The Iraq Thread 2

[FSPilot 0]

If they'd done their job like you said they have, they wouldn't be getting shot at.

Don't get me wrong still, they did a good job. But they're just not done yet.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

If they'd done their job like you said they have, they wouldn't be getting shot at.

Don't get me wrong still, they did a good job.  But they're just not done yet.

No, they're still getting shot at because the beauracrats are failing. The combat troops did their part- Saddam's gone, the Iraqis are 'free', and there are Abrams and Bradleys in Baghdad instead of BMPs and T-55s.

On the other hand, the beauracrats and the brass have been singularly unsuccessful. Iraq's infrastructure? Still broken. Baghdad's streets? Still dangerous. Stupid house raids that produce nothing more than pictures of flex-cuffed 10 year olds. Still being ordered up. Iraqi civil and religious leaders still aren't on our side. How are these failings the grunts' fault? They aren't. The brass and politicos are either A) Not doing something right and are messing up somewhere along the line, or B) They have gotten us into a situation that all the American talent, firepower, and money in the world can't fix. Either way the grunts are getting fucked. Now, you can sit here and toss out callous, smart-aleck lines like

Quote[/b] ]If they'd done their job like you said they have, they wouldn't be getting shot at.

But it's a blatant misrepresentation. Our soldiers, our enlisted men, are trained to fire their weapons at the enemy, defend and take ground, and generally win in combat situations. You'll notice that that portion of the Iraq war went pretty well. But suddenly we're in the phase where bullets no longer solve problems. Now we need money, infrastructure, a rapport with Iraqis, and these aren't things you get from a mechanized infantryman who gets paid less than 30 grand a year, only has 60 pounds of gear to look after, and until a few months ago, was shooting at Iraqis. This is the part that the politicians and the brass are supposed to know how to succeed in, and they are failing spectacularly.

Now tell me why a soldier who has been deployed overseas for 10 months, has successfully prosecuted a major combat operation doesn't deserve to be rotated home to be replaced by fresh troops.

[FallenPaladin 0]

Yes, TBA is responsible for the current situation in Iraq. The soldiers just did their job and are now left there as targets for the people who begin to hate TBA (or already hated it). I wish I could talk to some of the soldiers down there and ask them what they think of their situation right now and especially what they think of TBA after the last months. I don`t think you can cheer for Bush and his gansters when daily some of your buddies get killed and you`re stuck in such a hostile environment.

[Schoeler 0]

@ July 16 2003,16:41)]Which is why I'm finding Howard Dean a more and more attractive candidate every time I hear him speak. He isn't as liberal in his policies as he is made out to be, and at the same time he opposed the war from the start and stuck to his guns, and that had to take a lot of guts. Incidentally, this next presidential election will be the first that I'm old enough to cast my ballot in.

I was wrong on all counts. I even kinda miss the old bastard, you know? Noone to kick around anymore.

I haven't seen or heard much on Dean, but he does seem interesting. Joe Lieberman seems ok too.

Quote[/b] ]Anyhow, I admit it, I got suckered in. I thought, hey, with Saddam's previous record, there is no way in hell that he got rid of the WMD. Every day, it looks like I'm becoming more wrong. And I always half-believed that the White House wasn't going in with the best of intentions, but I figured that getting rid of Saddam and his WMDs would be worth letting those jerks advance their fifth column agendas.

I felt the same way. Before the war I thought, shit, this is probably about oil just like the first Gulf War was, but as long as we get rid of Saddam and free Iraq, maybe even get a stabilizing democracy in place in an unstable region, it will be worth it. Now we've won the war, and are managing to completely fuck up all the things I supported it for. If you read my posts way back in the old Iraq thread, I predicted this would happen over and over again. I hate being right this time.

[Tamme 0]

Rumsfeld thinks that you win a war with cool high-tech toys? In the end it's the grunts who win the war.

Quote[/b] ]maybe so....but these guys knew what they were signing up for...(college money I guess) My gradfather spent 4 years in Europe fighting WWII. These guys are being sissies.

Your grandfather had an enemy to fight against for those 4 years, Hitler and his armies. The soldiers in Iraq have no enemy, Saddam and his armies are defeated, there's no objective anymore, there's nothing to fight for. There's nothing these troops can do, they fought the war like they're supposed to, and now it's time to rebuild Iraq.

TBA should let these troops go home, and UN should finish the job. Maybe the Iraqis would feel less invaded if UN peacekeepers came instead of the americans?

[FallenPaladin 0]

There`s one problem. Before GW 2.0 TBA told all the world UN is shit, incompetent and not dependable. They said that either very polite and diplomatic or in case of nuts like Rumsfeld very abusive. Now it`ll be the USA taking a bow before the UN to help them out? Hehe, I wish I could be there and see the asskissing.

It`s ridiculous. Before the war TBA was strong and told all to piss off. Now that they can`t improve the situation in Iraq and it gets worse and worse any day they get wet fingers. Soldiers are killed daily which leads to a bad reputation for TBA. Even worse: that war costs a lot, more than thought before and US economy is fucked up, too. TBA sees it`s might and wealth (personal of course) in danger.

I like that. If I were UN I`d help the Iraqis because of the suffering people there. On the other hand only under the condition that the USA can`t make conditions to UN about how they use Iraqi ressources for rebuilding. I would also make it a condition that the USA comes up with the full reparation payments for the destruction they caused.

TBA fucked up, now they should at least pay for it!

[ran 0]

ran

Quote[/b] ]beware ... letter bombs ..... Formex in the letter ......

I guess I'll have to start smelling my letters for the scent of cheese

Formex smells like gum

[Akira 0]

@ July 17 2003,01:41)]Anyhow, I admit it, I got suckered in. I thought, hey, with Saddam's previous record, there is no way in hell that he got rid of the WMD. Every day, it looks like I'm becoming more wrong. And I always half-believed that the White House wasn't going in with the best of intentions, but I figured that getting rid of Saddam and his WMDs would be worth letting those jerks advance their fifth column agendas.

I was wrong on all counts. I even kinda miss the old bastard, you know? Noone to kick around anymore.

I'll have to ditto that remark. I got suckered in like everyone else. Then one day I was watching the news and Bush was "speaking" (in the loosest sense of the word) and I noticed his wee-beady eyes. Then I started thinking more and more. So I started doin' my little snoopin'. I came to the conclusion that he is an ass. He did good the first few months after 9/11, then he mistakened the support for a blank check to start droppin' bombs. Great. What could possibly go wrong with that idea?

And after seeing these jackasses perform over Iraq, I'm now a strident TBA criticizer. Out with Bush!

And bring back Saddam!

[Longinius 1]

Wow, this is the first time I actually see two rather determined and active people (like Akira and Tex) change their minds. That probably means I cant have been all wrong ;)

But anyway, it takes a rather big and honest man to admit when they have been "wrong". So cudos to that guys, I mean it. You dont see it very often.

[bn880 5]

Or as they say, better late then never. That is indeed much more homourable than silently changing your stance on the issue and trying to pretend that's where you always stood. Although to be honest, when Iraq thread 1 was on page one, I had some doubts about a patriotic bonzai.

[denoir 0]

Well, Akira, Tex and Schoele - you were not a part of the Bush fan club from the beginning so it does not require a great leap of faith to come to your current position.

Remember that Bush still has the support of a majority of Americans. His approval ratings are still above 50%. Newsweek made a poll the other day and said 4 out of 10 Americans believed the Bush administration misled the public about evidence that Iraq had banned weapons. Six out of ten still believe Bush acted honestly and appropriately.

It's when people like FSPilot change their mind that some real progress will be made.

I think however that things have gone far enough to prevent Bush from starting another war as easily as he started this one. Things in Iraq have not exactly turned out the way the Bush administration hoped for. If things were going smoothly in Iraq now there would be very few questions about the WMD case.

The war itself went very well - beyond every expectation, considering how badly it could have turned out had the Iraqis decided to fight for Saddam. If small bands of loyalist managed to cut of the US supplies for several days (yes, it was serious, the marines at the front ran out of food and water), then you can imagine what the outcome of a broad resistance would have meant. There were plenty of other wild cards that turned out for the best. Iran could have very well gotten involved - it didn't. The kurds could have made trouble - they didn't. Turkey were on the verge of invading northern Iraq to fight the Kurds - but they didn't. So I'd say that as far as the war concerned the US should count it's blessings for winning the war so easily.

The post-war situation has however not turned out as Bush wanted. While the majority of Iraqis were glad to get rid of Saddam they were not so happy about the occupation. This is of course fueled by the failure to restore the basic infrastructure.

[Akira 0]

Or as they say, better late then never.     That is indeed much more homourable than silently changing your stance on the issue and trying to pretend that's where you always stood.  Although to be honest, when Iraq thread 1 was on page one, I had some doubts about a patriotic bonzai.  

Quote[/b] ]Vice President Cheney telling House GOP leaders: Bush admin getting ready to go on a public relations offensive, attempt to recast debate on Niger, WMDs, including bringing back Mary Matalin for spin control... Developing...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Bush created the largest national deficit in the entire history of american presidents (this year around 450billion US$).

What?

....Oh I see, that is the after-effect of the Clinton era, right? And I tell you, it is in the Family!!! George Bush senior is ranked second with around 160 billion US dollars.

Any reflections on his economical competencies??? Or do americans only judge bad about a president if he seems to loose a war?

Quote[/b] ]The soldiers in Iraq have no enemy, Saddam and his armies are defeated...

And this is where I think that you are wrong! And John P. Abizaid seems to be on my side!

[walker 0]

Hi all

I still feel that the US and UK administrations should be allowed to search for the WMD until late September.

It looks increasingly bad for the two administrations though.

The fact that Bush talked about the Niger deal a year before it came into the hands of the US Embassy in Rome is very odd. A little bit convenient I think. The CIA says the first rumors were investigated and discounted at the time.  Then The Bush Administration (TBA) says it came from Italian intelegence (which they and the CIA deny) then its a French plot and finally the UK Intelegence Sevices. In the end it turns out that part of what the British Intelligence sources were talking about came from TBA in the first place.

Now each time TBA says it came from so and so the CIA says it can not agree with that account. Suddenly TBA starts blaming the CIA chief for the failure of intelligence this after it turns out TBA was using its own private Spy Army the Office of Special Plans (OSP) to get  the intelligence used as the justification for war.  This stuff sounds like a script for 24 and yet its real.

Something similar has happened to The Blair Administration (TBA2) with a former newspaper Editor running a separate intelligence department from the usual MI5 / MI6 etc to produce the UK reasons for going to war. In the UK we do not allow private armies most especially private espionage armies so this realy bad.

This is not the way to run the governments of two of the richest and most powerful democracies in the world.

A very disturbed walker

[FSPilot 0]

ran

Quote[/b] ]beware ... letter bombs ..... Formex in the letter ......

I guess I'll have to start smelling my letters for the scent of cheese

Formex smells like gum

Yeah, but it's from France so I figured the letter would smell like cheese.

And what kind? Spearmint? Cinnamon?

[ran 0]

ran

Quote[/b] ]beware ... letter bombs ..... Formex in the letter ......

I guess I'll have to start smelling my letters for the scent of cheese

Formex smells like gum

Yeah, but it's from France so I figured the letter would smell like cheese.

And what kind?  Spearmint?  Cinnamon?

rubber gum , and formex is pretty internatioal , but if you prefer , there's the good ol' czech semtex ...

[Akira 0]

Looks like Tenet ain't gonna go down quietly...

Tenet Says TBA Insisted On Uranium Claim

[denoir 0]

Why hasn't Condi Rice been mentioned in all of this? She is the presidnent's NSA. If anybody would have been responsible to provide good intel to him and to check his public statements, it would have been her. That's her bloody job description!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

oooooooohhhhh, it is starting. The truth will survive! Or as the germans put it. Lies have short legs!

Is bush tall?

[walker 0]

Hi all

If Tennet is realy going to spill the beans on TBA he had better not fly in any planes or use public toilets

According to Conspiracy theorists he might meet an accedent like thes people Who the bush family allegedly murdered to get in power

Kind Regards Walker

[Akira 0]

Why hasn't Condi Rice been mentioned in all of this? She is the presidnent's NSA. If anybody would have been responsible to provide good intel to him and to check his public statements, it would have been her. That's her bloody job description!

As much as I hate to mention this...

But I wonder if it's the media's reluctance to go after not only a woman cabinet member, but the first black woman member. Obviously that is a good point, the NSA generally supersedes the CIA in such matters, so why wasn't she informed either? Where was her intelligence apparatus?

[FSPilot 0]

If she wasn't informed, and I have no idea why she wouldn't be, then she shouldn't be investigated. Like I said I don't know why she wouldn't be, but afaik she wasn't.

[denoir 0]

According to Tenet's testimony it was one of her staff that insisted on the inclusion of the Niger statement on several occasions. Against CIA wishes should be added.

It would really be very very strange that she did not know anything about it.

[denoir 0]

Blair makes significant tone change

In his speech to the US congress he brings for the first time up the possibility that no WMD or terrorist connections will ever be found.

[walker 0]

According to Tenet's testimony it was one of her staff that insisted on the inclusion of the Niger statement on several occasions. Against CIA wishes should be added.

It would really be very very strange that she did not know anything about it.

Hi all

Could it be that the NSA person was a  member of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) What are these guys NSA or CIA where did they get their clearence from? It apears from the articles they are not even agents or profesional information analysts, just bods off the street.

Does any one know where they come from and what is their command structure? Who is their boss? Bush I supose but how do they report to him? Are they in charge of the CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Defence or do they report to them? Where does their budget come through?

Kind Regards Walker