Stupidvisors working...a political debate

[tieguy]

Re: Stupidvisors working...

TIEGUY,

I am not sure exactly what you intended to prove using the Brookings report on terrorism? It hardly gives the BUSH administration a rounding victory on the war on terror. The report is large, so I will have to address you on key points in separate posts in light of character limitations.

The report is large, and after careful examination, let me point out a few things you obviously missed when you sited the report. For starters, comprehending what is written is whats important here and this report was written in 2003, thats 5 years ago at a time where the war was merely rhetoric.

What I, Cantwin and others have been trying to communicate to you is what the Brookings report S P E L L S out in great detail. The fact that IRAQ had nothing to do with 911 or any IRAQI official involved with the planning or financing tells you that we are wasting our time in IRAQ fighting the war on terror.

This is what the Brookings report sez. Read this from the report:




I am not sure how you believe this spells victory or success on the broader war on terror, but it clearly demonstrates that we are not going to make a dent on Al Qaeda fighting in IRAQ.

Peace.

The brookings report was never meant to prove we had won the war on terrorism nor was it meant to disprove the islamic hatred of the infidel.

It did reinforce the point that much progress has been made in iraq.

 

[wkmac]

D.R.I.V.E. contributors, are you happy about the I.B.T. backing Obama?

Although a union member, I've never gave to DRIVE but that said, the endorsement of Obama although IMO premature was however not a surprise. I think at the time the endorsement was made, the good money was in the democrats retaining Congress and maybe even gaining a few seats (another reason many republicans are calling it a day and leaving Congress for lobbying jobs before the law changes) and at the time the republican conservative base in some manner seemed at best lukewarm to McCain. Granted things have changed over the last several weeks but it would seem at this point that not much will change in the Congress itself.

IBT's endorsement in some sense has followed Corp. America in that Corp. America has not endorsed Obama but the majority of Corp. campaign money which use to go republican has this election gone to the democrats.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6359.html
This also signals a percieved power change to come so they as moving their bets to the other side of the isle. Now money is still going to the republicans but the advantage has gone democrat. Both Corp. America and the union along with a whole host of other interests want to be in postiion to effect public policy in relation to their own interests whether that be good for America as a whole or not. BTW: if you democrats think your party is beyond selling you down the road for corp. interests, think again!


There were also 2 posts with one concerning the Characteristics of Fascism and the other Communism. I'd like to first commend each poster for a nice job and making excellent points whether they be original ideas or something found and copied elsewhere on the net. That in no way IMO reduces the good job you both did.

However, in reading both pieces and the surrounding posts, it's obvious the points were directed at the 2 competing political philosophies that are the dominate forces within our government in the form of poltical parties. I happen to believe that both posters in a real sense were correct in their observations but I also think there is a back and forth crossover effect as well. Case in point is FDR who like Churchill before the ravages of WW2 started taking effect had praised for example the ideas of Mussolini and Italian Fascism. Hilter and his model came to scar the word fascism in later years but the concepts none the less remain embedded in American public policy even today. Corporatism whether good or bad is a hallmark of Mussolini's Fascsim. We today have a hybrid of fascism in gov't mandate or policy but action and enforcement via what we call "Privtization". Others point to "State regulated but privately owned" which again is another hallmark of true fascism with no good or bad here implied. Just the way it is.
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

John Flynn, http://mises.org/pdf/whois/flynn.pdf a liberal and early advocate of FDR came to see FDR's New Dealism for what it was with FDR's hybridization of Italian fascism and thus came to write his work entitled, "As We Go Marching" which breaks down Fascism so to speak in 3 parts with the seedbed of Italy, the bad in Germany and the good in America. Entire book in pdf format is on the web.
http://www.mises.org/books/aswegomarching.pdf
Ain't it funny that the first imperialist "NEO-CON" in the Woodrow Wilson/FDR vein were in fact democrats! LMAO!!!!!! OK, OK, you can also say TR and McKinnley beat them to it but the democrats perfected the art form and then the Johnny come latelies in the form of Irving Kristol and friends. Oh boy, now we'll get the anti-semetic tripe!

The irony at the same time we not only saved the USSR via lend/lease and other gov't programs funded at taxpayer expense but in time as the poster who compared the characteristics of communism with direct aspects of our own gov't, these traits came into being within our own gov't and again in a hybrid kinda way. BTW: The staunch republican Armand Hammer was a big backer of the USSR and throughout his life manipulated US policy to bypass trade barriers and do bidness with the "RED COMMIES!" Maybe because his father helped to found the communist party in America!


It's also funny that the 18th century Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations came to greatly influence our early economic system and is still to this day lauded in many circles. But Adam Smith was also an influence on a 19th century economic and political theorist from England in the name of Karl Marx. Marxist's ultimate goal in his communist theory was that gov't over time would be done away with as it would no longer be needed. This is another reason many early 20th century anarchists flocked to Russia in the early days of the Bolshevik revolution only to realize in the 1920's and especially with Stalin that Russia had become just another European Empire (Nation-State) and even Reagan referred to them as the evil empire.

Fascism of the right and communism on the left but how can each come to the ultimate point of Empire? Look closely at both characteristics and what do they have in common.

1) State alliegence
2) State control of economics either by public owership or regulation over the private sector
3) State control of land whether by ownership and allotment (eminent domain abuse the principle American way) or regulatory control via zoning laws for example and environmental as well.
4) State control of banking
5) State control of though ie religion and philosophy. anything contary to the State interest is not tolerated at all by whatever means needed. This goes both ways as those who oppose war for example are called unpatriotic and those who want open expression of religion and do so are ridicled as oppressive and intolerate of others. Im this case the State exhibits both fascist and communist traits IMO or a hybrization.

And the comparison goes on and on but in both cases, the life, the liberty and the happiness of the individual is determined by a central power and not by the individual themselves. Both system which have hybridized into the fabric of public policy and gov't operation of both parties go completely contary to the principles that founded this country and more importantly the lost and more powerful principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Magna Carta.

In both comparisons of the 2 systems that the right see in the left and the left see in the right which are in fact old world relics of European Nation-state ideals that we fought a war in 1776' and another one in 1812' to stay out of, we now find ourselves right back in the middle of. Until we recapture the principles of the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence and start gasping a return to the Constitution, we will continue to be tossed to the left with Communistic Nation State or to the right and Fascist Nation State. In both cases gov't and our lives around us become more and more monopolized to the benefit of the priviledged and powerful who have created thier own access via political lobby and we become more and more the slave so to speak. I use slave because I once heard someone say that when 25% or more of you individual productivity is taken and given to another, you are in fact their slave. I think it's fair to say we pay more in 25% total taxes in ouyr world today so in that sense we are slaves.

I propose it's time to leave the plantation!

 

[BrownShark]

Tieguy,

You wrote:

Iraq has settled down. We are winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people who are supporting us in fighting the insurgents and the terrorists.

Impossible to deny these results. Bush is the one who is responsible. He shares the blame for the war with congress and he also shares the credit for what is turning into a winning plan.

While I completely understand how you maintain this position in light of what I said about propaganda and rhetoric used to sell the american people on success, the BROOKINGS report disagrees with you!

You contend, that the US is winning based upon a premise of a decisive victory of terrorist in IRAQ through "Shock and AWE" <<---propaganda

You contend that we are sending a message worldwide to the terror groups that they would be next if they continue to sponsor terror. By staying in IRAQ, we are showing the broader war on terror that they need to change course and accept democracy or the mighty wrath of the US goverment would bare down upon them. You contend that we are winning the hearts and minds of the citizens of the middle east with our actions.

You contend that thru examples, democracy will take hold in neighboring countries and hatred towards the US and its allies will cease because of our display of military pre-eminence.

Well, it appears BROOKINGS disagrees with you again. Here is from the report:

Losing Hearts, Losing Minds


In the short-term, the war against terrorism appears to be going well, but the long-term outlook is far more troubling. Al Qaeda and like-minded groups continue to draw numerous recruits throughout the Middle East and the Islamic world more broadly. The September 11 attacks built on al Qaeda's past successes, making it clearly the leading anti-American movement in the world. Although it is difficult to get more than an anecdotal sense of al Qaeda's recruitment, bin Laden himself gloated about their successes in a videotape recorded before the overthrow of the Taliban. A UN report released in December 2002 also noted that al Qaeda continued to attract recruits and raise money successfully.


Even as al Qaeda remains attractive, the United States appears to be failing to win support in the Muslim world.

Polls taken before the war with Iraq became imminent suggest that in Jordan, Pakistan, and Egypt—whose governments strongly support the war on terror—popular antipathy toward the United States is particularly intense. Much-touted U.S. efforts at public diplomacy have, so far, made little progress. Indeed, the most egregious and ridiculous conspiracy theories continue to gain more credence than patient U.S. efforts to build support for its policies or demonstrate Presidential commitment to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


Ironically, U.S. efforts to fight terrorism have resulted in the fostering rather than diminution of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world. Washington's embrace of sordid governments such as the Karimov regime in Uzbekistan, its silence regarding Russian brutality in Chechnya, and other distasteful, albeit perhaps necessary, concessions needed to ensure vital cooperation against al Qaeda are paradoxically bolstering al Qaeda's claims that the United States supports the oppression of Muslims and props up brutal governments.

Hearts and minds?? Sry just yours.

Peace

 

[BrownShark]

TIEGUY,

While those who are against the war in IRAQ feel that exiting from that arena is best for our country, we also know that our resources should be used in place that actually have established terrorists.

We also know and contend that HOMELAND security is where we need to invest our goverments money.

The Brookings report agrees with us and not YOU.

Here what it sez:

No Simple Plan


There are few easy choices in the war on terrorism, and no silver bullets. Several measures, however, will help the United States better posture itself against terrorist groups for the long-term as well as for the coming months. Most obviously, homeland defense must become a true priority. So far, the United States has not fully embraced the range of measures necessary to secure itself more completely. In addition, we must avoid a false sense of complacency. Declarations of victory, even after impressive counterterrorism successes, will only make Americans surprised rather than resolved during the many trials to come.


Public diplomacy in the Middle East also deserves more than lip service. This requires heavy investment in measures that will help woo the next generation of leaders and improve America's image among the many Muslims and Arabs currently suspicious of the United States. To return to the analogy of a global insurgency, to actually defeat al Qaeda will mean winning the hearts and minds of the people in the Islamic world to eliminate al Qaeda's recruitment and financing base, and make it impossible for its operatives to move and operate in the greater Middle East. This is a much bigger campaign than the war on terrorism has so far embraced, and will require tools—economic, political, and cultural—that the United States has so far only defined but has yet to wield effectively.


No strategy guarantees complete security. The United States and its allies must accept the inevitability of a large, global movement bent on murder as a form of political expression. Ultimate victory, when it comes, will take decades rather than years.

Again, does not support your POSTED positions.

Peace

 

[BrownShark]

TIEGUY,

We have tried to communicate to you that our military resources should be used in countries that on the surface claim to be allies yet secretly fund the terror campaigns against the United States. You disagree.

Toonertoo claimed she felt safer because we are in IRAQ , yet fails to recognize how widespread the terror problem is in the middle east and not IRAQ. She is in no danger of any IRAQi coming to harm her or her family, yet she buys into the fear of it and maintains every dollar should go to the war effort there before any domestic program to helpo american citizens just so she can feel better.

The Brookings report S P E L L S out the real threats to the United States:

Progress Against Al Qaeda Leaders


Focusing on a body count of the pre-September 11 al Qaeda leadership also misses a frightening characteristic of al Qaeda: its ability to regenerate. An anonymous Intelligence officer, in the book Through Our Enemies Eyes, notes that in the years before September 11, police and security forces disrupted al Qaeda cells worldwide and arrested many members. These efforts probably saved hundreds if not thousands of lives—but they did not stop al Qaeda.

Even within the scope of taking out more names from the al Qaeda organizational chart, much of the senior leadership apparently remains alive, including of course bin Laden himself and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. Not only can these leaders continue to organize and plan, but the failure to kill or capture them bolsters their cause. As terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman explains, "...for bin Laden—like guerrillas and terrorists everywhere—not losing is winning." As long as these leaders remain alive in the face of a massive worldwide manhunt, they gain stature for their movement through nothing more than successful defiance.


In addition, al Qaeda is more than a single movement: it is also an organization that seeks to inspire and coordinate other groups and individuals. Even if al Qaeda is taking losses beyond its ability to recuperate, there is still a much broader Islamist movement that is hostile to the United States, seeks to overthrow U.S. allies, and is committed to violence. A proper listing of the al Qaeda roster should also include at the very least senior officials of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Jamaat-e-Islami in southeast Asia, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat in Algeria, and Al Itihaad al Islamiya in Somalia. A more comprehensive list would add Kashmiri groups, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Armed Islamic Group, al-Gamaa al-Islamiya, and other organizations with strong institutional and personal ties to al Qaeda.


The conceptual key is not to see al Qaeda as a terrorist group, but rather as a global insurgency. Unlike, say, the 17 November organization in Greece, al Qaeda cannot be crushed with a few key arrests. Rather, it requires a painstaking and lengthy struggle to take out not only the current leadership, but also the broader organizational structure.

As I stated in an earlier post, we could kill every man, woman and child within the IRAQI borders, and the threat of terrorism would remain the same if not greater than sept. 11

Thanks again TIEGUY for supplying such a source of validity.

Peace.

 

[av8torntn]

Re: Stupidvisors working...

Or the crack republican guard without ammo in their guns waiting to be captured?


Maybe your reffering to the many tanks that sat in the desert without fuel or shells, sitting in bunkers pretending to be a threat?

It seems my friend, your exagerations know no limits.





Peace.

Well a positive out of all of this garbage is at least since you think they had no fuel we do not have to listen to how we went to war in Iraq for the oil. I am guessing you think they were using some kind of magic bullets in their weapons.

It is amazing how some of you guys make light of the work our men and women in the military have done over there. Yes I am saying our military has done an incredible job and yes the Iraqi Army tried to put up a fight in the invasion they were defending their country. Yes our military is that good but I never heard anyone think they had magic bullets before, that is priceless.

 

[BrownShark]

Bay of Pigs Meets Black Hawk Down​

By Robert Parry​

March 30, 2003​

Whatever happens in the weeks ahead, George W. Bush has “lost” the war in Iraq. The only question now is how big a price America will pay, both in terms of battlefield casualties and political hatred swelling around the world.​

That is the view slowly dawning on U.S. military analysts, who privately are asking whether the cost of ousting Saddam Hussein has grown so large that “victory” will constitute a strategic defeat of historic proportions. At best, even assuming Saddam’s ouster, the Bush administration may be looking at an indefinite period of governing something akin to a California-size Gaza Strip.
The chilling realization is spreading in Washington that Bush’s Iraqi debacle may be the mother of all presidential miscalculations – an extraordinary blend of Bay of Pigs-style wishful thinking with a “Black Hawk Down” reliance on special operations to wipe out enemy leaders as a short-cut to victory. But the magnitude of the Iraq disaster could be far worse than either the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba in 1961 or the bloody miscalculations in Somalia in 1993.
In both those cases, the U.S. government showed the tactical flexibility to extricate itself from military misjudgments without grave strategic damage.
The CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion left a small army of Cuban exiles in the lurch when the rosy predictions of popular uprisings against Fidel Castro failed to materialize. To the nation’s advantage, however, President John Kennedy applied what he learned from the Bay of Pigs – that he shouldn’t blindly trust his military advisers – to navigate the far more dangerous Cuban missile crisis in 1962.
The botched “Black Hawk Down” raid in Mogadishu cost the lives of 18 U.S. soldiers, but President Bill Clinton then cut U.S. losses by recognizing the hopelessness of the leadership-decapitation strategy and withdrawing American troops from Somalia. Similarly, President Ronald Reagan pulled out U.S. forces from Lebanon in 1983 after a suicide bomber killed 241 Marines who were part of a force that had entered Beirut as peace-keepers but found itself drawn into the middle of a brutal civil war.
The Bush Strategy
Few analysts today, however, believe that George W. Bush and his senior advisers, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have the common sense to swallow the short-term bitter medicine of a cease-fire or a U.S. withdrawal. Rather than face the political music for admitting to the gross error of ordering an invasion in defiance of the United Nations and then misjudging the enemy, these U.S. leaders are expected to push forward no matter how bloody or ghastly their future course might be.
Without doubt, the Bush administration misjudged the biggest question of the war: “Would the Iraqis fight?” Happy visions of rose petals and cheers have given way to a grim reality of ambushes and suicide bombs.
But the Bush pattern of miscalculation continues unabated. Bush seems to have cut himself off from internal dissent at the CIA and the Pentagon, where intelligence analysts and field generals warned against the wishful thinking that is proving lethal on the Iraqi battlefields.
Secretary Rumsfeld has emerged as the principal bully in enforcing Bush’s dangerous group think, a pattern that dates back to the war in Afghanistan when senior generals feared disagreeing with Rumsfeld. In one telling, though little-noticed passage in Bob Woodward’s Bush at War, Bush asks Gen. Tommy Franks for his opinion, only to have Franks defer to Rumsfeld.
“Sir, I think exactly what my secretary thinks, what he’s ever thought, what he will ever think, or whatever he thought he might think,” said Franks, who is now commander of U.S. forces fighting in Iraq.
So, instead of recognizing their initial errors and rethinking their war strategy, Bush and his team are pressing forward confidently into what looks like a dreamscape of their own propaganda. At least from their public pronouncements, Bush and his aides continue to insist that their pre-war judgments about the Iraqi civilians wanting U.S. “liberation” were correct, with the people kept in check by fear of Saddam Hussein’s “goons” – as Fox News likes to report – or “death squads” – as Rumsfeld says.
Once Saddam is killed, this latest reasoning goes, the Iraqi people will begin celebrating like some Mideast version of the flying monkeys in “The Wizard of Oz,” who were transformed into happy creatures once the Wicked Witch of the West was dead. However, there is little empirical evidence to support Bush’s deferred rosy scenario of thankful Iraqis.
Saddam as Martyr
It would seem at least as likely that even success in killing Saddam would not stop Iraqi resistance and indeed could deepen the hole that Bush is digging.
Remarkably, in the first week and a half of the war, Bush has managed to make the unsavory Saddam into a cult-like hero across the Arab world. His death would make him a martyr. Even Arabs who disdain Saddam and his brutality take pride in the fact that Iraqis are standing up to the military might of the United States, the world’s preeminent superpower.
Among the many historical facts that Bush may not know is that Arabs have bitter memories of how Israel crushed a coalition of Arab armies in the Six-Day War in 1967. Already Saddam has held out against the Americans and British for a longer period than that. Plus, the bravery of Iraqi fighters – some of whom have charged into the teeth of fearsome American firepower – is stirring Arab nationalism.
In a region where Palestinian teenagers have been strapping bombs to themselves to kill Israelis – and now some Iraqis appear to be adopting similar tactics to kill Americans – there is little reason to believe that eliminating Saddam will somehow make Iraq submissive to U.S. authority.
While the Bush administration once talked about administering Iraq for a couple of years after victory, that timetable was based on the pre-war assumptions that the war would be a “cakewalk” and that the Iraqi population would welcome U.S. troops with open arms. After that easy victory, a U.S. proconsul administration would weed out Saddam loyalists and build a “representative” government, apparently meaning that the U.S. would pick leaders from among Iraq’s various ethnic groups and tribes.
However, now, with civilian casualties rising and a U.S. “victory” possibly requiring a blood bath, the timeline for the post-war “reconstruction” may need lengthening. Instead of a couple of years, the process could prove open-ended with fewer Iraqis willing to collaborate and more Iraqis determined to resist.​

PART one​

 

[BrownShark]

part two

Grim Prospect
A long occupation would be another grim prospect for American soldiers. Given what’s happened in the past 11 days, U.S. occupation troops and Iraqi collaborators can expect an extended period of scattered fighting that might well involve assassinations and bombings. U.S. troops, inexperienced with Iraqi culture and ignorant of the Arabic language, will be put in the predicament of making split-second decisions about whether to shoot some 14-year-old boy with a backpack or some 70-year-old woman in a chador.
In retrospect, it should be clear that the only way for Bush’s military strategy to have worked was for the bulk of the Iraqi army to throw down its weapons in the first few days, at least in the southern cities. Mass surrenders and easy victories outside Baghdad might have convinced the Arab street and world opinion that the invasion had popular support or at least acquiescence inside Iraq.
A quick discovery of Iraqi chemical or biological weapons also might have buttressed the U.S. and U.K. strategy by showing that Saddam’s regime was in defiance of the United Nations. The Security Council's majority would have looked naïve in thinking that inspections would work. But neither development materialized.
Once the “shock and awe” bombing failed to crack the regime and Iraqis showed they were willing to fight in southern Iraqi cities – such as Umm Qasr, Basra and Nasiriya – where Saddam’s support was considered weak, Bush’s initial war strategy was shown to be a grave mistake.
The supposedly decisive “shock and awe” bombing in the war’s opening days amounted to TV pyrotechnics that did little more than blow up empty government buildings, including Saddam’s tackily decorated palaces. The U.S. had so telegraphed the punch that the buildings had been evacuated.
Bush also rushed the invasion without the full U.S. force in place. Once Turkey balked at letting the Army’s Fourth Division use Turkish territory to open a northern front, Bush had the option of delaying the war by a month to transfer the division’s armor and equipment to Kuwait. That also might have helped the U.S. diplomatic position by giving the U.N. more time to destroy Iraqi medium-ranged missiles and hunt for weapons of mass destruction.
`Feel Good'
But Bush, the self-described “gut player” who had pronounced himself tired of the diplomatic games, lurched ahead. Before his TV speech announcing the start of the war, he pumped his fist in the air and exclaimed about himself, "Feel good!"
The new watchword was a “rolling start,” which meant that the invasion would begin before a full complement of U.S. forces was in place. So, American generals, who had wanted 500,000 troops and then settled for a force half that size, were told to launch the war with only about half of that lower number available.
There were doubters, but they were ignored. Before the war, one seasoned military analyst told me that he didn't believe the aerial bombing would be as decisive as the administration thought, and he worried that the slimmed-down U.S. force would leave only about 20,000 front-line infantry troops to match up against a far bigger Iraqi army. The Americans also would be fighting in a foreign terrain. The risks, he said, were enormous, but his cautionary advice was unwelcome inside the gung-ho White House.
After the war began, these skeptics saw their warnings borne out. Faced with stiff resistance across Iraq, the U.S. forces found their supplies lines stretched and under pressure. There were too few forces to protect the convoys that were bringing not only armaments north for the siege of Baghdad, but also necessities such as bottled water for the troops.
Now, as the official optimism continues in Washington, the military options are getting grimmer by the day in Iraq. One strategy is for U.S. troops to wait for reinforcements before attacking Baghdad. Another choice is to begin the offensive against the Iraqi capital with renewed hope that the Iraqi army will finally crack and Hussein’s government will disintegrate.
For the short term, the U.S. military thinks it might get lucky by slipping special-forces teams into Baghdad with the goal of killing or capturing the Iraqi leadership. That, of course, is the “Black Hawk Down” strategy of 1993, which was built around using raids by American special forces to kill or capture Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid and his top lieutenants.
Though this strategy conceivably could work in Iraq, it carries the same risks that U.S. forces encountered in the streets of Mogadishu when the “Black Hawk Down” raid went awry and Americans rushed reinforcements to save stranded Americans. Such maneuvers would be even more dangerous in Baghdad.
War Boosters
Since the war began March 19, the cable news channels have been Bush’s most reliable handmaidens as they compete to demonstrate greater “patriotism” than the other networks.
While still insisting that its news is “fair and balanced,” Fox News has taken to broadcasting stirring sequences of American and British soldiers being interviewed about the war while a harmonica soundtrack in the background plays the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
Fox also describes the Iraqi government’s militia fighters as “Saddam’s goons” and has adopted Bush’s preferred phrasing for “suicide bombings” as “homicide bombings.” While denouncing the Iraqis for showing pictures of U.S. POWs, Fox continues to show footage of Iraqi POWs being paraded before U.S. cameras.
Fox’s super-patriotic tone apparently has helped it outpace its chief rivals, MSNBC and CNN, in the ratings war.
Though lagging, MSNBC and CNN have not trailed Fox by much in pitching their own news in the glow of red-white-and-blue righteousness. Like Fox, MSNBC uses a logo that superimposes the American flag on scenes of Iraq. CNN has adopted Bush’s name for the war -- “Operation Iraqi Freedom” -- as the subtitle for much of its coverage, even when the scenes show Iraqis being rounded up and handcuffed.
The major TV networks also have swapped professionalism for jingoism as their high-priced anchors wallow in the first person plural of the war, describing what “we” are going to do to Saddam. “One of the things that we don’t want to do is to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq because in a few days we’re going to own that country,” NBC’s Tom Brokaw explained on March 19, the opening night for “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
Eleven days later, with heavy fighting still ahead before the U.S. government can claim to “own” Iraq, the slanted U.S. media coverage continues to stunt the debate among the American people and inside the U.S. government. Bush and his aides are insisting that this truncated debate be maintained by saying that anything other than military victory is unthinkable. Only by charging ahead can the United States find a way out of the darkening tunnel.​

More and more, Bush appears to be heading toward that ultimate lesson of U.S. military futility. He’s committed himself – and the nation – to destroying Iraq in order to save it.​

 

[BrownShark]

TIEGUY,
and all the war supporters who believe we are winning the war on terror in IRAQ and improving conditions for its citizens 5 years later, click on this link and see the realities of IRAQI life day by day.

Dont be afraid, the truth wont hurt you, remember all the people listed on the page are human beings who had families that once loved them before WE LIBERATED them!

Unfortunately, they have only been liberated from life itself.

Peace

(p.s. toonertoo, in tonights prayers, say one for the IRAQI people who gave their lives in order for you to FEEL safe.)

 

[av8torntn]

Brownshark when you post this
"Or the crack republican guard without ammo in their guns waiting to be captured?


Maybe your reffering to the many tanks that sat in the desert without fuel or shells, sitting in bunkers pretending to be a threat?"


Why do you post an article that says the Iraqi's put up a much harder fight than we thought they would because we did not give them more time to prepare for the coming fight? Which one of you is not telling the truth?


Reading some of your posts remind me of when B. Hussein Obama said we were sending troops to fight the taliban with no weapons or ammo and they were having to take weapons from these taliban fighters to complete their mission. All fairy tales just like when you said there were no estabilished terrorists in Iraq or the IA did not put up a fight.


Anyway I hope you take the other poster's advice and write a letter to the President thanking him for doing what it takes to keep you safe. Since you feel it is OK to tell people who to pray for maybe you should say a prayer for our Soldiers and Marines in Iraq who are keeping you safe.

 

[toonertoo]

Whoa BrownShark.
I feel safer because George Bush did "something" when we were attacked, unlike other presidents.
I feel Safer because we are on the defensive against attacks, unlike before.
We will no longer accept bombings, and attacks on our interests , at least for the next nine months. Then God help us, whoever is in charge I hope they have the balls for the fight. Be it a male or a female.
Dont try to sound like you know all, and you have the answer, you do not.
You try it your way, Ill try it mine and we will see who survives.

 

[BrownShark]

Re: Stupidvisors working...

Well a positive out of all of this garbage is at least since you think they had no fuel we do not have to listen to how we went to war in Iraq for the oil. I am guessing you think they were using some kind of magic bullets in their weapons.

It is amazing how some of you guys make light of the work our men and women in the military have done over there. Yes I am saying our military has done an incredible job and yes the Iraqi Army tried to put up a fight in the invasion they were defending their country. Yes our military is that good but I never heard anyone think they had magic bullets before, that is priceless.

av8torntn,

Glad you decided to join the debate....as usual your style of immitating El Rushbo has failed you. Alas, I take great humor in your post!!

One of the most humorous aspect of this blogging board, is the multitudes of replies that take a post out of context and attempt to insult the original poster. You are no exception. As usual, you have extracted something out of context of the original debate and attempted to insult my intelligence. Thanks for the laugh!

First, lets take a look at what you said, then we can examine what you asked me:

Well a positive out of all of this garbage is at least since you think they had no fuel we do not have to listen to how we went to war in Iraq for the oil.

Ok, I get it...war for oil, a claim antiwar protesters make all the time. One problem with your theory. The Iraqi tanks were T55 and T62 russian made v12 diesel engines that DO NOT run on oil.

OOOPS, diesel engines? Thats right, they run on diesel fuel and diesel fuel is a by-product of refined gasoline, not OIL.

Glad you could share your depth in knowledge with us all! LMAO.

Second, you stated:

I am guessing you think they were using some kind of magic bullets in their weapons.

Wow, magic bullets? Look genius, I never said the Iraqis didnt fight back the best they could, in fact, of the hundreds of weapons recovered from captured soldiers, some were from the WWII era. Most had a limited supply of ammo and by the time coalition forces reached them, they were out of ammo.

What you missed was the point of my response to a claim tieguy made.

Tieguy responded to a statement I made about the US attacking a defenseless country. He said our military faced a formidable army.

My response was simply pointing out that a majority of the Iraqi soldiers quickly surrendered to our military might when confronted, and for those small percentage of soldiers without command and control tried to fight but were quickly disposed of. They were the ones without adequate supplies (ammo, diesel fuel, water).

Saddam had fake tanks in the desert as a destraction to coalition forces and the historical record reflects this. These "tanks" were easily destroyed as they put up no fight.

I apologize If i ruined an episode of "War Stories with Oliver North" for you, but the IRAQI army proved anything but formidable.

Over 40 thousand prisoners were taken during the first few days of the invasion, over 30 thousand soldiers were estimated to have been killed.

In the first 3 months coalition troops lost 65, 74, 37 troops respectively. Of these loses, 5 % of them were non combat related accidents or suicides.

We suffered minor loses as compared to the Iraqi military and this disqualifies the IRAQI army as being considered FORMIDABLE. Officially, we lost 187 men and women by the time we arrived in Bagdad.

No amount of exageration can create an illusion of FORMIDABLE using these casualty numbers by comparision.

Our men and women have fought bravely and no antiwar protester thinks any different. The IRAQIS were not capable of defending themselves to the degree that was sold to the American public.

Without the ablity to maintain supply lines to its army because of No functional air force, No functional anti aircraft systems, No effective radar systems, No effective transport vehicles to transport supplies to the front lines, the coalition forces effectively cut off all the front line soldiers from the rear and they COULD NOT BE RESUPPLIED.

Thus, no ammo, no fuel, no water.

Give us a break man, hype gets young men and women killed, facts may save some of them.

My response was, is and shall remain that the Iraqi Army was unable to defend itself initially from the overpowering firepower of the last remaining superpower of the world.

You said:

Yes I am saying our military has done an incredible job and yes the Iraqi Army tried to put up a fight in the invasion they were defending their country. Yes our military is that good but I never heard anyone think they had magic bullets before, that is priceless.

We can all agree as Americans that our fighting men and women did an exemplary job intially, but the time has come for them to come home and protect the homeland and stop being in the middle of a civil war that will ultimately kill as many US soldiers as the republicans are willing to waste.

Indeed, our fighting men and women have fought bravely and their sacrifices are respected.

But not all are heroes to be congratulated.

I can post hundreds of court martials of US service personnel for crimes such as rape, murder, robbery, assault, desertion and deriliction of duty.

If you would like to open that pandoras box, I would be glad to oblige you.

In fact, as case in point, just within the last couple of weeks, trials for a sniper team have concluded with convictions and sentencing of 10 years each for a multitude of charges stemming from the murders of innocent iraqi citizens.

The sniper teams were "ordered" to lay down bomb making materials on roads while the snipers "sat in wait" and shot dead anyone picking up the materials. The dead persons were then photographed and then reported to the US military as "terrorists killed". In all cases, all killed persons were innocent civilians just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The case is deep, and to date, only sgt levels and down have been convicted, and the superiors involved were simply reassigned and removed from the theatre.

Dont expect any medals to be handed out here.

I am an anti-IRAQ war protester. I invest heavily in researching facts and data.

You ask, i will provide,

Peace

 

[av8torntn]

Re: Stupidvisors working...

av8torntn,


In fact, as case in point, just within the last couple of weeks, trials for a sniper team have concluded with convictions and sentencing of 10 years each for a multitude of charges stemming from the murders of innocent iraqi citizens.

The sniper teams were "ordered" to lay down bomb making materials on roads while the snipers "sat in wait" and shot dead anyone picking up the materials. The dead persons were then photographed and then reported to the US military as "terrorists killed". In all cases, all killed persons were innocent civilians just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The case is deep, and to date, only sgt levels and down have been convicted, and the superiors involved were simply reassigned and removed from the theatre.

Dont expect any medals to be handed out here.

I am an anti-IRAQ war protester. I invest heavily in researching facts and data.

You ask, i will provide,

Peace

Are you talking about the men at Iskandariyah? If so you know not what you are talking about, but I am sure that is no surprise to you.

I guess you are saying now that they had bullets but with all that oil they had no way get diesel. Wrong again skipper. They also had T-80 tanks, Cherokees, brdm's and bmp's.



When you say this it only exposes the depth of your lack of knowledge on this subject.

"Without the ability to maintain supply lines to its army because of No functional air force, No functional anti aircraft systems, No effective radar systems, No effective transport vehicles to transport supplies to the front lines,"

Not only did they have transport vehicles, they had functional anti aircraft systems and they had MIG aircraft. They also had radar systems that worked although not on stealth aircraft.

Yes they put up a fight and yes we are that good.


Hmmm I really wonder what those refineries were used for.


Oh when you say his tanks were easily destroyed. Part of their problem was they had no idea how to build a berm. Part of their problem was our superior training. Part of their problem was we could out range them and out maneuver them. Of course part of their problem was our disruption of their command and control and supply lines. This led to a big problem for them.


I again ask which one of you is the dishonest one? You when you say they had no fuel or bullets or your story when they say that we should've brought more power to the fight or waited longer because they fought much harder than we thought they would.


Why would you want to post hundreds of courts martial for US Soldiers? What if I posted the arrests of hundreds of anti Iraq war nuts? What does that mean? What does that have to do with the fact that you told a fib about the Republican Guard soldiers not having any bullets to fight with?

The real problem for you is that like Hillary when you make up something like this you forget that there were hundreds of people with cameras taking pictures so when you say they did not have bullets to fight back with and anyone can go to you tube and watch videos of them fighting back I was just guessing that maybe you thought they had magic bullets. Heck if you would like to show me how to put a picture on here I will be glad to put some on here of these magic weapons they had.


When you say this if it is true you have much work to do.


" I invest heavily in researching facts and data."

If that link works maybe you could explain how they fired a RPG with no rounds, how are the fuel tanks burning on the BRDM if there is no fuel, and why is there constant fighting in the background if there was no fight?

 

[trplnkl]

For those of you whining about the cost of the war in Iraq in dollars, here are some interesting facts about money spent that shouldn't be spent:

With all the talking heads on the airways this weekend discussing how much the war in Iraq is costing, this threads content will remind you of what the Liberals want to hush up.

What costs more per year than the Iraq War?
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of
reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of the following facts:

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year.

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food a ssistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of
English!

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers.

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens.. In
particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal
aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from
the Southern border. Homeland Security Report.

12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to
their countries of origin.

14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .'

Total cost is a whooping ... $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!

 

[tieguy]

Tieguy,


Peace

Your ability to close your mind to the obvious is only exceeded by your ability to close your eyes to the truth.

 

[tieguy]

Re: Stupidvisors working...

We can all agree as Americans that our fighting men and women did an exemplary job intially, but the time has come for them to come home and protect the homeland and stop being in the middle of a civil war that will ultimately kill as many US soldiers as the republicans are willing to waste.
ndeed, our fighting men and women have fought bravely and their sacrifices are respected.

uh oh I don't think you believe that.

But not all are heroes to be congratulated.

uh oh...don't tell me he is now going to take a shot at our troops?

I can post hundreds of court martials of US service personnel for crimes such as rape, murder, robbery, assault, desertion and deriliction of duty.

If you would like to open that pandoras box, I would be glad to oblige you.

Yep there he goes . He is a troop basher. Go head brown shark tell us what you really think of our troops. murderers..uh huh....robbers..uh huh...go on....rapist...ok... yep thats a good one.

In fact, as case in point, just within the last couple of weeks, trials for a sniper team have concluded with convictions and sentencing of 10 years each for a multitude of charges stemming from the murders of innocent iraqi citizens.

yep murderers of innocennt iraqi citizens... thats good brown shark go ahead and bash our troops some more. Tell us what you really think.

The case is deep, and to date, only sgt levels and down have been convicted, and the superiors involved were simply reassigned and removed from the theatre.
Dont expect any medals to be handed out here.

Brown thank you for telling us what terrible people our troops are. I feel relieved that you are out there willing to bad mouth our troops for the good of the country.

I am an anti-IRAQ war protester. I invest heavily in researching facts and data.

Distorted facts and misrepresented data that heavily slants to your twisted point of view.

Don't forget you are also an anti american soldior hater as this post shows. Nice job on putting down the troops.

 

[BrownShark]

av8torntn,

you asked:

Why would you want to post hundreds of courts martial for US Soldiers? What if I posted the arrests of hundreds of anti Iraq war nuts? What does that mean?

Thats a simple answer.

Its called eqillibrium. WAR supporters turn a blinds eye to the travesties of war, they look to only view the interim successes of war to boost political patriotism.

Sorta like homeland cheerleaders without a clue because they are not in the game but viewing it on replay on TV.

Just as there are many soldiers who are doing an extrodinary job as I have posted many times, there are also many soldiers doing wrong.

All I asked was if you wanted to be the guy who opens that box of garbage and know YOU were the cause of letting this information reach the posters on this board.

The fact remains, and the record documents the many court martials of our soldiers for heinous crimes against the Iraqi people.

Our current WAR reparations paid to the IRAQI people has just exceeded 500 million dollars. This money covers all the "my bads" committed by the US military.

Just a couple of fridays ago, a marine shot and killed an 11 year old girl because he claimed she was waiving her arms in a manner consistent with terrorists hand signals.

She turned out just to be waiving at the soldiers. The US goverment is now putting together a reparation payment for her family for the illegitimate loss of their daughter. This will cost the US taxpayers about a million dollars.

Now, I am not sure how to address you, your posts are all written with extreme hyperbole and its hard to find the center of your intentions.

I believe I have posted my thoughts clearly on this subject , yet you continue to ask questions about statements I made, only you hae taken mine out of context and proceed with exageration.

I dont get it.

I think we can agree that our military has fought bravely, I think we can agree the Iraqi army was in no way capable of defeating the US military.

However, the real question here is how can the US military and the US goverment be defeated??

The answer is: we will defeat ourselves by destroying our ability to finance war. Our economy will eventually tank the goverment and our ability to pay for the war machine will come to a cease.

Just as it did for the soviets in afghanistan. 7 years, 2 trillion dollars, 15746 thousand lives lost.

The soviet empire could no longer afford to wage war, the terrorists know this, we trained them to defeat the soviets and funded 500 bilion dollars to a guerilla war.

Now its our turn.

Several countries including , Saudi Arabia, Jorda, Syria, IRan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, somalia, sudan, libya, qutar, United Arab Emerates, yemon and uzbekistan are all secretly funding the war in iraq and this money goes for weapons that kill our soldiers.

The insurgents are better armed today than they were when we invaded. This will eventually bring us down as it did the soviets.

Time to do a little more research AV8.

Peace

 

[tieguy]

Re: Stupidvisors working...

YouTube - 3rd ID TF 1-64 Baghdad Thunder Run


If that link works maybe you could explain how they fired a RPG with no rounds, how are the fuel tanks burning on the BRDM if there is no fuel, and why is there constant fighting in the background if there was no fight?

Rofl Brown he crushed you. while you sit back on your rear finding new ways to badmouth your country he actually was there putting his rear on the line. You can't keep making up the facts to suit your argument. Too many people around with the real truth.

 

[tieguy]

av8torntn,

Just as there are many soldiers who are doing an extrodinary job as I have posted many times, there are also many soldiers doing wrong.

All I asked was if you wanted to be the guy who opens that box of garbage and know YOU were the cause of letting this information reach the posters on this board.
Peace

Well since you're hell bent on badmouthing our troops and you offer to tell us the truth then tell us.

How many servicemen and women have served in Iraq.
How many have been convicted of crimes?

 

[av8torntn]

av8torntn,

you asked:


Thats a simple answer.



Sorta like homeland cheerleaders without a clue because they are not in the game but viewing it on replay on TV.

Was that directed at me?



I dont get it.

You finally posted something that is true.



Several countries including , Saudi Arabia, Jorda, Syria, IRan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, somalia, sudan, libya, qutar, United Arab Emerates, yemon and uzbekistan are all secretly funding the war in iraq and this money goes for weapons that kill our soldiers.

If this is such a secret why did they tell you? Are you Osama?


Time to do a little more research AV8.

Yep

Peace

While you are trying to figue out why you posted an article that contradicted your no bullets and fuel theory maybe you could explain why you posted this.


"My response was, is and shall remain that the Iraqi Army was unable to defend itself initially from the overpowering firepower of the last remaining superpower of the world."


Your article said they reason the Iraqi army put up such a hard fight was because we only used one quarter of the troops that we needed.
Again I ask if you feel like you are speaking the truth then why post an article that says the opposite. Which one of you is wrong? The answer is probably simple you made the statement why run from it now?