Iraq Revisited

[CptSternn]

This is kinda funny so I posted it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05...est/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After more than three years of combat and nearly 2,400 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, nearly two-thirds of Americans aged 18 to 24 still cannot find Iraq on a map, a study released Tuesday showed.

I'm guessing once they get their arses drafted and sent there, they will be able to find it much more readily.

[Cambodian Breakfast]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

This is kinda funny so I posted it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05...est/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After more than three years of combat and nearly 2,400 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, nearly two-thirds of Americans aged 18 to 24 still cannot find Iraq on a map, a study released Tuesday showed.

I'm guessing once they get their arses drafted and sent there, they will be able to find it much more readily.

We don't get drafted. You need to get a clue.

[Blushing Heliophobe]

As far as I know, males have to regeister for the draft at the age of 18. That's pretty much it.

Besides, they'd activate all of the Reserves, pull in people out of Inactive Reserves before they would activate a draft.

[CptSternn]

The current stop-loss reition policy is tandamount to a draft, at least thats what families are saying.

[Cambodian Breakfast]

Men don't really have to you have a choice. But the stop-loss peition policy is not happing.

[CptSternn]

This thread seemed quite so I thought I'd inject some curerent events to lively it up so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/wa...syahoo&emc=rss

‘Civil War’ Is Uttered, and White House’s Iraq Strategy Is Dealt a Blow

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 — Late last year, during a major address in Annapolis, President Bush introduced a new phrase for his Iraq policy: “Plan for Victory.” With those words emblazoned on a screen behind him, he laid out a possible exit path for American troops, who would gradually cede control to their Iraqi counterparts.

But that phrase has all but disappeared as scenes of horrific sectarian violence have streamed onto American television screens unabated. And when the United States commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, addressed the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, his testimony that “Iraq could move towards civil war” if the strife would not end overshadowed any talk of victory.

Those two words — civil war — further complicated what was already a daunting challenge for the administration: convincing battle-weary Americans that the war was winnable while acknowledging the grim reality of the bloodshed.

Bringing the public back behind the Iraq campaign has been a fundamental White House goal for at least the last year, crucial to reducing public pressure to withdraw troops before the White House believes the mission is complete. It would also bolster the Republican Party’s prospects during Congressional elections in November.

But the administration is to a point still battling early expectations — created in part by its own officials and supporters — that the fight would be relatively easy. And it must essentially make a retroactive argument that the campaign will be long and hard, with stakes that no longer address the threat of unconventional weapons that were never found, but, rather, the prospects for the fight between democracy and Islamic extremism in the Middle East.

Since the war began more than three years ago, the administration and its supporters have discussed it in terms that have progressively tamped down expectations. The long-derided terms like “greeted as liberators” (Vice President Dick Cheney) and “cakewalk” (former Reagan arms control official Kenneth L. Adelman), as well as talk of an insurgency in its “last throes” (Mr. Cheney), are a thing of memory. Now, mixed with optimism are statements from President Bush that “the violence in Baghdad is still terrible,” and from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States had made “tactical errors, thousands of them.”

But on Thursday, the administration faced a blunt warning about the possibility of a civil war in Iraq from one of its military leaders.

For some who have watched the public relations campaign closely, General Abizaid’s statement — which did include an assertion that Iraq would ultimately avoid a civil war — represented a tacit acknowledgment that there was no use spinning this conflict.

Yet it also risked feeding public calls to leave Iraq when Americans are especially supportive of a speedy troop withdrawal if the conflict devolves into an internal Iraqi war.

“ ‘Civil war’ is sort of a proxy term for wars we cannot win,” said Christopher F. Gelpi, a professor of political science at Duke University who has worked on gauging opinions on Iraq with Peter D. Feaver, a fellow Duke professor who took leave to become a special adviser to the White House, helping to hone the “Plan for Victory.”

“The problem they’re facing is there’s only so much their rhetorical strategy can do to reshape public perceptions of the very real events that are out there, and right now those events are very bad when thousands of Iraqis are being killed every month,” Mr. Gelpi said.

Underscoring just how hard the job of putting an optimistic face on the war is proving to be, the staunchest remaining supporters are voicing pessimism about the prospects under the administration’s current approach, increasingly calling for Mr. Bush to engage in a new and more aggressive strategy.

“Those of us who still back the war are worried and alarmed,” said William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, an early proponent of the invasion. “We need to win the war and if it’s not going well we need to change strategy.”

On The National Review Online Web site last week, a former speechwriter for President Bush, David Frum, another longtime supporter of the war, said that if the United States did not change its policy by significantly increasing troop levels, “Baghdad — and therefore central Iraq — will in such a case slide after Basra and the south into the unofficial new Iranian empire.” Then, he predicted, “American troops will be free to stay or go, depending on whether we wish to deny or acknowledge defeat.”

Mr. Frum criticized as insufficient a plan Mr. Bush announced last week for an increase of troops in Baghdad — brought from other parts of Iraq — to help quell the violence in the capital.

In the current political climate, there is little appetite among voters for an increased troop presence. In the latest New York Times poll, 56 percent said the United States should set a timetable for withdrawal; 33 percent said it should do so even if it means handing Iraq over to insurgents.

Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor, said Mr. Bush’s hands would not be tied in Iraq by domestic politics. “You want to have as many people as supportive of this effort as possible,” he said in an interview. “But at the end of the day the commander in chief is going to make the decisions, and at the end of the day he’s going to defer to commanders on the ground — not the swings of public opinion.”

Mr. Bartlett said the administration would spend the fall explaining the strategy in Iraq, describing success as certain and providing “the necessary context and consequences and stakes in the fight,” which the administration has defined as creating the democratic conditions needed to defeat terrorism.

He acknowledged, “The images coming out of the Middle East are unsettling and obviously contribute to the anxiety.”

The theory when President Bush unveiled the “Plan for Victory” was that Americans would accept casualties if they could see a path to victory. For now, roadside bombs and suicide attackers are certainly clouding that vision.



...it looks like once again 'mission accomplished' doesn't mean what the bush admin claimed it did.

[CptSternn]

Senate finds no al-Qaida-Saddam link

http://news.**********/s/ap/20060909...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein rejected overtures from al-Qaida and believed Islamic extremists were a threat to his regime, a reverse portrait of an Iraq allied with Osama bin Laden painted by the Bush White House, a Senate panel has found.

The administration's version was based in part on intelligence that White House officials knew was flawed, according to Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing newly declassified documents released by the panel.

The report, released Friday, discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.

As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, President Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi."

Democrats singled out CIA Director George Tenet, saying that during a private meeting in July Tenet told the panel that the White House pressured him and that he agreed to back up the administration's case for war despite his own agents' doubts about the intelligence it was based on.

"Tenet admitted to the Intelligence Committee that the policymakers wanted him to 'say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said,'" Intelligence Committee member Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters Friday.

Tenet also told the committee that complying had been "the wrong thing to do," according to Levin.

"Well, it was much more than that," Levin said. "It was a shocking abdication of a CIA director's duty not to act as a shill for any administration or its policy."

Leaders of both parties accused each other of seeking political gain on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Republicans said the document contained little new information about prewar intelligence or postwar findings on Iraq's weapons and connection to terrorist groups.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., accused Democrats of trying to "use the committee ... insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."

"That is simply not true," Roberts added, "and I believe the American people are smart enough to recognize election-year politicking when they see it."

The report speaks for itself, Democrats said.

The administration "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.

Still, Democrats were reluctant to say how the administration officials involved should be called to account.

Asked whether the wrongdoing amounted to criminal conduct, Levin and Rockefeller declined to answer. Rockefeller said later he did not believe Bush should be impeached over the matter.

According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime." It quotes an FBI report from June 2004 in which former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said in an interview that "Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden."

Saddam himself is quoted in an FBI summary as acknowledging that the Iraqi government had met with bin Laden but denying that he had colluded with the al-Qaida leader. Claiming that Iraq opposed only U.S. policies, Saddam said that "if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would have allied with North Korea or China," the report quotes the FBI document.

The Democrats said that on Oct. 7, 2002, the day Bush gave a speech speaking of that link, the CIA had sent a declassified letter to the committee saying it would be an "extreme step" for Saddam to assist Islamist terrorists in attacking the United States.

Levin and Rockefeller said Tenet in July acknowledged to the committee that subsequently issuing a statement that there was no inconsistency between the president's speech and the CIA viewpoint had been a mistake.

They also charged Bush with continuing to cite faulty intelligence in his argument for war as recently as last month.

The report said that al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida leader killed by a U.S. airstrike last June, was in Baghdad from May 2002 until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

In June 2004, Bush also defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. "Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida," the president said.

The report concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

A second part of the report finds that false information from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam group led by then-exile Ahmed Chalabi, was used to support key intelligence community assessments on Iraq.

[Binkie]

The report, itself, is an interesting read, as it gives information that Saddam's regime willingly released one of Zarqawi's associates from custody after spending some time hunting him down for extradition for the murder of a diplomat. A source in the IIS explained that the man was released because, "He could help fight for Saddam," despite the fact he was an assocaited of Zarqawi and an alleged terrorist.

Rest of the report is hard to read, since alot of relevant information is blacked out.

[CptSternn]

Are you arguing now CONGRESS and the CIA are WRONG in that report? To clarify this, please, so far in the past few thread I've read you say the CDC are idiots who can't do math, now your arguing that the intellegence committee in congress and the cia got the report wrong.

Once again, where do you get your information? You obviously have better intel than the bush administration - you really should look at helping them.

I mean, if congress, the CIA, the CDC, and every news media in the world have these things wrong, then please, by all means start sending out the truth in your own newsletter and let the people know whats REALLY going on!

[Binkie]

Wow, did I say that? Nope, I'm merely reporting on what the report states. If that bothers you, maybe you should actually read it, Sternn. You might learn something instead of constantly going for the "Reader's Digest" version on yahoo news. But I'll warn you; you can't pick up all your information from a headline and not bother with the rest of the article.

[CptSternn]

Yeah, the report is listed as classified and only available to congress, so now your tellin us YOU read the congressional CIA report and have made conclusions DIFFERENT from the director of the CIA and the Congressional Committee on Foriegn Intelligence?

By all means PLEASE explain how ye accomplished this!

[Binkie]

It's completely classified?!? Wow! This is news to me, al-Jazeera, and Congressional Intelligence Committee's website! I guess our security clearances must surpass your's, Sternn.

You can find a link to it at the bottom of the al-Jazeera article:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...9C60762FA4.htm

Or I can just provide you with the link:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Once again, you've been caught in a lie. Stop making up information, Sternn, because you just look stupid when people can EASILY prove you're wrong.

[CptSternn]

Binkie -

Different report. Good try though.

Good to see your 'staying the course' like a good right wing nut. As always, every day another group dead american soldiers gets flow home in bags. And thanks to right wing nuts like yerself staying the course, we can look forward to more and more dead americans coming home on a daily basis as they fight for...

1. Stopping wmds...err scratch that there were none
2. Toppling Sadaam...err that was two years ago
3. Something else made up to keep the us in Iraq while bush and his cronies try to leech as much oil as possible at the cost of american lives - THATS THE ONE.

It's good to know you don't mind seeing american troops killed for oil interests.

[Binkie]

Wrong report? It's pathetic how desperate you are to try and save face when you are obviously wrong. But entertaining nontheless.

Tell you what, cite me the name of the real report and provide a link that says it's completely classified. If you can't, I'll take that as your conceding to the arguement that it's the wrong report.

[CptSternn]

So you want me to find a link to a sceret government report and post it here? Thats amusing. You really are out there.

[Binkie]

Yes, a secret government report that was all over the front pages. The one that no one knows about. The on you said was classified. I mean, how else had you learned that it was classified? Oh wait... did God tell you? Or did you just know it within your heart to be true?

Thank you for easily conceding the argument. (This is getting easier and easier)

[Binkie]

In addition to informing al-Jazeera they're wrong, you might want to chastise Wikipedia, a source you admit to trusting and often reference, for also linking to that very same report which you said hands down was wrong:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_Senat...n_and_al-Qaeda

See the very last source at the bottom:

"Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with PreWar Assessments."

I believe that was the very same title of the report I linked you to. If you continue to pursue the arguement that both of these sources are wrong, please inform me of how you know that's the wrong report when you don't know the name of the right one.

[CptSternn]

It's the wrong one.

But once again, good job trying to change the topic. Bottom line is - even congress now admits bush lies alot. And people like yerself try to push the lie to keep from looking like a liar yerself.

[CptSternn]

Heres another great article today once again documenting the 'achievements' in Iraq...

http://news.**********/s/ap/20060921...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

UN: Civilian death toll in Iraq climbs

UNITED NATIONS - The number of Iraqi civilians killed in July and August hit 6,599, a record-high number that is far greater than initial estimates suggested, the United Nations said Wednesday.

The report from the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq's Human Rights office highlighted the sectarian crisis gripping the country, offering a grim assessment across a range of indicators — worrying evidence of torture, unlawful detentions, growth of sectarian militias and death squads, and a rise in "honor killings" of women.

That raises new questions about U.S. and Iraqi forces' ability to bring peace to Baghdad, where the bulk of the violent deaths occurred. Iraq's government, set up in 2006, is "currently facing a generalized breakdown of law and order which presents a serious challenge to the institutions of Iraq," it said.

According to the U.N., which releases the figures every two months, violent civilian deaths in July reached an unprecedented high of 3,590, an average of more than 100 a day. The August toll was 3,009, the report said.

*snip*

So are you still saying 'mission accomplished'? Over six thousand in one month. If six thousand americans died in one month due to the reclessness of another country, you think there would be war.

You think any of the people in Iraq like americans with this going on? They haaaate ye. And the rest of the world is sitting back and saying 'we told ye so'.

So hang on to your delisions of intellegence, and whever else ye use to sleep at night while claming your 'helping' Iraqis. Yeah, helping them to a quick and painful death.

America - now known for torture, killing innocent people, and all the stuff they claimed they fought against during the cold war.

[Binkie]

Haha! You can't back up your own assertions. That's actually funny. Quick, change the topic to some other article, Sternn, before I kick you again after you backed yourself into a corner.

Provide me with a source that even says the report you know is right is even classified. Please. It sounds like you can't even do that. I mean, thus far you can't name the right report, but you know the names of the wrong reports (which makes perfect sense to someone with the IQ of 68). You say al-Jazeera is wrong, Wikipedia is wrong, and you're right, but you can't back up your assertions that everyone else is wrong. No, this is funny. And just so no one misses this:

You were just caught lying about information again.

[Darkbender423]

I just wish that we could talk to some of the average citizens of Iraq that go about their daily lives what they think. I would be willing to bet that they do not hate the US as much as some would like to believe. What of the women who can now walk the streets, showing their beautiful faces without the fear of being beheaded. It is illogical for the US to pull our forces out until there is a democratic working government in that country. It would end up being a tragedy. Certianly people are dying there, it is a war. Civilan casualties will happen under those conditions. I do not believe for a second that the US would intentionally harm the innocents. It is however a part of the game.

If we look back to the 80's at the situation in Afganastan we have to learn some important lessons. In those days Al-Qidia were known as Afganastan Freedom fighters and we helped to train them, provided them with weapons and turned the country over to them. Ultimately we paid a very high price for this. Thousands of Americans are laying there lives on the line everyday for freedom and I don't think any of them would choose to do anything else. These are people we've lived hand in hand with, our families and our friends, they believe in what they are doing and they see the benifits of their actions better than any of us sitting here behind our little computer screens. I talk to some of the troops and I hear their stories. Freedom does not come without some sacrifice and Americans are the one's who pay the highest price for the freedom, not only of ourselves, but so that others may live in freedom and prosper in the world. War sucks, no doubt about that, but freedom is the most precious thing a human being posses. We stand on the front lines to ensure that those who desire freedom will have it. Someday the world will be at peace, we will all rejoice in our differences and embrace one another as brothers. When it is all said and done there is only one race and that is the human race. Love is universal and those who would seek to destroy love and freedom must be dealt with. I wish there were an easier way, but at this point there is not.

Granted we have made mistakes and errors in judgement and we must suffer the bashing that we are taking from the world right now. We may even deserve some of it. However, this does not negate the fact that we cannot pull our troops and simply walk away. Iraq will be a free and prosprous nation someday and the people who live there will enjoy peace, safety and security. They will not have to live in fear of their own free will, their free speach and they will have a stable and healthy economy. This is not something to take for granted. Most of us here could not even imgine what it would be like to live under the conditions the people in Iraq have suffered their entire lives. Most of us would have been put to death long ago for saying the things that we say here or living the lifestyle that we live. I think some of us (espically some living in Ireland-haha) take our own freedom for granted. We can sit back and preach but never truely understand until we live under those conditions. I hope none of us ever have to find out what that is like. Freedom is so precious!!!

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Darkbender423

If we look back to the 80's at the situation in Afganastan we have to learn some important lessons. In those days Al-Qidia were known as Afganastan Freedom fighters and we helped to train them, provided them with weapons and turned the country over to them.

Though I agree with the majority of your remarks throughout your entire post, Dark, I'm going to just dissect a few things in this quote here:

There's a fundamental difference in the way by which the collective Mujahideen forces in Afghanistan durring the 80s operated and that in which al-Qaeda does today. The one major difference is their choice in targets (which is what separates legitimate resistance from terror): military vs. civilian. al-Qaeda has chosen to blur and eventually do away with the line that separates these two types of targets.

Legitimate resistance groups have a major problem with the way by which al-Qaeda operates in this day in age and especially in Iraq. Though there was little reporting on it in the media, a group was formed in the town of Anbar comprised of insurgents who had family members killed by al-Qaeda attacks. This group was known as the Anbar Revolutionaries and specifically targeted and killed al-Qaeda members.

While both groups target US military personnel and Iraqi forces in their attacks, one major faction of these groups (the popular concept of the Mujahideen) does not stoop so low as form it's basis for attacks on the intentional murder of innocent men, women, and children. This, in the modern split, has led to the two factions of the Mujahideen being opposed to one another based on their choice of tatics and targets.


The second point I want to touch on is the training and financing that went into al-Qaeda. It wasn't US money the CIA funneled into Pakistan that reached or financed Bin Laden's pre al-Qaeda organization known as the Maktab al-Khadamat. He used much of his own fortune, raised money through charities, and in all likelihood recieved assistance from the Saudi government (as they matched every US dollar that went into Afghanistan). Our military advisors in Pakistan only trained Mujahideen fighters in basic combat and ambush-style tatics as well as weapons operation. The advanced skills they use in more modern conflicts were more likely aquired from Soviet trained KHAD agents left over from the communist government who defected into the Taliban's ranks when Kabul fell in the 90s.

[Darkbender423]

I realized that it was the Taliban that took control of Afganastain and not Al qidia. I don't know why I typed that. I was thinking too fast. I thought of that first thing when I woke this morning. Binkie you are right about the method of operations being different and about some of the funding. I do know that there was much public support in this country for the freedom fighters because of Soviet involvement. Soldier Of Foutune mag. used to collect funds for support of the freedom fighters. I used to read the rag back in the day and I recall countless articles and advertisements calling for support. Yes Bin Ladin is an expremely wealthy person and I'm sure much of his fortune has gone to his cause then and today. Your points are well taken. You are a very informed and intelligent lady! It is a joy to exchange conversation with you!

[Darkbender423]

Sorry I had to step out. My main point was that we have to accept a certian responsibility for what has transpired in Afganastain and I believe we've done that and are taking steps to ensure the security and freedom in that country for their future and our own as well. Just as we must do in Iraq. I have a cousin in Afganastain right now and I talk to him a lot on the net, he says things are relatively peaceful where he is and that people seem to be happy. To me that says a lot for what we've done there.

[Binkie]

Agreed on accepting responsibility. Although our entire aim was only to drive the Soviet occupational forces out through funding the resistance (the communist government in Kabul lasted several years after until the mid 90s long after US funding dropped WAY off to the point of being nonexistant), the Taliban still wreaked the benefits of the weakened government forces, verteran training, weapons, and no doubt still benefitted from USAID assistance that was meant for Pakistan but had trickled down into aiding the Taliban forces via the Pakistani ISI.

I'd also like to note that indeed I enjoy reading your posts as well and discussing these issues with you. Hope your cousin is doing well over there. :)