Thread: Quagmire....

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Milkman

This is another classic line of propaganda. If someone in the military goes to Iraq, they are given a "global war on terror" medal.

And "National Service Defense."

Give me a break.

So?
What medals would you deem more appropriate?

None.

Medals aren't necessary. It's for feeding egos and career advancement.

In 'Nam officers actually gave themselves medals. This is called "getting starred." It helped them in their career. Many medals were faked.

Well, by your comments we can see you have never served in the Armed Forces so you wouldn't be expected to understand.

Can you specifically why and who I cannot understand? Aside from not "serving" as a bureaucrat with the Armed Forces.

^
Short answer:
From early days of warfare, man has always awarded his brethern in battle, medals for valor. Modern times, the Purple Heart for being wounded in action - CMH for the most extreme bravery. During Viet Nam there were scumbags like John Kerry who would fake their medals in order to 'get ahead' but they are always found out.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

^
Short answer:
From early days of warfare, man has always awarded his brethern in battle, medals for valor. Modern times, the Purple Heart for being wounded in action - CMH for the most extreme bravery. During Viet Nam there were scumbags like John Kerry who would fake their medals in order to 'get ahead' but they are always found out.

Thanks for reinforcing my point about people getting "starred," awarding themselves medals, and getting the purple heart for getting a hang nail. Kerry, got go purple hearts on the same day, in which he described himself as "walking wounded."

The medals are also used for political propaganda purpose, as the "Expeditionary War on Terrorism" medal is given to any person in the military who steps into Iraq.

Total B.S.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

^
Short answer:
From early days of warfare, man has always awarded his brethern in battle, medals for valor. Modern times, the Purple Heart for being wounded in action - CMH for the most extreme bravery. During Viet Nam there were scumbags like John Kerry who would fake their medals in order to 'get ahead' but they are always found out.

Thanks for reinforcing my point about people getting "starred," awarding themselves medals, and getting the purple heart for getting a hang nail. Kerry, got go purple hearts on the same day, in which he described himself as "walking wounded."

The medals are also used for political propaganda purpose, as the "Expeditionary War on Terrorism" medal is given to any person in the military who steps into Iraq.

Total B.S.

And the CMH?

As I've mentioned, there's a Kerry or two in the system.

Also, there's what called 'Champaign Medals' where one can recognize another having served in a particular arena. But, since you have not had active military experience, you are at a disadvantage of not understanding...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

And the CMH?

The Congressional Medal of Honor is very rare. Honorable, but also prone to may phonies claiming to have it when they never recieved it. That is a shame.

....There's a Kerry or two in the system.

Also, there's what called 'Champaign Medals' where one can recognize another having served in a particular arena. But, since you have not had active military experience, you are at a disadvantage of not understanding...

It's not about disrespect for the guys out there (and the women) but it's the misuse of the medals and the politicising of them.

By not being in the military, I don't think that precludes me from "understanding" the concept of medals and the politicization of them.

And many how more cases are there that we don't know about?

GI: Sergeant ordered unarmed Iraqi’s death

U.S. military also probes killing of 5 women, 4 kids in air, ground assault


Updated: 9:34 p.m. ET Sept. 27, 2007


BAGHDAD - A U.S. soldier cried Thursday as he told a court-martial that his staff sergeant ordered him to shoot an unarmed Iraqi. He said the sergeant then laughed and told the trooper to finish the job as the dying man convulsed on the ground.

The military reported, meanwhile, that it had opened an investigation into the deaths of five women and four children this week in a village where American forces had carried out ground and air assaults.

Entire & Link: GI: Unarmed Iraqi’s death ordered - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

Well, some good news and some bad news:

First the bad news:

US military deaths in Iraq lowest in 14 months

View larger image

US military losses in Iraq for September stood at 70 on Sunday, the lowest monthly figure since July last year, according to an AFP tally based on Pentagon figures. The figure also marks the fourth consecutive drop in the monthly death toll following a high of 121 in May. June saw 93 deaths, July 82 and August 79. The monthly toll in July 2006 was 53.

And some good news:

Two US soldiers were killed on Saturday in separate incidents, pushing the overall toll of American losses since the March 2003 invasion to 3,801.

Link: US military deaths in Iraq lowest in 14 months

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

^
Short answer:
From early days of warfare, man has always awarded his brethern in battle, medals for valor. Modern times, the Purple Heart for being wounded in action - CMH for the most extreme bravery. During Viet Nam there were scumbags like John Kerry who would fake their medals in order to 'get ahead' but they are always found out.

Actually, the proper name for the medal is the Medal of Honour, not Congressional Medal of Honour.

Seems you have to have not served in the military to know that.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

^
Short answer:
From early days of warfare, man has always awarded his brethern in battle, medals for valor. Modern times, the Purple Heart for being wounded in action - CMH for the most extreme bravery. During Viet Nam there were scumbags like John Kerry who would fake their medals in order to 'get ahead' but they are always found out.

Actually, the proper name for the medal is the Medal of Honour, not Congressional Medal of Honour.

Seems you have to have not served in the military to know that.

Maybe in the Royal Guards/Army etc but in America it's the CMH.
Because...it's awarded by Congress.

I'm talking about the US Medal of Honour. It is commonly referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honour, but, strictly speaking, that is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

I'm talking about the US Medal of Honour. It is commonly referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honour, but, strictly speaking, that is incorrect.

How so?

The proper name of what you refer to as the Congressional Medal of Honour, is The Medal of Honour.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

The proper name of what you refer to as the Congressional Medal of Honour, is The Medal of Honour.

OK, call it what you will but I don't think MM appreciates whether they are awarded or not.

The welfare gravy train continues. One more piece of the quagmire puzzle: the costs.

Pentagon spends $17,500 per soldier for high-tech protection, weapons



Updated: 3:31 p.m. PT Oct 2, 2007


WASHINGTON - As Washington lawmakers argue over the spiraling price of the war in Iraq, consider this: Outfitting a soldier for battle costs a hundred times more now than it did in World War II.


The cost was $170 in 2006 inflation-adjusted dollars then, about $17,500 now and could be an estimated $28,000 to $60,000 by the middle of the next decade.


“The ground soldier was perceived to be a relatively inexpensive instrument of war” in the past, said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, head of the Army agency for developing and fielding soldier equipment.

Now, the Pentagon spends tens of billions of dollars annually to protect troops and make them more lethal on the battlefield.

Link: Gear’s cost skyrocketed since WWII - Military Affairs - MSNBC.com

Ret. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. The man Ret. Lt. Col. Andrew Bacevich calls the "William Westmoreland of the Iraq War."

Ex-general: Iraq a 'nightmare' for US

By STEVEN KOMAROW, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago
ARLINGTON, Va. - The U.S. mission in Iraq is a "nightmare with no end in sight" because of political misjudgments after the fall of Saddam Hussein that continue today, a former chief of U.S.-led forces said Friday.


Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded coalition troops for a year beginning June 2003, cast a wide net of blame for both political and military shortcomings in Iraq that helped open the way for the insurgency — such as disbanding the Saddam-era military and failing to cement ties with tribal leaders and quickly establish civilian government after Saddam was toppled.


He called current strategies — including the deployment of 30,000 additional forces earlier this year — a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of misguided policies in Iraq.

Link: Ex-general: Iraq a 'nightmare' for US - Yahoo! News

Originally Posted by Milkman

Ret. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. The man Ret. Lt. Col. Andrew Bacevich calls the "William Westmoreland of the Iraq War."

Is that meant to be a compliment?

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Originally Posted by Milkman

Ret. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. The man Ret. Lt. Col. Andrew Bacevich calls the "William Westmoreland of the Iraq War."

Is that meant to be a compliment?

No sir, Sir Burr.

William Westmoreland was the lead man in Vietnam and believed in the "Domino Theory" (or so he claimed) until he died last year. Wetmoreland also advocated and implemented the "war of attrition" in 'Nam. The thing is, the war of attrition was on the Americans.

Westmoreland is a buffoon in the pages of history.

As the 4,000 American casualty comes in, I assume the US mainstream media will make a big deal out of it, even though the Iraqis have a lot more casualties than the Americans. Same as Vietnam. Feel sympathy for 58,000 Americans, when millions of Vietnamese were killed. Selfish, arrogant, attitude.

(CBS/AP) Three American soldiers were killed in a rocket attack in southern Iraq on Wednesday, bringing to 12 the number of soldiers who have been killed in Iraq over the past three days.

With the overall U.S. military death toll in Iraq nearing 4,000, the latest killings mark a significant rise in deadly attacks against Americans.

At least 3,987 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an AP count. The figure includes eight military civilians.

Link: Iraq Rocket Attack Kills 3 U.S. Soldiers, 12 U.S. Deaths Over Past Three Days Marks Significant Rise In Deadly Attacks Against Americans - CBS News

The Quagmire continues. Attacks have spiked, although it may be brief.

The Quagmire is now financial. It's costing taxpayers a lot of money.

It will continue to cost taxpayers for several more years.

but, but, but, but....the escalation is working, right?

what a mess.

5 long years of loss (lives, treasure, and international reputation) and no end in sight.

jan '09 can't come soon enough.

Lifetime of welfare for Vets. Just like 'Nam....

Iraq war could cost taxpayers $2.7 trillion

In addition to the cost of war, taxpayers pay for rising veteran health care costs, and returning soldiers faced with foreclosure and unemployment.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- As the Iraq war continues with no clear end in sight, the cost to taxpayers may balloon to $2.7 trillion by the time the conflict comes to an end, according to Congressional testimony.

In a hearing held by the Joint Economic Committee Thursday, members of Congress heard testimony about the current costs of the war and the future economic fallout from returning soldiers.

At the beginning of the conflict in 2003, the Bush administration gave Congress a cost estimate of $60 billion to $100 billion for the entirety of the war. But the battle has been dragging on much longer than most in the government expected, and costs have ballooned to nearly ten times the original estimate.

Link & Entire: Iraq war could cost taxpayers $2.7 trillion - Jun. 12, 2008

$3 billion/week, the army is at its breaking point, and there's no end in sight.

what a mess.

Individual Ready Reserves (IRR) = Backdoor draft.

This guy was in the military for 5 years, gets an honrable discharge, then a year later they call him up to go to Iraq.

A month after US army reservist Matthis Chiroux publicly refused to deploy to Iraq, the former sergeant on Sunday set himself up for possible prosecution by failing to report for active duty with his unit in South Carolina.

"Tonight at midnight, I may face further action from the army for refusing to reactivate to participate in the Iraq occupation," Chiroux told reporters in Washington.


"I stand here today in defense of those who have been stripped of their voices in this occupation, the warriors of this nation...", Chiroux read from a statement as his father Rob, who had travelled to Washington from Alabama to support his son on Father's Day, stood beside him.


Last month, Chiroux rejected an order calling him back to active duty in Iraq, saying he considers the war "illegal and unconstitutional."
Chiroux served five years in the army, with tours in Afghanistan, Japan, Germany and the Philippines.


He was honorably discharged last year and was placed in the Individual Ready Reserves (IRR), a pool of former soldiers who can be "reactivated" in a national emergency or war.


Prior to the Iraq war, IRR members were rarely recalled to active duty, according to the Military Times, an independent newspaper for members of the US armed forces and their families.


"Many believed they never would be called -- but when the army found itself stretched by unexpected combat demands in Iraq in the summer of 2004 it began issuing mobilization orders," Military Times wrote in an article published a year ago on Sunday.



According to the paper, hundreds of IRR members "refused to report or simply ignored their mailed mobilization orders."


Matthis' father Rob, a rocket scientist who lives in the army town of Huntsville, Alabama, said mobilizing IRR members was a form of back-door draft.

Link: US soldier refuses to report for active duty in Iraq

The few that started this war, will likely be the few that benefit from it.

Deals with Iraq are set to bring oil giants back


By Andrew E. Kramer
Published: June 19, 2008


BAGHDAD: Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

ExxonMobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq's Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq's Oil Ministry.

Link & Entire: Deals with Iraq are set to bring oil giants back - International Herald Tribune