I remain unconvinced that the only way to deal with Hussein was war.
What is the problem with quelling the insurgency?
The main problem, from what I can tell, is a distinct inability to conduct effective intelligence operations against them. And how do you deal with that problem?
Well, you can try killing people in mass murder campaigns to discourage them from joining the insurgency. That's been tried for a couple of years. and not very successfully.
Or you can try to cultivate human intelligence.
Now, what was the problem with doing that INSTEAD of going to war?
Did we give up on trying to cultivate intelligence with the Soviet Union? Does Bush mean to say that Hussein was a bigger threat than the Soviet Empire?
Yes, I'll agree that the State of Israel is a particularly sharp point in the ribs of the pride of muslim civilization.
And they need to get over it.
But something needs to be done to address the imperialist injustices suffered by the people of Palestine, who were caught in the middle of the Cold War. Yes, the United States and Russia need to step up and do something to compensate those folks.
And we probably need something like "The Truth Commission" there as well. Atrocities were committed on both sides.
I remain unconvinced that the only way to deal with Hussein was war.
And yet you're convinced the only way to deal with Milosevic was ?
The main problem, from what I can tell, is a distinct inability to conduct effective intelligence operations against them. And how do you deal with that problem?
Well, you can try killing people in mass murder campaigns to discourage them from joining the insurgency. That's been tried for a couple of years. and not very successfully.
Or you can try to cultivate human intelligence.
Now, what was the problem with doing that INSTEAD of going to war?
Did we give up on trying to cultivate intelligence with the Soviet Union? Does Bush mean to say that Hussein was a bigger threat than the Soviet Empire?
Well for one, we had people all over the inside of the Soviet Union. With all those people inside we still missed seeing the collapse of an entire government. In the case of Al Queida it's damn near impossible to get people on the inside. A) Because of restrictions placed upon us by our own ROE and B) They are very weary of outsiders and westerners making it difficult for some guy with blond hair to go bopping into some cafe in Cairo and ask to meet with the local Al Quieda Rep.
You forget that many of the "Insurgents" Terrorists etc. etc. are doing the exact same thing you accuse the U.S of which is invading a sovergn nation. (Funny it was o.k with Milosevic) Â Many are from Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Etc. Etc.
It takes VERY FEW people to creat allot of havoc and terror. 4 guys with box cutters and 4 guys with backpacks in a subway come to mind.
"But something needs to be done to address the imperialist injustices suffered by the people of Palestine,"
I'm not lining up behind that one. I had sympathy for the Palistinians at one point. I can't muster it anymore.
The people hide the suicide bombers of Hamas and the Martyrs Brigade in their midst. They send their children out to do their dirty work. What's salvagable in that?
The fighting might end when the Palistinians love their children more than they hate Israel. I don't care what kind of "imperialist injustices" you suffer. You have to hold onto your humanity then, when it matter most. And the Palistinians have fallen way short.
First, the US did not invade and occupy Serbia. A multinational force went in to keep the peace in one province of Serbia and political opposition to Milosevic materialized that allowed Serbia to depose Milosevic and turn him over for war crimes.
I think that a variation on that theme might have worked against Hussein.
Second, I don't buy this argument that people can't get inside the muslim fundamentalist movement to conduct intelligence. I think it's do-able. I think that it isn't what Bush wants to do.
Third, the foreigners flocking to Iraq to fight the US aren't an army invading Iraq for the purpose of taking it over. They are going there to repel an invasion.
Police officers and mobsters might both have guns, but that doesn't mean they have similar aims in using them.
I agree with you on one thing, though: terrorism represents a very difficult problem because a small few can create a lot of trouble.
I know. I understand what you mean. My hope is that things may gradually move toward peace now that Arafat is gone. Arafat did not know how to govern or lead or negotiate. He only knew how to relentlessly fight a guerrilla war.
First, the US did not invade and occupy Serbia. A multinational force went in to keep the peace in one province of Serbia and political opposition to Milosevic materialized that allowed Serbia to depose Milosevic and turn him over for war crimes.
Now you're just resorting to lying. Tell me. What are all those troops STILL doing in the Balkans ? Are they a figment of the imagination? Yea, Serbia's not occupied. (Dang you're dishonest)
Second, I don't buy this argument that people can't get inside the muslim fundamentalist movement to conduct intelligence. I think it's do-able. I think that it isn't what Bush wants to do.
Ah so evil Buscho Mc Chimpyhaliburton doesn't want people to get inside the fundie Muslim movement. And your proof of that is? I guess Clinton didn't either right ? That statement alone ought to disqualify anyone from ever taking you seriously. For years going back to Reagan they've been trying to get into these organizations.
Third, the foreigners flocking to Iraq to fight the US aren't an army invading Iraq for the purpose of taking it over. They are going there to repel an invasion.
Ah, so the Syrian who lit up a school was there just to repel an invasion. You're sick and demented.
"Arafat did not know how to govern or lead or negotiate. He only knew how to relentlessly fight a guerrilla war. "
If Arafat had to actually help build a nation, schools, institutions and encourage investment, he couldn't find his butt if it had a bell on it. He could only fall back on what he knew.
If Arafat had to actually help build a nation, schools, institutions and encourage investment, he couldn't find his butt if it had a bell on it. He could only fall back on what he knew.
Exactly. Having won at least some land and the Palestinian Authority, he couldn't parlay it into something worth having for the Palestinian nation. He had been fighting a guerrilla war all his life. He didn't know how to do anything else, and his power was such that no one else could do anything either.
I read a New Yorker article that said the U.S. had people who could [speak arabic], but they couldn't get hired to work for intelligence because they were gay.
Not in the same numbers. But there's been a hardening among the Shiites.
"Now, events are pointing more than ever to the possibility that the nightmare could come true. Recent weeks have seen the insurgency reach new heights of sustained brutality. The violence is ever more centered on sectarian killings, with Sunni insurgents targeting hundreds of Shiite and Kurdish civilians in suicide bombings. There are reports of Shiite death squads, some with links to the interior ministry, retaliating by abducting and killing Sunni clerics and community leaders."
and
"There have been persistent reports, mostly in Baghdad, of Shiite death squads in police uniforms abducting, torturing and killing Sunni Arab clerics, community leaders and others. In Baghdad, a police commando unit composed mainly of Shiites raided a hospital two weekends ago and abducted 13 Sunni men accused of being insurgents. Sixteen hours later, the bodies of 10 were delivered to a morgue, the victims of suffocation in a locked metal-topped police van in a temperature nearing 120 degrees."
I've heard that the only successful attempts to create self-government in a country have come from the society of that country.
What we are about to see unfold is the unraveling of the latest lie given as a justification for the war in Iraq: That Bush is some kind of visionary who wants to establish democracies in the Middle East.
The reason it will come unraveled is not because of the insurgency, though. The reason it will come unraveled is because the reason for the war has all along been control of the oil by western corporations. To maintain that control, the government of Iraq must be a government that acts in the interests of those corporations, even if the interest of those corporations is counter to the interests of Iraqis. That is not a democratic or republican government.
It is not, truly, an Iraqi government, even if every stooge in the government is an Iraqi! Such a government can't possibly BE an instrument of self-government while it serves the interests of foreign corporations who have laid claim to Iraq's resources through an illegal invasion and occupation by a foreign power.
I was in the Middle East last year. Editorials in the English language papers say that many Middle Eastern countries may not recognize the government in Iraq as legitimate.
It is a tool of the U.S., and the U.S. foreign policy is controlled by Tel Aviv.
I'm not skeptical about the possibility of popular self-government in the Middle East, I'm skeptical that the interests of western corporations are conducive to it.
I'm skeptical of their motivations in the US!
The CAFTA, a big must-have for the corporate elite, will allow corporations to sue any government in the CAFTA area (including the US) to recover any money spent complying with environmental laws, according to Nancy Pelosi, who said just that on the House floor.
Got that? Corporations benefit from skirting environmental laws, and then make us pay for their costs to comply with laws they have violated.
It's not business. It's fascism. And that's what has me skeptical about the unexamined notion that the expansion of global corporativism is good for the spread of democracy and freedom. It seems that the corporate elite find democracy, well, inconvenient.
For Bill who's waiting for the withdraw of troops from Iraq:
From the same previous link:
"American commanders have continued to hint at the possibility of at least an initial reduction of the 140,000 American troops stationed here by next summer, contingent on progress in creating effective Iraqi units. Some senior officers have said privately that there is a chance that the pullback will be ordered regardless of what is happening in the war,and that the rationale will be that Iraq - its politicians and its warriors - will ultimately have to find ways of overcoming their divides on their own.
"America, these officers seem to be saying, can do only so much, and if Iraqis are hellbent on settling matters violently - at the worst, by civil war - that, in the end, would be their sovereign choice."
Rat: If that's what they're saying it's utterly amazing. Ransack a nation, topple it's leaders and say: Good luck with all this.
I would find the whole "democracy building" mission a whole lot more believable if
a) oil execs weren't dividing up the Iraqi oil fields
b) They really had trained the Iraqis to take over defense
c) all the infrastructure being rebuilt wasn't centered around getting oil.
d) They hadn't LIED about the WMDs
e) They hadn't lied about Iraq being connected to 9/11
f) Haliburton wasn't paying Cheney 400k a year WHILE HE IS VICE PRESIDENT
Other than all that, Hussein was a bad guy except for the fact that he held together a country that would otherwise descend into civil war and anarchy, which is why we didn't get rid of him in 1991.
Was there another way? Perhaps....
We could have hired some gay people that speak arabic....lol
The gulf between British and French treatment of preachers of hatred and violence was thrown sharply into focus yesterday when France announced the summary expulsion of a dozen Islamists between now and the end of August.
A tough new anti-terrorism package was unveiled by Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister and a popular centre-Right politician.
His proposals reflect French determination to act swiftly against extremists in defiance of the human rights lobby, which is noticeably less vocal in France than in Britain.
Imams and their followers who fuel anti-western feeling among impressionable young French Muslims will be rounded up and returned to their countries of origin, most commonly in France's case to its former north African colonies.
Mr Sarkozy also revealed that as many as 12 French mosques associated with provocative anti-western preaching were under surveillance. Imams indulging in inflammatory rhetoric will be expelled even if their religious status is recognised by mainstream Muslim bodies....
>Das keeps harping on the oil part of it. Over 2 years later, where the hell is it?
Under the country of Iraq. The means to get it out keeps getting blown up by people who have this weird idea that their country shouldn't be invaded, occupied and plundered by foreigners. You would think we had something called a "United Nations" and something called "international law," but I guess when those fail, people resort to guerrilla war to fend off imperialists.
>I have yet to see a horrific or unamerican policy.
Well, there's torture. Maybe Bush supporters can get a tour of real live torture chambers, in use, if they contribute enough money. Then you can see for yourself a horrific, unamerican policy.
If this was just about oil, why didn't we just take Saddam's side of things and get the stuff as a bribe like others did? Would have been much easier, cheaper and less political fallout that way. Don't you think that oil was not a reason for the war?
Sheik Horn floats around the room in white robe and headdress, exchanging pleasantries with dozens of village leaders.
But he's the only sheik with blonde streaks in his mustache - and the only one who attended country music star Toby Keith's recent concert in Baghdad with fellow U.S. soldiers.
Officially, he's Army Staff Sgt. Dale L. Horn, but to residents of the 37 villages and towns that he patrols he's known as the American sheik...
I certainly think oil plays a part in this war. I think it would be foolish to deny it. And, taken as a whole, the world needs oil to move freely at market prices.
I think where we disagree is on just how large a part it plays.
"Again I ask, instead of going to war, losing lives, etc., why did we not just take the bribe of oil from Saddam and save all the hassle then?"
I'm not talking about the acquisition of oil as much as it is about the ability of oil to move freely at market prices. That's in the interest of the U.S.
If it were not an oil rich region and there was simply a run-of-the-mill tyrant in charge of a country, the U.S. wouldn't go to these lengths. Why -- under that scenario -- would it be in the interest of the U.S. to liberate Iraq without the oil component? What do we get out of it? Why isn't there a coalition liberating Zimbabwe from Robert Mugabe?
Given what we know now about his cache of WMD's we can't say Iraq was as much a terrorist threat to the U.S. However, Iraq was always a threat to Israel.
Luv2Fly 7/28/05 1:42pm
I remain unconvinced that the only way to deal with Hussein was war.
What is the problem with quelling the insurgency?
The main problem, from what I can tell, is a distinct inability to conduct effective intelligence operations against them. And how do you deal with that problem?
Well, you can try killing people in mass murder campaigns to discourage them from joining the insurgency. That's been tried for a couple of years. and not very successfully.
Or you can try to cultivate human intelligence.
Now, what was the problem with doing that INSTEAD of going to war?
Did we give up on trying to cultivate intelligence with the Soviet Union? Does Bush mean to say that Hussein was a bigger threat than the Soviet Empire?
The Rat 7/28/05 1:42pm
Yes, I'll agree that the State of Israel is a particularly sharp point in the ribs of the pride of muslim civilization.
And they need to get over it.
But something needs to be done to address the imperialist injustices suffered by the people of Palestine, who were caught in the middle of the Cold War. Yes, the United States and Russia need to step up and do something to compensate those folks.
And we probably need something like "The Truth Commission" there as well. Atrocities were committed on both sides.
no, I don't.
I know why his brother chopped off his ear though.
I guess what is being said is that if someone does anything bad, one should never want to understand why.
I remain unconvinced that the only way to deal with Hussein was war.
And yet you're convinced the only way to deal with Milosevic was ?
The main problem, from what I can tell, is a distinct inability to conduct effective intelligence operations against them. And how do you deal with that problem?
Well, you can try killing people in mass murder campaigns to discourage them from joining the insurgency. That's been tried for a couple of years. and not very successfully.
Or you can try to cultivate human intelligence.
Now, what was the problem with doing that INSTEAD of going to war?
Did we give up on trying to cultivate intelligence with the Soviet Union? Does Bush mean to say that Hussein was a bigger threat than the Soviet Empire?
Well for one, we had people all over the inside of the Soviet Union. With all those people inside we still missed seeing the collapse of an entire government. In the case of Al Queida it's damn near impossible to get people on the inside. A) Because of restrictions placed upon us by our own ROE and B) They are very weary of outsiders and westerners making it difficult for some guy with blond hair to go bopping into some cafe in Cairo and ask to meet with the local Al Quieda Rep.
You forget that many of the "Insurgents" Terrorists etc. etc. are doing the exact same thing you accuse the U.S of which is invading a sovergn nation. (Funny it was o.k with Milosevic) Â Many are from Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Etc. Etc.
It takes VERY FEW people to creat allot of havoc and terror. 4 guys with box cutters and 4 guys with backpacks in a subway come to mind.
Â
"But something needs to be done to address the imperialist injustices suffered by the people of Palestine,"
I'm not lining up behind that one. I had sympathy for the Palistinians at one point. I can't muster it anymore.
The people hide the suicide bombers of Hamas and the Martyrs Brigade in their midst. They send their children out to do their dirty work. What's salvagable in that?
The fighting might end when the Palistinians love their children more than they hate Israel. I don't care what kind of "imperialist injustices" you suffer. You have to hold onto your humanity then, when it matter most. And the Palistinians have fallen way short.
The Rat 7/28/05 2:09pm
Bingo! Well said.
Luv2Fly 7/28/05 1:58pm
First, the US did not invade and occupy Serbia. A multinational force went in to keep the peace in one province of Serbia and political opposition to Milosevic materialized that allowed Serbia to depose Milosevic and turn him over for war crimes.
I think that a variation on that theme might have worked against Hussein.
Second, I don't buy this argument that people can't get inside the muslim fundamentalist movement to conduct intelligence. I think it's do-able. I think that it isn't what Bush wants to do.
Third, the foreigners flocking to Iraq to fight the US aren't an army invading Iraq for the purpose of taking it over. They are going there to repel an invasion.
Police officers and mobsters might both have guns, but that doesn't mean they have similar aims in using them.
I agree with you on one thing, though: terrorism represents a very difficult problem because a small few can create a lot of trouble.
The Rat 7/28/05 2:09pm
I know. I understand what you mean. My hope is that things may gradually move toward peace now that Arafat is gone. Arafat did not know how to govern or lead or negotiate. He only knew how to relentlessly fight a guerrilla war.
First, the US did not invade and occupy Serbia. A multinational force went in to keep the peace in one province of Serbia and political opposition to Milosevic materialized that allowed Serbia to depose Milosevic and turn him over for war crimes.
Now you're just resorting to lying. Tell me. What are all those troops STILL doing in the Balkans ? Are they a figment of the imagination? Yea, Serbia's not occupied. (Dang you're dishonest)
Second, I don't buy this argument that people can't get inside the muslim fundamentalist movement to conduct intelligence. I think it's do-able. I think that it isn't what Bush wants to do.
Ah so evil Buscho Mc Chimpyhaliburton doesn't want people to get inside the fundie Muslim movement. And your proof of that is? I guess Clinton didn't either right ? That statement alone ought to disqualify anyone from ever taking you seriously. For years going back to Reagan they've been trying to get into these organizations.
Third, the foreigners flocking to Iraq to fight the US aren't an army invading Iraq for the purpose of taking it over. They are going there to repel an invasion.
Ah, so the Syrian who lit up a school was there just to repel an invasion. You're sick and demented.
"Arafat did not know how to govern or lead or negotiate. He only knew how to relentlessly fight a guerrilla war. "
If Arafat had to actually help build a nation, schools, institutions and encourage investment, he couldn't find his butt if it had a bell on it. He could only fall back on what he knew.
"For years going back to Reagan they've been trying to get into these organizations."
The French are successful at infiltrating Muslim organizations. But in the U.S. there wasn't many people in intelligence who spoke street Arabic.
The French are successful at infiltrating Muslim organizations. But in the U.S. there wasn't many people in intelligence who spoke street Arabic.
"The biggest problem though as you state is trying to get people who can really speak Arabic."
I read a New Yorker article that said the U.S. had people who could do it, but they couldn't get hired to work for intelligence because they were gay.
That's a shame if true.
Â
It's the minority Sunni's bombing the majority Shiites.
How's those interest rates doing, Bill?
"It's the minority Sunni's bombing the majority Shiites."
So what do you think "the majority" is going to do about it one day, JT?
What's the value on the life of a Sunni muslim in a "free" Iraq?
So what do you think "the majority" is going to do about it one day, JT?
I don't know, but as Luv said, today the Shiites could be slaughtering the Sunni, and they're not.
What's the value on the life of a Sunni muslim in a "free" Iraq?
That might be up to the Sunni's to decide.
The Rat 7/28/05 3:00pm
Exactly. Having won at least some land and the Palestinian Authority, he couldn't parlay it into something worth having for the Palestinian nation. He had been fighting a guerrilla war all his life. He didn't know how to do anything else, and his power was such that no one else could do anything either.
The Rat 7/28/05 3:26pm
Unless I'm mistaken, that failing is one of the reasons that the 9/11 Commission gave for the success of the terrorists.
Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq has made the task more difficult.
Vietnam
Nuff said
The Rat 7/28/05 4:47pm
LMAO
The only loyal Americans who are willing to devote years to learning arabic, are gay!
I think someone over at the New Yorker is a real wise-cracker....
"today the Shiites could be slaughtering the Sunni, and they're not."
Oh?
Not in the same numbers. But there's been a hardening among the Shiites.
"Now, events are pointing more than ever to the possibility that the nightmare could come true. Recent weeks have seen the insurgency reach new heights of sustained brutality. The violence is ever more centered on sectarian killings, with Sunni insurgents targeting hundreds of Shiite and Kurdish civilians in suicide bombings. There are reports of Shiite death squads, some with links to the interior ministry, retaliating by abducting and killing Sunni clerics and community leaders."
and
"There have been persistent reports, mostly in Baghdad, of Shiite death squads in police uniforms abducting, torturing and killing Sunni Arab clerics, community leaders and others. In Baghdad, a police commando unit composed mainly of Shiites raided a hospital two weekends ago and abducted 13 Sunni men accused of being insurgents. Sixteen hours later, the bodies of 10 were delivered to a morgue, the victims of suffocation in a locked metal-topped police van in a temperature nearing 120 degrees."
The Vietnam similarities are disturbing.
I've heard that the only successful attempts to create self-government in a country have come from the society of that country.
What we are about to see unfold is the unraveling of the latest lie given as a justification for the war in Iraq: That Bush is some kind of visionary who wants to establish democracies in the Middle East.
The reason it will come unraveled is not because of the insurgency, though. The reason it will come unraveled is because the reason for the war has all along been control of the oil by western corporations. To maintain that control, the government of Iraq must be a government that acts in the interests of those corporations, even if the interest of those corporations is counter to the interests of Iraqis. That is not a democratic or republican government.
It is not, truly, an Iraqi government, even if every stooge in the government is an Iraqi! Such a government can't possibly BE an instrument of self-government while it serves the interests of foreign corporations who have laid claim to Iraq's resources through an illegal invasion and occupation by a foreign power.
I was in the Middle East last year. Editorials in the English language papers say that many Middle Eastern countries may not recognize the government in Iraq as legitimate.
It is a tool of the U.S., and the U.S. foreign policy is controlled by Tel Aviv.
The Rat 7/29/05 5:52am
I don't think US policy is controlled by Tel Aviv.
But I can understand why some governments would take that line. It's not helpful to the Western corporations, and I'm not sure what it bodes.
"I don't think US policy is controlled by Tel Aviv."
Neither do I. But if that's what's being said in the English press, who knows what the Arabs are reading.
>who knows what the Arabs are reading.
I'll bet they read about the meeting of oil executives in London to divide the oil fields of Iraq.
Coincidently, that took place right around the time those bombs went off.
No one apparently has wondered why they attacked London instead of the G-8 summit in Scotland.
Just too lazy to go all the way to Scotland, I guess....
http://www.thelondonline.co.uk/theline/article.php?articleID=437
Here is the article on the oil exec's meeting.
Not in the same numbers. But there's been a hardening among the Shiites.
Of course there is.
It's still not mass slaughter.
I hope it doesn't come to that either.
"That Bush is some kind of visionary who wants to establish democracies in the Middle East."
Doubt the possibility of Jeffersonian democracy in the Middle East and you will be accused of the Sin of Elitism.
Just being skeptical marks you.
The Rat 7/29/05 6:30am
I'm not skeptical about the possibility of popular self-government in the Middle East, I'm skeptical that the interests of western corporations are conducive to it.
I'm skeptical of their motivations in the US!
The CAFTA, a big must-have for the corporate elite, will allow corporations to sue any government in the CAFTA area (including the US) to recover any money spent complying with environmental laws, according to Nancy Pelosi, who said just that on the House floor.
Got that? Corporations benefit from skirting environmental laws, and then make us pay for their costs to comply with laws they have violated.
It's not business. It's fascism. And that's what has me skeptical about the unexamined notion that the expansion of global corporativism is good for the spread of democracy and freedom. It seems that the corporate elite find democracy, well, inconvenient.
For Bill who's waiting for the withdraw of troops from Iraq:
From the same previous link:
"American commanders have continued to hint at the possibility of at least an initial reduction of the 140,000 American troops stationed here by next summer, contingent on progress in creating effective Iraqi units. Some senior officers have said privately that there is a chance that the pullback will be ordered regardless of what is happening in the war,and that the rationale will be that Iraq - its politicians and its warriors - will ultimately have to find ways of overcoming their divides on their own.
"America, these officers seem to be saying, can do only so much, and if Iraqis are hellbent on settling matters violently - at the worst, by civil war - that, in the end, would be their sovereign choice."
Rat: If that's what they're saying it's utterly amazing. Ransack a nation, topple it's leaders and say: Good luck with all this.
Amazing.
And after all that talk about "staying the course" and "we must see it through or the terrorists win."
Well, now I expect that the Bush Administration will say something like "we never said that Iraq was central to the war on terror."
I'll be very surprised if they actually walk away from the oil, though.
You gotta wonder why only 3 of 107 units of the Iraqi force are considered "ready."
What's the problem? Aren't they training these guys the way they train our guys?
Â
I would find the whole "democracy building" mission a whole lot more believable if
a) oil execs weren't dividing up the Iraqi oil fields
b) They really had trained the Iraqis to take over defense
c) all the infrastructure being rebuilt wasn't centered around getting oil.
d) They hadn't LIED about the WMDs
e) They hadn't lied about Iraq being connected to 9/11
f) Haliburton wasn't paying Cheney 400k a year WHILE HE IS VICE PRESIDENT
Other than all that, Hussein was a bad guy except for the fact that he held together a country that would otherwise descend into civil war and anarchy, which is why we didn't get rid of him in 1991.
Was there another way? Perhaps....
We could have hired some gay people that speak arabic....lol
"Aren't they training these guys the way they train our guys?"
There's still an average of 65 attacks a day. That must keep them busy.
When I was in the military, it took two guys to train 30 of us.
140k/15=less than 10k guys to train all the Iraqis needed. And that's if they train all of them at once.
Even allowing time to construct barracks and training grounds they still have had plenty of time and manpower to get the job done.
I have a sneaking suspicion that those 14 permanent military installations aren't being built to suit an Iraqi army.
I have a sneaking suspicion that those 14 permanent military installations aren't being built to suit an Iraqi army.
"sneaking suspicion?" No. you believe it with your whole heart because you want to.
The "Iraqification" of the war might be under way.
The war is becoming increasingly unpopular, and even people who once supported it and even fought it are turning away from it.
It's starting to sink in all across the land what the war is really about: 3 trillion dollars in oil.
It's starting to sink in that the reasons that were given to us to justify the war were lies.
It's starting to sink in that there are some horrific and unamerican policies being pursued by Bush, and that he isn't acting in our best interest.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/30/ncleric30.xml&site=5
France ejects 12 Islamic 'preachers of hate'
By Colin Randall in Paris
(Filed: 30/07/2005)
The gulf between British and French treatment of preachers of hatred and violence was thrown sharply into focus yesterday when France announced the summary expulsion of a dozen Islamists between now and the end of August.
A tough new anti-terrorism package was unveiled by Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister and a popular centre-Right politician.
His proposals reflect French determination to act swiftly against extremists in defiance of the human rights lobby, which is noticeably less vocal in France than in Britain.
Imams and their followers who fuel anti-western feeling among impressionable young French Muslims will be rounded up and returned to their countries of origin, most commonly in France's case to its former north African colonies.
Mr Sarkozy also revealed that as many as 12 French mosques associated with provocative anti-western preaching were under surveillance. Imams indulging in inflammatory rhetoric will be expelled even if their religious status is recognised by mainstream Muslim bodies....
The war is becoming increasingly unpopular, and even people who once supported it and even fought it are turning away from it.
CNN/USA Today/Gallup
Poll. July 22-24, 2005. N=1,006 adults nationwide.MoE ± 3.
.
"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?
"
7/22-24/05 = 46%-made mistake, 53% did not make mistake, 1% unsure
6/21-23/04 = 54%-made mistake, 44% did not make mistake, 1%-unsure
Das keeps harping on the oil part of it. Over 2 years later, where the hell is it?
I have yet to see a horrific or unamerican policy.
>Das keeps harping on the oil part of it. Over 2 years later, where the hell is it?
Under the country of Iraq. The means to get it out keeps getting blown up by people who have this weird idea that their country shouldn't be invaded, occupied and plundered by foreigners. You would think we had something called a "United Nations" and something called "international law," but I guess when those fail, people resort to guerrilla war to fend off imperialists.
>I have yet to see a horrific or unamerican policy.
Well, there's torture. Maybe Bush supporters can get a tour of real live torture chambers, in use, if they contribute enough money. Then you can see for yourself a horrific, unamerican policy.
If this was just about oil, why didn't we just take Saddam's side of things and get the stuff as a bribe like others did? Would have been much easier, cheaper and less political fallout that way. Don't you think that oil was not a reason for the war?
Sheik Horn floats around the room in white robe and headdress, exchanging pleasantries with dozens of village leaders.
But he's the only sheik with blonde streaks in his mustache - and the only one who attended country music star Toby Keith's recent concert in Baghdad with fellow U.S. soldiers.
Officially, he's Army Staff Sgt. Dale L. Horn, but to residents of the 37 villages and towns that he patrols he's known as the American sheik...
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB268WJTBE.html
"If this was just about oil..."
I certainly think oil plays a part in this war. I think it would be foolish to deny it. And, taken as a whole, the world needs oil to move freely at market prices.
I think where we disagree is on just how large a part it plays.
And of course Das has seen these "real live torture chambers in use"...That would be no.
And of course Das is another liberal who thinks saddam should have been given more than 12 years of laughing at the UN and international law.
I certainly think oil plays a part in this war.
Again I ask, instead of going to war, losing lives, etc., why did we not just take the bribe of oil from Saddam and save all the hassle then?
"Again I ask, instead of going to war, losing lives, etc., why did we not just take the bribe of oil from Saddam and save all the hassle then?"
I'm not talking about the acquisition of oil as much as it is about the ability of oil to move freely at market prices. That's in the interest of the U.S.
If it were not an oil rich region and there was simply a run-of-the-mill tyrant in charge of a country, the U.S. wouldn't go to these lengths. Why -- under that scenario -- would it be in the interest of the U.S. to liberate Iraq without the oil component? What do we get out of it? Why isn't there a coalition liberating Zimbabwe from Robert Mugabe?
Given what we know now about his cache of WMD's we can't say Iraq was as much a terrorist threat to the U.S. However, Iraq was always a threat to Israel.