THE WAR IN IRAQ

[Guest]

The US -- is spending $720 Million Dollars a day in Iraq... That is $400,000 a minute..

Which would buy...
84 New Elementary Schools, or
12,748 New Classroom Teacher, or
1,153,525 Free school lunches, or
health insurance for 423,529 school children,or
6,482 affordable housing units

CONGRESS WILL SOON TAKE ACTION ON ANOTHER $100+ BILLION FOR THE WAR... CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN NOW AND ASK THEM NOT TO FUND THE WAR.. 202-224-3121 :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :redface: :redface:

[Guest]

This makes me think back to a time 6 1/2 years ago when the US was shocked and made to feel more vulnerable than ever in my lifetime. There was many a chorus shouting for the government to find those responsible for the horror and take every step, reasonable and unreasonable, to insure no more harm befell any American on American soil. There was a national cry to "make them pay" whomever they were, for the anguish, damage and pain. It was loud, it was constant, and it was everywhere.

The focus for all blame fell upon the Mideast. Those who administered the terror came (or had ties) across the Mideast, and there were many who wanted a broadbrush smashing of everything, every place and everyone who could be involved in our national moment of horror.

Memories tend to get selective in the passage of time.

The bottom line was, the administration had to act, as expediently as possible, to demonstrate the United States was not a toothless tiger and would definitely bite back - hard and tough - when wounded. The concern that more attacks like 9/11's may be right around the corner was trumpeted in every newspaper and TV news show. So, with the evidence at hand (no matter how much one wants to Monday-morning quarterback the choice) the Commander-in-Chief unleashed the armed forces at the biggest bully on the Mideast block who had a history of bloodying those around him/them, had a human rights violation record equal to Hitler's, and had publically announced the intention of harming the United States as a national policy. The Mideast governments whose citizenry were among the terrorist cowards unilaterally turned a blind eye to finding or assisting to find those who attacked us, and to this day have not taken anything close to military, economic or social measures to mitigate such terror.

So, Iraq got tagged. A diabolical regime with a history of genocide, using chemical weapons on its neighbors and citizens, and using its military in roles which made the Nazi SS seem tame got kicked and kicked hard. The biggest of the bullies got its teeth knocked out, and justifiably so for its role as an "accessory before the fact."

Perhaps the biggest problem with the Iraq War is its timing. Today's generation doesn't remember WWII, Pearl Harbor, Nazi Germany or Tojo's Japan. That's "history" to almost all of us.

At Pearl Harbor, the casualty totals were approximately 2,500 killed and 1,200 wounded, depending on whose records you review.

On 9/11, the casualty totals were approximately 3,000 killed and 6,200 injured.

Pearl Harbor was the catalyst to US military commitment to WWII, and the goal was to retaliate for a heinous attack on US soil and to eliminate from the face of the earth the diabolical regimes which aligned to reek such misery, havoc, human rights violations, et al.

The cost to the United States for WWII was astronomical in comparison to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we found ourselves occupying, combatting internal factions there, and nation-building (politically and industrially) for close to three decades before things started to really level out.

Would it be nice if the finances necessary to continue Iraq/Afghanistan could be spent elsewhere within the nation? Sure it would. I'll bet my parents and others probably wished that it wasn't necessary to spend their taxes on WWII costs - from 12/07/1941 through the 1970s. That money, or a lot of it, could also have bought a lot of schools and infrastructure, but at what inevitable price?

[Guest]

The problem is, we know better - We don't belong there, shouldn't have gone in the first place. The majority of Americans have had it, and want out of Iraq. Happy62 is right. I heard a number something like 1/2 trillion dollars will be spent on the war. That could have fixed social security, medicare, and done all sorts of wonderful things in this country. The war has accomplished little to nothing.

[Guest]

Happy62-Thank you!-
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was a invasion to find weapons...

[Guest]

Most Americans are so preoccupied with their "stuff" and with themselves that we have the collective memory of a gnat. It's going to take something unthinkable to happen to jerk us out of our self-absorbed stupor. By then it may be too late. :o

Boy is that depressing. Shift gears out of Iraq? Shifting the trillions to domestic feel good things won't help our national security. Pretending the Islamists don't want to do us in won't make it so.

[Guest]

The Iraq Invasion has made us less safe... in many ways.

[Guest]

:agree: Mcelheny - thank you! Unfortunately, the war has not made us safer. Senate majority leader Harry Reid summarized it in remarks at this link: http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=295281&
The article essentially says: the civil war in Iraq persists; our military is stretched too thin and its ability to address new threats is compromised; Colin Powell has said our military is about broken; we've taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and things are backsliding there; because of iraq, the National Guard (designed to protect us at home) don't have the personnel and equipment to do their job adequately; our moral authority in the world has been shattered by Bush's cowboy politics - our former allies won't stand by our side - our ability to solve problems by diplomacy is diminished.

Senator Reid further says: “We have already lost 4,000 young Americans. 30,000 more have been wounded, many gravely. We are now spending $12 billion every month on the war. That’s almost $300,000 each minute. The President told us the war would cost no more than $60 billion. We’ve already spent ten times that much.

“We are building barracks in Iraq when we should be helping millions of Americans avoid losing their homes to foreclosure. We are policing the streets of Baghdad when we should be investing in universal health care and a better education system. We are protecting oil fields in Basra when we should be funding renewable energy production to help stem the tide of global warming.

“When all is finally said and done, experts say the war is going to cost as much as $3 trillion or more. Where does that $3 trillion come from? It’s all borrowed from future generations. The legacy of our generation could be to leave our children and grandchildren with a safer, cleaner, more prosperous country. Instead, the war in Iraq will ensure that we leave future generations with trillions of dollars in debt.

“Instead of making our own country safer, we are greasing the pockets of corrupt Iraqi politicians and buying their temporary cooperation. And let’s not forget – Iraq is not a poor country. Far from it. Their oil resources make them one of the world’s wealthiest. Record high oil prices have supplied Iraq with literally more money than they know what to do with.

“As we borrow and spend billions of dollars to provide the security state that the Iraqi government has failed to create for themselves, Iraq is bringing in billions in oil money faster than they can open bank accounts to store it all.

“If a parent gives a teenager the choice of either getting a job or receiving an allowance for doing nothing, the teenager will of course choose to do nothing. As long as we guarantee to the Iraqi government that our troops and our money will support them, they will never have incentive to do the job themselves. The security welfare state we’ve created will go on and on forever.

[Guest]

Assume we are out of Iraq within a year.

What should our national security strategy then become visa vie Islamists in general and hostile nations going nuclear in particular?

By the way...too few homes in this country has nothing to do with our current economic problems. There is no need to shift "war money" to domestic home building programs. The economic problem is too many homes...that's why prices have plummeted. Supply exceeds demand - primarily caused by speculator greed throughout the industry.

[Guest]

It seems pretty obvious that we need to re-focus on Afghanistan, the real home of Al Qaeda.

[Guest]

...particularly the border with Pakistan...and into Pakistan...and the emerging training ground of North Africa...and our own domestic Islamic cells..and my favorite, greatly enhancing our border security.

[Guest]

This makes me think back to a time 6 1/2 years ago when the US was shocked and made to feel more vulnerable than ever in my lifetime. There was many a chorus shouting for the government to find those responsible for the horror and take every step, reasonable and unreasonable, to insure no more harm befell any American on American soil. There was a national cry to "make them pay" whomever they were, for the anguish, damage and pain. It was loud, it was constant, and it was everywhere.

The focus for all blame fell upon the Mideast. Those who administered the terror came (or had ties) across the Mideast, and there were many who wanted a broadbrush smashing of everything, every place and everyone who could be involved in our national moment of horror.

Memories tend to get selective in the passage of time.

The bottom line was, the administration had to act, as expediently as possible, to demonstrate the United States was not a toothless tiger and would definitely bite back - hard and tough - when wounded. The concern that more attacks like 9/11's may be right around the corner was trumpeted in every newspaper and TV news show. So, with the evidence at hand (no matter how much one wants to Monday-morning quarterback the choice) the Commander-in-Chief unleashed the armed forces at the biggest bully on the Mideast block who had a history of bloodying those around him/them, had a human rights violation record equal to Hitler's, and had publically announced the intention of harming the United States as a national policy. The Mideast governments whose citizenry were among the terrorist cowards unilaterally turned a blind eye to finding or assisting to find those who attacked us, and to this day have not taken anything close to military, economic or social measures to mitigate such terror.

So, Iraq got tagged. A diabolical regime with a history of genocide, using chemical weapons on its neighbors and citizens, and using its military in roles which made the Nazi SS seem tame got kicked and kicked hard. The biggest of the bullies got its teeth knocked out, and justifiably so for its role as an "accessory before the fact."

Perhaps the biggest problem with the Iraq War is its timing. Today's generation doesn't remember WWII, Pearl Harbor, Nazi Germany or Tojo's Japan. That's "history" to almost all of us.

At Pearl Harbor, the casualty totals were approximately 2,500 killed and 1,200 wounded, depending on whose records you review.

On 9/11, the casualty totals were approximately 3,000 killed and 6,200 injured.

Pearl Harbor was the catalyst to US military commitment to WWII, and the goal was to retaliate for a heinous attack on US soil and to eliminate from the face of the earth the diabolical regimes which aligned to reek such misery, havoc, human rights violations, et al.

The cost to the United States for WWII was astronomical in comparison to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we found ourselves occupying, combatting internal factions there, and nation-building (politically and industrially) for close to three decades before things started to really level out.

Would it be nice if the finances necessary to continue Iraq/Afghanistan could be spent elsewhere within the nation? Sure it would. I'll bet my parents and others probably wished that it wasn't necessary to spend their taxes on WWII costs - from 12/07/1941 through the 1970s. That money, or a lot of it, could also have bought a lot of schools and infrastructure, but at what inevitable price?

A very well written post.

If we had never went to Iraq and they had used the WMD's on us the same people saying "We shouldn't be there, we shouldn't have gone" would be saying "Why didn't we do something, we should have gone". ::)

[Guest]

But the whole point is, they didn't have WMD's. Once we found that out we could have started an exit strategy. Six years later, what have we accomplished?

[Guest]

A very well written post.

If we had never went to Iraq and they had used the WMD's on us the same people saying "We shouldn't be there, we shouldn't have gone" would be saying "Why didn't we do something, we should have gone". ::)



What WMD's??? Haven't you heard the news? Haven't you read the reports? THERE WERE NO WMD'S!

There's an old expression of "not putting good money after bad." Sorry, but there is so much that can be done with that money right here at home. We need it here, we need it now. We have starving people here, we have more and more homeless people here everyday. We still have not helped thousands and thousands of people after Katrina to rebuild their lives.

This War in Iraq is Bush's Folly. He took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan. And we're all paying the price. Honestly, I don't know why he was never impeached. It baffles me. And if McCain is voted in, this disgraceful debacle will go on and on and on.

With all the starving, homeless people in this country, people without health insurance and poor education in this country, please, let's clean up our own backyard first. All this wasted, and it is indeed wasted, money on this war just makes me want to cry when I see even one cold, shivering, hungry family on the streets of America tossed aside like old ragdolls. There children in this country that don't know if they'll eat tonight. There are families in this country that don't know where they're going to sleep tonight . . . How can you?

[Guest]

But the whole point is, they didn't have WMD's. Once we found that out we could have started an exit strategy. Six years later, what have we accomplished?

Hmm well where do I start:
1. Because of our actions Libya dismantled it's WMD program - http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/19/bush.libya/index.html

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_05/libya.asp

2. If I remember correctly Iraq had 17 sanctions against them imposed by the UN, were we just suppose to keep going, 18, 19, 20 without any enforcement?

3. We have not been attacked since 9/11

4. Many terrorist are now dead over there and not over here because of the war.

5. We have not been attacked since 9/11 :)

Now lets say, Iraq had WMD's, the Bush administration did nothing and something horrible happened, this discussion would be: "We were attacked, the Bush administration KNEW they had WMD's and did absolutely nothing, WHY???"

It just can't go both ways. I admire Pesident Bush for having the leadership to make decisions and stick with them regardless of opinion polls, emotions etc.....

I for one am very happy that his approval ratings are very very low because it means he is DOING something. The President who stands there and makes happy feel good speeches and does absolutely nothing to **** of the people and talks about "Building Bridges" will always have great approval ratings however in the end they have done nothing they were hired to do. It's a fickle world out there. :)

[Guest]

Oh, I wish people would stop crediting Bush for not having any attacks since 9/11. It simply wasn't going to happen anyway! If you track the attacks on any and all US holdings, the attacks have always been 7 to 9 years apart! Bush has increased the terrorists 100 fold. We're not winning the War, we're help Al Queda to recruit terrorist. We are spreading terrorism. Wake up! I don't want a President with a low approval rating. The proves he's doing his job? Really???? Sorry, but I think, WE THE PEOPLE, are smarter than that. Well, as least some of us.

[Guest]

In the past 5 years, our government has put in place organizations, processes and programs to detect, locate and prevent terrorism, not just in the US, but around the world. Look at the airline security we go through now that wasn't in place before 9/11. In this sense, we are better prepared to thwart terrorism. However, on the flip side, the war in Iraq has helped fan the flames of terrorism in that it inspires more people to join the terrorist ranks to fight against the US. The war hasn't stopped us from being attacked, its setting the stage for new attacks, either on our soil or overseas at some point in the future.

I too like Bush's low popularity ratings, because it shows that the American people do not approve of the poor job he's doing, and hopefully they'll elect someone who will turn things around.

[Guest]

We got into a lot of this mess because the prior administration decided that defense and intelligence operations could be cut drastically to the point where many types of activities, missions and plans had to be scuttled. That was a "risk management" decision made by the prior administration akin to not carrying flood insurance. Unfortunately, when you roll the dice, sometimes it comes up 'snake-eyes' as it did this time. Whether that was the right decision or not doesn't matter - as it was made at the time with what I hope was the best of intentions.

The intelligence on Iraq (this is open source stuff) did indeed show WMD programs in various stages of development. Included in that is the use of chemical weapons against Kurds and Iranians in considerable numbers - and these are indeed WMD.


The United Nations had stated:

23 February 1998

EXPERTS SUSPICIOUS OF IRAQI VX WEAPONS PLANS
(Technical evaluation determines VX picture still incomplete) (1080)
By Judy Aita
USIA United Nations Correspondent
United Nations -- Iraq was able to produce between 50 and 100 tonnes
of the deadly chemical warfare agent VX before the invasion of Kuwait
in 1990 and currently has the know-how, equipment and possibly the
chemicals to manufacture as much as 200 tonnes of VX, a group of
international chemical weapons experts has concluded.
The experts, who were called together by the U.N. Special Commission
overseeing the destruction of Iraqi weapons (UNSCOM), said that "it is
clear that the capability to produce VX was regarded as being of the
utmost importance to Iraq in 1987 and beyond."
"Iraq's unilateral destruction of VX essential components and
materials, coupled with the denial until 1995 of attempts to produce
VX on an industrial scale can only reinforce that view," they said in
a new report to the Security Council. "Therefore, the retention of a
VX capability by Iraq cannot be excluded."

Add to that:

Terrorists Seek Iraqi WMD Scientists
Thursday, June 24, 2004

Al Qaeda-connected terror chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search) and other terrorists are apparently trying to recruit Iraqi weapons of mass destruction experts and resources for possible future attacks against the U.S.-led coalition, the head of the Iraq Survey Group (search) told FOX News Thursday.

That's just a sample of the open-course stuff.

For everyone looking for that big, ominous, 'smoking gun' WMD, look at the chemical programs and what since has happened to the programs and the persons involved in them.

Perhaps the problem is the lack of a big blocked item with the label "WMD" stenciled on the side, and without such a stenciled item, some folk will never be convinced.

To this day there are folk who say the Nazi-directed Holocast never did happen despite evidence. I guess the issue is what sort of evidence do you accept or reject?

As far as various politicians soap-boxing during an election year, making flammatory remarks in the hopes of getting press coverage when they normally would be ignored - that always happens and needs to be recognized for the farce it is.

The Iraq war is not simply a "where's the WMD" exercise. Congress, especially the Intelligence and Defense committees in the Senate and the House, had access to a lot of information never made public, and the Congresspersons within those committees were on the bandwagon from the beginning. It's only those who did not have access to all of the intelligence information that sqawked from the sidelines.

Approval ratings for Presidents are no different than call-in voting for American Idol. The scores are subject to considerable scrutiny, especially when the public-at-large does not have access to the level and detail of information available to the President and advisors, much of which may never see the light of day (that being AP, Reuters, CNN and the rest). I'd much rather have an ethical person willing to stand by an "unpopular" decision made with credible (yet not releasable) information than I would a will-o-th-wisp who floats with the breeze.

A person I trust implicitly once described organizations as filled normally by two groups of people: the 'popular' and the 'competent' - and only rarely does someone fit both categories. The 'popular' and those whose maintain that title as their one-and-only claim to position scare the H#** out of me.

Let's face it. None of us like the concept of an on-going war. No one wants to have to witness the results. However, it is happening.

I surely hope and pray this war will end, and that the reasons - all of them - why it is occurring go away as well. However, to campaign for President by saying "I will end it and bring everyone home" is utter BS and the shabbiest of salesmanship targeting the emotions rather than the logic.

For those who still are concerned solely with WMD, the REAL 'weapon of mass destruction" is governmental apathy when faced with severe and imminent danger to the citizenry - ask anyone who had to clean up after Neville Chamberlain's policies!

[Guest]

Oh, I wish people would stop crediting Bush for not having any attacks since 9/11. It simply wasn't going to happen anyway! If you track the attacks on any and all US holdings, the attacks have always been 7 to 9 years apart! Bush has increased the terrorists 100 fold. We're not winning the War, we're help Al Queda to recruit terrorist. We are spreading terrorism. Wake up! I don't want a President with a low approval rating. The proves he's doing his job? Really???? Sorry, but I think, WE THE PEOPLE, are smarter than that. Well, as least some of us.


For your information:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html
List of Thwarted Terror Attacks Since Sept. 11
Thursday, March 06, 2008

By Joseph Abrams

The following is a list of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.

• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.

• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking "dirty bomb," convicted of conspiracy.

• September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.

• May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with trying to topple the Brooklyn Bridge.

• June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.

• August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images).

• August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.

• August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.

• June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.

• August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.

• December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up refinery in Wyoming, convicted of providing material support to terrorists.

• February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.

• April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.

• June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.

• July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to hit New York City train tunnels.

• August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.

• May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey.

• June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries underneath JFK Airport in New York.

• March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

And that's just what's been made public....

[Guest]

I agree with Lil Dancer that we have put organizations into place that didn't exist before. Any sitting President would have done so. Probably better. If you think you can blame this atrocity on the Clinton administration, that goes beyond words. I couldn't disagree with you more. Well, it seems that Bush is blameless to you. The rest of America doesn't think so.

[Guest]

Not blameless but doesn't deserve all the blame either. Whether you want to admit it or not , Clinton does share in the blame.

[Guest]

Fox is another word for Republican rag. I won't admit or agree with any Republican spin. Read Buffalo News today about who is fighting the Iraq invasion.

[Guest]

Fox is another word for Republican rag. I won't admit or agree with any Republican spin. Read Buffalo News today about who is fighting the Iraq invasion.

The events are the events, and can be found on other media. CNN has them, as does NBC and the Times.

What is sad in many ways is that something must have to be either:
- Republican, which makes it dumb, a lie, slanderous and gotta be wrong, or
- Democrat, which makes it dumb, a lie, slanderous and gotta be wrong.

When will things be "American" and viewed with somewhat of an open mind? The "Party is right, no matter what" is a tough position to take, especially when over history BOTH of the parties can be either accused or credited with the same actions.

President Bush is definitely not a smooth operator, and his demeanor will never win popularity contests. That's just the way of it, as it was with President Truman and President Johnson. Both of them became the subject of buffoon jokes, too. I guess taking the job as President automatically makes someone the butt of ridicule, regardless of political party, and makes you wonder why anyone would want the job.


I agree with Lil Dancer that we have put organizations into place that didn't exist before. Any sitting President would have done so. Probably better. If you think you can blame this atrocity on the Clinton administration, that goes beyond words. I couldn't disagree with you more. Well, it seems that Bush is blameless to you. The rest of America doesn't think so


That's part of the beauty of life here. We can disagree, and we both can see the glass as half-empty or half-full and be correct. I'm not sure that I can ever claim that "the rest of America thinks so" based on a one-party view, and only see it for how I see it and no one else.

Is President Bush blameless? Blame for what? He has made his share of mistakes while in office, just lilke every President before him and everyone that will follow. To "blame" him for Iraq would be like "blaming" Presidents Kennedy and Johnson for Vietnam, President GHW Bush for Gulf I, President Eisenhower for Korea, President Roosevelt for WWII and President Truman as a war criminal for the use of the A-Bomb. Oh yes, and the most untouchable of them all, President Clinton, for Somolia, Bosnia and a neutered intelligence apparatus. STUFF HAPPENS on everyone's watch and the easiest thing in the world is to Monday-morning quarterback with little true information.

Could things have been done differently? Sure, as there is always another way to "skin a cat." Was anything done with criminal intent, or to line his pockets, or done without Congressional support (as Congress controls the money faucet)? NO, or he would have been impeached by the Democratically-controlled Congress, especially in an election year.

Is it time for a change? YES, and my thanks to the Founding Fathers and the authors of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

So, let's see who is hired next as President, so that in a couple years we can get the tar-and-feathers out for him/her, too.

[Guest]

The following is a list of attacks by Islamists that have occurred around the world since March 15, 2008.* (listing the attacks since the beginning of the year greatly exceeded the 20,000 character posting limit.)

How many do you see having occurred in the United States? *We must be doing SOMETHING right. *Oh, and I guess all these other nations are really doing something vile to provoke these attacks...Thailand, Yemen, Afgahanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, India, Kosovo, Iraq (of course).* And we are aware of the earlier attacks against Great Britain, Spain, the Phillipeans, the Netherlands and other nations over the past couple of years.


List of Islamic Terror Attacks since March 15, 2008...

Date Country City Killed Injured Description
4/17/2008 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A villager on his way to work is shot to death by Muslim terrorists.
4/17/2008 Thailand Yala 1 0 Islamic radicals kill a local soldier in a bomb attack.
4/17/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 3 0 Islamists attack three foreigners collecting water, killing three of the with a rocket.
4/16/2008 Yemen Marib 4 3 Four local cops are killed in an al-Qaeda bombing.
4/16/2008 Thailand Pattani 1 0 The manger of a shrimp farm is kidnapped and beheaded by Muslim extremists.
4/16/2008 Iraq Muqdadiyah 2 5 Sunni extremists open fire on a minibus, killing two occupants.
4/16/2008 Afghanistan Zabul 1 0 A local police officer is gunned down in a Taliban ambush.
4/16/2008 Pakistan Khyber 20 15 Lashkar-e-Islam and fellow Sunnis clash over a religious dispute. Twenty people are killed.
4/15/2008 Afghanistan Spin Boldak 2 3 Two local cops are murdered by Sunni bombers.
4/15/2008 Iraq Karbala 5 2 Five people are murdered by Sunni extremists in an armed attack on their village.
4/15/2008 Iraq Al-Doum 5 6 Shiite radicals kill five Iraqis and kidnap six more.
4/15/2008 Iraq Baghdad 11 19 Jihads rack up eleven civilians, including women, in at least two attacks.
4/15/2008 Iraq Mosul 9 20 Six women, including a schoolgirl, are among nine Iraqis murdered by Jihadis.
4/15/2008 Iraq Ramadi 13 20 Islamic terrorists send a suicide bomber into a restaurant, killing at least thirteen patrons.
4/15/2008 India Ramban 1 0 Lashkar-e-Toiba militants kill a local soldier.
4/15/2008 Pakistan Parachinar 1 6 One person is killed in a Sunni-Shia sectarian clash.
4/15/2008 Iraq Baqubah 40 80 At least forty civilians are killed when Sunni extremists plant a bomb near a courthouse.
4/14/2008 Somalia Belet Weyne 4 0 A 70-year-old man is among four teachers shot in the head by Islamists.
4/14/2008 Iraq Sinjar 12 15 A dozen Iraqi soldiers are murdered by a suicide bomber while traveling home from a security posting.
4/14/2008 Afghanistan Arghandab 11 1 Islamic hardliners storm a police checkpoint, killing eleven locals.
4/14/2008 Iraq Baghdad 7 17 Jihadis kill seven civilians with two bomb blasts.
4/14/2008 Somalia Merka 4 12 Fundamentalists toss a grenade into a cinema showing Western films, killing at least four patrons.
4/14/2008 Iraq Tal Afar 4 14 A suicide bomber takes out four mourners at a funeral.
4/14/2008 Pakistan Parachinar 7 68 Seven more people are killed in sectarian violence within the Religion of Peace.
4/13/2008 Ingushetia Karabulak 1 0 A judge is assassinated by suspected Islamic gunmen.
4/13/2008 Iraq Mosul 3 10 An Islamist bombing and beheading leave three Iraqis dead.
4/13/2008 Afghanistan Khost 3 4 Three civilians are blown to bits by a bomb planted by Islamic militants.
4/12/2008 Afghanistan Nimroz 4 3 Three Indian road workers and a local Afghan are killed by a Fedayeen suicide bomber.
4/12/2008 Afghanistan Helmand 4 7 Four local cops are ambushed and killed by the Taliban.
4/12/2008 Afghanistan Maiwand 4 0 Sunni extremists murder four anti-drug workers in a field.
4/12/2008 Pakistan Kurram 8 10 Eight people are killed in violence between rival religious groups.
4/11/2008 Pakistan Chinar Chowk 2 3 Religious radicals shell a market, killing two people.
4/11/2008 Iraq Baiji 2 13 Children are among the casualties of two Jihad terror attacks, including a suicide bombing.
4/11/2008 Iraq Ramadi 3 5 A suicide bomber takes out three Iraqis.
4/11/2008 Pakistan Charsadda 1 0 A government official is shot to death by pro-Taliban militants.
4/11/2008 Pakistan Kurram 2 2 A 13-year-old boy is among two people killed in separate attacks by sectarian militants.
4/10/2008 Afghanistan Kandahar 8 20 Eight civilians are murdered by a Taliban suicide bomber.
4/10/2008 Iraq Mosul 4 25 Jihadis kill four Iraqis with a pair of bombs.
4/10/2008 Iraq Mahmoudiya 33 0 Thirty victims of sectarian violence within the Religion of Peace are found in a mass grave.
4/9/2008 Iraq Dhuluiya 5 0 A mother and her four children are taken out in a Sunni mortar attack.
4/9/2008 Israel Nahal Oz 2 2 Two Israeli civilians are shot to death by Palestinian militants at a fuel depot.
4/9/2008 Iraq Baghdad 7 27 The Mujahideen lob mortars into a funeral, killing seven mourners, including children.
4/9/2008 Iraq Mosul 4 18 Four people are killed in a pair of Jihad car bombings.
4/9/2008 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A man is gunned down by Islamic terrorists while driving home.
4/9/2008 Turkey Ankara 3 0 Video is released showing the execution of three Chinese hostages by a Turkish Islamic group.
4/9/2008 Pakistan Kurram 1 6 A sectarian clash leaves one person dead.
4/9/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 5 4 Islamists target a military convoy with a landmine. Civilians are among the casualties.
4/8/2008 Iraq Balad Ruz 7 10 Sunni bombers target a minibus, killing seven innocents.
4/8/2008 Afghanistan Zabul 17 16 Seventeen civilian road workers are murdered by Taliban gunmen.
4/8/2008 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 A Hindu man is beaten to death by his Muslim co-workers over allegedly insulting Islam.
4/8/2008 Iraq Baquba 4 0 A family of four is wiped out by Jihadi gunmen.
4/8/2008 Afghanistan Helmand 1 2 Taliban terrorists ambush a group of local cops, killing one.
4/8/2008 Pakistan Hangu 2 4 Two people are killed over a religious dispute.
4/8/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 2 9 Two people are killed in a Fedayeen car-bomb attack.
4/7/2008 Somalia Baidoa 13 12 Thirteen people are killed in three separate Islamist bomb attacks.
4/7/2008 Afghanistan Heart 2 1 Sunni extremists attack a checkpoint, killing two local officers.
4/7/2008 Afghanistan Helmand 2 6 Two local policmen are killed in a Taliban bombing attack.
4/7/2008 Afghanistan Kandahar 7 2 Seven local members of an anti-drug task force are murdered by religious extremists.
4/7/2008 Sudan Darfur 14 38 Janjaweed militias attack three villages, murdering at least fourteen civilians.
4/6/2008 Iraq Samarra 7 0 al-Qaeda gunmen assassinate seven Sunnis.
4/6/2008 Pakistan Peshawar 3 18 Islamic militants ambush vehicles along a highway, killing at least three locals.
4/6/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 7 14 Seven people are shot to death by Muslim radicals in two attacks at a market.
4/6/2008 Iraq Kirkuk 1 0 A woman is shot to death by suspected fundamentalists.
4/6/2008 Thailand Narathiwat 1 0 A civilian is killed by radical Muslim gunmen.
4/6/2008 Somalia Afgoye 2 3 A 9-year-old boy is among two people murdered when Islamists stage a shooting attack.
4/5/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 3 3 Three local soldiers are ambushed and killed by Islamic militia.
4/5/2008 Iraq Khaneqin 8 1 Four oil workers are kidnapped and beheaded. Four other innocents are killed elsewhere by Jihadis.
4/5/2008 Iraq Baghdad 3 16 Sunni extremists bomb a bus, killing three people.
4/5/2008 Yemen Sanaa 1 7 An al-Qaeda gunmen attacks a checkpoint killing one person.
4/5/2008 Iraq Karradah 1 0 A Christian priest is shot to death by Muslim fanatics.
4/5/2008 Pakistan Kurrum 2 26 Sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia leaves two dead.
4/4/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 5 4 Islamists kill five local soldiers with a planted bomb.
4/4/2008 Afghanistan Lashkar Gah 4 8 Four Afghans are murdered by a suicide bomber.
4/4/2008 Iraq Hamrin 9 30 A suicide bomber detonates at a funeral, killing at least nine mourners.
4/4/2008 India Kupwara 2 0 Two policemen are kidnapped and brutally tortured to death by the al-Badr Mujahideen.
4/4/2008 Iraq Hilla 7 3 Two Jihadi bombings leave seven local cops dead.
4/3/2008 Afghanistan Kunar 1 0 Religious extremists target a fuel truck, killing the local driver.
4/3/2008 Iraq Mosul 5 17 A Fedayeen bomber kills five civilians, including a woman and a 5-year-old child.
4/3/2008 Iraq Samarra 5 0 Jihadis kill five Iraqis with a roadside bombing.
4/3/2008 Thailand Songkhla 1 0 An older man is murdered by Muslim gunmen while sitting in his truck.
4/2/2008 Iraq Mahmudiya 1 1 Gunmen shoot a teacher to death and injure his son.
4/2/2008 Iraq Baghdad 6 24 Two women are among six killed in Jihad bombings.
4/2/2008 Somalia Qansah Dhere 3 8 Islamists attack a government residence, killing at least three people.
4/2/2008 India Kupwara 1 0 A man is shot to death in his home by Islamic militants.
4/2/2008 Iraq Muqdadiyah 11 5 Eleven Iraqis are murdered in Mujahideen bombings.
4/1/2008 Afghanistan Nimroz 2 5 Two Afghan police are blown up by a suicide car bomber.
4/1/2008 Iraq Sammara 12 0 A dozen moderate Sunnis are murdered by al-Qaeda gunmen in two attacks.
4/1/2008 Pakistan Matta 2 6 Two members of a tribal peace committee are blown to bits in a bombing attack on their vehicle by Muslim militants.
3/31/2008 Iraq Latifiya 6 0 Six Iraqis are kidnapped, blindfolded and shot to death by Islamic terrorists.
3/31/2008 Somalia Bule Burte 12 0 Twelve Somalis are killed when Islamists attack a small village.
3/31/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 Islamic extremists sneak up to a local guard and shoot him in the head.
3/31/2008 Pakistan Nowshera 2 0 A man and a woman are stoned to death for adultery.
3/30/2008 Iraq Baiji 7 8 Eight people are killed when Islamists detonate a car bomb.
3/30/2008 Iraq Baghdad 6 21 Jihadis kill six Iraqis with a mortar strike.
3/30/2008 Iraq Muqdadiyah 14 0 An al-Qaeda mass grave is discovered containing fourteen torture victims.
3/30/2008 Thailand Yala 2 0 Islamists murder two civilians in separate attacks.
3/30/2008 Iraq Baghdad 1 0 The remains of an American soldier, kidnapped and executed in captivity three years earlier, are identified.
3/29/2008 Afghanistan Girishk 2 8 Sunni extremists attack a power station with a bomb, killing two employees.
3/29/2008 Iraq Bani Saad 3 0 Three members of a family are wiped out by a Jihadi mortar.
3/28/2008 Iraq Basra 1 0 A woman with a baby in her arms is murdered by fundamentalists for 'unIslamic' activity.
3/28/2008 Afghanistan Nimroz 2 2 Two local cops are murdered when the Taliban attack a counter-narcotics unit.
3/28/2008 Iraq Baghdad 2 6 Two US civilians are killed in a mortar attack by Islamic terrorists.
3/28/2008 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A young man is shot to death in his truck by Muslim radicals.
3/27/2008 Iraq Baghdad 5 21 Jihadis kill at least five people in a series of mortar attacks.
3/27/2008 Iran Ahwazi 7 0 Sa'ad Ibn Abi Waqqas Brigade terrorists open fire on a bus, killing seven Iranians.
3/27/2008 Thailand Yala 0 8 Seven children are among eight people injured when Islamists detonate a bomb attached to a motorcycle.
3/27/2008 Pakistan Kurram 7 1 Two women are among seven killed when Islamic terrorists fire a rocket into an ambulance.
3/27/2008 Iraq Baiji 1 5 A woman is killed when Islamic terrorists lob a mortar into a neighborhood.
3/27/2008 Iraq Diyala 37 0 A mass grave is discovered containing the tortured remains of thirty-seven victims of sectarian violence.
3/27/2008 Iraq Samarra 2 2 A man and his son are brutally murdered by al-Qaeda. A child and woman are injured in the attack.
3/27/2008 Pakistan Karachi 2 0 Two local intelligence agents are shot to death by al-Qaeda militants.
3/27/2008 Pakistan Kohat 50 0 Four days of violent attacks between Sunnia and Shia leave over fifty dead, including women and children.
3/26/2008 Afghanistan Helmand 1 2 A local police officer is killed in a landmine attack by religious extremists.
3/26/2008 Afghanistan Helmand 8 17 Eight shoppers at an outdoor market are blown to bits by a Taliban car bomb.
3/26/2008 Somalia Jowhar 7 0 Mujahideen kill at least seven Somalis in an attack on an agricultural town.
3/25/2008 Iraq Basra 31 88 Thirty-three people are killed when a Shiite militia attacks government troops.
3/25/2008 Pakistan Swat 2 1 Islamic militants gun down a married couple as they are standing outside their home.
3/25/2008 Pakistan Swat 2 0 Two people are murdered by suspected al-Qaeda.
3/25/2008 Pakistan Bajaur 1 0 A man is killed in a landmine attack by suspected Islamic militants.
3/24/2008 Afghanistan Heart 6 0 Religious extremists kill two farmers and four local police in an ambush.
3/24/2008 Iraq Baghdad 2 0 The bodies of two American civilians are found mutilated following their kidnapping.
3/24/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 4 0 A civilian is among four people killed when Islamic terrorists attack a police station.
3/24/2008 Chechnya Alleroi 2 0 Mujahideen murder two policemen with a homemade bomb.
3/24/2008 Thailand Yala 1 0 A 48-year-old man is murdered by Muslim gunmen after dropping his wife off at work.
3/24/2008 Pakistan North Waziristan 1 0 A young man is executed by al-Qaeda with a gunshot to the head.
3/24/2008 Afghanistan Kunduz 2 0 Two more mine-clearing workers are murdered by the Taliban.
3/23/2008 Pakistan Torkham 2 50 al-Qaeda terrorists bomb a restaurant and an oil facility, killing two people.
3/23/2008 India Srinagar 4 3 Lashker-e-Toiba militants ambush and kill four policemen.
3/23/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 A doctor is reported killed in an attack by Islamic terrorists.
3/23/2008 Iraq Samarra 5 11 A Fedayeen suicide bomber kills five Iraqis.
3/23/2008 Iraq Baghdad 22 34 Women and children are among the casualties as Islamic terrorists stage at least three separate attacks on civilians.
3/23/2008 Afghanistan Jawzjan 5 7 Religious extremists calmly shoot five Afghans to death. The workers were trying to clear landmines at the time.
3/23/2008 Iraq Baqubah 2 2 Two children are killed by a Jihad roadside attack.
3/23/2008 Iraq Mosul 15 45 Fifteen Iraqi security personnel are murdered by a suicidal Sunni bomber.
3/22/2008 Pakistan Hangu 4 25 Sectarian strife between rival mosques leaves four dead.
3/22/2008 Afghanistan Jawzjan 1 0 A district chief is stabbed to death by religious extremists.
3/22/2008 Iraq Latifiya 1 0 A civilian is kidnapped and beheaded by the Mujahideen.
3/22/2008 Afghanistan Kunar 1 0 A civilian is brutally murdered by Sunni extremists.
3/22/2008 India Bakhna 1 0 A young man is abducted from his home and brutally killed in captivity by Hizb-ul-Mujahideen.
3/21/2008 India Kupwara 1 0 A 40-year-old man is dragged out of his home by Mujahideen, who then slash his throat.
3/21/2008 Afghanistan Kabul 2 4 Two people are killed by a Fedayeen suicide bomber.
3/21/2008 Afghanistan Kanduz 1 0 A local cop is gunned down by the Taliban.
3/21/2008 Iraq Mosul 1 0 Holy warriors kidnap and decapitate a civilian.
3/20/2008 Pakistan Wana 5 9 A Shahid detonates himself in a car bomb attack, killing five local soldiers.
3/20/2008 Iraq Mosul 2 7 Two civilians are killed in a Mujahideen bombing attack in a neighborhood.
3/20/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 7 20 A 7-year-old child is among seven people killed when Islamic terrorists attack a government base.
3/20/2008 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Muslim radicals gun down a local Imam.
3/20/2008 India Gawari 2 0 Two children are killed when Lashkar-e-Toiba lob a grenade into the yard of a house.
3/19/2008 Thailand Yala 1 0 A Buddhist village guard is shot to death by Islamic terrorists.
3/19/2008 Thailand Yala 2 0 Two people are killed when Muslim radicals throw a grenade into a moderate mosque.
3/19/2008 India Srinagar 1 16 One person is killed, and sixteen others injured when Jihadis plant a bomb along a city street.
3/19/2008 Iraq Balad Ruz 5 16 A female suicide bomber kills five innocent people at a market.
3/19/2008 Thailand Yala 1 0 A 70-year-old Buddhist is murdered by Mujahideen gunmen at a grocery store.
3/18/2008 Iraq Baghdad 10 74 Ten Iraqis are killed by Islamic militants in three separate bombing attacks.
3/18/2008 Yemen Sanaa 2 19 A schoolgirl is among two killed in a bomb attack on the US Embassy.
3/18/2008 Israel Jerusalem 0 1 A rabbi is stabbed in the neck by a Palestinian.
3/17/2008 Kosovo Mitrovica 2 130 A suspected Muslim radical tosses a hand grenade into a crowd of protesting Serbs, killing two people.
3/17/2008 Thailand Yala 2 0 Two men are shot to death by Muslim militants.
3/17/2008 Afghanistan Girishk 7 11 A Shahid blows himself up near a security convoy, killing three civilians and three multinational troops.
3/17/2008 Thailand Yala 0 8 Eight children are injured when Mujahid set off a bomb at a playground.
3/17/2008 Iraq Karbala 43 73 A female suicide bomber murders over forty Shiites near a shrine.
3/17/2008 Pakistan Swat 2 3 Two young cadets are killed when a Shahid detonates himself at a police training center.
3/17/2008 Iraq Baghdad 5 11 Five children are killed when Jihadis lob mortars onto a soccer field.
3/17/2008 Iraq Baghdad 3 11 Mujahideen bomb a minibus, killing three civilian passengers.
3/16/2008 Pakistan Mardan 1 8 Jihadis kill a local police officer with a roadside bomb.
3/16/2008 Algeria Jijel 3 17 Three local soldiers are killed when armed Islamic fundamentalists open fire on their patrol.
3/16/2008 Algeria al-Wadi 2 0 Two moderate Muslims are gunned down by al-Qaeda at a mosque.
3/16/2008 Algeria Kadiria 1 2 Fundamentalists kill a 19-year-old student with a bomb that also injures two other teens.
3/16/2008 Philippines Jolo 1 0 A gay man is stabbed and clubbed to death by suspected fundamentalists.
3/15/2008 Thailand Pattani 1 4 Islamists set fire to a school to draw firefighters, then detonate a bomb, killing one.
3/15/2008 Pakistan Islamabad 1 15 Islamists bomb an Italian restaurant, killing a Turkish woman.
3/15/2008 Iraq Hilla 1 8 Jihadis kill an Iraqi woman with a mortar attack on a neighborhood.
3/15/2008 Thailand Pattani 2 14 Two people are killed when Islamic terrorists bomb a hotel.
3/15/2008 Afghanistan Khost 2 3 A child and an elderly man are blown to bits by a Shahid bomber.

Data provided by www.TheReligionofPeace.com

[Guest]

First, although it may appear to be so, I'm not a "Party" person. I voted for Reagan and continue to like the man and yes he made mistakes too. I have found that during my voting years, I've liked more Dems than Repubs. I did not like Johnson at all. Was not mesmerized by Jimmy Carter, although I think he is a stellar human being, and was not found of Papa Bush. But, no matter who was President or what party they were affiliated with, I was never embarrassed by the President as I am with George W. Bush. I think he's as dumb as a doornail, a talking puppet and I can't find one redeeming value about him. It really doesn't matter if he is Republican, Democrate or Independent. He should have been impeached years ago, and that our Congress has not done it, even now, is just wrong. That's my opinion and I have a right to it. I want a President that's highly intelligent, filled with charisma, and has the fortitude to lead us into a better future. I don't see any of that in McCain. Sorry.

p.s Some people are obviously still linking 9/11 with Iraq and believe what you will, the connection only came after Bush gave the go ahead to invade Iraq. His father knew better than to go into Bagdad, in fact, Cheney advised Papa Bush not to.

This debate (and I won't call it an arguement) is growing wearisome. It is what it is and the future will tell. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

[Guest]

There is too much to do in the Villages to waste my time here.!!!

[Guest]

Here's the link to the newspaper article Mcelheny was referring to: http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/324426.html/imw=Y

Pretty pathetic that we're reduced to this. God forbid we are attacked on our own soil. Where are the troops going to come from to protect us?

[Guest]

Here's the link to the newspaper article Mcelheny was referring to: http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/324426.html/imw=Y

Pretty pathetic that we're reduced to this. God forbid we are attacked on our own soil. Where are the troops going to come from to protect us?


They will be there, sometimes in spite of the public...

[Guest]

I wrote my post before I saw yours Chel. You are so right-wearisome! Also, may I add-- way off topic. Some people think if they talk enough, they win.
Briefly the Iraq Invasion--was a high mistake!!!!!We are in a mess and our soldiers are paying the price and stretched too thin. Our country is paying the price too.

Now I am not going to waste any more time on this thread.

[Guest]

They will be there, sometimes in spite of the public...

Oh, and what's that supposed to mean?

[Guest]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h1aBshjF1CnfJ4noaEXA_Vb8dm-gD903OEV80

[Guest]

Hmmmnnnn I wonder which of the wars everybody was in favor of......
I wonder if past Presidents and military leaders would be viewed differently if in those days they had the 24/7 media microscope on them challenging every single thing said or done.
In those days they did not have to pass the judgement of a media infused/abused/biased/polarized public. They did what had to be done without the almighty lens in their face. There was a more spontaneous national pride because there was no 24/7 media there doing their thinking for them.

Only when the real truth is known about what went on, when, where, by whom, etc will there be any valid conclusions. And the truth is certainly not known.....and for Damn sure ain't going to come from the media.

History, like for all the others will be the only meaningful conclusion.
Until then it is nothing more than speculative opinionating.

In my humble opinion.

BTK

[Guest]

Oh, and what's that supposed to mean?

The founding principle of the Vietnam Veterans of America is:
"Never again will one generation of veterans abandon another."

Many of us have learned firsthand that the American public's attitude and treatment of those while in the military and later as veterans mirror's Rudyard Kipling's "Tommy." While we try to insure that abandonment won't occur again, we don't control the attitude and action of the entire populace.

However, the nation is blessed with brave young people willing to don the uniform and take on the unpopular tasks knowing full well their actions will be criticized by people with less-than-accurate information and their cause undermined through direct and indirect support of the foe - whether well-intentioned or not.

Thank God for all of them!

[Guest]

The events are the events, and can be found on other media. CNN has them, as does NBC and the Times.

What is sad in many ways is that something must have to be either:
- Republican, which makes it dumb, a lie, slanderous and gotta be wrong, or
- Democrat, which makes it dumb, a lie, slanderous and gotta be wrong.

When will things be "American" and viewed with somewhat of an open mind? The "Party is right, no matter what" is a tough position to take, especially when over history BOTH of the parties can be either accused or credited with the same actions.

It would be nice to think that "events are events" and can be found in the media. However, the realty is that the media covers those events in part based on information they receive, in some cases distorted information spun by the government. It takes a lot of sifting thru the info to find the truth. Fox news obviously has a conservative agenda, as Mcelheny points out. This is an interesting article which shows an example of how the Pentagon used military analysts to generate favorable news coverage of Bush's war: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=behind%20tv%20analysts%20pentagon's%20hidden%20 hand&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1208689272-HBgyB205Ji5xfd3wEZz0rQ
In a nutshell, the military anaysts have ties to defense contractors, executives, and board members that are scrambling to obtain billions of dollars of defense contracts. In order to maintain their access to high level officials, which is vital to give them an edge in the $$big money security arena, these military analysts attend briefings by senior military leaders, officials from the white house, even Dick Cheney himself, where they are of course exposed to the "adminstration talking points".

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.

[Guest]

It would be nice to think that "events are events" and can be found in the media. However, the realty is that the media covers those events in part based on information they receive, in some cases distorted information spun by the government. It takes a lot of sifting thru the info to find the truth. Fox news obviously has a conservative agenda, as Mcelheny points out. This is an interesting article which shows an example of how the Pentagon used military analysts to generate favorable news coverage of Bush's war: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=behind%20tv%20analysts%20pentagon's%20hidden%20 hand&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1208689272-HBgyB205Ji5xfd3wEZz0rQ
In a nutshell, the military anaysts have ties to defense contractors, executives, and board members that are scrambling to obtain billions of dollars of defense contracts. In order to maintain their access to high level officials, which is vital to give them an edge in the $$big money security arena, these military analysts attend briefings by senior military leaders, officials from the white house, even Dick Cheney himself, where they are of course exposed to the "adminstration talking points".

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.



I couldn't agree more that the commercial "analysts" are biased - sometimes greatly - by connections not made public. Yes, all of the networks are viewed as being left or right, depending on the viewer - and rightly so. The NY Times is viewed as a Democratic Party billboard, but that's okay and the article you linked addresses good points. That's why to me its important to get broadbrush input in order to avoid the commercial media trap.

Has the current administration, especially Mr. Rumsfeld, exercised undue influence for the gain of others? More digging and history will tell us that - just like more digging and history exposed the role of Robert McNamara's role as the Secretary of Defense in the selection (and I use that term very loosely) during Vietnam of athe M-16 rifle as the standard infantry weapon, despite its inferiority and need for more test and development which unfortunately occurred on the battlefield at the cost of many lives - plus the acquisition of the M151 Jeep as the replacement utililty vehicle. Big money was involved and all later linked to him and the appointed crew he brought to the Pentagon. There are names listed on the Vietnam Memorial which are there only because the M-16 was a lousy weapon when first fielded, but memories seem to want to selectively ignore that, and the fact that McNamara was a Kennedy & Johonson selection.

That's why I just can't take the rhetoric that the Democratic Party is the purest of the pure and will be saviour this time around. They ALL have skeletons as persons and groups, and they all are tied in some way to interests financially far above the common citizen.

We both seem to agree that big money brings big problems, and considerable vigilance is necessary in order to mitigate these problems. I just can't accept that a party banner is a cloak of honor. In my lifetime, both have let me down, which is why I want to hear all - good and bad - on all of the candidates and especially those that surround them who will be the first bunch of appointees. The alternative is a "drink the kool-aid. it's good for you" acceptance of campaign sales pitches, and there is no warranty to go back to....

[Guest]

Of course no party is perfect. I don't recall anyone ever saying or implying that. But when you look at the party's actions over the years, at some point you look at what the goals of the parties are, and how they fit in with your values, and you end up making a choice. I know some people are independents, and I respect your right to do that. Personally, after seeing how so much in Washington is done across party lines, I vote for a party ticket. Looking back to the Kerry/Bush race, I never felt Kerry was that great a candidate, but he looked a lot better to me than Bush, and so I voted accordingly.

[Guest]

And I agree with you that values must be considered, and there is no "perfect" fit.

Once it becomes a "two horse race" the campaign will become much more substantive (I hope!) than it has been so far.

No matter who gets the most electoral votes, sharing opinions and information is always healthy, and have enjoyed our dialogue immensely. We all win with open-minded and sincere discussion.

[Guest]

Of course no party is perfect. I don't recall anyone ever saying or implying that. But when you look at the party's actions over the years, at some point you look at what the goals of the parties are, and how they fit in with your values, and you end up making a choice. I know some people are independents, and I respect your right to do that. Personally, after seeing how so much in Washington is done across party lines, I vote for a party ticket. Looking back to the Kerry/Bush race, I never felt Kerry was that great a candidate, but he looked a lot better to me than Bush, and so I voted accordingly.


I voted for the Kerry/Edwards ticket too even though I am not much of a fan of Senator John Kerry. Seemed like the lesser of two evils. Do like Senator John Edwards a lot though.

[Guest]

:bigthumbsup: I'm with you Tal. Wish John Edwards would have done better. I really like him. Maybe someone will be smart enough to offer him the VP spot.

[Guest]

:agree: :agree: :agree:

[Guest]

Before the war really got started, I read book titled TheThreatening Storm by Ken Pollack who many say was a recognized expert on Iraq. He made the case for invasion in this book.

After "Mission Accomplished" and things turned into a civil war in Iraq I read The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Frank Rich and much of my opinion about George W. Bush changed.

Now Ken Pollack has written recently in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/opinion/16pollack.html?pagewanted=print

It may be helpful to examine Pollack's earlier views and contrast them with today's with respect to The War and his justification for invasion.

[Guest]

Thanks Hancle.
I agree with Ken Pollack's opinion.

[Guest]

More info about the Ken Pollack book, can be found at:
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=4876

History may record that the decision made to invade Iraq was the best option as suggested in this book, based on historical facts and the intelligence available at the time. Sadly the other recommendations made about how to acheive success, were not adequately planned and implemented.

[Guest]

Very interesting post Hancle. Thank you.

[Guest]

The 3 most dangerous nations directly responsible for funding anti US terrorism activities are Pakistan (already has nuclear weapons), Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Fighting terror has nothing to do with Iraq. Saddam Hussein was our man in the middle east. We put him in power and approved of his dirty deeds. He kept Al-qaeda out of Iraq. The people in Iraq hated him and hated our government for putting him in power. We should have eliminated him without the shock and awe of destroying the infrastructure of that country. The neoconservative group which includes Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz had been trying to get every administration back from the Reagan years until now to take over the middle east. This would include permanent military bases. The objective was to control the oil. Every administration until now had the strength to keep this group at bay.

[Guest]

junglejim,
Excellent Post!
I have lost a family member and 3 of my students (so far) to this Iraq invarsion!!!! All young men, some with children. I am so mad at this adminstration!!!!

[Guest]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Pentagon cannot account for nearly 15 billion dollars in payments for goods and services in Iraq, according to an internal audit which members of Congress blasted Friday as a "shocking" accountability failure. Of 8.2 billion dollars in US taxpayer-funded defense contracts reviewed by the defense department's inspector general, the Pentagon could not properly account for more than 7.7 billion dollars. The lack of accountability of the funds, intended for purchases of weapons, vehicles, construction equipment and security services, amounted to a 95 percent failure rate in basic accounting standards, according to the report.

President Ike Eisenhower warned not to let the Military Industrialist Complex take over. We are very close to making the move from a republic to an empire. 70% or more of Americans want this war over yet we aren't moving very fast in that direction. We should be more concerned about how close we are coming to losing democracy here instead of trying to force democracy at gunpoint on someone else.

[Guest]

Great posts, JungleJim. Keep 'em coming!!

[Guest]

The Bush administration has long been moving to formalize the frankly colonial relationship between the U.S. and Iraq, and now those efforts are moving swiftly to a conclusion, with U.S. officials predicting an agreement sometime in July.

We initially demanded over 200 military facilities across Iraq, but later whittled it down to a mere 58. We also wanted the right to detain any Iraqis without turning them over to Iraqi authorities, a free hand to conduct military operations, and immunity from prosecution by U.S. soldiers and private contractors – in effect, a continuation of the occupation.

Word is out that the Americans are now in a compromising mood, agreeing that contractors should be subject to Iraqi law and accepting something less than a completely free hand militarily. Yet still there are ominous rumbles of protest, coming not just from the opposition but also from the ruling coalition of Shi'ite parties. Note the words of Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, a leader of the Supreme Islamic Council fraction of the Iraqi parliament,

"We rejected the whole thing from the beginning. In my point of view, it would just be a new occupation with an Iraqi signature. …Maybe the Iraqi government will say: 'Hey, the security situation is better. We don't need any more troops in Iraq. Or we could have a pledge of honor where the American troops leave but come back and protect Iraq if there is any aggression."

Haider al-Abadi, a leader of Prime Minister Maliki's own Da'wa party, declares:

"What the U.S. wants is to take the current status quo and try to regulate it in a new agreement. And what we want is greater respect for Iraqi sovereignty. Signing the agreement would mean that the Iraqi government had given up its sovereignty by its own consent. And that will never happen."

The Post reports a top aide to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as saying:

"The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq. If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.' "

What if the liberated Iraq government asks us to leave? Won't it be time to leave?

[Guest]

The Bush administration has long been moving to formalize the frankly colonial relationship between the U.S. and Iraq, and now those efforts are moving swiftly to a conclusion, with U.S. officials predicting an agreement sometime in July.

.....

The Post reports a top aide to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as saying:

"The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq. If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.' "

What if the liberated Iraq government asks us to leave? Won't it be time to leave?


I respectfully disagree big-time.

Colonization has never been a US goal - but caution definitely is.

After WWI everybody took from Germany what they wanted and then took off. The result was a signficant build-up and anti-everybody sentiment which brought about WWII.

We learned a valuable lesson - don't cut and run, but stsay there until all reconstruction - political and economic - takes place. After that, stay if asked.

That also has worked well in Korea and everywhere else we followed that rule.

We don't colonize. The Panama Canal turnover is one example. I was on Okinawa when it reverted from US control back to Japanese rule (05/15/1972). We stay until we have the assurances that the reasons we went in have been resolved.

Iraq is no diffferent. The alternative is our grandchildren and great-grandchildren having to finish the job that today's generation left half-done.

[Guest]

If, as just about every expert agrees, Bush-style reconstruction has failed dismally in Iraq, thanks to thievery, knavery, and sheer incompetence, and is now essentially ending, it has been a raging success in Iraq's "Little America." For the first time, we have actual descriptions of a couple of the "super-bases" built in Iraq. Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post paid a visit to Balad Air Base, the largest American base in the country, 68 kilometers north of Baghdad and "smack in the middle of the most hostile part of Iraq." In a piece titled "Biggest Base in Iraq Has Small-Town Feel," Ricks paints a striking portrait: The base is sizeable enough to have its own "neighborhoods" including "KBR-land" (in honor of the Halliburton subsidiary that has done most of the base-construction work in Iraq); "CJSOTF" ("home to a special operations unit," the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force, surrounded by "especially high walls," and so secretive that even the base Army public affairs chief has never been inside); and a junkyard for bombed out Army Humvees. There is as well a Subway, a Pizza Hut, a Popeye's, "an ersatz Starbucks," a 24-hour Burger King, two post exchanges where TVs, iPods, and the like can be purchased, four mess halls, a hospital, a strictly enforced on-base speed limit of 10 MPH, a huge airstrip, 250 aircraft (helicopters and predator drones included), air-traffic pile-ups of a sort you would see over Chicago's O'Hare airport, and "a miniature golf course, which mimics a battlefield with its baby sandbags, little Jersey barriers, strands of concertina wire and, down at the end of the course, what appears to be a tiny detainee cage." Ricks reports that the 20,000 troops stationed at Balad live in "air-conditioned containers" that will, in the future -- and yes, for those building these bases, there still is a future -- be wired "to bring the troops Internet, cable television and overseas telephone access." He points out as well that, of the troops at Balad, "only several hundred have jobs that take them off base. Most Americans posted here never interact with an Iraqi."
Recently, Oliver Poole, a British reporter, visited another of the American "super-bases," the still-under-construction al-Asad Airbase ("Football and pizza point to US staying for long haul"). He observes, of "the biggest Marine camp in western Anbar province," that "this stretch of desert increasingly resembles a slice of U.S. suburbia." In addition to the requisite Subway and pizza outlets, there is a football field, a Hertz rent-a-car office, a swimming pool, and a movie theater showing the latest flicks. Al-Asad is so large -- such bases may cover 15 to 20 square miles -- that it has two bus routes and, if not traffic lights, at least red stop signs at all intersections. There are at least four such "super-bases" in Iraq, none of which have anything to do with "withdrawal" from that country. Quite the contrary, these bases are being constructed as little American islands of eternal order in an anarchic sea. Whatever top administration officials and military commanders say -- and they always deny that we seek "permanent" bases in Iraq -- facts on the ground speak with another voice entirely. These bases practically scream "permanency." Quite literally multibillions of dollars have gone into them. In a prestigious engineering magazine in late 2003, Lt. Col. David Holt, the Army engineer "tasked with facilities development" in Iraq, was already speaking proudly of several billion dollars being sunk into base construction ("the numbers are staggering"). Since then, the base building has been massive and ongoing.
Sounds like colonization to me. This is not the old military this is a corporate fueled war machine. This is what Ike Eisenhower warned us about. Let's hope and pray we can stop this beast.

[Guest]

Just out of curiosity, where do you come up with this BS? Most of it sounds like 2004 or 2005 Democrat talking points interpreted by the Daily Kos. There is virtually no relationship to reality in anything you have posted about Iraq in particular or politics in general.

[Guest]

If you read the post, you would have seen the Washington Post reference. Quit listening to Fox noise and have someone read the article to you.

[Guest]

While you at it, have someone read this to you;
We needed to know the truth about Iraq. The truth could have spared that country from rack and ruin, saved thousands of American lives and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and freed hundreds of billions of dollars for investment in the American economy and infrastructure. But as Knight-Ridder reporters told us at the time (one of the few organizations that systematically and independently set out to challenge the claims of this Administration, by the way), as my colleagues reported in our documentary on PBS “Buying the War,” as Scott McClellan has now confessed, and as the Senate Intelligence Committee confirmed just this week, this Administration — with the complicity of the dominant media - conducted a political propaganda campaign, using erroneous and misleading intelligence to deceive Americans into supporting an unprovoked attack on another country, leading to a war that instead of being “quick and bloodless” as predicted, continues to this day. (At least we now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out.) So the press as a whole remains in denial about its complicity in passing on the government’s unverified claims as facts, while “blocking out any other narrative,” as Danny Schechter wrote this week. That’s the great danger. It’s not simply that the dominant media see the world as the powerful see it; they don’t allow alternative and competing narratives to emerge that would enable us to measure the claims of the official view of reality. We need to know we’re in trouble. Napoleon reportedly told his secretary to let him sleep during the night if the news from the front was good, but if the news was bad, he wanted to be awakened immediately so that he could act. Then I draw a line to the statistics that show real wages lagging behind prices, the compensation of corporate barons soaring to heights unequaled anywhere among other industrialized democracies, the greatest income inequality since the Roaring 20s, the relentless cheeseparing of federal funds devoted to public schools, to retraining workers whose jobs have been exported and to programs of health care, all of which snatch away the ladder by which Americans of scant means but willing hands and hearts could work and save their way up to middle-class security. Edward R. Murrow told his generation of journalists: “No one can eliminate prejudices-just recognize them.” Here is my bias: Extremes of wealth and poverty cannot be reconciled with a truly just society. Capitalism will breed great inequality that is destructive unless tempered by an intuition for equality which is the heart of democracy. When the state becomes the guardian of power and privilege to the neglect of justice for the people who have neither power nor privilege, you can no longer claim to have a representative government. It’s going the other way now. But you will search the dominant media largely in vain for journalism that tells the truth about the fading of the American Dream. As conglomerates swallow up newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, and broadcast outlets, news organizations are folded into entertainment divisions. The “news hole” in the print media shrinks to make room for ads, celebrities, nonsense, and propaganda, and the news we need to know slips from sight. It’s up to you to tell the truth about what’s happening to this country we love. It’s up to you to tell the truth about the struggle of ordinary people. It’s up to you to remind us that democracy only works when citizens claim it as their own. It’s up to you to write the story of America that leaves no one out.

And it’s up to you to rekindle the Patriot’s Dream.

Bill Moyers

[Guest]

Junglejim,
Good post :bigthumbsup:

[Guest]

While you at it, have someone read this to you;



If you are going to persist in posting this "stuff", why not just post the link. It would save everyone some space. Evidently you have mastered cut and paste and I congratulate you on that. However you seem to be sadly deficient in the area of original thought, not to mention composition. I realize that whenever you read something, you have an overwhelming desire to share it, and that's okay. But if you cannot resist and have nothing original to add, please stick to the links.

Oh, and for the sake of the other Keith Olbermann fans, :agree: :agree: :agree: :bigthumbsup: :bigthumbsup:

[Guest]

If you are going to persist in posting this "stuff", why not just post the link. It would save everyone some space. Evidently you have mastered cut and paste and I congratulate you on that. However you seem to be sadly deficient in the area of original thought, not to mention composition. I realize that whenever you read something, you have an overwhelming desire to share it, and that's okay. But if you cannot resist and have nothing original to add, please stick to the links.

Oh, and for the sake of the other Keith Olbermann fans, :agree: :agree: :agree: :bigthumbsup: :bigthumbsup:


Personally, I like not having to go to a link - it saves me time, as I happen to be on dial-up. Also, if the wording is right there, there is more of a chance that someone will read it rather than pass it by.

[Guest]

.....For the first time, we have actual descriptions of a couple of the "super-bases" built in Iraq. Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post paid a visit to Balad Air Base, the largest American base in the country, 68 kilometers north of Baghdad and "smack in the middle of the most hostile part of Iraq." In a piece titled "Biggest Base in Iraq Has Small-Town Feel," Ricks paints a striking portrait: The base is sizeable enough to have its own "neighborhoods"........
Sounds like colonization to me. This is not the old military this is a corporate fueled war machine. This is what Ike Eisenhower warned us about. Let's hope and pray we can stop this beast.


Places that come to mind are: 1) Camp Zama, Japan; 2) Naval Base, Rota, Spain; 3) Camp eagle, Korea; 4) Naval Base, Aviano, Italy; 5) ramstein Air Base, Gemany; 6) Guantanamo Naval Base, Cuba; 7) Hohenfels Training Center, Germany; 8) RAF Mindenhall,UK; Kadena Air Base, Okinawa; 8) Thule Air Base, Greenland and about 700 other locations around the world.

The major bases do look like cities - for good reason. They are! We do not expect our military personnel to have to live out of pup-tents, eat field rations, and spent their days like something out of the Spartan age. They are Americans protecting us, and deserve every creature comfort possible while serving us abroad, whether that "abroad" is at a land-based installation or aboard ship-at (or under)- sea. They serve us, and we support them. I see nothing wrong with bring Americana to them at whatever level can be provided.

Has money been wasted and squandered during the Iraq War. You bet it has - the same as what occurs on a daily basis with the Social Security Administration, every welfare program I have ever seen, government procurement from the small-town to federal level, most of the Pork projects which most communities demand and keep Congresspersons in office, and the insanity known as the National Endowment for the Arts which to me is the greatest funding source that pornography has ever found.

It's an imperfect world. Money is wasted. However, every dime spent on protecting the physical and psychological health of our uniformed military is money well-spent, and most of the time we don't spend enough!

[Guest]

Saddam signed a 10 year, $40B contract with Russia in August 2002 to develop 49 new oil fields.
When did Cheney start the WMD war drums? Answer: August 2002

Iraq, Exxon, Chevron near deal
Giants in talks for no-bid contracts
By Andrew Kramer | New York Times News Service
June 19, 2008
BAGHDAD—Four Western oil corporations are in the final stages of negotiations on contracts that would return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein consolidated his power.
Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP—the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Co.— along with Chevron and some 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 a U.S. diplomat.
The deals are expected to be announced June 30

Greenspan decided to put prudence aside in his new book, The Age of Turbulence, and answer the most neuralgic issue of our times – why the United States invaded Iraq.
Greenspan writes:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

OIL

Not a threat to us, not for freedom, not for religion, not to fight terrorists, not because of WMD, not to make the world stable

OIL

[Guest]

I think one would have to be pretty naive to think that we didn't get into the war because of oil considerations.

[Guest]

I think one would have to be pretty naive to think that we didn't get into the war because of oil considerations.

And the problem with that is ? ? ?

The last time I checked, the Russians (with the French and Chinese chugging close behind) have done their darnedest to be the logistician for almost every despot-regime on Earth. They have been the premier supplier of military goods and services, and almost everything else to the greatest human rights abusers there are.

Elimination of an Iraq/Russia business arrangement to increase the economic muscle of those wonderful "gentlemen" who gassed the Kurds and Iranians (I don't like them, but that's just wrong to do), persecuted the non-Ba'ath Muslims and all other religious denominations, provided training and facilities to Scud the Israelis, and rebuild (a la post-WWI Germany) their war machine to be in a position to destabilize the region AGAIN - That just makes sense.

$40 Billion is not chump-change, and the Hussein clan and their cronies could have done a lot of damage with that much additional money - and you know that "trickle-down economics" was not the philosophy in the prior Iraqi government.

Human rights violations, neighbor-war, genocide, terrorism and general mayhem - more of which to be paid for by a Russian government which showed it cared less about any of those things as long as it got a bargain.

Yep, oil - and the money it was exchanged for - had a lot to with it.

[Guest]

Facism will come to America draped in a flag, carrying a bible.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children . . . Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

-Dwight D Eisenhower, from "The Chance for Peace" address delivered before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953

[Guest]

Facism will come to America draped in a flag, carrying a bible.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children . . . Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

-Dwight D Eisenhower, from "The Chance for Peace" address delivered before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953


Man lived a long time. Said an awful lot of stuff. Probably said a lot of really dumb things and maybe some pretty smart ones. But likely the vast majority of what he said had minimal import then and little or none now. Case in point.

[Guest]

Facism will come to America draped in a flag, carrying a bible.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children . . . Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

-Dwight D Eisenhower, from "The Chance for Peace" address delivered before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953



Wow, this really hits home doesn't it. How prophetic. Thanks for this post. It's a keeper. :bigthumbsup:

[Guest]

Don't want to change topic but families of soldiers need prayers and positive thoughts, plus an end to this war.
I have two friends who have daughters who have been riped from their babies and sent to Iraq. They didn't want to go leaving babies.
One has twin boys -age 3. The other has a liile girl -2 and a little boy- 4. The children miss their Mommies and can't understand why mommy doesn't come home.

Please send prayers and positive thoughts to families like these and all the soldiers.

[Guest]

Just in case anyone wants to take a break and think for a minute, here is somthing to listen to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENGvjLZYAAA&feature=related

[Guest]

Just in case anyone wants to take a break and think for a minute, here is somthing to listen to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENGvjLZYAAA&feature=related


Very interesting. Here is a Canadian journalist who makes money from a multinational publisher while complaining about multinational business and governments other than Canada.

Sorry, but when a non-US citizen insults American leaders, eschews American policy, and uses literary sleight-of-hand to negatively depict the US - all the while collecting royalties in the process - that person's credibility is tainted by their own mercenary tactics. Those holier-than-thou always seem to preach their "gospel" all the way to the bank, with a happy bunch of agents, publicists and fans following.

[Guest]

Don't want to change topic but families of soldiers need prayers and positive thoughts, plus an end to this war.
I have two friends who have daughters who have been riped from their babies and sent to Iraq. They didn't want to go leaving babies.
One has twin boys -age 3. The other has a liile girl -2 and a little boy- 4. The children miss their Mommies and can't understand why mommy doesn't come home.

Please send prayers and positive thoughts to families like these and all the soldiers.


All people in the uniform of this country are in my daily prayers.

As far as your friends' daughters, it would appear they knew when they decided to be in the Armed Forces that taking the pay means going where the job takes you - even if it means family separation. Fathers have had to undergo this experience since the Revolutionary War, and nowadays Mothers find themselves - as women want equal status in the Armed Forces - in the same situation that Fathers experience.

The solution for anyone who does not want to be deployed is a simple one - don't join in the first place, or don't re-enlist if enlisted, or resign your commission if commissioned.

Military service is like any job, in that if you don't want to do the job at the required job site, don't take the job or quit at first opportunity. You take the money, you do the job. Been there, done that, got a few t-shirts (some with holes).

[Guest]

Hey junglejim, I wish this was a war for oil, then maybe we could back the tankers up and start bringing the oil home. The sad thing for me is people like you seem to be everywhere even in tv. You quote Bill Moyers for credibility?. I was disappointed like Lindsaycollier when I first got on this site and expected to find the "luckiest generation" who at our age thank their lucky stars that they were lucky enough to be an American. But the Bush bashers are everywhere I guess.
Happy62, I would rather have the fed through away the $720 mil on my security than fund any new school or especially any new teachers or free lunches. If people want health insurance they should buy it for themselves, if they want a house let them go to work for it. If we don't have the money for national security what do we have it for?.
When I grew up we used to be a team, "TEAM AMERICA" Look at football, baseball, basketball, hockey etc, they win because they are a team working together. If a quarterback throws an interception or a goalie lets the winning goal pass, the team rallies around them for support and encouragement , the don't start calling names and second guessing them. Whether you like Bush or not he's OUR president and deserves our respect and support, even if your a democrat. I for one don't want the feds in every aspect of my business. I just want national security so I can make my own way.
Remember we are loosing our rights daily to the nanny government, we came within one vote this week of the Supreme Court overturning the 2nd Amendment. That would make junglejim happy. And P.S. stevez thank god for people like you.

[Guest]

No offense, but I am not going to read the entire thread. Republican or Democrat, Pro-War or Anti-War, all aside, this Iraq tacit was (and is) nothing short of complete stupidity, and anyone with enough sense to read both sides should have known this. One study recently showed that the more conservative a person was, the less likely they were to read or listen to the views opposed to him or her, and in this situation, that mistake cost over 4,000 American lives. When this war started, I immediately predicated everything that has, would happen (this was back in February of 2003, a month before the invasion). The reason is because I had just finished Che's book on Guerrilla Warfare. A conventional army can conquer a government, but if your goal is to stop people from hating the US, and you attack a country to do so, you will not be successful as long as one person over there is still alive. You cannot make a people love you (or at not want to kill you) with a gun or a bomb on their daddy (brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, etc. and the latest poll puts Iraqi deaths as a result of the war above 1 million). And you will not beat them when they can fight you in their homeland with their small groups of friends and family. When politicians say we will win, I sit there perplexed trying to determine what they are talking about. What would a win even look like?

I am not posting here to argue, but instead to educate. You will not agree (I assume) with the tactics or the politics, but if you want to argue anything about Iraq, I suggest you know what they are doing to beat us, because if we continue this war like we are, they will win. There is no way they could ever possibly lose. Here is their tactical manual. When you are done with it, you will see this as I do (a promise). In March when the democrats and republicans came together to start this thing, I wanted to mail each one of them this book. 4,000 troops later, I wish I would have.

http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/hi216/documents/che.htm#11

[Guest]

:agree:

Just go back and read the mcelheny posts! :bigthumbsup:

[Guest]

No offense, but I am not going to read the entire thread. Republican or Democrat, Pro-War or Anti-War, all aside, this Iraq tacit was (and is) nothing short of complete stupidity, and anyone with enough sense to read both sides should have known this. One study recently showed that the more conservative a person was, the less likely they were to read or listen to the views opposed to him or her, and in this situation, that mistake cost over 4,000 American lives. When this war started, I immediately predicated everything that has, would happen (this was back in February of 2003, a month before the invasion). The reason is because I had just finished Che's book on Guerrilla Warfare. A conventional army can conquer a government, but if your goal is to stop people from hating the US, and you attack a country to do so, you will not be successful as long as one person over there is still alive. You cannot make a people love you (or at not want to kill you) with a gun or a bomb on their daddy (brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, etc. and the latest poll puts Iraqi deaths as a result of the war above 1 million). And you will not beat them when they can fight you in their homeland with their small groups of friends and family. When politicians say we will win, I sit there perplexed trying to determine what they are talking about. What would a win even look like?
http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/hi216/documents/che.htm#11


Great post, jeckyl. Unfortunately, the people I'd like most to read it probably won't.

[Guest]

A very well written post.

If we had never went to Iraq and they had used the WMD's on us the same people saying "We shouldn't be there, we shouldn't have gone" would be saying "Why didn't we do something, we should have gone". ::)


Just curious..... and what WMDs are you referring too???

[Guest]

Hmm well where do I start:
1. Because of our actions Libya dismantled it's WMD program - http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/19/bush.libya/index.html

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_05/libya.asp

2. If I remember correctly Iraq had 17 sanctions against them imposed by the UN, were we just suppose to keep going, 18, 19, 20 without any enforcement?

3. We have not been attacked since 9/11

4. Many terrorist are now dead over there and not over here because of the war.

5. We have not been attacked since 9/11 :)

Now lets say, Iraq had WMD's, the Bush administration did nothing and something horrible happened, this discussion would be: "We were attacked, the Bush administration KNEW they had WMD's and did absolutely nothing, WHY???"

It just can't go both ways. I admire Pesident Bush for having the leadership to make decisions and stick with them regardless of opinion polls, emotions etc.....

I for one am very happy that his approval ratings are very very low because it means he is DOING something. The President who stands there and makes happy feel good speeches and does absolutely nothing to **** of the people and talks about "Building Bridges" will always have great approval ratings however in the end they have done nothing they were hired to do. It's a fickle world out there. :)


There are a few points here, and yes, they can be distributed to both sides of the isle. The first one is one Clinton and the Rest is on the Republicrats of today. The end is insight about what the war was REALLY about....

Do you know what was actually sanctioned? During Gulf War I, we blew up the water treatment plants. A good portion of the sanctions were geared at making sure they could not get the parts or the tools to fix those (which they never were able to do). Another good portion of the sanctions were children's medication that prevented or cured water born illness (like diarrhea) The result was a collective punishment on the people for allowing a dictator to rule over them with US paid for weapons (Thanks Rummy). The entire time the Clintons were in office an average of 3,000 Iraqis died a month (most of them under the age of 5). Trust me, those sanctions were well enforced, but it was not to prevent them from making WMDs.

I would also like t0 point out another fact that will make you happy with your logic. We have not had ANY RACE RIOTS since the 1960s. Apparently Welfare is working. Therefore, we should build a giant monument for Johnson and solidify welfare into the constitution as a guaranteed right for all poor people.

As for why we have not been attacked... Terrorists are not the type of organization that is geared at taking us over. They need us to engage them out of a sense of fear. They need us to play into the roles they have determined for us. There is no way they will conquer us, so they need to make us bleed (economically and metaphorically) until our dollar drops and we slowly lose all moral. Of course they have not attacked us here, our current administration is delivering the terrorist message of fear FOR them, and we are already wasting our resources abroad. Another attack would not do anything more than we are doing. Going to Iraq and Afghanistan was what they wanted 'us' to do, and if you read that link I gave you, you will know why. For us, we have to destroy them to win that battle, while they merely have to stay alive to win it. It is not about killing every solder to them, it is about the cost associated with the solder being there, and the harm of a nation to send him home permanently wounded.

As for why the war... It is not a big secret or conspiracy. They (they being the economic conservatives that follow Freedmen like G.W. Bush and Rummy to name two) are trying to create the perfect economic structure in the world, a place they believe that the rest of the world will look to and want to emulate. The started with Shock and Awe to put the people into a condition where they would not be concerned with the changes they were about to face (first called the Bremer Laws). I will not explain the whole thing, but here is a 6 minute film about a book that explains it all. The film gives a short intro into the reasoning. Once I finished the book, I looked at what they were saying and I got angry at myself for trying to create reasons when they were right in front of me the entire time. Matter in fact, look at New Orleans and it is the same story. There was a reason that FEMA did not respond, they didn't want to. Instead they were able to close down over 80% of the public schools, replace them with privately run charter schools, eliminate the majority of need for public assistance (flush clean the areas where those people live), and open up real estate in once poor areas for condos and resorts. Now crime is down, public assistance is down, and capitalism is making a strong comeback. They just needed a little shock in the system. Katrina did in a matter of days to New Orleans what conservatives could not do in decades. It is disaster capitalism, and they are really good at it.

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/short-film

[Guest]

I would also like t0 point out another fact that will make you happy with your logic. We have not had ANY RACE RIOTS since the 1960s. Apparently Welfare is working. Therefore, we should build a giant monument for Johnson and solidify welfare into the constitution as a guaranteed right for all poor people.
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/short-film


Perfect reply to the obviously distorted logic.....

[Guest]

:agree:

Just go back and read the mcelheny posts! :bigthumbsup:

I did read it all (as you could see above there is too many areas I had to respond to) :)

It looks like I will have some friends here...

The nice thing is that sometimes they will listen.

[Guest]

When this war started, I immediately predicated everything that has, would happen (this was back in February of 2003, a month before the invasion). The reason is because I had just finished Che's book on Guerrilla Warfare........
http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/hi216/documents/che.htm#11


Dr. Guevara as an authority on guerilla warfare is like quoting Bill Clinton on the managing of interns.

Guevara: the Argentine physician famed for his love of torture, the hero-to-be who got run out of Africa for fouling up Cuban activities there, who rode the coattails of others and screwed up every venture he managed to touch, and after being run out of most of South America gets himself killed by the Bolivians. He plagerized Sun Tzu and folk now think he's a prophet. Had the Bolivians not killed him he would have been just another Castro puppet destined for re-education in a Cuban forest for delusions of grandeur. Instead he got his sorry butt killed and the Commies decided that he would make a great martyr for the cause.

[Guest]

Dr. Guevara as an authority on guerilla warfare is like quoting Bill Clinton on the managing of interns.

Guevara: the Argentine physician famed for his love of torture, the hero-to-be who got run out of Africa for fouling up Cuban activities there, who rode the coattails of others and screwed up every venture he managed to touch, and after being run out of most of South America gets himself killed by the Bolivians. He plagerized Sun Tzu and folk now think he's a prophet. Had the Bolivians not killed him he would have been just another Castro puppet destined for re-education in a Cuban forest for delusions of grandeur. Instead he got his sorry butt killed and the Commies decided that he would make a great martyr for the cause.



Steve,

I was not supporting him in this post or saying that he was the first one to do anything. I simply said that his manual outlines modern insurgencies and is the exact methods that are practiced today. Now, I will be the first to admit that I have not read all of Sun Tzu's book "The Art of War" (maybe I will now), but what I have read, this is a manual for battle that has to do with leading an army, which is totally not what they are about. Sun Tzu says that one needs to defend positions until they can advance, while territory is not the aim of the modern foes. They want to hit us and run. Their goal is to be a constant pain in our side for as long as we are willing to be there. We should know, we used this same method against the Sandinista in Nicaragua when we paid the Contras to attack the churches, electrical plants, hospitals, etc. We trained Bin Laden and Co. to do the same thing in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

As far as the story of Che, I really must say you are off the mark on that one, but that is okay, because that was not the intention of this comment. With that said, if you read his book, you can map out the entire Iraqi resistance and see where, how, and with whom they will hit us. That is why when we rolled in, they dropped their uniforms and walked away. That was not the way the Iraqi people would successfully defend themselves from our aggression and occupation. They made a very purposeful decision to use opportunity instead of being forced on a battle field. This is what that book says they should do. And you can tell that it will last as long as we are there in the way we are. I would like to point one thing out (just for the record) while we can always defeat governments, we have yet to take over one single group of poor people since that book was published. We have lost every one of those battles (and yes, Rome proved that you can win those battles).

You want to know how we can beat the people over there that want to attack us again, and for that matter, this entire so called War against Terror. Rent the movie Munich (2005) or look at Mossad. So long as we fight like Al Quaeda is another nation, we don't have a chance to win this thing. We (and I think I already posted this) need to transform our entire military, put 100,000 teams of six on the ground world wide with the best training and technology we have, and help them track down every member of Al Qaeda and simply kill them. No major battles, just simple hits.

One thing we all need to consider as we discuss this, and try to influnce each other. We are talking about this here in the comforts of our homes, and emailing political representatives, and getting ready to vote on an election. Our friends (I can say that for real) are over there and risking their lives. Our #1 concern (regardless of your politics) should be not to waste lives, and to do what ever is the most effective. Where I think Iraq is foolish to begin with, it is not because there aren't people out there who want to cut my head off, they are there, it is simply that they are not in Iraq. Of course, some of them in Iraq hate us too (between Clinton and Bush we have caused the deaths of well over 1 million people there, many of them being innocent children), but the leaders of the organization who really are trying to kill us are not on the battle fields, and we will not find them like this. I think we all should agree that these people should be the #1 target. You kill all of them, the war is over, plain and simple. This is not a people's movement like the Iraqi resistance to US occupation has become, Al Quaeda is a fundamentalist organization with a heirarchy and clear leadership. We need to cut the head off that snake.

[Guest]

Wow Barb, that's an absolutely beautiful and heart breaking video. Thanks for sharing it. chels :#1:

[Guest]

Thanks Barb, for sharing. A picture is worth a thousand, and more, words. Regardless of our politics, or what side of this war we fall on. Lets never forget those young men and women who are placing their lives on the block for us. Bring them home from Iraq, but do it in a manner, that insures their safety. Once home provide the appropriate support they will need. Never forget our troops.

I also agree with jeckyl. We can't win this war with conventional wisdom. It should be treated for what it is. A bunch of murderer's that needs to be stopped. It's a police issue, and could be handled by a highly trained group of Delta Force like units sent on covert operations around the world. Never forget 9/11.

[Guest]

Steve,

......

As far as the story of Che, I really must say you are off the mark on that one, but that is okay, because that was not the intention of this comment.

We can agree to disagree. At one time (long ago and far away) he was an annoyance to me, and I have no respect for him or his memory.


...... So long as we fight like Al Quaeda is another nation, we don't have a chance to win this thing. We (and I think I already posted this) need to transform our entire military, put 100,000 teams of six on the ground world wide with the best training and technology we have, and help them track down every member of Al Qaeda and simply kill them. No major battles, just simple hits.

The War on Terror - which is not limited to just al-Qa'ida, but A-Q is a major target - is a multi-faceted, multi-approach effort involving a lot more than DoD and its entities. That being said, the tools and tactics are many, and not just what the Fourth Estate publicizes.


One thing we all need to consider as we discuss this, and try to influnce each other. We are talking about this here in the comforts of our homes, and emailing political representatives, and getting ready to vote on an election. Our friends (I can say that for real) are over there and risking their lives. Our #1 concern (regardless of your politics) should be not to waste lives, and to do what ever is the most effective
On this we both wholeheartedly agree.


You kill all of them, the war is over, plain and simple. This is not a people's movement like the Iraqi resistance to US occupation has become, Al Quaeda is a fundamentalist organization with a heirarchy and clear leadership. We need to cut the head off that snake.

Killing them all only makes them martyrs for the next generation, as whatever their actions they will be truncated to only display whatever “the cause” wants to exploit. The saying “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” holds true, whether that person be Che Guevara, Patrick Henry, Menachem Begin, Emiliano Zapata, Simon Bolivar, or any al-Qa'ida member.

The systemic reasons for disenfranchisement, separation and exploitation must be eliminated within a society; otherwise all that happens is an interruption of the cycle of violence for a finite period of time. Until those systemic reasons are addressed – which normally cannot occur until eviction of the persecutors and stabilization of the environment and economy – lasting peace is a myth, and the cycle of violence spins around before you know it. In the long term, it is better to do this right than do it fast, or our great-grandchildren will be inheriting another problem of probably greater consequence because we were hasty.

[Guest]

Steve,

The good thing is that it seems like we both agree with the goal in the sense of terrorists, and it is the tactics that we are disagreeing with (though maybe not as much as this thread would lead one to believe). We are closer than you think. I think the only real philosophical difference we may have is that I support the right of self determination, regardless of politics or geographical placement (I could be wrong about this as well). There is at least one person you named (Zapata) that I think you are whole hardly wrong about. He was a great man who helped Mexico break from the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz who ran one of the most unequal governments of Latin America that history would ever see. I don't see any way to say he was wrong if we hold any of the values of this country true to our heart (there would be no way of saying that Saddam was bad and Diaz was not, they are true equals in what they did and how they did it... Fulgencio Batista is also in this group). But all of this would be better in another thread where we could really lay out our philosophical beliefs about what makes a good society and when one is situated in a way to justify an armed revolution.

The thing to consider is that many times conservatives and liberal will argue about how to conduct the war on terror, and like the debates about energy, we all have the same goal in mind yet different methods to get there. The truth often rests in the middle, with a little of this and a little of that. The great thing with how this country was constructed is that it forces 535 people to get together and figure this out. When one party gets absolute control, you often find hasty decisions with bad consequences. I say this (of course) knowing that I have the right answers and if I just ruled the world, everything would be perfect (sarcasm inserted here).

[Guest]

545

Know what you believe and then use your freedom as an American to defend your position. A friendly exchange is advised. Use intelligent argument. However, to be wishy-washy is dangerous to everyone. IMHO

[Guest]

Steve,

The good thing is that it seems like we both agree with the goal in the sense of terrorists, and it is the tactics that we are disagreeing with (though maybe not as much as this thread would lead one to believe). We are closer than you think. I think the only real philosophical difference we may have is that I support the right of self determination, regardless of politics or geographical placement (I could be wrong about this as well). There is at least one person you named (Zapata) that I think you are whole hardly wrong about. He was a great man who helped Mexico break from the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz who ran one of the most unequal governments of Latin America that history would ever see. I don't see any way to say he was wrong if we hold any of the values of this country true to our heart (there would be no way of saying that Saddam was bad and Diaz was not, they are true equals in what they did and how they did it... Fulgencio Batista is also in this group). But all of this would be better in another thread where we could really lay out our philosophical beliefs about what makes a good society and when one is situated in a way to justify an armed revolution.

The thing to consider is that many times conservatives and liberal will argue about how to conduct the war on terror, and like the debates about energy, we all have the same goal in mind yet different methods to get there. The truth often rests in the middle, with a little of this and a little of that. The great thing with how this country was constructed is that it forces 535 people to get together and figure this out. When one party gets absolute control, you often find hasty decisions with bad consequences. I say this (of course) knowing that I have the right answers and if I just ruled the world, everything would be perfect (sarcasm inserted here).

Yep - overall there's little difference.

Yes, Zapata was definitely a "freedom fighter" in my book, but to the government then in power, he was a "terrorist" - that was the point I tried to make.

Am looking forward September (back in TV for 2 weeks - part of the 2 in / 10 out commuting pattern I'm on). We need to discuss this issue over a cold one...

[Guest]

Yes, Zapata was definitely a "freedom fighter" in my book, but to the government then in power, he was a "terrorist" - that was the point I tried to make.


:agree:

[Guest]

In a forthcoming manual on counterinsurgency strategy written by David Kilcullen, a former Australian Army officer who is now an adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has something to say about the Iraq war. Kilcullen, who helped Petraeus design his 2007 counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, called the decision to invade Iraq "stupid" -- in fact, he said "fX$?!ing stupid" -- and suggested that if policy-makers apply the manual's lessons, similar wars can be avoided in the future.

"The biggest stupid idea," Kilcullen said, "was to invade Iraq in the first place."

[Guest]

Has anyone read the book The Three Trillion Dollar War: by Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Economist Linda Bilmes on the true cost of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq? I can't find it on the Sumter County Library System and was wondering if anyone on TOTV has read it and can comment.
Thanks!