your paycheck going to some sort of group organized against the war? Being so far removed from things that's the least you could do.

Originally Posted by Milkman

It's not about the "troops."

I disagree. It's as much about the troops as the bad decisions.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Milkman

It's not about the "troops."

I disagree. It's as much about the troops as the bad decisions.

I suppose I should say, the degree of importance placed on the troops by the politicians and the U.S. public is over-stated.

The troops are necessarry for the U.S. to accomplish its objectives (Shell, BP, and Exxon are waiting), but the political, security, and economic are at least equally, or moreso important that the "troops."

Originally Posted by surasak

Is there really a difference between when Saddam invaded Kuwait and we invaded Iraq? The whole justification for war was based on lies and misleading statements. And now the ISG's recommendations are going to be ignored? I would consider that evil.

When Saddam said Kuwait used to be an Iraqi provence he was right, it did.

His excuse for invasion was far more factual than the simian Saddam = Osama and he's got WMDs 'argument'.

It saddens me to read the news about sending 20, 000 more troops to Iraq out of which 17,500 would be stationed in Baghdad to maintain law and order.

I ain't sad cos of hig American influx in Iraq. It saddens me to see how easy it is for those elite few to make such decisions. They don't care if these chaps would ever come back or not. The only think they want / know is to get their hands on riches. Are those riches really worth tens of thousands of lives?

The public, the generals, the military, the ISG all overwhelmingly opposed sending more troops.

Yet Bush ignores them all and orders more sent.

Just the worst President in history. Worse than Carter.

Originally Posted by surasak

The public, the generals, the military, the ISG all overwhelmingly opposed sending more troops.

Yet Bush ignores them all and orders more sent.

Absolutely.

There was a lengthy article about this yesterday that I tried to link here, but it wouldn't work (connection).

In the beginning the Generals, and upper level officers were ignored.

And now, they are being ignored again.


I think this again shows the vast differences between the military and the civilians.


The military has said and written many things that have proven now to be better, a lot better, than what the civilian masters have done.

Here's another possibility: the troops are not actually going to be used in Iraq but are being sent to prepare for another war, the war against Iran:

Who Is Planning the Next War? by Patrick J. Buchanan

Is this a last ditch attempt to save a failed legacy?

Originally Posted by surasak

Here's another possibility: the troops are not actually going to be used in Iraq but are being sent to prepare for another war, the war against Iran:

Who Is Planning the Next War? by Patrick J. Buchanan

Is this a last ditch attempt to save a failed legacy?

I don't think the Americans would even consider it.

They would get thumped. Terrain, lack of Farsi speakers, large population of young Iranian under 30. Weather. No chance.

Originally Posted by surasak

Here's another possibility: the troops are not actually going to be used in Iraq but are being sent to prepare for another war, the war against Iran:

Who Is Planning the Next War? by Patrick J. Buchanan

Is this a last ditch attempt to save a failed legacy?

Possible! We can expect this from Bush. I wonder if it has already come to Bush's knowledge that Iran has drones and 20K+ well trained suicide bombers!!!!! He can go ahead with his plans if he can handle the damage.

Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said he was no nation-builder; nation-building was wrong for America.
Now, he says it is vital for America.

He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today, U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.

He told us about WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake.

He has told us the war is necessary…Because Saddam was a threat; Because of 9/11; Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda; Because of terrorism in general; To liberate Iraq; To spread freedom; To spread democracy; To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states; Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden.

He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi Army, and "de-Baathified" the government. He short-changed Iraqi training.

He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence.

He sent in troops without life-saving equipment.

Gave jobs to foreign contractors, not the Iraqis.

Staffed U-S positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.

We learned that "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".

He has said more troops were not necessary, and more troops are necessary, and that it's up to the generals, and removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.

He told us of turning points: The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government,the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, ¤elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam. We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers. As they stood up–we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course'

The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists.

The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.

And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.

Crooks and Liars » Olbermann: A Look Backward at the Commander’s Credibility

Now he's asking the Iraqi Gov't to lift restrictions from the Baathists!!!

[quote=raycarey;239373]

"Mission Accomplished"

I am off-topic here, but I want to make a quick point.

The phrase "mission accomplished" and "military combat operations are over" come from Bush's speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, where he rode in the back of a fighter jet, dressed as a fighter pilot, off of the coast of San Diego.

This scene was choreographed, and lifted from the movie "Top Gun."

The video footage of the approach to the carrier, the landing, and Bush getting out of the plane and walking with his helmet in the figher pilot uniform was pure copycat of "Top Gun."

Several high-ranking Naval officers have stated this, and this is noted in Retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich's most recent book.

And he stated that the war was over in that speech as well.

LMAO.

and his jump suit was not even set properly, what a fucking circus.

Originally Posted by machangezi

It saddens me to read the news about sending 20, 000 more troops to Iraq out of which 17,500 would be stationed in Baghdad to maintain law and order.

I ain't sad cos of hig American influx in Iraq. It saddens me to see how easy it is for those elite few to make such decisions. They don't care if these chaps would ever come back or not...

Rubbish.

$5m for Carter from the Saudis, is like giving a beggar $1 for them, hardly make them a decent charity donator

American presidents are cheap. I wonder how much Bush is costing them. Probably a few hundreds.

Originally Posted by attaboy

Granted these are not the best unbiased sources.

Carter's Arab financiers*-*Editorials/Op-Ed*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

Especially lucrative have been Carter’s ties to Saudi Arabia. Before his death in 2005, King Fahd was a longtime contributor to the Carter Center and on more than one occasion contributed million-dollar donations. In 1993 alone, the king presented Carter with a gift of $7.6 million. And the king was not the only Saudi royal to commit funds to Carter’s cause. As of 2005, the king’s high-living nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, has donated at least $5 million to the Carter Center.

The Saudis throw money at all of our presidents, it's an ego thing. Makes those fat slobs feel like they're feeding monkeys at the zoo. You weren't kidding about biased sources. The money that the Saudis have thrown at Carter is nothing compared to the 900+ million dollars that nutcase Reverand Moon has thrown at the above-quoted Washington Times to keep his awful newspaper alive. Of course, the editorial above doesn't address the important issues that Carter writes about, just personal attacks. I'll still take the opinions of our wise elders over the nasty, scheming politicians in Washington.

Originally Posted by floorpotato

The Saudis throw money at all of our presidents, it's an ego thing. Makes those fat slobs feel like they're feeding monkeys at the zoo. You weren't kidding about biased sources. The money that the Saudis have thrown at Carter is nothing compared to the 900+ million dollars that nutcase Reverand Moon has thrown at the above-quoted Washington Times to keep his awful newspaper alive.

Yes,

Money is thrown all over, from over the world.

One of the closest Bush family friends is Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.

He even advised W. Bush about running for President and what themese to use.