Bush's New Iraq Strategy [Archive]

usmc1

01-17-2007, 03:59 AM

Capital Sources: A Marine's Call for Drawdown
A 22-year-old Marine on why he wants Congress to bring the troops home.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Dan Ephron
Newsweek
Updated: 11:20 a.m. CT Jan 15, 2007

Jan. 15, 2007 - If there was one constituency President Bush could count on to back the war in Iraq through the past four years, it was members of the military. Now, their support is also ebbing. A poll conducted recently by Army Times, a commercial publication, showed only 35 percent of service members approve of the way Bush is handling the war, down from 63 percent in 2004. When asked if success in Iraq was likely, 50 percent said yes, compared to 83 percent two years ago.

In a sign of the erosion, more than 1,000 soldiers will urge their congressmen in a written appeal this week to "support the prompt withdrawal" of all American forces from Iraq. "Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price," the statement says. Anti-war appeals are common these days but this one is different: all the signatories are active duty soldiers and some have served in Iraq.

One of the appeal's organizers is Liam Madden, a 22-year-old Marine Corp. Sergeant now based Quantico, VA. He spoke to NEWSWEEK's Dan Ephron. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: How did [the appeal] start?
Liam Madden: I was visiting a friend last summer stationed in Norfolk, Virginia, who found a flyer for a talk on being active duty and opposing the war. David Cortright, the author of “Soldiers in Revolt”, about [G.I.] dissent during the Vietnam era, gave the talk. I think people there all had one thing in common: We all thought that if you feel strongly about something, you can't just rest on your laurels and hope things get better. You have to do something. We started coordinating with each other on how to affect change in Iraq.

What's wrong with the [Iraq] war?
It's a war we never should have launched in the first place. It's been incompetently executed and it's brought no benefit to anyone involved, including the American people and the Iraqis. It's just people dying for no benefit.

You enlisted in 2003, when the war was imminent. If this was your view, why did you sign up?
I enlisted because I needed some direction. I didn't think I was going to deal with college well, I wasn't mature enough and would have wasted my opportunity there. I enlisted for personal direction and for the opportunities the Marine Corps offered. I don't think I knew for sure we were going to invade based on the evidence that was presented.

How did you react when you were told you would be going to Iraq?
I felt it was my job and it's something I would do to the best of my ability. I wasn't going to allow myself to make a big deal about it. It was part of my contract. It was important for me to complete four years in the Marine Corps to the best of my ability. So the issue [of whether] to go wasn't even a question.

Tell me about the moment you found out you'd be deployed there.
We were in Japan. Our scheduled deployment was going to be to the Philippines and we were in the middle of a big exercise preparing for that. One day, they told us not to bother because we'd be in a ship on the way to Iraq within a week. It just stunned us all.

This was around September, 2004. How fully formed were your opinions on the war by then?
I had the same opinions but to a lesser degree. At that point, I think it was still salvageable in my eyes. I didn't think it was going to be mismanaged as badly as it has been or that we were necessarily committed to the five to 10 year ordeal that it now seems we are. I thought it was, get in, do the job and get out.

What did you see in your seven months there?
The main mission of my unit was to patrol long stretches of road. I didn't get to interact with people all that often. My primary job was ensuring communications went well.... But we cleared the city in Haditha and facilitated elections. To my discouragement, neither of those things really helped stabilize Iraq. I oppose the war in Iraq for reasons anyone who's paying attention might oppose the war. It's not that I came back traumatized. It's an illegal war. It's against U.N. Security Council resolutions we helped write. It's costing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and billion dollars. It's unconscionable to me.

What will you do if your unit redeploys to Iraq?
My contract ends soon but there's a good chance I would be called up in the inactive reserves. They're in need for them. Technically, I would have to go if I'm called up but what I would do depends on where I was in my life and what I had to lose. It would force me to make a very serious life judgment.

What risks are active duty soldiers taking by signing the appeal?
We're not asking anyone to do anything illegal. We're asking soldiers and service members to call on their Congressmen to end the war. Congress has the power of the purse. They don't have to continue to fund the war. The people who are signing the appeal are active duty, active reservists and active guardsmen. These are people who don't hate the military but they oppose this policy.

But aren't you barred from signing political petitions while on active duty?
We can't distribute petitions if they're about war. But this is not a petition. It's an appeal to our Congressmen, which is protected under the military whistleblowers act.

What's been the reaction in your unit?
I've had a lot of positive feedback, even among people who don't agree. They respect my right to have my opinion. That's the general tone. There was one negative response. After my first press conference, a really media savvy high-ranking officer in the Marine Corps found my name and number and told me how much he disapproved of what I was doing, saying I was a coward and I was aiding the enemy. But I ended up having a dialogue with this guy. It evolved into something pretty positive in emails for a couple of weeks.

How do you respond to those charges—that you're aiding the enemy and demoralizing troops?
How does what I'm doing embolden the enemy? I think you embolden the enemy by deploying hundreds of thousands of troops to the Middle East and validating the view that we're imperialists. We're asking for a reasonable end to this conflict.

hm0504

01-17-2007, 09:59 AM

Thanks for post that usmc1.

Usually, Bush can count on an appearance with the troops for a good photo-op but apparently the recent one, a post "new strategy" speech at Fort Benning, didn't go according to plan as Bush received a distinctly tepid response from the soldiers there. More about the damage control:
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2007011100389.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011100389.html)
2) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/01/11/a-short-leash-at-fort-benning/

hm0504

02-03-2007, 04:47 PM

Good article on Afghanistan referencing General Sir Rupert Smith:
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/177773

And who's this General Sir Rupert Smith that Albinus is so fond of?:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23112-1779750,00.html

gymnasthorse

02-04-2007, 04:59 PM

I'm guessing I'm the ONLY republicin here. I full support Pr.Bush. Not that I agree with him. I am dead seat agenst war.... but if we were to take every one out or there would be disasterist resolts. No I don't agree with every thing Pr. Bush does, but he is out president and he needs our respect!

Naturist Mark

02-04-2007, 05:03 PM

he is out president and he needs our respect!

Perhaps if he had done even one thing right. But after 6 years of being wrong every single time ... enough.

-Mark

Naturist Mark

02-04-2007, 07:15 PM

Take a look at this video by American soldiers driving a Hummvee through traffic in Baghdad - Humvee Traffic Driving in Baghdad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yco1deXOzN8) (no violence, no blood)

They aren't being @ssholes, they aren't bumping into vehicle after vehicle for fun, they have to behave like this to avoid attack, they know every assignment could be their last. Is it any wonder the Iraqi people want us to leave even though they are in the middle of a civil war?

Consider the stress these soldiers are under, treating every normal interaction as a threat - which they MUST do. Now consider that many of them are on their 3rd or even 4th tours of duty over there. By this point in the Vietnam war we had had nearly a million soldiers in and out of country, but in this war the number is only a fraction of that because we keep sending the same people back there! Is it any wonder that PTSD is epidemic - an epidemic the administration is addressing by using political interference to reduce the number that get diagnosed, and by reducing veteran benefits.

By this point in the Vietnam war, nearly everyone had a family member, neighbor or friend who had served in Vietnam. Everyone had a connection to the troops and the war. Not in this war. Most people are not directly affected, we have made no sacrifice, we aren't even paying for the war with our taxes - we are leaving that to our great grandchildren. Bush keeps sending the same men and women back into the grinder. If they manage to come home uninjured, or not too severely injured, they are put under tremendous pressure to re-enlist. Not to achieve our mission - they don't know what the mission is any more than the rest of us do, but in order to help their fellow soldiers - they do everything for each other, because they KNOW no one else will, not the government that is pursuing unseen goals and cares not a whit for the serviceman, not the public who doesn't know what the hell is going on - the public who thinks we are supporting the troops by putting ribbon magnets on our cars, meanwhile the troops, 4 years into the war still only have 40% of the gear they are supposed to have - that 2.5 $Billion dollars a week is NOT going to support the troops. No one cares, after all they were volunteers! Nope, the troops know that except for their families, the only people who care for them, who look out for them, is them. So they go back to take care of each other, THAT is their mission.

Well guess what. More and more Americans DO GET IT, even though our government lies to us and the media is afraid to tell us. Nearly half a million people marched for peace in Washington last week. The media obediently <STRIKE>reported</STRIKE> lied that it was only a few thousand. But after 6 years of lies, and 4 years of war without purpose, the uninformed public is finally wising up. The troops aren't going to be on their own for much longer, and those bastards in Washington who don't give a damn about them had better get the hell out of the way.

Winning Hearts and Minds (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/04/winning-hearts-minds/)
The Washington Iraq Peace March: A Protest to Be Proud of (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47339/)

hm0504

02-05-2007, 10:24 AM

Naturist Mark wrote:
...
By this point in the Vietnam war, nearly everyone had a family member, neighbor or friend who had served in Vietnam. Everyone had a connection to the troops and the war. Not in this war. Most people are not directly affected, we have made no sacrifice, we aren't even paying for the war with our taxes - we are leaving that to our great grandchildren.
...

Tsk tsk, Mark. Don't you recall that the President has asked the American people to support the war by shopping and driving more. Despite being up past their eyeballs in debt, Americans (and Canadians) have generally heeded the call to drive to the malls in SUVs and whatever and buy cr*p from China and elsewhere that we don't need. Remember, 9/11 changed everything; in past wars, people had to cut back so resources could go to the war effort; today, in this new type of war, we must consume excessive resources to keep the war o' terror going and going and going and ...

hm0504

02-05-2007, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">he is out president and he needs our respect!

Perhaps if he had done even one thing right. But after 6 years of being wrong every single time ... enough.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't there some saying that respect must be earned.

usmc1

02-08-2007, 12:45 PM

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">3114</span>

usmc1

02-09-2007, 11:21 AM

<span class="ev_code_RED">3118</span>

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif
Plus UK = 132
Plus Others = 124

Plus Nearly 55K "Casualties"

usmc1

02-12-2007, 12:32 PM

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif<span class="ev_code_RED">3124</span>

When is enough, enough? We are failing our young men and women who have been sent to fight. The failure is not Congress's, the failures are not Bush's. The failures are yours and mine, because we, as citizens, despite all the evidence to the contrary, common sense, and all the weight of history allowed ourselves to succumb to fear, partisenship, and outright ignorance in order to permit an unquestioning rush to war without any real+ debate or discussion.

Taps;
Day is done, gone the sun,
From the hills, from the lake,
From the skies.
All is well, safely rest,
God is nigh.

Go to sleep, peaceful sleep,
May the soldier or sailor,
God keep.
On the land or the deep,
Safe in sleep.

Love, good night, Must thou go,
When the day, And the night
Need thee so?
All is well. Speedeth all
To their rest.

Fades the light; And afar
Goeth day, And the stars
Shineth bright,
Fare thee well; Day has gone,
Night is on.

Thanks and praise, For our days,
'Neath the sun, Neath the stars,
'Neath the sky,
As we go, This we know,
God is nigh.

Naturist Mark

02-16-2007, 06:49 AM

Eric Williams thinks he knows why Bush went with the 'Surge' strategy despite all the expert opposition to it in the Military and Intelligence agencies:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/ericwilliams215.jpg (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-williams/what-bush-hears_b_41351.html)

-Mark

usmc1

02-16-2007, 07:42 AM

While some of you were enjoying Valentine's day, four more young Americans died in Iraq.

<span class="ev_code_RED">3132</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

What I'm hearing about the "Surge" is that it does not represent an additional recruitment, training and deployment of new troops as one might think.

It is delaying rotation out, speeding up rotation in, and redeploying existing troops in the region to create an inflated head-count.

The game of three card monte with the lives of our GI's continues. Thankfully, Murtha and Pelosi are making noise as though they might seriously organize and mobilize a serious stand-off with Bush.

nacktman

02-16-2007, 09:06 AM

Aptly portrays the inner non-workings of the shrub's diseased mind, now dosen't it?

Just move the numbers around in the ledger book until they look good and pocket the difference.
Just who has those Billions of dollars "missing" in Iraq anyway?!?!?!

Hey wait aminute, isn't that what the good ol'boys over at Enron did and screwed people out of their life's work?

Meanwhile as noted <span class="ev_code_RED">3132 and counting</span> of our servicemen and women have died in the shrub's catastroph-fu(k that is Iraq. Leave us also not to forget the deaths of our servicemen and women in the "other" cluster-butt gouging in Afghanistan, as well.

usmc1

02-18-2007, 05:41 AM

Bush the liar and unfortunately still the decider

by Leon Fisher, January 16, 2007

Bush and his Neocon handlers should no longer expect the backing of the American people, after having lied to justify the invasion of Iraq, after asking the military to continue fighting a war that Bush has no intention of ending.

His claim that the killing in Iraq could become much worse if American troops are withdrawn is ludicrous, when 3000 plus American military are dead, tens of thousands seriously wounded, and up to a hundred thousand Iraqis have been killed since 2003. He is asking for more of the same, and wasting more taxpayers' money when billions have already been squandered and stolen, at a time when the average American is struggling with low wages, and rising taxes.

While the President likes to project the image of himself as a strong leader, not to be deterred by the criticism of his detractors, he has accomplished nothing. In fact, since Bush stole office in the Election of 2000 and again in 2004, his policies have alienated America around the World.

The governments of America's long-time European Allies such as France and Germany have openly disagreed with Bush, with millions of their citizens taking to the streets in protest. His so called War on Terror is nothing of the sort, and should be called what it really is, The War for Oil and Israel against Islam! Bush, through his actions and words, has succeeded in alienating much of the Islamic World, creating fertile ground for increased support for Muslim extremist groups.

In Bush's "Surge" speech to the nation he accused Syria and Iran of supplying weapons to insurgent forces fighting against American troops in Iraq, and announced he would be sending another carrier battle group to join one already on station in the area, to help interdict this flow of supplies. He was sending Patriot missile batteries as well.

While a carrier battle group is a powerful offensive weapon, it is of little use in fighting an insurgency, while land based aircraft and helicopters already in Iraq are fully capable of interdicting the transport of supplies coming across the borders of Iran or Syria. Patriot missiles are designed to intercept enemy aircraft and tactical missiles such as the Scud, neither of which are used by anti-American Iraqi insurgents and militias.

Both the aircraft carriers and Patriot missiles will be used to attack targets in Iran and Syria, and defend against any Iranian missile attacks on American military targets or attacks on Israel. Washington and Tel Aviv have been calling for an attack on Iran and Syria for years, and even a continued propaganda campaign accusing Iran and Syria of everything from aiding terrorists to a program to develop nuclear weapons has not been able to sway American public opinion.

Both Bush and the Zionists realize that the time for an attack against Iran and Syria is running out, as a growing majority of Americans are fed up with the war. Before the new Congress is forced to end Americas military role in Iraq, Bush will try to move against the Iranians and the Syrians while the appropriate military assets are still in place.

This is the last throw for the Zionists and their Neocon infiltrators in Congress and the White House, who through their powerful Washington based lobby, AIPAC, have been frantically pushing Washington to enlarge the war in the Middle East.

However, the American people, distracted though they are, have had enough of a war which has become, even to some of the most one-time enthusiastic war supporters, no longer in Americas interests.

Most Americans want an end to this war, while Bush wants more. This mindset has resulted in a new Congress, which hopefully will resist Bush and AIPAC, and vote to withdraw American troops as soon as possible.

Bush, as we know, will act regardless of the will of the American people, and try to provoke the Iranians and Syrians into war. The arrest of members of an Iranian diplomatic mission in Northern Iraq by the American military is one such provocation.

The Bush Administration, posing as the legitimately-elected government of the People, is a criminal entity which has seized and maintained power through the manipulation of two national elections in order to carry out an agenda based on the Project for the New American Century, the blueprint for American and Israeli hegemony over the oil producing nations of the Middle East.

In order to advance this agenda, the rogue government of GW Bush is lying to and conspiring to betray the people to whom he feigns to represent. This Administration has lied about everything from the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, to the invasion of Iraq. It is no wonder that a majority of Americans no longer believe anything he has to say.

Bush still has two years left to endanger America, and like a wounded beast backed into a corner, this is when he's the most dangerous.

missouriboy

02-18-2007, 06:57 AM

Both Bush and the Zionists realize that the time for an attack against Iran and Syria is running out...
This is the last throw for the Zionists and their Neocon infiltrators in Congress and the White House, who through their powerful Washington based lobby, AIPAC, have been frantically pushing Washington to enlarge the war in the Middle East ... in order to carry out an agenda for the Israeli hegemony over the oil producing nations of the Middle East. (Emphasis added.) Well, at last someone other than Charley Reese, and a few others, has openly identified the force behind Bush's actions. Note -- that force doesn't just control Bush, per se... it controls White House Mid-East policy, always, no matter who is currently occupying the Oval Office.

Poor Leon Fisher. He will now be branded with the career-ending epithet, "anti-Semite."

usmc1

02-19-2007, 10:22 AM

<span class="ev_code_RED">3140</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

Attack on U.S. base kills 2 GIs
Suicide bomber, gunmen strike combat post; no let-up in blasts in Baghdad
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:38 a.m. CT Feb 19, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents launched an attack on a U.S. combat post on Monday, sending in a suicide bomber and clashing with American troops, the military and residents said. Two U.S. soldiers were killed and 17 wounded, the military said.

The assault began with a suicide bomber exploding a vehicle outside the base north of Baghdad, said the military statement. It gave no further details beyond the number of dead and wounded. Residents said U.S. forces fought with insurgents after the suicide bomber tried to break through barriers around the base.

Meantime, a string of bombings killed 10 people Monday in the Baghdad area one day after a massive car bomb attack in a Shiite area market delivered the first major blow to the U.S.-led security crackdown.

Civilians slain
Five people died and 11 were wounded when a bomb exploded on a public bus headed for the mostly Shiite area of Karradah in central Baghdad, police reported.

Meanwhile, a roadside bomb killed three policemen in the Shiite area of Zafraniyah in southeastern Baghdad, wounding two other people, including a civilian, police said.

And in Mahmoudiya, 20 miles south of the capital, a car bomb went off among auto repair shops, killing two and wounding two, police said.

Mahmoudiya is mostly Shiite with Sunnis living in villages around the community and has long been a flashpoint for sectarian violence.

The scattered blasts, which occurred during the morning rush hour, occurred one day after a massive car bomb attack in an outdoor market.

Police said at least 63 people died in the attack in the mostly Shiite area of New Baghdad. Scores were injured as extremists sent a bloody calling card to officials boasting that militant factions were on the run.

Nearly 130 people were injured. Another person was killed in a car bombing Sunday in the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City.

Elsewhere, the U.S. military announced Monday that a U.S. Marine was killed two days earlier during combat operations in Anbar province, a Sunni insurgent hotspot west of the capital.

'Increasing desperation'
The latest attacks were a sobering reminder of the huge challenges confronting any effort to rattle the well-armed and well-hidden insurgents.

Just a few hours before the weekend blasts, Lt. Gen. Abboud Qanbar led reporters on a tour of the neighborhood near the marketplace and promised to “chase the terrorists out of Baghdad.” On Saturday, the Iraqi spokesman for the plan, Brig. Gen. Qassim Moussawi, said violence had plummeted 80 percent in the capital.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki condemned the bombing as a desperate act by “terrorists” and “criminals” who sense they are being squeezed.

“These crimes confirm the defeat of these perpetrators and their failure in confronting our armed forces, which are determined to cleanse the dens of terrorism,” al-Maliki said in a statement.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the bombings underscore the “increasing desperation felt by criminals” and would only serve to “galvanize Iraqi forces and their coalition partners.”

Sunday was by far the deadliest day since the security sweeps began last week. On Thursday, a string of car bombs killed seven civilians on the first full day of the house-to-house searches for weapons and suspected militants.

The U.S.-led teams have faced limited direct defiance as they set up checkpoints and comb neighborhoods. But that could change as they move into more volatile sections. The next could be Sadr City, a stronghold of the Mahdi Army militia loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Iran, Syria borders reopen
U.S. soldiers pressed closer to Sadr City and the reception changed noticeably. In previous days, Shiite families opened their doors to welcome the troops — feeling that the American presence would be a buffer against feared attacks from Sunni militia.

On Sunday, in areas closer to Sadr City, parents slapped away the candy and lollipops given by American soldiers.

“The Baghdad security plan is very important to push Iraq ahead,” said Haider al-Obeidi, a parliament member from the Dawa party of the prime minister al-Maliki.

Meanwhile, borders with Iran and Syria — shut for three days as the plan got under way — reopened Sunday. But new and strict rules will apply.

Moussawi said crossing points to the two nations would be open for only several hours a day and under “intense observation.”

The United States and allies claim Iraqi militants receive aid and supplies from Iran, including parts for lethal roadside bombs targeting U.S. forces. Iran denies any role in trafficking weapons.

In Buhriz, a Sunni-dominated town about 35 miles north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi soldiers kicked in doors and scoured homes, but most dwellings were eerily empty.

Soldiers confiscated new Iraqi army uniforms in a building not known to house troops, along with a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and AK-47 magazines. There has been growing suspicion that militants have posed as Iraqi soldiers in some attacks and ambushes.

In another house, medical supplies were scattered about — saline bottles, IV bags, syringes — in what soldiers believe was a makeshift aid station for insurgents.

usmc1

02-21-2007, 09:55 AM

<span class="ev_code_RED">3148</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

usmc1

02-22-2007, 02:39 PM

<span class="ev_code_RED">3151</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

usmc1

02-27-2007, 08:42 AM

<span class="ev_code_RED">3160</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

CharlieMike

02-27-2007, 10:10 PM

Seems to be working.

usmc1

02-28-2007, 09:38 AM

Wounded Soldiers Told Not to Talk to Media

and if you're keeping score <span class="ev_code_RED">32,544</span> Iraq war non-mortal casualties http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sick.gif

By E&P Staff

Published: February 28, 2007 12:00 PM ET

NEW YORK Wounded soldiers being treated at Walter Reed Hospital have been told by their superiors that they will now have to be up at 6:00 a.m. every morning for an inspection an hour later, and that they are no longer allowed to talk with members of the press, according to the Army Times newspaper.

The article says that there is speculation that these new rules are retribution by the military the recent Washington Post exposé on conditions at the hospital. Such morning inspections are reportedly very unusual after soldiers have finished with basic training.

The soldiers were told by a commanding officer that they now must go through the chain of command when identifying and reporting problems (such as mice or mold) in their living areas, as well as when they ask for help in filling out paperwork, according to the article.

The Army Times reports that a first sergeant at the hospital has been relieved of his duty as well.

Last week, in three articles, Washington Post reporters Dana Priest and Anne Hull exposed dreadful conditions at the supposed "crown jewel of military medicine"-- Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The story sparked a controversy into the treatment of wounded veterans.

usmc1

03-02-2007, 11:44 AM

<span class="ev_code_RED">3166</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

usmc1

03-06-2007, 04:25 AM

I hope everyone had a great weekend and are off to a pleasant week.

However, somewhere in this great land of ours, as we go about our business and ponder how to spend our tax refund, a mother is sobbing or a child is trying to figure out what daddy is gone forever means.

A father, with an agonized heart remembers a small childs glee at meeting him at the door each night as he came home from work. A wife wonders how she will find the strength to face the rest of her life. Comrades in arms will carry their buddy's agonized death wails with them into eternity. Brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, friends and neighbors will mourn the lose of another young soul.

They are lives not numbers. Demand that it stop!

<span class="ev_code_Red"> 3184 </span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

Y'awl have a nice day, y'hear?

nacktman

03-06-2007, 05:16 AM

Shameful!

nacktman

03-06-2007, 05:18 AM

The "real" New Strategy!

hm0504

03-06-2007, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by CharlieMike:
Seems to be working.

Please elaborate. I haven't heard much "surge" news since its announcement. How do you know it seems to be working. What are your indicators?

earthpassenger(Kevin)

03-06-2007, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
I hope everyone had a great weekend and are off to a pleasant week.

However, somewhere in this great land of ours, as we go about our business and ponder how to spend our tax refund, a mother is sobbing or a child is trying to figure out what daddy is gone forever means.

A father, with an agonized heart remembers a small childs glee at meeting him at the door each night as he came home from work. A wife wonders how she will find the strength to face the rest of her life. Comrades in arms will carry their buddy's agonized death wails with them into eternity. Brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, friends and neighbors will mourn the lose of another young soul.

They are lives not numbers. Demand that it stop!

<span class="ev_code_Red"> 3184 </span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

Y'awl have a nice day, y'hear?

And don't forget the other 57,805-63,573 dead (the last time I checked):

www.iraqbodycount.net (http://www.iraqbodycount.net)

Peace,
Kevin

barenaked1

03-06-2007, 08:39 PM

The count is becoming a number that the current administration doesn't realize the impact on our perception of their failure.

earthpassenger(Kevin)

03-06-2007, 09:09 PM

And unfortunately, as you you can see from Tommy Franks statement ("WE don't Do Body counts") the top brass in charge of the Iraq fiasco are basically people there to do nothing but the beck and call of a guy named George Bush. So, for the fact that we have any sort of count of civilian casualties I think much much more credit is due to people outside of the military and outside of the
government. Perhaps the most inspiring and courageous example was a young woman named Marla Ruzicka who visited neighborhoods in Iraq and Afghanistan to find out the truth about the thousands of tragedies of these wars. She lost her own life in a car bombing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marla_Ruzicka

marlaruzicka.blogspot.com

Peace,
Kevin

earthpassenger(Kevin)

03-07-2007, 09:12 AM

"Le Dormeur du Val"
(The Sleeper in the Valley)
by Arthur Rimbaud

http://www.mamalisa.com/blog/?cat=172

Peace,
Kevin

usmc1

03-08-2007, 09:13 AM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3188</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

From Smirking Chimp
Patty Murray: "We Are Fighting A War With No Cause"

By Bob Geiger
Created Mar 8 2007 - 11:09am

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) went to the floor of the Senate on Tuesday and said something I really admire. I respect her words because she made a statement that falls, for some incredibly dumb reason, right into that category of words we dare not speak.

"In truth, we are fighting a war with no cause," said the Washington Senator.

Those are not easy words to say in a political environment where most Republicans will use them to say you're sleeping with Osama bin Laden and that you obviously love the terrorists, but Murray is right -- as was Barack Obama (D-IL) when he "slipped" and made the true statement that the needless troop deaths in Iraq are a waste.

I'm hopeful that by the time Murray runs for reelection in 2010, those words will make her look thoughtful and prescient and not be a truth that her Republican opponent can use to smear her good name.

Murray made the speech on the Senate floor earlier this week when she addressed the subject of funding for mental-health care for troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and the extent to which the White House and Republican party all sport "support the troops" ribbons on their SUVs but have done nothing but lie them into war and hang them out to dry if they make it home.

Indeed, as Murray points out, the Bush administration has seen many reports over the years highlighting bad conditions in Veterans' medical care facilities and have shown that their pro-troop rhetoric doesn't extend to actually doing anything to help them.

"With minimal amounts of sleep, our service men and women work longer days than you and I can imagine. They see things none of us should ever witness: bodies blown to pieces, mutilation, the blood of their fellow soldiers on the streets of a country we have no place being," said Murray on Tuesday. "All of this is for a war we were misled into supporting. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was never connected to al Qaeda, and nobody can say we are spreading democracy to Iraq today."

"In truth, we are fighting a war with no cause."

And Murray was clear in laying the blame right at the doorstep of George W. Bush, who not only took our country into a needless war, but has resisted every attempt by Democrats to rescue our troops from this quagmire, while his Republican attack dogs have impugned the courage and patriotism of those who have tried.

"As Americans across this country -- but especially Senators -- it is our solemn duty, as those who have not seen the horrors of battle, to care for those who have," said Murray. "Even more so, as the one who sent Americans to Iraq, it is the duty of the President. Providing mental health care for our children falls under this duty -- a duty that, sadly, this President has failed to fulfill."

The three-term Washington Senator also took the time to rebuke the other side of the aisle, taking Republicans to task for doing nothing to truly support the troops while providing massive cover for Bush on the Iraq war during the previous, do-nothing Congress.

Here's Murray:

"I came to the floor this morning to remind my colleagues -- my Republican colleagues and this President -- actions speak louder than words. Talk does not improve the quality of the living conditions, and it doesn't make adequate mental health care available. Talk is cheap. Eventually, after a lot of talk and no action, words catch up with you. That is what we are seeing today. The Bush administration says they have provided for our active-duty warriors and our Veterans, but story after story, report after report proves otherwise.

"Unfortunately, it is pretty clear to all of us now that from enlistment to retirement, this administration has failed our troops. It is time for us to take action. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on this floor to have action and not just words. I don't want to see report after report, all this year long and a year from now, stories that continue. We have a responsibility, when we send men and women overseas to fight for us, that we are on this floor fighting for them."

Murray ended her speech by making sure that Democrats understand they too have a responsibility -- especially now holding the majority in both houses of Congress -- to speak up loudly about the situation in Iraq and to take action as the 9/11 Commission recommendations are debated this week.

"I call on all of my colleagues to step up at every step of the way as we approve bill after bill, supplemental budgets, authorization bills, to stand up and speak out for our troops and no longer ignore the reality of this war."

Kudos to Senator Murray for having the guts to speak hard words that, for whatever pathetic reason, seem to challenge the courage of people on both sides of the political aisle. Lives are being wasted and this is indeed a war with no cause whatsoever.

And although Patty Murray will undoubtedly be attacked for those words, it's refreshing to hear someone in Washington speak that reality.

usmc1

03-13-2007, 07:55 AM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3195</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

earthpassenger(Kevin)

03-13-2007, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
<span class="ev_code_Red">3195</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif
+64,000 civilians dead (maybe more)
(www.iraqbodycount.net) (http://www.iraqbodycount.net))
IMPEACH BUSH!!!
Kevin

barenaked1

03-13-2007, 06:57 PM

Our adminstration has failed to live up to its 'promises'. Our troops cannot succeed without guidence & support and a clear focus to accomplish it's mission.
If someone can tell me what that really is. please let me know.

However, I feel I already know the answer.......

usmc1

03-14-2007, 04:55 AM

What really is. OK, here's my take on it.

We successfully engaged in a preemptive war of invasion based on the moods and whims of a dry-drunk sociopath and the hobgoblins of the right. That war was justified by lies and misdirection and supported was generated by playing on the nation's fears and hysteria following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Since our invasion was luannched under the most specious of legalities, most of the Western world demurred, and withheld support. Without world support, our post war occupation of a defeated and devastated Iraq has been extremely costly in life and limb, national prestige and honor, and depletion of our military and treasury.

One can play the name the name games and allot blame and accountability for failures, but the bottom line is that we cut a fat hog in the *** and are now trying to stuff the ***t back in the guts.

That's a brief synopsis of the reality.

hm0504

03-14-2007, 10:27 AM

In my view, in the next Presidential election, the candidates must make crystal clear their position on continuing the Iraq war -- and the American people must make that issue -- not flag burning, not gay marriage, not eating with your fork in your right hand -- the deciding factor in how they vote. In short, the next Presidential election needs very much to be a decisive referendum on the Iraq war.

nacktman

03-14-2007, 04:50 PM

In short, the next Presidential election needs very much to be a decisive referendum on the Iraq war.

You can count on it, Albinus. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/yes.gif

Naturist Mark

03-14-2007, 06:32 PM

In short, the next Presidential election needs very much to be a decisive referendum on the Iraq war
If there is an election.

earthpassenger(Kevin)

03-14-2007, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In short, the next Presidential election needs very much to be a decisive referendum on the Iraq war
If there is an election. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The last election was a referendum on the Iraq war--and unless the whole system is still too rigged for the many people in Congress who do still have some scrap of decency in them some sort of referendum appears to be taking shape--fingers crossed (with the nails already bitten off)--.
Libby's conviction, Alberto Gonzalez's own attempts to obstruct justice exposed out in the open--the unraveling of the regime may finally be taking place.
But if we really have to wait until the next Federal election for a referendum on the Iraq war--it will simply be too late--even the Pentagon is now calling this a civil war.
The concurrent referendum to that of the Iraq War is of course the Impeachment of Bush/Cheney and the firing of all their cronies. That's the only way to end government of the wealthy, connected and corrupt (and hypocritical and racist), by the wealthy, connected and corrupt (and hypocritical and racist), and for the wealthy, connected and corrupt (and hypocritical and racist)!
IMPEACH!!!
Kevin

usmc1

03-15-2007, 10:17 AM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3203</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sick.gif

Here's one's story.

Gen. Petraeus and a High-Profile Suicide in Iraq
Col. Ted Westhusing, a West Point scholar, put a bullet in his head in Iraq after reporting widespread corruption. His suicide note -- complaining about human rights abuses and other crimes -- was addressed to his two commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, now leader of the U.S. "surge" effort in Iraq. It urged them to "Reevaluate yourselves....You are not what you think you are and I know it."

By Greg Mitchell

(March 14, 2007) -- The scourge of suicides among American troops in Iraq is a serious, and seriously underreported, problem, as this column has observed numerous times in the past three years. One of the few high-profile cases involved a much-admired Army colonel named Ted Westhusing.

A portrait of Westhusing written by T. Christian Miller for the Los Angeles Times in November 2005 (which I covered at the time) revealed that Westhusing, before putting a bullet through his head, had been deeply disturbed by abuses carried out by American contractors in Iraq, including allegations that they had witnessed or even participated in the murder of Iraqis.

His widow, asked by a friend what killed this West Point scholar, had replied simply: "Iraq."

Now, a new article reveals -- based on documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act -- that Westhusing's apparent suicide note included claims that his two commanders tolerated a mission based on "corruption, human right abuses and liars." One of those commanders: the new leader of the "surge" campaign in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus.

Westhusing, 44, had been found dead in a trailer at a military base near the Baghdad airport in June 2005, a single gunshot wound to the head. At the time, he was the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq. The Army concluded that he committed suicide with his service pistol. Westhusing was an unusual case: “one of the Army's leading scholars of military ethics, a full professor at West Point who volunteered to serve in Iraq to be able to better teach his students. He had a doctorate in philosophy; his dissertation was an extended meditation on the meaning of honor,” Miller explained in his L.A. Times piece.

”So it was only natural that Westhusing acted when he learned of possible corruption by U.S. contractors in Iraq. A few weeks before he died, Westhusing received an anonymous complaint that a private security company he oversaw had cheated the U.S. government and committed human rights violations. Westhusing confronted the contractor and reported the concerns to superiors, who launched an investigation.

”In e-mails to his family, Westhusing seemed especially upset by one conclusion he had reached: that traditional military values such as duty, honor and country had been replaced by profit motives in Iraq, where the U.S. had come to rely heavily on contractors for jobs once done by the military.”

His death followed quickly. "He was sick of money-grubbing contractors," one official recounted. Westhusing said that "he had not come over to Iraq for this." After a three-month inquiry, investigators declared Westhusing's death a suicide.

Now, nearly 18 months after Miller's article, The Texas Observer this month has published a cover story by contributor Robert Bryce titled "I Am Sullied No More." Bryce covers much of the same ground paved by Miller but adds details on the Petraeus angle.

"When he was in Iraq, Westhusing worked for one of the most famous generals in the U.S. military, David Petraeus," Bryce observes. "As the head of counterterrorism and special operations under Petraeus, Westhusing oversaw the single most important task facing the U.S. military in Iraq then and now: training the Iraqi security forces."

Bryce refers to a "two-inch stack of documents, obtained over the past 15 months under the Freedom of Information Act, that provides many details of Westhusing’s suicide. The pile includes interviews with Westhusing’s co-workers, diagrams of his sleeping quarters, interviews with his family members, and partially redacted reports from the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command and Inspector General.

"The documents echo the story told by Westhusing’s friends. 'Something he saw [in Iraq] drove him to this,' one Army officer who was close to Westhusing said in an interview. 'The sum of what he saw going on drove him' to take his own life. 'It’s because he believed in duty, honor, country that he’s dead.'"

In Iraq, Westhusing worked under two generals: Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, and Petraeus, then a lieutenant general. In a March 2005 e-mail, Petraeus told Westhusing that he had “already exceeded the very lofty expectations that all had for you.”

But Bryce continues: "By late May, Westhusing was becoming despondent over what he was seeing. Steeped in—and totally believing in—the West Point credo that a cadet will 'not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do,' Westhusing found himself surrounded by contractors who had no interest in his ideals. He asked family members to pray for him. In a phone call with his wife, Michelle, who was back at West Point, Westhusing told her he planned to tell Petraeus that he was going to quit. She pleaded with him to just finish his tour and return home."

When his body was found on June, a note was found nearby addressed to Petraeus and Fil. According to Bryce it read:

"Thanks for telling me it was a good day until I briefed you. [Redacted name]—You are only interested in your career and provide no support to your staff—no msn [mission] support and you don’t care. I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human right abuses and liars. I am sullied—no more. I didn’t volunteer to support corrupt, money grubbing contractors, nor work for commanders only interested in themselves. I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored. I trust no Iraqi. I cannot live this way. All my love to my family, my wife and my precious children. I love you and trust you only. Death before being dishonored any more.

"Trust is essential—I don’t know who trust anymore. Why serve when you cannot accomplish the mission, when you no longer believe in the cause, when your every effort and breath to succeed meets with lies, lack of support, and selfishness? No more. Reevaluate yourselves, cdrs [commanders]. You are not what you think you are and I know it."

Twelve days after Westhusing’s body was found, Army investigators talked with his widow, Michelle, who told them: "The one thing I really wish is you guys to go to everyone listed in that letter and speak with them. I think Ted gave his life to let everyone know what was going on. They need to get to the bottom of it, and hope all these bad things get cleaned up.”

Bryce concludes:

"In September 2005, the Army’s inspector general concluded an investigation into allegations raised in the anonymous letter to Westhusing shortly before his death. It found no basis for any of the issues raised. Although the report is redacted in places, it is clear that the investigation was aimed at determining whether Fil or Petraeus had ignored the corruption and human rights abuses allegedly occurring within the training program for Iraqi security personnel. The report, approved by the Army’s vice chief of staff, four-star Gen. Richard Cody, concluded that 'commands and commanders operated in an Iraqi cultural and ethical environment often at odds with Western practices.' It said none of the unit members 'accepted institutional corruption or human rights abuses. Unit members, and specifically [redacted name] and [redacted name] took appropriate action where corruption or abuse was reported.'

"The context, placement and relative size of the redacted names strongly suggest that they refer to Petraeus and Fil.

"Last November, Fil returned to Iraq. He is now the commanding general of the Multinational Division in Baghdad and of the 1st Cavalry Division. On February 12, Petraeus took command of all U.S. forces in Iraq. He now wears four stars."

Naturist Mark

03-15-2007, 05:59 PM

I'm speechless. Sometimes I can't believe this is the United States of American anymore. People need to be punished, we should bring back stocks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stocks) in the town square for the people doing these things.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq (http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/?source=whitelist)

March 11, 2007 | COLUMBUS, Ga. -- "This is not right," said Master Sgt. Ronald Jenkins, who has been ordered to Iraq even though he has a spine problem that doctors say would be damaged further by heavy Army protective gear. "This whole thing is about taking care of soldiers," he said angrily. "If you are fit to fight you are fit to fight. If you are not fit to fight, then you are not fit to fight."

As the military scrambles to pour more soldiers into Iraq, a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records. more (http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/?source=whitelist) [/list]

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/ndmark/Hardball.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeDlsf5SQ6s)
click the pic - YouTube Video

-Mark

hm0504

03-15-2007, 06:24 PM

FYI, usmc1 posted the article here:
http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016...410058974#6410058974 (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/5850070974?r=6410058974#6410058974)

usmc1

03-16-2007, 11:29 AM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3210</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

Mar 16, 2007 9:03 am US/Pacific

Pentagon To Deploy Iraq Support Troops Early
CBS News Interactive: Bush's Plan For Iraq

(AP) WASHINGTON Some 2,600 soldiers from a combat aviation unit will go to Iraq ahead of schedule, part of the support troops the Pentagon has said are needed to back the extra combat units President Bush is sending there.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates approved the deployment of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division combat aviation brigade 45 days earlier than planned, meaning they will go around May, a Defense Department official said Friday.

The approval will mean roughly 30,000 troops eventually will go to Baghdad and Anbar Province in the Bush administration's buildup to crack down on rising sectarian violence and insurgents, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the information.

The new aviation unit will provide transport helicopters and gunships to assist ground brigades already flowing in for the buildup. Officials said that Gen. David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, wanted the buildup to move as quickly as possible.

"This was requested over a month ago as part of the surge," said Col. Steven Boylan, public affairs officer for Petraeus. "These are what we call the enablers."

Two months ago, Bush ordered 21,500 additional American troops to Iraq to help calm the violence. He did not initially mention that support units would also be needed.

Officials later said that the number of support troops needed for the influx could be around 7,000. So far, these have included 2,400 combat support troops and 2,200 military police to help with an anticipated increase in detainees picked up during the crackdown.

Asked what he would say to critics of the steady additions to the original number, the Defense Department official said some of the requests came after Petraeus arrived in Iraq and assessed what he needed. He said Gates wants to give commanders what they believe they need to do the job as long as the requests are justified.

In an AP Radio interview, Canadian Army Major General Peter Devlin, deputy commanding general of coalition forces in Iraq, said of the extra troops, "What was always asked for was, beyond the combat formation, were the typical enablers that go along with combat formations."

Asked whether there are likely to be more such requests, he said, "Yes. It is exactly something that you would expect, is that there is a need for support troops to do what they do."

There are now roughly 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. About 60,000 are combat forces, the rest are support troops.

The Boston Globe reported on its Web site Thursday night that Petraeus had asked for an Army combat aviation unit with 2,500 to 3,000 troops, which were likely to come from the Army's 3rd Infantry, citing unidentified senior Pentagon officials.

hm0504

03-16-2007, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
<span class="ev_code_Red">3210</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

Mar 16, 2007 9:03 am US/Pacific

Pentagon To Deploy Iraq Support Troops Early
CBS News Interactive: Bush's Plan For Iraq

(AP) WASHINGTON Some 2,600 soldiers from a combat aviation unit will go to Iraq ahead of schedule, part of the support troops the Pentagon has said are needed to back the extra combat units President Bush is sending there.

...
In an AP Radio interview, Canadian Army Major General Peter Devlin, deputy commanding general of coalition forces in Iraq, said of the extra troops, "What was always asked for was, beyond the combat formation, were the typical enablers that go along with combat formations."
....

Interesting (at least for Canadians) that while Canada is not officially involved in the Iraq war (though it has been leading the Afghanistan and has taken the highest per capita NATO casualty rate there), it is interesting that a Canadian Army is deputy commander of the coalition troops in Iraq. FYI, I double-checked this (e.g.
http://www.mnci.centcom.mil/leaders/Biography-Devlin.pdf
).

hm0504

03-16-2007, 04:40 PM

Great interview with Donald Trump on CNN's The Situation Room (unless you are a Bush supporter).

Do try and watch it!

earthpassenger(Kevin)

03-16-2007, 11:07 PM

Well, I won't be part of the anti-war demonstration this year because--well,the real world catches up to all of us( and it just might be catching up to George Bush)--I owe too much money in dental bills so I have to work through the weekend.
I' ve never been much of a fan of Donald Trump --and he's basically saying the same thing so many other people with far less money (and therefore less attention) have been saying for a long time about George Bush. But if you've spent some time in many parts of this country you know that Bush's defenders are out there, they are legion, and they are as zombified as the people taken over by the pods from outer space in the various remakes of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" movies. So Trump deserves credit for some degree of courage. So, we might as well all be using Mr. Trump's catch phrase on Bush: "You're fired!"

Impeach,
Kevin

Naturist Mark

03-17-2007, 06:45 AM

if you've spent some time in many parts of this country you know that Bush's defenders are out there, they are legion, and they are as zombified as the people taken over by the pods from outer space in the various remakes of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"

LOL

I don't think it is quite that bad. There are the 'true believers' who will follow the leader right off a cliff. Most others are just happily ignorant of what it going on with America. That isn't surprising, our mass media is so sycophantic and superficial that the public is left ignorant even about the stories they DO cover - I just listened to NPR (which is usually among the best of American media) do a story on Valerie Plame Wilson's (http://bluehorde.blogspot.com/2007/03/laffair-plame-it-doesnt-end-with-libby.html) congressional testimony (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/plame-covert-testimony/) , which was little more than a fashion report - it reported none of the devastating testimony that directly contradicted and proved false many of the Administration's official statements.

Media reports on the Gonzalez/US Attorney scandal lead viewers to believe it is about the President's right to dismiss the US Attorneys he appoints - it isn't, it is about the suborning of justice for political purposes (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030907D.shtml) - US Attorneys have been under pressure to investigate and indict political opponents of the Administration and to leave supporters alone. Over the last 6 years there have been nearly 400 investigations of elected officials for public corruption, less than 70 have been of Republicans (study) (http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html) , many if not most of investigations of Democrats are announced before an election and discretely dropped afterwards, the majority of the investigations that progess to prosecution have been of Republicans - and it is mainly the US Attorneys who prosecuted those cases who were fired.

It isn't that the public are zombies, it is that they are woefully - and willfully - misinformed. But that can only last for so long, it is no longer possible to hide the truth that the Iraq war was a fiasco from day one, and it will soon be obvious to to everyone except the delusional that the current administration is corrupt to the core.

-Mark

earthpassenger(Kevin)

03-17-2007, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

LOL

I don't think it is quite that bad.

-Mark[/QUOTE]

Well, he got elected in '04 --he's got the veto power, he's got control of our nuclear arsenal--and he seems to be no more intelligent than Gomer Pyle. If it were to get too much worse I think I'd prefer to be living on the planet the body snatchers came from!

Impeach,
Kevin

NudeAl

03-17-2007, 09:09 AM

All of this comes as no real surprise.

The additional troops, the less that honorable methods of " contractors," we used to call them mercs. Add to that the truly shoddy treatment of some of our returning wounded and follow up with the proposed privatizing and downsizing of the existing VA medical programs degrading the disability rating of returning wounded, just at the time when they are going to be needed more than at any time since the end of the Vietnam war.

It just makes you wonder if it is worth it anymore.

Here is another one to add to the list. There is a new protective body armor out on the market, TM Dragon skin. It is awesome! It is able to take repeated hits from high velocity rounds such as the AK 7.62 X 39 mm. Will the troops get it? Nope too expensive, plus the company doesn't have the inside track in the defense contractor business, mafia is more like it.

There is also an anti RPG defense system developed by the Israelis which shoots down around 70-80% of incoming RPG's, think mini patriot missile system for a vehicle. Will it be purchased by our government? Nope. Why, well there is a system being developed by one of our favorite defense contractors, Raytheon, that is only 5 or 6 years from having a working proto-type.

Another one, the current M-4 (think carbine M-16 variant) is highly susceptible to jamming due to a design flaw that is common to all M-16's some special op's guys thinking outside the box took the problem a German gun manufacturer and they re-worked the weapon so it functions sans-jams, always embarrassing in the middle of a shoot out. The spec op's guys will get the new weapon after all they thought of it but the rest will make due with the ol' M-4. I'll be zip tying a section of cleaning rods to the fore stock of mine to ram out the jammed rounds.

Nothing but the best for America's finest, that is the finest provided he's the lowest bidder and a defense contractor.

hm0504

03-17-2007, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

LOL

I don't think it is quite that bad...

-Mark

Well, he got elected in '04 --he's got the veto power, he's got control of our nuclear arsenal--and he seems to be no more intelligent than Gomer Pyle. If it were to get too much worse I think I'd prefer to be living on the planet the body snatchers came from!

Impeach,
Kevin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've got to agree with Kevin here. Sure the media are doing a disgustingly poor job but those legions of Americans (and legions of Canadians on my side of the border) need to be not taking this nonsense any more from either their neocon politicians or the margarine media. I agree with Donald Trump that under Bush Junior the U.S. is heading to catastrophe.

Naturist Mark

03-17-2007, 02:04 PM

I've got to agree with Kevin here.
I agree with Kevin about the administration too. But what I was responding to with my "I don't think it is quite that bad..." was the comment I quoted about Bush supporters being "legion" and "zombified". I was in no way saying Bush and the Administration are anything other than unmitigated disasters.

-Mark

earthpassenger(Kevin)

03-17-2007, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've got to agree with Kevin here.
I agree with Kevin about the administration too. But what I was responding to with my "I don't think it is quite that bad..." was the comment I quoted about Bush supporters being "legion" and "zombified". I was in no way saying Bush and the Administration are anything other than unmitigated disasters.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm referring to all the people driving our highways with "W" stickers (Or others like "God Bless our Pres.) and the people who write letters to the editor on the premise that the existence of WMDs and Hussein's involvement with Al-Qaeda are still as irrefutable as the biblical account of the creation and the syndicated columnists who continue to call the current situation simply a battle of the forces of good against evil satanic terrorists--instead of something that just as closely resembles the conflict in the former Yugoslavia or the Thirty Years War that ended with the Treaty of Westphalia.

You still sound like the same old Naturist Mark!!--but watch out for the "pod people", Bush couldn't have gotten where he is without them!

Peace and Impeachment,
Kevin

earthpassenger(Kevin)

03-18-2007, 07:44 AM

I guess I got on the subject of Hollywood movies beacuse I'm fed up with the stuff you hear emanating from all the Neo-con think tanks.

So here's another concept from another movie "The Maltese Falcon."--the fall-guy concept.
We have many more things to worry about here in America in addition to the war in Iraq. But Bush has disgraced us in the eyes of the world and he should be the main "Fall Guy" (We can use Donald Trump's phrase "You're Fired." but the zombies are still out there and they still think Bush is just one fine "good 'ol boy" like any of their friends. So I think we need to be like the fictional Sam Spade who finally stood up to the lovely Brigid O'Shaughnessy (who murdered his partner Miles Archer) and say to the president "You're taking the Fall!"

Another concept is the "Pottery Barn concept" which Bob Woodward attributed to Colin Powell:
"You break it it's yours."

To me that means it's time for America to start paying for the restoration of the everyday necessities of life for the Iraqis not with a surge in dead American soldiers but with a surge in American tax payer funded reparations.

Peace and Impeachment,
Kevin

hm0504

03-18-2007, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've got to agree with Kevin here.
I agree with Kevin about the administration too. But what I was responding to with my "I don't think it is quite that bad..." was the comment I quoted about Bush supporters being "legion" and "zombified". I was in no way saying Bush and the Administration are anything other than unmitigated disasters.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm referring to all the people driving our highways with "W" stickers (Or others like "God Bless our Pres.) and the people who write letters to the editor on the premise that the existence of WMDs and Hussein's involvement with Al-Qaeda are still as irrefutable as the biblical account of the creation and the syndicated columnists who continue to call the current situation simply a battle of the forces of good against evil satanic terrorists--instead of something that just as closely resembles the conflict in the former Yugoslavia or the Thirty Years War that ended with the Treaty of Westphalia.

You still sound like the same old Naturist Mark!!--but watch out for the "pod people", Bush couldn't have gotten where he is without them!

Peace and Impeachment,
Kevin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was exactly these points of Kevin's that I was agreeing with. Tragically, the neocons have their batallions of robots ready to rise on demand. I'm not saying a lot of those who supported Bush are now having serious second thoughts, there are many. But we know how few people actually vote and diehard neocons still have the numbers and ability to mobilize those numbers on election day. Let's rejoice in that the neocon numbers have dwindled but let's not think they are by any means unable to mount a rebound.

NudeAl

03-18-2007, 09:06 AM

To me that means it's time for America to start paying for the restoration of the everyday necessities of life for the Iraqis not with a surge in dead American soldiers but with a surge in American tax payer funded reparations.

Peace and Impeachment,
Kevin

Trouble is that none of that money would ever make it to any average Iraqi.

Nor would any improvement in any social service or infrastructure last long enough to be productive. They are one of the highest priority targets of the insurgents. We have built or repaired many parts of the Iraqi infrastructure only to see them blown up the moment we move out of the area. To be effective we would need somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 troops on the ground to occupy enough area to deny it's use to the enemy. In other words around the number quoted by the former chairman of the joint chief's of staff before he was asked to retire. See nothing can even start to be built until there is stability, such is life in a war zone. You need to stop killing and blowing things up before you rebuild stuff.

Nope no good way out of this one. The place is now a breeding ground for terrorists of just about any stripe or color. It is also a major piece on the chess board that is middle-east politics. Every neighboring nation state has an interest in how this thing plays out. But they are not going to come out in the open and admit it openly not the Arab way. Nope look to Lebanon that's the way I see it lasting decades and just more blood being spilt with no end in sight. Only question is how much more of that blood is going to be American? That's the only thing we can control even that is debatable.

nacktman

03-18-2007, 09:10 AM

While I agree with the thrust of the last few posts I would caution that refering to neocons as zombies, while accurate, is frought with danger, they may begain to infest what is otherwise a good discussion.

Another point I would like to make is that the veto virtually abandoned by the current cabal is being threatened to be used on each and every piece of legislation Congress is working on now that such legislation is not rubber stamping what the cabal says they should rubber stamp.

As for the "Pod People" reference I don't think any outworlders would be as dimwitted as to inhabit such as the neocon with them being the lowest denominator and all. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

nacktman

03-18-2007, 09:13 AM

Trouble is that none of the money would ever make it to any average Iraqi.

True, nudeM, so true. It would be just another instance of where'd the 12Billion go to anyway?!

earthpassenger(Kevin)

03-18-2007, 09:29 AM

But the troops are as much a part of the problem as they might be a solution--they are the main rallying point for the insurgents who aren't all terrorists (they are mostly Iraqi patriots who don't want Americans in there country who don't really belong there because they entered illegally and brought much more bloodshed than the average illegal in America because like so many Americans they were duped by George Bush.)
If they really want to bring peace to that country while being paid by the American tax payers they better start concentrating really hard on learning Iraqi Arabic and assimilating into their culture--like maybe consider converting to a form of Islam. Ordinary immigrants in America don't necessarily have to do all this but this is what we expect of the professional peace keepers that watch our own neighborhoods in America. If the troops can't do this my only recommendation to them is the same one I made to my childhood friend David stationed in Balad: you say you don't understand the place then put in the request you said you wanted to make and get transferred to "a better place" (Colorado).

The Pottery Barn concept still applies it was an illegal invasion Americans just have to pay the Iraqis the reparations and it's the Iraqis business what they do with the money.

More and more Americans just don't believe in the troops "mission" any more.

Bring them home.

"The paths of glory lead but to the grave."
(Thomas Gray--Elegy written in a Country Churchyard)

Peace and Impeachment,
Kevin

hm0504

03-18-2007, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by NudeAl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To me that means it's time for America to start paying for the restoration of the everyday necessities of life for the Iraqis not with a surge in dead American soldiers but with a surge in American tax payer funded reparations.

Peace and Impeachment,
Kevin

Trouble is that none of that money would ever make it to any average Iraqi.

Nor would any improvement in any social service or infrastructure last long enough to be productive. They are one of the highest priority targets of the insurgents. We have built or repaired many parts of the Iraqi infrastructure only to see them blown up the moment we move out of the area. To be effective we would need somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 troops on the ground to occupy enough area to deny it's use to the enemy. In other words around the number quoted by the former chairman of the joint chief's of staff before he was asked to retire. See nothing can even start to be built until there is stability, such is life in a war zone. You need to stop killing and blowing things up before you rebuild stuff.

Nope no good way out of this one. The place is now a breeding ground for terrorists of just about any stripe or color. It is also a major piece on the chess board that is middle-east politics. Every neighboring nation state has an interest in how this thing plays out. But they are not going to come out in the open and admit it openly not the Arab way. Nope look to Lebanon that's the way I see it lasting decades and just more blood being spilt with no end in sight. Only question is how much more of that blood is going to be American? That's the only thing we can control even that is debatable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I generally share NudeAl's opinion. BTW, NudeAl, thanks for that other post you did on troop armour and protective gear. Very interesting. I hear our Army is looking at artillery ammo that is $150,000 per shot!

earthpassenger(Kevin)

03-18-2007, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by nacktman:
While I agree with the thrust of the last few posts I would caution that refering to neocons as zombies, while accurate, is frought with danger, they may begain to infest what is otherwise a good discussion.

Another point I would like to make is that the veto virtually abandoned by the current cabal is being threatened to be used on each and every piece of legislation Congress is working on now that such legislation is not rubber stamping what the cabal says they should rubber stamp.

As for the "Pod People" reference I don't think any outworlders would be as dimwitted as to inhabit such as the neocon with them being the lowest denominator and all. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

The zombie reference wasn't necessarily to the Neo-cons who are a very complicated form of creature: ex-socialists, former Scoop Jackson democrats, or people who have found a niche making a living in Rupert Murdoch's media creations--the Weekly Standard or Fox News.

The zombie reference might apply more accurately to the Paleo cons--or those that don't bother with much of a label other than the ribbon sticker they slapped on their bumper sticker.

Peace and Impeachment,
Kevin

NudeAl

03-18-2007, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
But the troops are as much a part of the problem as they might be a solution--they are the main rallying point for the insurgents who aren't all terrorists (they are mostly Iraqi patriots who don't want Americans in there country who don't really belong there because they entered illegally and brought much more bloodshed than the average illegal in America because like so many Americans they were duped by George Bush.)
If they really want to bring peace to that country while being paid by the American tax payers they better start concentrating really hard on learning Iraqi Arabic and assimilating into their culture--like maybe consider converitng to a form of Islam. Ordinary immigrants in America don't necessarily have to do all this but this is what we expect of the professional peace keepers that watch our own neighborhoods in America. If the troops can't do this my only recommendation to them is the same one I made to my childhood friend David stationed in Balad: you say you don't understand the place then put in the request you said you wanted to make and get transferred to "a better place" (Colorado).

The Pottery Barn concept still applies it was an illegal invasion Americans just have to pay the Iraqis the reparations and it's the Iraqis business what they do with the money.

More and more Americans just don't believe in the troops "mission" any more.

Bring them home.

"The paths of glory lead but to the grave."
(Thomas Gray--Elegy written in a Country Churchyard)

Peace and Impeachment,
Kevin

In a society that respects law or at least fears the consequences of breaking the law that might work. However all the money we pour into the bottomless pit that is Iraq simply ends in someone's greedy pocket. They are not going to even bother trying to hide it, well just enough to make sure it is untraceable back to them.

We have nothing on the amount of corruption in government compared to Iraq. They are blatant about it our politicians at least try to pretend not to be corrupt.

Our military was never designed to be a peace keeping force. Most of our military receive little or no training in this. As to learning Arabic good idea however in actual implementation not practical. It would take years to become proficient enough to speak well enough to use. We do actually try to teach some words and phrases to our troops and we employ interpreters. We might start teaching it in public schools though, especially in those districts with middle or low income families. Because those kids are likely to join the military and that means they will be going to Iraq at some time in the future.

If all the neighboring states with a stake in the new Iraq would put up forces to act as peace keepers in Iraq it might work. There are so many with ulterior motives though I bet it would still end up like Lebanon, a civil war that has turned into a place for others to blast each other.

But if pouring money down the hole that is Iraq will pull our troops back out then do it. It's cheaper in the long run and who knows something good might come of it like forcing us to develop alternative energy since the middle east is going to get really hot in the near future.

Oh and the idea of transfering to a better place well good luck on that one buddy. No one gets a transfer out until they do their tour in Iraq. In the Marine Corps there are only three kinds of Marines, those that are in Iraq now, those that just got back from Iraq and those that are going to Iraq. I don't care what the recruiters have promised you that's the way it is. Oh and I agree with whoever said that this is going to be a generational thing our kids and grand kids will be fighting this war or the larger war it creates.

earthpassenger(Kevin)

03-18-2007, 09:57 AM

Well I've heard some of your opinions on the subject and you still seem to be to some degree committed to being dragged along through George Bush's mess.
So this supports my thinking that even some of the most open-minded Americans don't want to acknowledge America's respnsibility for the illegal invasion.
Reparations are part of the deal--that's elementary justice and, once again, it's the Iraqis business what they do with the huge amount of money they are owed by America for the illegal invasion.
They are getting some of the the necessities they used to have back in the rotten old days of Hussein before George Bush came along and really fouled things up. They are getting these things (Like electricity and air conditoning mostly from Iran--a member of the so-called "axis of evil" they just need more money to pay less for it.)
But if Americans can't accept the basic premise that they have to pay for the current mess their president started-- then I guess not just George Bush but all of us may be setting ourselves up for a fall.
Peace and Impeachment,
Kevin

hm0504

03-18-2007, 10:03 AM

MJ_KC

03-18-2007, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by hm0504:
In the moral sense you describe you are absolutely right; America must repair Iraq. It would also seem likely that reparation money won't go to reparations but to insurgents and Islamists. Bush has created a hellish impossible situation where all paths seem to lead to nightmares.
I do not see any good way to get out of the mess that Iraq has become. No matter what course of action we take, there will be major problems.

earthpassenger(Kevin)

03-18-2007, 10:21 AM

The problem with refering to "that hole in IraQ" is the hole situation is as much a creation of American foreign policy as the creation of the late Saddam (and our entanglement with the old dictator went back as far as the Reagan administration when they thought it would be to our advantage to take his side in the Iran/Iraq War).
Islamic societies can be suffocating and harsh for many people who prefer much greater openness and freedom than we have in countries dedicated to individual freedom above everything else.
But part of the solution is understanding that there is more to the differences than Islam and tribalism. As someone who has spent some time in the households of people who emigrated form middle-eastern countries I think there's more to it than a clash between an old civilization and a modern one.
Most Free market free countries have the individual and the nuclear family at the heart of their expectations about how the individual is expected to thrive in society.
In the more traditional civilizations the reliance on the extended family is still much stronger.
But in the free market societies the declining influence of the extended family (or the tribe) means outside of the nuclear family the individual is reliant on the government --and economic growth to support large gov't social insurance programs.
So this is, in my opinion, why understanding and monetary assistance to iraq will have to assume a larger role over foreign imposed martial law.
Iraq's neighbors have become involved in talks over Iraq's future but for most of his presidency Bush has just had the arrogant "Frank Sinatra" policy: I'm gonna do it "my way."

Peace,
Kevin

earthpassenger(Kevin)

03-18-2007, 10:36 AM

The shadow of 9-11 still looms over all of us--even if Saddam really had essentially nothing to do with that.
I was working in a liquor store in San Francisco when it happened and one instance of the personal change that 9-11 caused to so many of us was my co-worker Tom.
The biggest peace freak I ever met: long-blonde haired, vegetarian with three loves in his life at that time: his inter-racial relationship with his girlfriend, Radiohead and marijuana.
After the terrorist attack Tom was about to become a different person within a day or two:
Shave all that long blonde hair off and go to Afghanistan to kick some butt!

But before there was 9-11 the biggest terrorist attack on American soil was that bombing in Oklahoma by people with old fashioned American names like McVeigh and Nichols instead of Bin Laden.
So the emotions that motivate terrorists are simply human emotions not simply and exclusively middle-eastern emotions.

Peace,
Kevin

earthpassenger(Kevin)

03-18-2007, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
Well, folks we've had a lively discussion this morning but i've got to head off to work this morning.
I write some hot-headed stuff some times!!--this might simply because I refuse to take the crap my psychologist and psychiatrist wanted to prescribe for my bi-polar disorder. (I did some reading on my own and another authority described this medication as akin to giving myself a chemical lobotomy--so I hope I chose the lesser of two evils.)
Peace,
Kevin[/QUOTE]

hm0504

03-18-2007, 01:37 PM

According to this new poll:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/18/poll.wars/index.html

...
The CNN poll of 1,027 adults was conducted March 9-11 by Opinion Research Corp. The sampling error for the poll is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

According to the results, 35 percent of Americans are confident about the war, the poll said. When the war began, 83 percent of Americans expressed confidence in the campaign.
...

Not that all Bush/Iraq war supporters are zombies, but I'd say a 35% level of zombies in the population sounds about right. If an election were held today and 70% of the zombies voted, Bush could win again.

usmc1

03-18-2007, 03:33 PM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3218</span>
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

My perspective is a bit different.

First, I think we err when we allow the administration, politicians and media to frame the debate in terms of their choice. As long as we talk about the "war" a significant group of decent Americans are going to, out of misguided patriotism, stand steady in support of the "war effort". It would be unthinkable for them to do otherwise. They are literal, balck or white, right or wrong, no gray areas and no nuances people. They just can't believe that a President would lie us into war, especially one that appears to share their political values, morals and world view.

So, for me, the challenge seems to be in helping them and others to understand that rightfully or wrongfully (and that accountability is coming) the war is over. We won, hands down. Mission accomplished! What we are now engaged in is an occupation and feeble attempt at nation building in a country at war with its self.

Once the debate becomes about that, occupation and nation-building, and the reality of the situation fully sinks in, that 30 to 40 percent of support will diminish. Then the question becomes not "do you support the war", but what it should be, "should we continue to deplete our armed forces, divide our nation, and squander our treasury on the indefinite, unqualified, and unlimited occupation of a country that dearly would dearly love to to see us to hell and gone, despite what might ensue at our departure.

NudeAl

03-18-2007, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
Well I've heard some of your opinions on the subject and you still seem to be to some degree committed to being dragged along through George Bush's mess.
So this supports my thinking that even some of the most open-minded Americans don't want to acknowledge America's respnsibility for the illegal invasion.
Reparations are part of the deal--that's elementary justice and, once again, it's the Iraqis business what they do with the huge amount of money they are owed by America for the illegal invasion.
They are getting some of the the necessities they used to have back in the rotten old days of Hussein before George Bush came along and really fouled things up. They are getting these things (Like electricity and air conditoning mostly from Iran--a member of the so-called "axis of evil" they just need more money to pay less for it.)
But if Americans can't accept the basic premise that they have to pay for the current mess their president started-- then I guess not just George Bush but all of us may be setting ourselves up for a fall.
Peace and Impeachment,
Kevin

Kevin I think you might be reading me wrong.

I do think we have to take responsibility for our actions we did invade their country. I was there and I was praying we wouldn't but when you're paid to fight you do what they pay you for.

About the money thing sure we should make some sort of gesture, rebuild some more stuff, line the pockets of a few more corrupt pseudo Iraqi government officials. Whatever it takes to get the hell out of that place as expeditiously as good form will allow. I think if we do so there will be a mess but hey there's a huge mess there now so at least then it's their mess. If Iraq is really lucky maybe someone in the vicinity, somewhere with similar cultural norms will make an effort to get things in order.

I've been there once and it looks like I'll be going there again. I really don't want to but hey again when you wear the uniform it goes with the job. I just hope my son who is 15 won't have to go. If I get blown up I know I'll get the very best medical care the VA or by then the privatized government contractor handling things can provide. Provided it doesn't cost too much and I am willing to wait my turn behind the others still waiting to be seen. Most of us can see how this is going but getting it to change is not going to be easy. GW will not admit failure he won't pull the plug so it is going to be up to the next president and congress. Who we put in the drivers seat next election is how we get out of there, to me nothing else matters.

Sanslines

03-19-2007, 07:33 AM

As I have mentioned in the Bush Biggest Screw Up thread, it is going to take a Gerald Ford type of president to bring closure to this mess called Iraq. Just as Gerald Ford made many very difficult and unpopular decisions at the time to finally put Vietnam behind us, so will the new president (whoever he or she is) have to do for Iraq. Good luck to whoever that person is for he or she will need it.

usmc1

03-20-2007, 04:38 AM

Our role in the occupation of Iraq can be ratcheted down very quickly without any doomsday scenarios or regional conflagrations.

Yesterday's NYT carried a story about Russia's dope-slap of Iran over nuclear fuel. Russia exerts a lot of influence in the region, as also do the Sauds, Persians, Jordanians, Syria and other Arab states. Each has a very strong interest in maintaining balance in the region and will do what they need to do to preserve it.

What we need to asking ourselves is why does this administration continue to call the our occupation a war, why does it not pursue a multi-national solution to the civil war and sectarian violence within Iraq, and why (with all the evidence to the contrary) do we continue to accept this administration's words at face value.

After thinking one's way through those questions, one invariably comes to the conclusion that we are still being gamed.

The majority of Americans want us out, most Iraqis want us way, way out--in fact a recent survey of Iraqis, as reported by ABC yesterday, tells us that 51% of Iraqis condone the killing of Americans in their country--we won the war and are losing the occupation--there is no honor in that. But, this administration asks for patience.

It's like we're Charley Brown and the administration is Lucy and the Iraq occupation is the football---guess what? Unless we change things, we ain't gonna be kicking that football.

There are several scenarios available to us, all honorable, in which we can extract ourselves from this occupation of Iraq. We should demand that this administration do so, post haste!

nacktman

03-20-2007, 05:26 AM

Here's the "real" reason there is no exit strategy for Iraq!

usmc1

03-21-2007, 04:03 PM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3223</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sick.gif

1,462 Days. End the Occupation!

Tampanude

03-21-2007, 07:00 PM

The majority of Americans want us out, most Iraqis want us way, way out--in fact a recent survey of Iraqis, as reported by ABC yesterday, tells us that 51% of Iraqis condone the killing of Americans in their country--we won the war and are losing the occupation--there is no honor in that. But, this administration asks for patience.

It's like we're Charley Brown and the administration is Lucy and the Iraq occupation is the football---guess what? Unless we change things, we ain't gonna be kicking that football.

I've never seen it put quite that way,usmc1

Dead on!

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

usmc1

03-23-2007, 09:08 AM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3233</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sick.gif

http://www.theonion.com/content/

The Four Years of Winning Issue

nacktman

03-23-2007, 01:11 PM

Gad, and I had hoped these people had wised up.

Had Gore been allowed to serve as the elected president he was we would not be in this mess in the first place and Kerry would not have needed to run in and win the last election either.
If we would have gone into the current fiasco, which we wouldn't have as we'd have a brain that is functional in charge instead of the sot we have, we would have gone in done what we set out to do and got out without any of the chattel we have created in doing as we have done.

On the off topic notion that 10 or 100s of thousands would have died at the "hands of a 'safe but rare' abortionist or embryonic stem cell researcher", if any other than the shrub were president is asinine, just plain ignorant and outright stupid as those types of numbers don't occur over the entire world in a decade, let alone a year, much less in the USA alone. Someone has had smoke blown up their arse and they liked it to fall for that hogwash.
However it is a fact that over 70,000 have died as a direct result of the shrub being called president in Iraq alone, not counting in Afganistan, or New Orleans, and elsewhere.

There will be a clear exit strategy imposed on this sociopath and the clock is ticking and the most powerful person on this planet is setting the timetable ... and that is not the president -- it has never been, the most powerful person on this planet is, and has always been for the last 90 years, the chairman of the House Ways and Means committee -- they control the money and how it is spent and the chairman controls the committee.

We're better off with the shrub in charge all right: unprecedented levels of corruption, scandals upon and within scandals, total disregard for the law, profiteering - war and otherwise, more people on the brink of economic disaster than ever before, more people without healthcare than ever before, inordinate price gouging in industries across the board at record levels, our military streched way beyond reason, the total loss of respect and goodwill of the rest of the world, ah, the list goes on and on and on and on ... Yep, we sure are better off with the shrub "in charge"! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

hm0504

03-23-2007, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by HairForce:
...

I feel for the moms and dads who lost children unnecessarily. If it makes anyone feel better, America lost 1/60th of its population during the Civil War. We've not come anywhere near that with Iraq.

OK. So stem cells are humans but the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of dead Iraqis are not. Got it! Thanks!

Now I am left with the question as to whether Iraqi stem cells are humans or not? Perhaps if American researchers could use only Iraqi stem cells for their research and then everyone would be happy.

nacktman

03-23-2007, 01:37 PM

Now I am left with the question as to whether Iraqi stem cells are humans or not? Perhaps if American researchers could only use Iraqi stem cells for their research and then everyone would be happy.

Alibinus, what of the different types of Iraqis should one only use Kurdish stem cells, Sunni stem cells or Shia stem cells in their research?
And how do you choose which one to use?

Baron Lake

03-23-2007, 04:49 PM

Maybe by which "types" have the least oil?
b.l.

hm0504

03-23-2007, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Baron Lake:
Maybe by which "types" have the least oil?
b.l.

LOL!

Naturist Mark

03-24-2007, 08:39 AM

Hey, at least they are trying to keep the costs of the war down.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> How Specialist Town Lost His Benefits (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070409/kors)

Eventually the rocket shrapnel was removed from (Spc. Jon) Town's neck and his ears stopped leaking blood. But his hearing never really recovered, and in many ways, neither has his life. A soldier honored twelve times during his seven years in uniform, Town has spent the last three struggling with deafness, memory failure and depression. By September 2006 he and the Army agreed he was no longer combat-ready.

But instead of sending Town to a medical board and discharging him because of his injuries, doctors at Fort Carson, Colorado, did something strange: They claimed Town's wounds were actually caused by a "personality disorder." Town was then booted from the Army and told that under a personality disorder discharge, he would never receive disability or medical benefits.

Town is not alone. A six-month investigation has uncovered multiple cases in which soldiers wounded in Iraq are suspiciously diagnosed as having a personality disorder, then prevented from collecting benefits. The conditions of their discharge have infuriated many in the military community, including the injured soldiers and their families, veterans' rights groups, even military officials required to process these dismissals. [/list]

Yeah, deafness caused by a pre-existing personality disorder - the shrapnel was just a coincidence.

I've heard rumors that pre-existing personality disorders can also cause the loss of limbs, bleeding in the brain, organ failure and bad teeth.

-Mark

nacktman

03-24-2007, 08:54 AM

'Infuriated' is a pretty mild term for what is the feeling(s) about this ongoing example of how this cabal "SUPPORTS' our troops, Mark, but as you know the forum's Nazi software would not permit the terminology one would use to more aptly describe those feelings.

BTW, those rumors about 'pre-existing personality disorders' are quite true -- about leading to bad teeth anyway. Oral hygenics are not very high on the list of things to do for most with 'personality disorders'
Speaking of teeth have you ever noticed that you don't see the shrub's teeth when his mouth is moving ... makes you wonder?!

usmc1

03-25-2007, 03:48 PM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3241[</span>http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

Gorgeous weekend. Did my first mowing of the year. But, its not really spring yet. Not until my scissor-tailed flycatchers return to the meadow.

Hope everyone has a good week! At some point, would you please pause and think about what's being done in your name. Thank you.

barenaked1

03-25-2007, 09:32 PM

Changes need to happen now. America faces issues with an administration that only caters to themselves. They no longer serve the 'People'. I am extremely saddened by this course of action and am doing what I can, by voting my piece of mind. If only that vote truly counted........

Originally posted by usmc1:
<span class="ev_code_Red">3241[</span>http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

Gorgeous weekend. Did my first mowing of the year. But, its not really spring yet. Not until my scissor-tailed flycatchers return to the meadow.

Hope everyone has a good week! At some point, would you please pause and think about what's being done in your name. Thank you.

MJ_KC

03-30-2007, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by barenaked1:
Changes need to happen now. America faces issues with an administration that only caters to themselves. They no longer serve the 'People'. I am extremely saddened by this course of action and am doing what I can, by voting my piece of mind. If only that vote truly counted........
Your vote does count, along with everybody else's. The accumulated total is what matters, not what one individual would like to see happen. Just be sure to get out and vote and maybe you will get a result that you are in agreement with.

nacktman

03-31-2007, 06:26 AM

As that famous or is that infamous paragon of political verisimilitude Josef Stalin once said ... "It's not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes.".
His ideological breathren have been doing the counting the past few years and you see the results ...

usmc1

03-31-2007, 01:42 PM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3246 http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif</span>

Back in Texas today, and the fields are alive with Bluebonnets, Indian Paint Brush, Red Clover, Coreopsis and Pinks.

In D.C. the Cherry blossums, Dogwoods and Tulip Trees are in full beautiful bloom and daffodils, yellow and white are sporting their little trumpet faces.

For some, the hope of Spring is in the air. For 3246 there will be no more springs.

I was Walter Reeed yesterday and Bethesda on Wednesday, after docking with the mother-ship on thursday to lay our political action plans for the next eighteen months--all of which is to say, folks we've got some bad hurt kids on our hands, and I don't see a sign that anyone really gives a flying f**k. Otherwise, there would be a national general strike in this country until we called a halt to this mad-man's occupation of Iraq.

There's a time for all things, and there will be an accounting.

Sanslines

04-01-2007, 05:39 AM

I was in D.C. yesterday and it was a really nice day with low humidity, warm sun, and cool breezes. The cherry blossoms and daffodils have indeed blossomed and they make the Mall come alive after Winter.

The big event in D.C. on the Mall yesterday was a huge kite flying contest. Many brilliant and colorful kites filled the air around the Washington Monument. The Mall was filled with tourists and everyone seemed to be enjoying the warm Spring day.

As for protests, the ONLY major protest that I found was in front of the Capitol Building. Several people were protesting circumcision and I have some photos of this event that I will download and post to the forum later. Outside of this event, there were only a couple of protestors in front of the White House. It's the usual Bush and Co masks and a few signs in different languages saying things such as "Impeach Bush" etc. The tourists would come and see this with a kind of apathetic resignation. They would take a quick look or a photo and then move on to one of the museums. As for Lafayette Park, well no protestors were to be found there. It actually is a bit strange to be in D.C. and not find any real protesting going on. By far most people were more interested in kite flying or enjoying the beautiful Spring Mall day and museums then get involved with any kind of protesting.

Why even the Vietnam Veterans Wall was very peaceful and quiet with a very few flowers and momentos laid by the wall to remember the troops. Gone are the days when that wall would be covered with flowers, photos of the deceased troops, and other rememberences of the war. One of the guys who came with our group is a Vietnam Vet and he came in his green army jacket and hat to pay his respects to his fallen comrades. Even he has noticed the changes that I have and he spent his day calmly explaining the war to what appeared to be mostly younger people who were not even alive at the time of the war. (One clear example of this were the few 8 x 11 pieces of paper that contained a photo, biographical info, and where in Vietnam the troop was killed. Most of the papers were reminders of the anniversary of the death of the troops. Most troops were 18 to 22 and the papers were marking the death of the soldier 40 years ago! A lifetime and a generation ago by any standard and the younger generation can not directly relate to this war. The roll of vets at the wall seems to have changed from that of dealing with contemporaries to explaining history to the younger generations. How time passes indeed!) Sadly, it appears that time has marched on and the Vietnam War is mostly ancient history to the younger generations.

Yes, yesterday was a beautiful day in D.C. and anyone who spent the day on the Mall would not find any protests or reminders of the situations in Iraq or Afghanistan. How strange indeed!

04-01-2007, 06:01 AM

It's sad about the apathy in this country regarding the Iraq War. For the most part, people are not affected by the war. Their Joey's and Susies' are safe because they did not volunteer to go fight. The families who had/have children volunteer are the ones who are feeling the impact of a war where young men and women are going to fight in a hostile country, taught to protect and kill. For what?

It is true that most here don't give a you-know-what. It is the old "it's not in my backyard or on my street" so I don't give a damn.

The war in Iraq is not about anyone's freedom....it is not about terrorism .... it is not about making Iraq a democracy .... it was about getting Saddam Hussein out for restitution and it is about oil. All the rhetoric being published and supported by an inane President and his cronies is just pure propaganda to "make" us think we are doing something for the common good ...... horse hockey!!!!!

We need to pull our troops out! Let's hope ... no, let's pray .... that the new make up of the Congress will do something to bring our men and women home. If anything is to be done in Iraq it is to help rebuild but then we are failing at rebuilding in Afghanistan, so this may not be possible for our current government to do.

Allie

usmc1

04-01-2007, 06:06 AM

U.S. March toll twice that of Iraqi forces
81 American troops killed in first full month of security crackdown

The Associated Press
Updated: 4:30 a.m. CT April 1, 2007
BAGHDAD - The U.S. military death toll in March, the first full month of the security crackdown, was nearly twice that of the Iraqi army, which American and Iraqi officials say is taking the leading role in the latest attempt to curb violence in the capital, surrounding cities and Anbar province, according to figures compiled on Saturday.

The Associated Press count of U.S. military deaths for the month was 81, including a soldier who died from non-combat causes Friday. Figures compiled from officials in the Iraqi ministries of Defense, Health and Interior showed the Iraqi military toll was 44. The Iraqi figures showed that 165 Iraqi police were killed in March. Many of the police serve in paramilitary units.

According to the AP count 3,246 U.S. service members have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.

At least 83 American forces died in January and 80 in February, according to the AP tabulation.

The Iraqi figures were gathered from officials who released them on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to give out the numbers.

Additionally, the Iraqi ministry figures listed 1,872 Iraqi civilian deaths for the month, about 300 more than the AP tabulation, which is mainly gathered from daily police reports nationwide.

The civilian death toll for the month was down significantly from 2,172 in December, the highest month casualty figure since the AP began keeping records of civilian deaths in April 2005.

However, the number of civilians killed in March was in the same range as for the first two months of this year; 1,604 in January and 1,552 in February, according to the AP count.

Nearly a third of the Iraqi civilian deaths, more than 500 people, were killed in three big bomb attacks in the last week of the month and revenge killings of Sunni men in Tal Afar the night after a Shiite market was bombed in the northwest Iraqi city.

Sanslines

04-01-2007, 06:18 AM

It's sad about the apathy in this country regarding the Iraq War.

This is true but the situation today is entirely different. Based upon my discussions yesterday with both civilians and Vietnam Vets at the Wall, the major differece today is that there is NO draft. Iraq does not directly affect most people. The entire burden of this war is being carried by (volunteer) troops and their families. The general population is under no threat of a draft and don't have to make ANY contributions or sacrificies for this war. As a result, most people in the USA may say a couple of words (at most) regarding the war, but have little, if any, interest in this war and prefer to focus on events in their own personal lives. They are honestly tired of this war and don't want to hear about it anymore. As yesterday showed, they would rather spend their limited free time enjoying a beautiful day on the Mall flying kites and enjoying family then getting involved with something that is distasteful and unecessary for them to do so.

usmc1

04-02-2007, 12:30 PM

So you enlisted, went to boot camp, finally made E-5, survived Iraq, finished your active duty, turned in your weapons and web gear, sold your sea-bag and old uniforms to some boots who wanted to look salty, got on the plane, went home, married little Suzy Q, got a job working security out at the old man's plant, joined the VFW for cheap bear and an excuse to get out of the house and tell some sea stories--hell you did your do, time to kick back, it's over for you--let the kids do their thing. Right?

Wrong, mo-fo, you is getting "surged".

Nevermind that you sold all your sh*t, it wouldn't fit your big butt now anyway.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,130237,00.html?ESRC=marine.nl

Sanslines

04-02-2007, 04:45 PM

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall

Photo taken March 31,2007 on the Mall at Washington D.C.

So that we shall never forget one of the prices of war. Here are enshrined for eternity the names of 56,000 plus deceased Vietnam War veterans.

hm0504

04-02-2007, 04:50 PM

I wonder what the Iraq War monument will look like?

Naturist Mark

04-02-2007, 05:04 PM

The entire burden of this war is being carried by (volunteer) troops and their families. The general population is under no threat of a draft and don't have to make ANY contributions or sacrificies for this war. As a result, most people in the USA may say a couple of words (at most) regarding the war, but have little, if any, interest in this war and prefer to focus on events in their own personal lives.
Yet 70% now want us out of the Iraq occupation, despite the media complicity in keeping the public ignorant and downplaying the costs and failures of the Iraq debacle.

It has been raised to the level of theatre of the absurd. The media minimizes the level of disaster the occupation has become, and the neo-cons lambast them for 'ignoring the good news'.

Last week John McCain (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/world/middleeast/02iraq.html?ex=1333166400&en=c65bb7ec8561db1d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that he was not getting the 'full picture' of the good results in the last 3 months, that Baghdad was so safe that there are areas that Americans can stroll the streets without a concern - and that General Petraeus regularly motors through the city in an unarmored Humvee. CNN correspondent Michael Ware (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/02/ware-drudge/) blew the whistle on that whopper (and is now being swiftboated by the neo-cons). General Petraeus travels in a heavily armored humvee surrounded by other armored humvees, Outside of the Green zone no westerner dares travel without security - ever. So McCain did the only thing he could - he made a secret trip to Iraq over the weekend to prove his point. Yesterday he strolled safely through a bazaar 3 minutes outside the Green Zone. Wearing state of the art body armor. Surrounded by over 100 uniformed American security troops, the bazaar was filled with 'Iraqis' who were undercover Iraqi and coalition operatives. While overhead 3 Blackhawk helicopters and 2 Apache gunships circled. McCain bought a rug. Today sniper fire (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/04/02/snipers_back_at_baghdad_market_after_mccain_visit/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News) echoed through the bazaar - back to normal.

Yes, the same soldiers are being run through the meat grinder over and over again. This keeps the total number of Iraq veterans small. They are being recalled after leaving the service under the 'ready reserve' requirement, and they are being stop lossed. It seems like if you are on the Iraq track the only way you are getting out is by injury, death, or coming out of the closet.

All to keep the public unconcerned. And everytime some whiney 'liberal' complains that the troops are being abused, we are reminded that they are volunteers. Bullcrap. They signed up to protect America - with their lives if necessary. They didn't sign up to make the world more unsafe while a few crony companies become fabulously rich.

It seems that 4 years is the limit to how long the majority can be lied to without figuring it out.

Doonesbury has the last word:

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2007/db070401.gif

-Mark

Sanslines

04-02-2007, 05:21 PM

The Penis Circumcision Protest in Front of the Capitol Building

Photo taken: March 31, 2007 in Washington D.C.

This was the major protest event of the day. No major Iraq war protests to be found on or near the Mall on this day.

MJ_KC

04-02-2007, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Last week John McCain (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/world/middleeast/02iraq.html?ex=1333166400&en=c65bb7ec8561db1d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that he was not getting the 'full picture' of the good results in the last 3 months, that Baghdad was so safe that there are areas that Americans can stroll the streets without a concern - and that General Petraeus regularly motors through the city in an unarmored Humvee. CNN correspondent Michael Ware (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/02/ware-drudge/) blew the whistle on that whopper (and is now being swiftboated by the neo-cons). General Petraeus travels in a heavily armored humvee surrounded by other armored humvees, Outside of the Green zone no westerner dares travel without security - ever. So McCain did the only thing he could - he made a secret trip to Iraq over the weekend to prove his point. Yesterday he strolled safely through a bazaar 3 minutes outside the Green Zone. Wearing state of the art body armor. Surrounded by over 100 uniformed American security troops, the bazaar was filled with 'Iraqis' who were undercover Iraqi and coalition operatives. While overhead 3 Blackhawk helicopters and 2 Apache gunships circled. McCain bought a rug. Today sniper fire (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/04/02/snipers_back_at_baghdad_market_after_mccain_visit/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News) echoed through the bazaar - back to normal.
I saw this same thing on a different news program where they said the same thing about his level of protection. I really wonder how anybody could claim that progress is really being made when that level of military protection was needed for him to go shopping. Sounded like extreme stupidity to me.

hm0504

04-02-2007, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Sanslines:
The Penis Circumcision Protest in Front of the Capitol Building

Photo taken: March 31, 2007 in Washington D.C.

This was the major protest event of the day. No major Iraq war protests to be found on or near the Mall on this day.

Interesting juxtaposition -- having an anti-circumcision protest in front of a building whose top looks like a circumcised penis! (Or maybe that's just my twisted imagination.)

hm0504

04-02-2007, 05:57 PM

I, alas, have to agree with a comment by Naturist Mark a few days ago that McCain seems to have become rather disappointing in the last few months (maybe the folks at Liberty University gave him some bad weed or something). Can't really see how he can be President.

nacktman

04-02-2007, 05:58 PM

Might be that imagination of yours, Albinus. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

hm0504

04-02-2007, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by nacktman:
Might be that imagination of yours, Albinus. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

I mean the part above the flat roof but not including the statue at the top nor its pedestal ;-) I'm sure someone talented with GIMP or PhotoShop can illustrate what I mean.

If we try hard enough, maybe we can make this into yet another penis topic.

usmc1

04-03-2007, 09:20 AM

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

<span class="ev_code_Red">3257</span>

Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Hear Tennyson read the entire poem here....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/poetry/outloud/tennyson.shtml

(requires RealPlayer)

hm0504

04-03-2007, 04:23 PM

Well, at least one paper does its homework:
"he botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis":
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece

usmc1

04-05-2007, 05:42 AM

US Casualties By Calendar Year

Year US Deaths US Wounded
2003 486 2408
2004 849 8002
2005 846 5947
2006 822 6389
2007 262 1568
Total 3265 24314

Naturist Mark

04-05-2007, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:
Well, at least one paper does its homework:
"he botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis":
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece

Yep.

Funny how W called the British troops 'hostages', even though they were military troops captured in a disputed border area during wartime (or 'occupation time'). But the US declares the 5 diplomats taken into custody by American forces who raided Iranian consular property in Iraq to be 'prisoners'. Funny how Iran treated its 'hostages' with the utmost respect and the best of care (read an outraged PYTHON'S (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2047128,00.html) reaction), while the Iranian diplomats in US custody are being held in defiance of the Geneva Convention and international rules of diplomacy.

Only George Bush could make the Iranian Revolutionary Guards look like good international citizens.

By the way, there are rumors that in a week or two the US is going to release the Iranian diplomats. They are just going to wait long enough so that it doesn't look like quid pro quo. Which it is.

Here's another clue to explain Iran's actions: The Secret War Against Iran (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html) - ABC News report that the US is supporting a Pakistani Taliban guerrila group that makes raids into Iran, kidnaps Iranian officials and soldiers, and releases videotapes of their executions.

Wow. George Bush is funding Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, and Taliban terrorists in Pakistan and Iran. Who the hell are our troops fighting? Oh yeah ... the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. ... Treason (http://bluehorde.blogspot.com/2007/02/treason.html).

-Mark

hm0504

04-05-2007, 05:49 PM

Great documentary "Battle for Baghdad" on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) tonight and repeating Saturday.

Details and showtimes here:
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/

usmc1

04-07-2007, 03:36 PM

Afghanistan = <span class="ev_code_Red">376</span>

Iraq = <span class="ev_code_red">3270</span>

"It would not have been possible for me ever to trust someone who acquired office by the shameful means Mr. Bush and his abettors resorted to in the last presidential election. His nonentity was rapidly becoming more apparent than ever when the catastrophe of Sept. 11, 2001, provided him and his handlers with a role for him, that of "wartime leader", which they, and he in turn, were quick to exploit. This role was used at once to silence all criticism of the man and his words as unpatriotic, and to provide the auspices for a sustained assault upon civil liberties, environmental protections, and general welfare.

The perpetuation of this role of "wartime leader" is the primary reason-- more important even than the greed for oil fields and the wish to blot out his father's failure-- for the present determination to visit war upon Iraq, kill and maim countless people, and antagonize much of the world of which Mr. Bush had not heard until recently.

The real iniquities of Saddam Hussein should be recognized, in this context, as the pretexts they are. His earlier atrocities went unmentioned as long as he was an ally of former Republican administrations, which were happy, in their time, to supply him with weapons. I think that someone who was maneuvered into office against the will of the electorate, as Mr. Bush was, should be allowed to make no governmental decisions (including judicial appointments) that might outlast his questionable term, and if the reasons for war were many times greater than they have been said to be I would oppose any thing of the kind under such "leadership". To arrange a war in order to be re-elected outdoes even the means employed in the last presidential election. Mr. Bush and his plans are a greater danger to the United States than Saddam Hussein." -- W. S. Merwin

MJ_KC

04-07-2007, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
I think that someone who was maneuvered into office against the will of the electorate, as Mr. Bush was, should be allowed to make no governmental decisions (including judicial appointments) that might outlast his questionable term
Once someone becomes President, they are fully President with all of the authority that goes with that. Whether an individual likes the President has zero impact on this.

usmc1

04-07-2007, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
I think that someone who was maneuvered into office against the will of the electorate, as Mr. Bush was, should be allowed to make no governmental decisions (including judicial appointments) that might outlast his questionable term
Once someone becomes President, they are fully President with all of the authority that goes with that. Whether an individual likes the President has zero impact on this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you have one opinion and Mr Merwin has another. But, where is the truth? Oscar Wilde said that truth is the opinion that survives.

I agree with that.

MJ_KC

04-07-2007, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
I think that someone who was maneuvered into office against the will of the electorate, as Mr. Bush was, should be allowed to make no governmental decisions (including judicial appointments) that might outlast his questionable term
Once someone becomes President, they are fully President with all of the authority that goes with that. Whether an individual likes the President has zero impact on this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you have one opinion and Mr Merwin has another. But, where is the truth? Oscar Wilde said that truth is the opinion that survives.

I agree with that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This isn't my opinion, it is how things actually work. It does not matter how thin the margin of victory is, the President still has the same authority. The Constitution does not make any distinctions regarding the margin of victory.

usmc1

04-08-2007, 05:48 AM

You're mistaken or else did not take the time to think your assertion all the way through. Victory in an election does not provide the President with unlimited or unfettered authority, nor does it prevent Congress from undoing Presidential appointments. Mr Merwin would like to see that happen, as would I. The Constitution provides for Advice & Consent and Impeachment. Both act to restrain, restrict and balance Presidential authority and provides the means for undoing some presidential acts.

Your opinion seems to be that presidential appointments can't be undone. The Constitution refutes that. Witness what happened to the appointment of Mr. Bolten--Advice & Consent.

It is possible, but not very likely, that Mr. Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court could be impeached, asked to resign, or have their power nullified by Congress' addition of members to the court and thereby counter-balancing their power.

As I said, none of these scenarios are very likely since there is not a large enough opposing majority and there seems to be no public will for such.

Mr Merwin's opinion is that such should happen. My opinion is, that as much as I would like for it to happen, it probably won't--except maybe in the case of Mr. Gonzales. What is your opinion?

MJ_KC

04-08-2007, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by usmc1:
Your opinion seems to be that presidential appointments can't be undone. The Constitution refutes that. Witness what happened to the appointment of Mr. Bolten--Advice & Consent.
Did you mean Bolton? There was a Bolten appointed to be OMB director and John Bolton who was nominated to be U.N Ambassador.

Bolton was not appointed, he was nominated and not confirmed. The process worked like it is supposed to.

Appointments mean that they are already in office. Some positions within the executive branch are appointments and not nominations so the President does not have to run these people by Congress.

With Gonzales, the evidence is still not entirely in as to whether anything was done that is specifically prohibited. This is something that the Senate will soon get to determine. He may indeed get removed from office if they find that he did something that is not permitted.

Here is an article that lays out some information regarding the Gonzales case in a fairly balanced manner. They do support him, but they do lay some foundation for why he thought that he was allowed to do what was done.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kmiec31mar31,...ll=la-opinion-center (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kmiec31mar31,0,3822929.story?coll=la-opinion-center)

Naturist Mark

04-08-2007, 07:36 AM

Bolton was not appointed, he was nominated and not confirmed. The process worked like it is supposed to.

When it became clear that Bolton could not be confirmed as UN Ambassador, the president put him into the job anyway with a recess appointment.

The recess appointment is a Constitutional loophole that allows a president to 'temporarily' appoint an official to a position when Congress is not in session. The Senate then has until the end of the term to confirm the official or the appointment expires when the current Congressional session expires - every two years. John Bolton is no longer UN Ambassador because his recess appointment expired in January.

In my opinion the recess appointment should only be effective until Congress has the opportunity to confirm or deny the appointment under its Constitutional Advise & Consent responsibility, but somehow that is not how the precedent has worked. I think that a recess appointment should be null if Congress votes to not confirm. But that is not how the precedent has worked out.

Since the current Congressional term will last until the end of the President's term in office, any recess appointments made from now on will last until January 2009. Every time Congress goes on recess the president can make a constitutional end run and appoint the most terrible people he can find without any Congressional input. He made 3 such appointments (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/05/the-other-recess-appointments/) this week as soon as Congress left for Easter recess.

For the rest of his presidency George Bush can appoint anyone he wants to any position without ever again seeking congressional approval.

I suspect Bush will be using the recess appointment quite a bit from now on - including for the new Attorney General when Gonzalez is forced to resign.

-Mark

usmc1

04-08-2007, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
Your opinion seems to be that presidential appointments can't be undone. The Constitution refutes that. Witness what happened to the appointment of Mr. Bolten--Advice & Consent.
Did you mean Bolton? There was a Bolten appointed to be OMB director and John Bolton who was nominated to be U.N Ambassador.

Bolton was not appointed, he was nominated and not confirmed. The process worked like it is supposed to.

Appointments mean that they are already in office. Some positions within the executive branch are appointments and not nominations so the President does not have to run these people by Congress.

With Gonzales, the evidence is still not entirely in as to whether anything was done that is specifically prohibited. This is something that the Senate will soon get to determine. He may indeed get removed from office if they find that he did something that is not permitted.

Here is an article that lays out some information regarding the Gonzales case in a fairly balanced manner. They do support him, but they do lay some foundation for why he thought that he was allowed to do what was done.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kmiec31mar31,...ll=la-opinion-center (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kmiec31mar31,0,3822929.story?coll=la-opinion-center) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah Bolton, I regret the error, was working on first cup of coffee and brain not properly lubricated, I guess. It sure did obfuscate things a little.

But, I think Mark adequately cleared up and finalized the point I was offering: Despite election results, Presidential authority is not absolute and Mr. Merwin's desire that some of Bush's appointments be undone lies within the realm of constitutional possibility if not probability. That, I think was not your opinion when you presented as irrefutable fact that victory in election gave the Presidential winner authority to make appointments which could not be undone.

We've now reduced your "fact" to erroneus opinion. On the other hand, I guess you, Mark and I would probably share the opinion of the unlikihood of those things actually happening.

Bottom line to all this is that Mr. Merwin's desire that some of Mr Bush's appointments be undone, while not probable, is not without possibility as you so asserted.

MJ_KC

04-08-2007, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
n my opinion the recess appointment should only be effective until Congress has the opportunity to confirm or deny the appointment under its Constitutional Advise & Consent responsibility, but somehow that is not how the precedent has worked.
I do not like that the recess appointment even exists. This is just a way for a President to get someone in that they know won't be confirmed. It is a bad way for the government to be allowed to operate.

Bush seems to like to use this a lot because he tends to nominate people who shouldn't be confirmed.

Naturist Mark

04-08-2007, 02:10 PM

I do not like that the recess appointment even exists. This is just a way for a President to get someone in that they know won't be confirmed. It is a bad way for the government to be allowed to operate.

There is a good reason for the provision. Originally it was expected that Congress would only be in session for a few weeks or months each year (that is still the case for the Texas legislature). Congress was expected to not be in session the majority of the time, often for months at a time. The Constitution requires that the Congress meet each year - each year is called a session and each term as two sessions. Many scholars argue that the recess appointment was only meant for use between sessions, not during short breaks during a session.

My suggestion to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is that Congress never break for the remainder of the term. That would require that a few members are always present in the House and Senate chambers while most members go about their business in their districts. That may sound odd, but if you watch C-Span (http://www.cspan.org/watch/) you might know that the chambers are almost always empty except for a few members on the dais and one or two at the microphone. Most of a congressman's time is spent in their office or in committee.

-Mark

nacktman

04-08-2007, 05:28 PM

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shout.gifhttp://oakhurstonline.com/icon/angry.gif<span class="ev_code_RED">3280</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/angry.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shout.gif

nacktman

04-08-2007, 05:45 PM

What is so special about the picture below, you might ask?

It might be the fact that the shrub's portrait is made up of the faces of <span class="ev_code_RED">400</span> of those <span class="ev_code_RED">3280</span> dead American servicemen and women mentioned in the post above, now couldn't it?!

Naw, couldn't be!!!!!

MJ_KC

04-08-2007, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by nacktman:
It might be the fact that the shrub's portrait
If you hadn't said that this was Bush's photo, and I had seen this photo in a different thread, I wouldn't have been able to say with any certainty who it was. It would be easier to tell if the image wasn't such a close up composition.

04-09-2007, 07:37 AM

How could anyone desecrate the lost lives of those 400 people who went to Iraq to serve our country and then be mocked by being photo-shopped onto George Bush's face????

How hateful to use even George Bush no matter what you think of him for such a portrait.

Allie

hm0504

04-09-2007, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by AlexisDanielle:
How could anyone desecrate the lost lives of those 400 people who went to Iraq to serve our country and then be mocked by being photo-shopped onto George Bush's face????

How hateful to use even George Bush no matter what you think of him for such a portrait.

Allie

I actually had the same response. That said, I understand there are certainly various ways of viewing the photo such as seeing as a tribute to the lost lives superimposed by the cause of their deaths.

Nonetheless, I find my initial reaction, which was yours, is the one that seems to stay with me.

Sanslines

04-09-2007, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by AlexisDanielle:
How could anyone desecrate the lost lives of those 400 people who went to Iraq to serve our country and then be mocked by being photo-shopped onto George Bush's face????

How hateful to use even George Bush no matter what you think of him for such a portrait.

Allie

Only a sick monster would do such a thing. It is just as bad as spraying grafetti on the Vietnam Wall. Don't some people have any respect for the deceased? Obviously not.

nacktman

04-09-2007, 05:02 PM

... I understand there are certainly various ways of viewing the photo such as seeing as a tribute to the lost lives superimposed by the cause of their deaths

Right you are Albinus, the photo montage was created at the request of those 400 servicemen and women's families as a tribute to their loved ones and a pointed reminder as to the cause of their deaths.
To view it in any other light is to truly desecrate their memories.

It is made up of 8X10 portraits of each serviceman and woman and there was NO photoshoping involved in creating it

usmc1

04-10-2007, 07:14 AM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3292</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

From a dead sleep the most chaotic week a life has
ever seen-
begins-
two men, indirect fire
bank gave way
Euphrates river
current too strong
gear too heavy

Two men, dressed to kill
on a mission to deliver
a letter-
explaining how 'they did one's best'
Serving an unnecessary cause,
but necessary to them,
for things of Country and Corp run deep in their now
ice cold veins

Two mothers,
receive two flags, neatly folded
changing life ever after
Tears of-
sadness,
depression, and
pride fall-
from lost eyes

Two brothers.
lost.

BY: LCpl Sean Higgins

Baron Lake

04-10-2007, 09:37 AM

nacktman

04-10-2007, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Baron Lake:
No "photo shopping" Nackt? Just a fortunate conincidence that some photos are over or underexposed I guess. Even luckier that parts of some images are under/over? I'm not suggesting the image is any less valid for its method of creation (great concept and well done) but I'm not buying the no photo shop thing
b.l.

Baron, there was no photoshoping used to "create" the work as it takes up an entire wall floor to ceiling (a twelve foot ceiling), and I was not the person to create it.
Now when one takes a photograph of the work ... well then. But having seen the actual work I can say very little 'retouching' of the original photographs that make up the work would be needed to bring out the shrub's face ... it's downright scary to see the work unvarnished and see the image of the shrub smugly staring back at you through those dead servicemen and women.

Naturist Mark

04-10-2007, 07:08 PM

No "photo shopping" Nackt? Just a fortunate conincidence that some photos are over or underexposed I guess. Even luckier that parts of some images are under/over? I'm not suggesting the image is any less valid for its method of creation (great concept and well done) but I'm not buying the no photo shop thing

This type of mosaic has been done long before there was Photoshop or computers. But computers certainly help.

Here is a method to do this type of mosaic. Not necessarily the one that was used.

The photo of Bush is divided into 400 segments of the same aspect ratio as the portraits. If we are doing this without computer help, we can actually take a largish Bush photo and cut it into numbered pieces. Each segment is graded by brightness. We are also interested in tonality, but we'll leave that for later.

It is extremely unlikely the portraits and the Bush photo segments will match in range of brightness and tonality, but they don't have to. The human eye is very bad at detecting exact levels, but it is very good at discerning differences. What we do next is sort the segments and portraits for brightness.

We match the darkest segment to the darkest portrait, the brightest to the brightest. And so forth. They aren't going to match in level of brightness, but they will somewhat match in changes of brightness level within the group.

Now we have some leeway. Many of the matches are going to be very close with those of nearby matches - we'll use tonality (relative color or hue) to decide which ones to swap around with neighboring matches. If we were doing this by computer it could have assigned tonality values and sought the best fit, but darkness and brightness are more important than hue for the human eye to discern information.

The final step is to assemble all the portraits, take a good look at it from a distance, see if there are any anomalies, any better fits that can be made by a few swaps.

That's it.

Much easier to use a computer - plenty of programs and websites available:

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/ndmark/NaturistMarkMosaic3.jpg (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/ndmark/NaturistMarkMosaic2.jpg) Online

Image Mosaic Generator (http://www.adelaider.com/image-mosaic/)

Mosaickr (http://www.mosaickr.com/)

Mosaicr (http://www.mosaicr.com/)

mozaiq (http://mozaiq.org/)

.
.
.

Software

Mosaic.net (http://mosaic.bloomaniac.de/)

Andrea Mosaic (http://www.andreaplanet.com/andreamosaic/)

IMosaic (http://www.imosaic.net/)

MacOSaiX (http://homepage.mac.com/knarf/MacOSaiX/)

MozoDojo (http://ktd.club.fr/programmation/mozodojo.php)

Metapixel (http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/metapixel/)

PhotoMosaic (http://www.photility.com/PhotoMosaic)

Pictobrick (http://www.pictobrick.de/content_en/pictobrick.html)

-Mark

nacktman

04-12-2007, 05:41 AM

The following are some of the views on iraq depicted in editorial cartoons.

nacktman

04-12-2007, 05:43 AM

A new "Surge."

nacktman

04-12-2007, 05:46 AM

Analogy!

nacktman

04-12-2007, 05:47 AM

Out of here.

nacktman

04-12-2007, 05:49 AM

How?

missouriboy

04-12-2007, 07:55 AM

I saw a good one a few months back. A gravedigger working at Arlington National Cemetery, with a long line of freshly opened graves behind him, appears to be getting questioned by a news reporter as he is furiously shoveling out more dirt. He is saying, "I'm expecting a surge..."

hm0504

04-12-2007, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by missouriboy:
I saw a good one a few months back. A gravedigger working at Arlington National Cemetery, with a long line of freshly opened graves behind him, appears to be getting questioned by a news reporter as he is furiously shoveling out more dirt. He is saying, "I'm expecting a surge..."

Brilliant! Thanks missouriboy.

usmc1

04-12-2007, 08:44 AM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3294</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

Bush's new, new strategy, Appoint A War Czar.

This person will conduct the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, let us ask ourselves. What happened to the President's role as Commander in Chief, and what in the name of screaming holy hell are we paying the Secretary of Defense for?

What's this all about?

I think I know.

He's become bored with it and just wants to hand it off. Remember what we critics said prior to his election about his history of failure and not seeing things through? This is the sort of thing we expected and feared.

He has become wise beyond his capacity and wants to put miles and miles and miles between himself and the inevitable catastrophic end by building a layer of blame.

hm0504

04-12-2007, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by usmc1:
<span class="ev_code_Red">3294</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

Bush's new, new strategy, Appoint A War Czar.

This person will conduct the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, let us ask ourselves. What happened to the President's role as Commander in Chief, and what in the name of screaming holy hell are we paying the Secretary of Defense for?

What's this all about?

I think I know.

He's become bored with it and just wants to hand it off. Remember what we critics said prior to his election about his history of failure and not seeing things through? This is the sort of thing we expected and feared.

He has become wise beyond his capacity and wants to put miles and miles and miles between himself and the inevitable catastrophic end by building a layer of blame.

Oh how quickly we forget the immortal words of President Bush:

"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one."

This and more immortal words from the great or greatest President (as Colbert would say) here:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

nacktman

04-12-2007, 09:52 AM

nacktman

04-12-2007, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by usmc1:
<span class="ev_code_Red">3294</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

Bush's new, new strategy, Appoint A War Czar.

This person will conduct the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, let us ask ourselves. What happened to the President's role as Commander in Chief, and what in the name of screaming holy hell are we paying the Secretary of Defense for?

What's this all about?

I think I know.

He's become bored with it and just wants to hand it off. Remember what we critics said prior to his election about his history of failure and not seeing things through? This is the sort of thing we expected and feared.

He has become wise beyond his capacity and wants to put miles and miles and miles between himself and the inevitable catastrophic end by building a layer of blame.

Well, look at it this way.
Someone has to look after the distrubution of that 12 Billion in incentive money for the financing of Al Queda and the Taliban and the DrugLords he has all ready sent there and to manage the oil monies coming in from the Saudis and the stolen oil fields of Iraq.
And the shrub has proven he can only mismanage one thing at a time with complete incomptentence.
And there is the Iranian war to bungle next.

Naturist Mark

04-12-2007, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
<span class="ev_code_Red">3294</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

Bush's new, new strategy, Appoint A War Czar.

This person will conduct the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

What's this all about?

He needs a patsy to take the blame. No one seems to be willing to sign up. So far 3 generals have told him to keep looking.

I hear Imus is now available.

-Mark

usmc1

04-13-2007, 01:26 PM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3299</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

Yesterday, Turkish military forces struck in Northern Iraq against what it called Kurdish rebel camps.

It also used the moment to clear land mines in preparation for an even larger scale intrusion into Iraqi Kurdistan.

Nice, huh?

hm0504

04-13-2007, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
<span class="ev_code_Red">3299</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

Yesterday, Turkish military forces struck in Northern Iraq against what it called Kurdish rebel camps.

It also used the moment to clear land mines in preparation for an even larger scale intrusion into Iraqi Kurdistan.

Nice, huh?

Interesting. Do you have a link to details? This could certainly complicate the situation. On the other hand, didn't the U.S. always want a NATO ally in invading Iraq? ;-)

usmc1

04-13-2007, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
<span class="ev_code_Red">3299</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

Yesterday, Turkish military forces struck in Northern Iraq against what it called Kurdish rebel camps.

It also used the moment to clear land mines in preparation for an even larger scale intrusion into Iraqi Kurdistan.

Nice, huh?

Interesting. Do you have a link to details? This could certainly complicate the situation. On the other hand, didn't the U.S. always want a NATO ally in invading Iraq? ;-) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mossad's www.debka.com (http://www.debka.com)

Turkish forces drive into northern Iraq to destroy Kurdish PKK rebel bases in Iraqi Kurdistan

April 12, 2007, 9:30 AM (GMT+02:00)

They crossed at several points – 20 km deep to target PKK camps east of Zaho and 30-40 kms up to the rural areas of Haftanin, Sinaht and Pirbela provinces. The Turkish army is also clearing landmines that could impede its cross-border offensive against rebel Kurdish camps. DEBKAfile adds: Ankara accuses Iraqi Kurdistan of harboring the PKK terrorists, allowing them to stage cross-border raids into Turkey and run back for cover.

Earlier this week, Ankara and Iraqi Kurdish leaders swapped threats over the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.

Officials in the Turkish capital said Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani’s persistent claim to Kirkuk will lead to the loss of the last trace of stability in Iraq. Barzani retorted: “Turkey is not allowed to intervene in the Kirkuk issue; if it does, we will interfere over Diyarbakir and other cities in Turkey.”

Ankara replied: “Turkey will not hesitate to take necessary precautions so that Barzani can’t even spell the “D” of Diyarkabir (the biggest city in Turkey’s southeastern Kurdish region). Barzani should know his place.”

hm0504

04-13-2007, 03:43 PM

Thanks usmc1.

Found these other stories about the tensions:
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=107993
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070409-...ey-iraq-barzani.html (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070409-0551-turkey-iraq-barzani.html)
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=70357
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&c...d=2&article_id=81323 (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=81323)

A war between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan would certainly complicate the Iraq situation. Thank goodness, Bush is such a great President or otherwise we might have to worry about this.

MJ_KC

04-13-2007, 06:04 PM

Here is another cartoon for you.

How do we protect our way of life? (http://media.kansascity.com/images/cartoons/judge/04-2007/judge_04132007_450.jpg)

usmc1

04-15-2007, 06:23 PM

3301

A trailmarker of sorts, I guess.

usmc1

04-16-2007, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by hm0504:
Thanks usmc1.

Found these other stories about the tensions:
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=107993
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070409-...ey-iraq-barzani.html (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070409-0551-turkey-iraq-barzani.html)
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=70357
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&c...d=2&article_id=81323 (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=81323)

A war between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan would certainly complicate the Iraq situation. Thank goodness, Bush is such a great President or otherwise we might have to worry about this.

Well it's official now. The Grande Olde Dame has deigned to take notice:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,160978...xid=site-cnn-partner (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1609787,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner)

usmc1

04-17-2007, 02:43 PM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3311</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

Turks & Kurds & Iraq

And now the Old Gray Lady of Journalism takes notice:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iraq-Kurds.htm...f=slogin&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iraq-Kurds.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

usmc1

04-23-2007, 09:35 AM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3323</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

9 U.S. troops killed by bombers in Iraq
Nine American soldiers were killed Monday when dual suicide car bombers struck near their patrol base in Diyala province, the U.S. military said in a statement. Twenty other U.S. troops were wounded in the attack, the statement said.

usmc1

04-26-2007, 09:19 AM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3334</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

Iraq War/Occupation Coalition Deaths:

USA = 3334
UK = 145
Other = 125

TOTAL = 3604 http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

Prataeus—“Iraq could get worse!”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18329437/

Bush didn’t know that Gates extended Iraq tours...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/311458_bush13.html

hm0504

04-26-2007, 09:41 AM

Geez you tree-hugging, granola-crunching, Bush-hating liberals and all your negativity about Iraq are really starting to annoy me!

The stats show that victory in Iraq is a no-brainer; it is inevitable!

During the last four years, out of 25 million Iraqis, over half a million are dead and 2 million have fled the country (including about half the doctors) -- that's 1/10 of the population dead or gone in only 4 years! At this rate, Iraq will be totally depopulated in 40 years, actually, maybe in as little as 20 given that the death/exodus rates are likely to just keep increasing -- in summary, no people, no problem! See, Bush is a genius just like the neocons said. We just gotta "Stay the course!" and Iraq is America's.

Sanslines

04-26-2007, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
<span class="ev_code_Red">3334</span>

Iraq War/Occupation Coalition Deaths:

USA = 3334
UK = 145
Other = 125

TOTAL = 3604

Just a suggestion here. It might also be helpful to post the injury count as well as the casulty count. In past wars, most died on the battlefield. In each succeeding war, the fatality count decreased but the injury count increased as improved means were developed and incorporated to quickly retrieve and treat the wounded before they became fatalities. I think that most would be very surprised to learn how high the injury count is. The injury count includes all injuries including loss of arm(s), leg(s), head trauma, chest wounds, etc.

usmc1

04-26-2007, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
<span class="ev_code_Red">3334</span>

Iraq War/Occupation Coalition Deaths:

USA = 3334
UK = 145
Other = 125

TOTAL = 3604

Just a suggestion here. It might also be helpful to post the injury count as well as the casulty count. In past wars, most died on the battlefield. In each succeeding war, the fatality count decreased but the injury count increased as improved means were developed and incorporated to quickly retrieve and treat the wounded before they became fatalities. I think that most would be very surprised to learn how high the injury count is. The injury count includes all injuries including loss of arm(s), leg(s), head trauma, chest wounds, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

26,188 But, I believe I posted that awhile back--DOD has not updated since early Feb! Which puts total Casualties (not counting PTSD broken homes, alcoholism, drug addiction, and other psychological problems & shortened liife spans) right at 29,500.

With the "surge" we can expect the total to be higher. Your point is very good. In previous wars the mortality rate was higher. In previous wars, many of those 26,188 would have been mortalities.

By way of illustration, in the war in Southeast Asia (the one most folks call the Vietnam War) 28% of casualties (211,502) were deaths (58,199). During the Iraq War and ensuing occupation, that has been reduced to 12%.

Better training, tactics, body armour, triage procedures, nursing skill, surgery skills, better ability to stabilize and better and quicker ability to get a wounded GI out of theater into a real surgery all contribute to this.

The casualty rate per troop is harder to establish because of differet rotation schedules, force fluctuations and duration. But, I have a hunch, that the linne companies are taking "casualties" as high or higher than in previous wars. We have significant part of our force involved in engineering and infrastructure building and repair. Rear echelon pogues and support. In Southeast Asia we had those those also, but the ratio of line troops to support, I think, was much higher.

We weren't building a damn thing after Tet.

usmc1

04-29-2007, 06:09 AM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3346</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

Army Chief of Staff Casey, "We need 65,000 more troops by 2010."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/29/army.increase.ap/index.html

Naturist Mark

04-29-2007, 07:33 AM

Army Chief of Staff Casey, "We need 65,000 more troops by 2010."
Not enough to 'win' in Iraq.

The US Army War College, using historical data on occupations, has determined that a population to troop level ratio of 30 to 40 to One is required to pacify an insurgency. (Note: the author of that study was General Petraeus, the current commander in Iraq, leading the woefully inadequate 'surge'.)

Iraq has about 27 million people. Subtract the 2 million who have left the country, and the 6 million population of Iraqi Kurdistan which is not occupied, we have an occupied population of 19 million. That means by our own War College's estimates we need somewhere between 475 and 633 thousand troops to pacify Iraq. Counting the 100 thousand mercenaries (private contractors) we have about 250 thousand occupying forces in country. To get the job done, we need to double our forces at the very least. And even then, it could hardly be called a 'win'.

France lost Algeria with an occupying force of 850 thousand in a nation of 9 million. Even the widespread use of torture couldn't turn France's military victories into a win. They won militarily, and reduced the insurgency to a mere pittance, but at the loss of public opinion in France, bitter enmity in Algeria, world opinion made France the second most hated nation in the world (after South Africa). Algeria won independence in 1962 because France was no longer willing to keep winning.

65,000 isn't enough, unless America abandons its imperial ambitions.

-Mark

usmc1

05-01-2007, 12:46 PM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3352 </span> U.S.
147 U.K.
125 Others
3624 Total
2.41 Per day average
1502 Duration in days of war and occupation thus far.

From Smirking Chimp

Another Benchmark: Splurging Lives in Iraq
by Meteor Blades
Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:29:13 PM PDT

As usual, we don't know how many Iraqi civilians were killed last month. For one thing, as noted by an official involved with the latest United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq's report, the Iraqi government refuses to share data on civilian casualties because of "concerns that the people would construe the figures to portray the situation negatively and that would further undermine their efforts to establish some kind of security and stability in the country."

Reuters is reporting today that there were 1506 civilian deaths in Iraq in April. But the news agency also takes note of the UNAMI's complaints of withheld data.

When it comes to what Mister Bush's splurge is costing in American and other "coalition" members' lives, the numbers are more exact, punctuated by graveside ceremonies in towns like Alexander City, Brockton, Helena, and La Porte. With 104 American soldiers and marines dead, April 2007 was the sixth worst month for fatalities in the 49 months of the war and occupation of Iraq. Add in the British fatalities, and it was the fourth worst month.
Quite the benchmark.

Other benchmarks, from the U.N. report:
People arrested since the launch of Baghdad security plan in mid-February: 3000

People detained in Iraqi and U.S. prisons, many without charge or trial: 37,000

Among the 2 million Iraqis who have fled the country: 12,000 doctors

Percentage of Iraqis who live on less than a U.S. dollar a day: 54%
Unemployment rate: 69%

Mission Accomplished.

nacktman

05-03-2007, 12:18 PM

Can't get any simpler!

NudeAl

05-03-2007, 07:40 PM

A bit of advice.

The Iraqi people are not our enemy but our enemy hides among them. You have to look at everyone as if they are a potential enemy but you can't treat them that way.

Be polite, be professional, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. Words to live by, literally

fred950

05-04-2007, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by NudeAl:
A bit of advice.

The Iraqi people are not our enemy but our enemy hides among them. You have to look at everyone as if they are a potential enemy but you can't treat them that way.

Now why does that ring a bell to me? Oh, yes! South Vietnamese today, Charlie tomorrow!

nacktman

05-05-2007, 05:38 AM

The real strategy is to exhaust and deplete the troops so that they can not prevent the destruction and take over of our country by the cabal and its minions.

But in typical shortsightedness, the cabal conveniently forgets about all of the non-troops that will prevent them from doing exactly what they want by the ballot or the bullet if they do not accept reality and go away.
The cabal has pushed this nation to the brink of a true "civil war" and to total isolation in the world, neither of which were necessary nor warranted.

usmc1

05-06-2007, 03:25 PM

<span class="ev_code_RED">3380</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

Please call, write, e-mail or fax your senator and congress person and ask them to just resend the same bill to Bush, and resend it, and resend it until he approves it.

Stand up to the insanity!

Yesterday's and this mornings Headlines out of Iraq:

5/09/07 AP: Truck Bomb Kills 19 in Iraq
05/08/07 MCT: 25 bodies found in Baghdad
05/08/07 MCT: Roadside bombs target U.S. and Iraqi patrols - no casualties
05/08/07 MCT: Mortar fire kills 1, wounds 3 in leather factory
05/08/07 MCT: Officer of interior ministry assassinated by gunmen in Baghdad
05/08/07 Centcom: Patrol struck by IED - 2 Soldiers killed, 1 wounded
05/08/07 MSNBC: Pentagon taps 35,000 troops set for Iraq tour
05/08/07 AP: Oklahoman killed in Iraq
05/08/07 Reuters: Fate of Kirkuk Could Spell Trouble for Iraq
05/08/07 IRIN: Assif Muhammad, Iraq "I have lost everything"
05/08/07 AFP: Bomb kills 2 people in Baghdad
05/08/07 Reuters: Gunmen kill two people, wounded three others in Iskandariya
05/08/07 Reuters: Iraqi army kills 7 insurgents, arrest 115
05/08/07 Reuters: U.S. forces detain 13 suspected insurgents
05/08/07 Reuters: 7 Bodies found in Falluja
05/08/07 AFP: 2 policemen killed in Jalawlah
05/08/07 AFP: Car bomb in Shiite area kills 16

Thank you.

nacktman

05-09-2007, 04:58 AM

Over half of the American Public agrees with Congress that there should be funding cut and timetables for withdrawal for the troops in Iraq in a national poll just concluded.
Two-thirds oppose the "War"(read: occupation) and want it ended ... sooner than "whenever".

67% of the American People said that Congress should keep sending bills to the White House with funding cuts and withdrawal timetables attached to them until the idiot signs them.

Also the poll showed 70% of the American People want the cabal to be imprisoned for their crimes ... also the sooner the better.

International polling on the same questions shows an almost 100% (OK, 96%, Happy), opposition to the occupation and for funding cuts and withdrawal timetables as well as the imprisonment of the cabal.

Naturist Mark

05-09-2007, 05:17 AM

International polling on the same questions shows an almost 100% (OK, 96%, Happy), opposition to the occupation and for funding cuts and withdrawal timetables as well as the imprisonment of the cabal.

Hey! People outside of the USA have no right to have ANYTHING to say about what the USA does. It's NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS whether we decide to stay or leave Iraq. Foreigners have NO SAY in what we do.

Especially those non-Americans in Iraq.

(By the way, the American people and their Congressional representatives also have no right to say, those decisions are the responsibility of the decider, the commander guy.)

So STFU and just talk about Paris Hilton going to jail. The only thing you are supposed to do about the occupation is put a G--d--n yellow sticker on your SUV and SHUT UP.

Damn Commies.

-Rush Gibson Hannity Malkin Savage O'Reilly

Naturist Mark

05-10-2007, 05:43 AM

On Tuesday (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/) Iraq's parliament called on America to end its occupation of their country and set a timetable for withdrawal. The US corporate media ignored the story but continued to air the administration's characterization of Democratic demands to end the occupation as a "timetable for defeat", and a "gift to al Qaeda".

I can only assume that the Iraqi parliament is now "the enemy".

-Mark

hm0504

05-10-2007, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
On Tuesday (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/) Iraq's parliament called on America to end its occupation of their country and set a timetable for withdrawal. The US corporate media ignored the story but continued to air the administration's characterization of Democratic demands to end the occupation as a "timetable for defeat", and a "gift to al Qaeda".

I can only assume that the Iraqi parliament is now "the enemy".

-Mark

While it is wonderful that America is spreading democracy to places like Iraq, it needs to be a little more careful how it does so. In Gaza, Lebanon, and Iraq for instance, it is not just enough to have elections, the populace must be shown exactly where to mark their X (namely next to the name of the pro-American candidate).

The Soviet Union used to do this well; invade, have an election, and celebrate the election of the pro-Communist leader-for-life.

garbo

05-10-2007, 09:26 AM

The American economy thrives on American participation in war.. any war.. whether we can win or not. I sometimes think it does not matter about the politics as long as we can focus on the economics! I have two buddies who have earned huge promotions and bonuses working for government contractors manufacturing war products and services this year alone! If we weren't in Afganistan or Iraq, hell, we would be somewhere else I guarantee!

nacktman

05-10-2007, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
On Tuesday (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/) Iraq's parliament called on America to end its occupation of their country and set a timetable for withdrawal. The US corporate media ignored the story but continued to air the administration's characterization of Democratic demands to end the occupation as a "timetable for defeat", and a "gift to al Qaeda".

I can only assume that the Iraqi parliament is now "the enemy".

-Mark

Well, that'd be a safe assumption based on history.
Just look what happened the last time we didn't like a "Parliament" and the decisions it made. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

usmc1

05-13-2007, 05:52 AM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3394</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

BILLIONS IN IRAQI OIL MISSING!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/world/middleeast/12oi...23&partner=BREITBART (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/world/middleeast/12oil.html?ex=1179633600&en=e4761a5010834cce&ei=5123&partner=BREITBART)

3-TROOPS STILL MISSING The Islamic State of Iraq -- an insurgent coalition that includes al Qaeda in Iraq -- claims responsibility for killing and capturing U.S. soldiers in postings on Web sites frequently used by the insurgent group.

MEANWHILE

• Suicide bombing near Kurdistan Democratic Party building also injures 115
• 3 missing, 5 killed in attack on U.S. patrol
• Team of seven U.S. troops, one Iraqi, attacked before dawn

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/13/iraq.main/index.html

hm0504

05-13-2007, 12:55 PM

Thus far, it would appear that there was brief drop in the violence in Baghdad in the early days of the "surge" but now it would appears things are worse than ever, from the streets to the highest echelons of power.

I've said for years on this forum than the U.S. needs a million or two troops permanently in Iraq for the occupation to succeed and I think that is as true today as it was then. Actually, its probably less true, because it is likely that no number of troops will be sufficient to resolve the situation.

Anyway, I find myself more and more in the camp of those saying withdraw ASAP. Bush shouldn't be trusted with a water pistol; much less Commander-in-Chief status.

usmc1

05-14-2007, 01:22 PM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3401</span> USA Fatalities

26,188 Casualties, 25,242 from wounds

Milestones on the road to hell!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16059273/displaymode/1107/framenumber/1/s/1/

Naturist Mark

05-14-2007, 04:15 PM

Thus far, it would appear that there was brief drop in the violence in Baghdad in the early days of the "surge" but now it would appears things are worse than ever, from the streets to the highest echelons of power.
There will soon be a huge drop in the reported violence in Iraq. The Iraqi government has announced that it will ban reporters from the sites of clashes and bombings. It has already been accused by the UN of concealing casualty numbers.

Watch the neo-cons crow about the 'success' of the 'surge' in a couple of months - so long as it can't be refuted by facts.

UN Says Iraq's Government Hiding Civilian Casualty Figures (http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-04-25-voa8.cfm)

Report: Iraqi Gov't Bans Journalists From Clash Sites (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003584600)

-Mark

usmc1

05-18-2007, 01:21 PM

Here's an example of the handiwork of the bronze-age barbarians our troops are dying for in order to democratize.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.honorkilling/index.html

MoonShadow

05-18-2007, 04:44 PM

That report, usmc1, was heart-wrenching to watch as grown men beat a teenage girl until she died. And how true that our young troops are dying for this type of culture in order to "democratized". You cannot make a country as backward and warped by the various religious beliefs as Iraq a democratic society. It would take generations to do so and done by a government firmly in control and educating from the bottom up. Imagine doing this task?

Another sickening realization is that it was family members who accused this young teenager of something wrong and saw fit that she was slowly and agonizingly killed. I would think love for a family member would be over and above any religious beliefs. Barbarians, they truly are.

We need our men and women brought home NOW!

Sher

hm0504

05-18-2007, 05:51 PM

It would be unfair and inaccurate to characterize all Iraqis based on the actions of religious fundamentalists. Nonetheless, the reality is that religious fundamentalists form the largest slice of the pie in Iraq so I have to agree with the pointlessness and idiocy of thinking one can remake Iraq into a democracy in a few years.

1Ace

05-18-2007, 06:19 PM

Bush will NEVER be able to accomplish what he told us he wanted to do, no matter how you slice it ...

NudeAl

05-19-2007, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by MoonShadow:
That report, usmc1, was heart-wrenching to watch as grown men beat a teenage girl until she died. And how true that our young troops are dying for this type of culture in order to "democratized". You cannot make a country as backward and warped by the various religious beliefs as Iraq a democratic society. It would take generations to do so and done by a government firmly in control and educating from the bottom up. Imagine doing this task?

Another sickening realization is that it was family members who accused this young teenager of something wrong and saw fit that she was slowly and agonizingly killed. I would think love for a family member would be over and above any religious beliefs. Barbarians, they truly are.

We need our men and women brought home NOW!

Sher

Can you imgine the effect this has on the tens of thousands of our young men and women in the military? You can not live in this kind of an environment and see these kinds of things and many other more devastating ones and not be changed for life.

If this government wants to pour more money down the hole that is Iraq so be it. But for us to be sending our most precious resource, our youth, in to this environment for no forseeable victory this is unforgivable. We are literaly wasting lives to perpetuate a lie, all for the pride of one man. It disgusts me. Where is the morality in that?

hm0504

05-19-2007, 03:07 PM

President Bush often says if anyone has a better idea for solving Iraq, he'd be glad to hear it (though the record of the White House is that they absolutely shun anyone who doesn't toe the official line).

Nonetheless, taking the statement at face value, I would say that it may be that there may be no good way of solving Iraq; it is quite possible, and probable, Bush has created a problem that cannot be solved with any good outcome. That being the case, we (probably post Bush) will have to look at what we can do to end up with the least bad situation. Unfortunately, Bush antics in Iraq will likely lead to the whole Middle East being a much greater issue for the West in the decades to come than it ever has been in the past.

usmc1

05-20-2007, 04:56 AM

I know, I know. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/idea3.gif Call on me, I know, I know.

All we have to do is partition off part of Italy and cut Vatican City in half and give it to the Palestinians as their homeland.

It is too historically equitable! After all didn't St. Paul come from Palestine. And all those Palestinians scattered all over the world tending bar, waiting on tables and driving taxicabs will have a homeland where they can go and live in peace and work on communal farms.

See, we'll just repeat the process that started in 1948 in reverse and everything will become just hunky-dory.

Actually, if we could just pump all the oil out of the region and put it in storage where it belongs, here in the U.S.A., we could let them slide back into their bronze-age tribalism and THEN everything would be just hunky-dory.

Either of those solutions seem to be easier and more realistic than the very simple and oh so obvious solution of pressuring Isreal and Palestine into resolving their issues.

The first step in that process would be to stop treating Isreal as though it were the 51st state and assisting Jordan in moderation of the more radical Palestinian political and para-military units.!

usmc1

05-20-2007, 03:45 PM

Iraq:

Fatalies:
USA = <span class="ev_code_Red">3422</span>
UK = 148
Other = 127

<span class="ev_code_Red">Total + 3697</span>

USA...
107 Deaths were self-inflicted, Total wounded, injured, maimed, scalded, burned, blinded, crippled, driven insane and sickened = 51,956.

For whatever the hell reason you can come up with. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that maybe we were nuked by Russia in 1964 and we're all in hell living some sort of alternative reality.

How can we live our lives like this this, knowing this? Why can't we just shut this government down?

Afghanistan:

Fatalities:
USA = <span class="ev_code_Red">390</span>
Other = 188

Total = <span class="ev_code_Red">578</span>

USA
Wounded, etc, etc, 6334.

Oh yeah, we got a clear reason for this one. We got to keep those Opium Poppy fields flourishing. Otherwise the masses might wake up and look around a bit and decide that this government should be shut down.

hm0504

05-20-2007, 04:04 PM

It is interesting, to use a nice word, that the Western fatality rate in Afghanistan is increasing by about 25% every year. With all the attention focused on Iraq, many forget Bush has also messed up the war in Afghanistan too.

Naturist Mark

05-23-2007, 06:55 PM

The Democratic Leadership's Neville Chamberlain moment:
Compromise on bill to fund Iraq Occupation: Do it Bush's way. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/23/special-comment-the-only-things-truly-compromised-are-the-trust-of-the-votersfriends-and-family-in-iraq/)

Let Reid and Pelosi and every one of your congressional representatives; Democratic, Republican or Lieberman, know what we the people think when they come home this holiday weekend - We voted in November for them to bring the troops home. Period. Do the job or resign.

-Mark

NudeAl

05-23-2007, 07:10 PM

I must say I am somewhat disapointed in the lack of resolve of the Democrats.

I was looking for them to make a fight of it and push this thing. I understand however that there are certain machinations and behind the scenes things going on that must take place to pass a given piece of legislation. I felt let down though. I really thought they ought to be able to push this thing a little harder. I think however they are saving their fight for this fall when they feel they will have an update from General Petraus and have a clearer picture of how things stand. I really feel like that is just pure chicken sh*t. Don't pi$$ down my back and tell me it's raining. I don't need a General to tell me the situation is F'ed I know it's F'ed and only getting more so.

I feel if they Dem's don't make a serious move against the pres and his men in the near future they will have lost all credibility with the people who put them in office. It's time to stand up and put your money where your mouth is. Have some balls for Christs sake!

LamontCranston

05-23-2007, 07:22 PM

I feel if they Dem's don't make a serious move against the pres and his men in the near future they will have lost all credibility with the people who put them in office. It's time to stand up and put your money where your mouth is. Have some balls for Christs sake! I'll 2nd the motion..

Hey Al.. when's the last time you remember some elected official at the national level having credibility? It's not a leading question or anything.. I really can't think of one. [Well, Ronald Reagan is one but that's it and he left office almost 20 years ago.]

Anyways, "money for the troops" is really only about 10% of the cash cow they're talking about. What we need is one of Ross Perot's pie charts on this one.

The Dems, Repubs, Bushies and all can't let that much pork sit out in the sun for too long over something as transparent as a campaign promise.

LamontCranston

05-23-2007, 07:34 PM

With all the attention focused on Iraq, many forget Bush has also messed up the war in Afghanistan too. Actually, the war part in both places was quick and efficient. Neither the Taliban nor Hussein and his Republican Guard proved worthy foes.

Both were ineffective in the field and destroyed.

The problem is this 5-year foundation building under puppet governments over people who don't know or want democracy.

The U.S. should have withdrawn from Afghanistan during 2002 and Iraq during 2004 with stated missions both accomplished.

nacktman

05-24-2007, 04:21 AM

The last national political figure to have any credibility was Harry Truman.
Eisenhower only milked his status as the general in charge of D-Day but had no credibility of his own.
Kennedy was a "Player" and had a "Player's" credibility.
Johnson was a "Thug" and had a "Thug's" credibility.
Nixon was a crook and all know his "credibility".
Ford wasn't even there and as such had no credibility.
Carter was the only person that came close to an "honest politician".
Reagan had zero credibility, he was just a horrible actor fed his lines.
Shrub's dad had less credibility than his predecessor.
Clinton had something approaching credibility.
The shrub is so far off the negative end of the scale a hunk of granite has more credibility.

hm0504

05-24-2007, 04:33 PM

We support attacking another country when it exports terror, right? Hence, we can all wish Turkey the best of luck as it prepares to attack Iraq...

"Turkey plans for attack on Kurds":
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/24/turkey.terror/index.html

Naturist Mark

05-26-2007, 03:35 PM

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> A Soldier's Bill of Rights

Unless a military action involving American troops is authorized, as called for in the Constitution, by a vote of Congress, the following rights shall, in all cases, be afforded to all members of the military of The United States.

1. SAFETY: As the Department of Defense has full authority to purchase the best state of the art weaponry, regardless of cost and the impact on the national treasury, to fulfill its mission, so too shall American servicemen and women be entitled to the best, state of the art armor and other protection, for themselves and each and all of their vehicles, regardless of cost.

2. PAY: All servicemen and women defending our nation shall be entitled to a salary and all other benefits equivalent to that paid to private contractors performing similar service on behalf of The United States government or military.

3. LENGTH OF SERVICE: Unless a war is duly authorized, as required by The United States Constitution, the President does not have any authority to extend tours of duty for any and all servicemen and women, in any branch, beyond the original contract of such service.

4. DEPLETED URANIUM - No serviceman or woman shall be forced to use or be in the vicinity of weapons containing Depleted Uranium until and unless the Surgeon General of The United States declares that such weapons have no impact on the short or the long term health of the soldiers.

5. REHABILITATION - All soldiers who are injured in a war not specifically authorized by Congress shall be entitled to the best, state of the art short term and long term care available anywhere in The United States, regardless of cost. Any funding requests necessary to achieve such level of care from the Veterans Administration shall receive the highest priority.

-Richard Greene [/list]

Not an actual Bill of Rights ... but it should be.

nacktman

05-26-2007, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> A Soldier's Bill of Rights

Unless a military action involving American troops is authorized, as called for in the Constitution, by a vote of Congress, the following rights shall, in all cases, be afforded to all members of the military of The United States.

1. SAFETY: As the Department of Defense has full authority to purchase the best state of the art weaponry, regardless of cost and the impact on the national treasury, to fulfill its mission, so too shall American servicemen and women be entitled to the best, state of the art armor and other protection, for themselves and each and all of their vehicles, regardless of cost.

2. PAY: All servicemen and women defending our nation shall be entitled to a salary and all other benefits equivalent to that paid to private contractors performing similar service on behalf of The United States government or military.

3. LENGTH OF SERVICE: Unless a war is duly authorized, as required by The United States Constitution, the President does not have any authority to extend tours of duty for any and all servicemen and women, in any branch, beyond the original contract of such service.

4. DEPLETED URANIUM - No serviceman or woman shall be forced to use or be in the vicinity of weapons containing Depleted Uranium until and unless the Surgeon General of The United States declares that such weapons have no impact on the short or the long term health of the soldiers.

5. REHABILITATION - All soldiers who are injured in a war not specifically authorized by Congress shall be entitled to the best, state of the art short term and long term care available anywhere in The United States, regardless of cost. Any funding requests necessary to achieve such level of care from the Veterans Administration shall receive the highest priority.

-Richard Greene [/list]

Well, since the cabal hasn't seen fit to even acknowledge our civil rights in the last six and a half years, is it any wonder that absolutely none of those rights listed above for our service men and women are being honored!?!

usmc1

05-28-2007, 05:16 AM

What he said!

<span class="ev_code_Red">3455</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

usmc1

05-29-2007, 10:09 AM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3466</span>

Well, it had to come about some day. We're now to the point that we have STATISTICS.

Casualties by State

http://icasualties.org/oif/WndByState.aspx

Fatalities by Base

http://icasualties.org/oif/ByBase.aspx

Fatalities by Division

http://icasualties.org/oif/Divisions.aspx

Fatalities by Province

http://icasualties.org/oif/Provincemap.aspx

Fatalities by Ethnicity

http://icasualties.org/oif/ETHNICITY.aspx

hm0504

05-29-2007, 10:35 AM

One more stat, it now appears May is already the third worst month for U.S. fatalities since the beginning of the war over four years ago:
http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

Unfortunately, the trend looks like it will only get worse before it gets...uh...worse.

nacktman

05-29-2007, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:
One more stat, it now appears May is already the third worst month for U.S. fatalities since the beginning of the war over four years ago:
http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

<span class="ev_code_RED">Unfortunately, the trend looks like it will get worse before it gets...uh...worse.</span>

You been reading your crystal ball again, Albinus? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

nacktman

05-31-2007, 07:37 AM

I was out at the local Mall earlier this morning (yes, I know, but one has to venture unto the realm of retail once in a blue moon and seeing how tonight is a blue moon it seemed like the time to go), and heard two twentysomethings moaning about getting old and how neither of them wanted to, because as one said "I don't want to be all wrinklely and stuff."

I thought of this thread and how so many won't become old and I told them both to ...

Do not resent growing old!
Many are denied the privilege!

You know the Irish have a Blessing/Curse for everything.

This shut up two whiners ... and silencing two twentysomethings yammering is usually something that is impossible to do.

usmc1

05-31-2007, 10:42 AM

I hope I'm wrong but, this whole damned thing is just a dropped light bulb away from spooking everyone into Big Casino.

Turkish military buildup on Iraq border fuels unease in Washington

May 30, 2007, 5:29 PM (GMT+02:00)

The consignment of 20 tanks from an army barracks near the Syrian border in southeast Turkey to the Iraqi border has sparked speculation about an imminent Turkish incursion against Kurdish PKK rebel bases in northern Iraq. Last week, Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan said he was of one mind with the army over possible military action despite US concerns

NudeAl

05-31-2007, 07:04 PM

Just saw on the news that the number 2 General in Iraq now says that Sept. may be to early to tell if the surge strategy is working.

Wow! Ya think?

There is some talk about taking most of the US troops out of the urban areas and keeping them in the more remote parts of the country and letting the Iraqi forces take over those areas.

Duh we should have done that 4 years ago!

Well it's a start. The simple truth is we can not maintain the current troop strength indefinitely. We will be forced to see this reality in the near future.

The Marine Corps recognized the need to increase its size in order to keep up with the deployments. Unfortunately they are now about 5,000 short of their projected overall increase for this year. They are in the process of overhauling the re-enlistment bonus system. Traditionally those job specialties like computer techs, jet engine mechs, etc. have garnered the highest bonuses. In other words the longer and more technical the school the more your re-up bonus. I think they may need to re-think this and give the biggest bonuses to those who continue to do back to back deployments to Iraq in the combat arms MOS's.

hm0504

06-01-2007, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by NudeAl:
..
There is some talk about taking most of the US troops out of the urban areas and keeping them in the more remote parts of the country and letting the Iraqi forces take over those areas.
...

Would that work? Isn't the Iraqi Army and Police well infiltrated by insurgents. And are not most of the rest divided along Sunni/Shia lines anyway?

25% of Americans seem to give Bush there unswerving support for his Iraq plans. Surely, of those 60-some million (not counting the kids), there are at least 6 million (1/10th) who could show their loyalty by signing on the dotted line.

usmc1

06-01-2007, 02:08 PM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3477</span>

It looks to me as though we're going to abandon the Kurds once again, but protect our "oil interests' Kirkuk.

From Isreal (DebkaFile)...

The heavy Turkish military buildup on the border of Iraqi Kurdistan last week prompted the autonomous region’s president, Massoud Barzani, to send a personal emissary, Safin Dizai, to Ankara with an urgent message.

Turkish tanks would not be allowed to cross into northern Iraq, he said. The Kurdish army known as peshmerga would repel them. “The people of Kurdistan,“ said the messenger, “would not stand by as spectators if Turkish tanks and panzers entered Kirkuk.” And finally, “Turkey also knows that a military incursion is out of the question. The world will not allow this. The US is here and does not want it.”

The Kurdish leader had his answer Thursday, May 31, when Turkish chief of staff Gen. Yasar Büyükan?t declared his army was ready for incursion into northern Iraq. "There is not only the PKK in northern Iraq,” he said. “There is Massoud Barzani as well" This incursion unheeding of strains with Washington would have two objectives, according to DEBKAfile’s military sources: To prevent the rise of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq and the fall of the oil town of Kirkuk into Kurdish hands. “Turkey cannot afford an independent Kurdish state headed by Barzani on its southern border,” said Gen. Büyükan?t.

Our sources add that Ankara has dramatically broadened its objectives since early May, when the Turks talked about a limited strike against separatist PKK hideouts in the Kandil mountains of N. Iraq. At the same time, as DEBKA-Net-Weekly 294 revealed on March 23, 80,000 Turkish troops were concentrated already then at Sirank, opposite the meeting point of the Turkish, Iraqi and Syrian borders.

A bombing in downtown Ankara earlier this month killed six people and injured more than a hundred. The PKK was blamed.

Sunday, May 27, US Secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gul discussed the possible outbreak of Turkish-Kurdish hostilities. Immediately after the conversation, the US military command began its preparations. Washington decided its first priority must be to avoid a military clash between US forces stationed in Kurdistan and invading Turkish units. No time was lost. May 30, US commanders and Barzani signed a document transferring security responsibility for the region from coalition forces to the Kurdish peshmerga. American troops were hurriedly pulled out of the Kurdish towns of Irbil, Dohuk and Suleimaniyeh, but remain in force in and around Kirkkuk.

hm0504

06-01-2007, 03:32 PM

So let me get this straight.

1) The US regards the PKK as a terrorist group.
2) The US is in Iraq supposedly to stamp out terrorism.
3) The US, to my knowledge, has never taken any military action against the PKK.

Why doesn't the US attack the PKK? Is it because the Kurds are the only major friends that the US has in Iraq and attacking the PKK would upset them? Or is there more to it than that?

Anyway, another great example of how Bush has suffocatingly squeezed the US between Iraq and a hard place (note pun!).

NudeAl

06-01-2007, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NudeAl:
..
There is some talk about taking most of the US troops out of the urban areas and keeping them in the more remote parts of the country and letting the Iraqi forces take over those areas.
...

Would that work? Isn't the Iraqi Army and Police well infiltrated by insurgents. And are not most of the rest divided along Sunni/Shia lines anyway?

Not from what I am hearing now it seems tha tthey have decided to play along for a while they seem to be rather fed up with the Al Queda types for onow and are uniting in order to get themall kicked out. More than likely they will go after one another once the foreign fighters are on their way out. A very disturbing trend is the involvement of the Iranians and their sponsership of high level terrorist teams trained in Iran and loyal to Muqtada Al Sader. They are posed to launch a Shia religious uprising like the one that swept Iran in the late 1970's though there is no love lost between the Persians and Arabs.

hm0504

06-02-2007, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by NudeAl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
..
There is some talk about taking most of the US troops out of the urban areas and keeping them in the more remote parts of the country and letting the Iraqi forces take over those areas.
...

Would that work? Isn't the Iraqi Army and Police well infiltrated by insurgents. And are not most of the rest divided along Sunni/Shia lines anyway?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not from what I am hearing now it seems tha tthey have decided to play along for a while they seem to be rather fed up with the Al Queda types for onow and are uniting in order to get themall kicked out. More than likely they will go after one another once the foreign fighters are on their way out. A very disturbing trend is the involvement of the Iranians and their sponsership of high level terrorist teams trained in Iran and loyal to Muqtada Al Sader. They are posed to launch a Shia religious uprising like the one that swept Iran in the late 1970's though there is no love lost between the Persians and Arabs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but that's what I mean. I cannot see how the U.S. could pull out of urban areas (e.g. Baghdad) with the Sunni/Shia rift. Sure, al Qaeda might have a bit of an impact but they're new to Iraq (only having been a force there after the U.S. invaded). Meanwhile, the Sunni and Shia have 1400 years experience hating each other.

In my opinion, the big levers of what happens in Iraq are controlled by the regional players, inside and outside of Iraq (not including the U.S.) U.S. control of the Iraqi situation continues to slip away ever since the day after the fall of Baghdad.

usmc1

06-04-2007, 12:45 PM

<span class="ev_code_Red">3496</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

usmc1

06-06-2007, 08:17 AM

Looks as though someone dropped the light-bulb.

<span class="ev_code_Red">Several thousand Turkish troops crossed into northern Iraq early today to chase Kurdish guerrillas who operate from bases there, Turkish security officials told The Associated Press.</span>

Another Middle East war erupts Wednesday as 50,000 Turkish troops invade N. Iraq to strike rebel Kurdish PKK bases

June 6, 2007, 3:41 PM (GMT+02:00)

The official Turkish news agency Cihan reports the force, backed by armored vehicles and combat aircraft, is targeting rebel strongholds in 11 provinces in southeastern Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan Wednesday, June 6.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that this is only the first wave of Turkish invaders, with more to come. A Turkish force of 90,000 troops has been massed at the sourthern town of Sirank opposite the meeting point of the Turkish, Iraqi and Syrian borders, drawing a warning to Ankara from US defense secretary Robert Gates to stay out of Iraq.

June 2, DEBKAfile reported that the US had removed troops from northern Iraq and passed responsibility for the region’s security to the Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga.

Two days ago, Kurdish PKK rebels killed at least 8 soldiers, wounding 6, in a suicide attack on an E. Turkish checkpoint at Tunceli.

After the attack, Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gulf defended his country’s right to drive into neighboring Iraq to destroy rebel bases.

Up to 3,500 separatists are believed based in northern Iraq poised for hit-and-run terrorist attacks in Turkey. The Turkish news agency reports three F-16 Falcon fighter bombers have carried out bombing raids on positions of the PKK Kurdistan Workers Party in northern Iraq. Artillery deployed at the border with Iraq has fired at pinpointed targets.”

DEBKAfile’s Iraq sources reported last week that Iraqi Kurdistan’s president, Massoud Barzani, had sent a personal emissary, Safin Dizai, to Ankara with an urgent warning. Turkish tanks would not be allowed to cross into northern Iraq, he said. The Kurdish peshmerga would repel them. “The people of Kurdistan,“ said the messenger, “would not stand by as spectators if Turkish tanks and panzers entered Kirkuk.”

nacktman

06-07-2007, 05:51 AM

Yep, the real "strategy" is coming to light ... to start World War Three.

usmc1

06-07-2007, 09:49 AM

While America is glued to Paris Hilton's release from jail....

<span class="ev_code_Red">3504</span>

<span class="ev_code_Blue">Turkey imposes three-month martial law on its border region with Iraq, closes region’s airspace to civilian flights, DEBKAfile’s military sources report</span>
June 7, 2007, 3:59 PM (GMT+02:00)

The announcement appeared Thursday, June 7, on the Turkish General Command’s Web site and mentioned three zones Siirt, Sirnak, where Turkish forces fighting Kurdish PKK rebels are concentrated, and Hakkari.

It followed the outbreak of fierce battles between Turkish army and Kurdish PKK rebels on both sides of Turkish-Iraqi border. A Turkish Black Hawk shot down over Iraq and several tanks hit. Heavy casualties are reported on both sides.

<span class="ev_code_Green">Meanwhile, Iran predicts full-scale summer war in middle east.</span>

NudeAl

06-07-2007, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
While America is glued to Paris Hilton's release from jail....

<span class="ev_code_Red">3504</span>

<span class="ev_code_Blue">Turkey imposes three-month martial law on its border region with Iraq, closes region’s airspace to civilian flights, DEBKAfile’s military sources report</span>
June 7, 2007, 3:59 PM (GMT+02:00)

The announcement appeared Thursday, June 7, on the Turkish General Command’s Web site and mentioned three zones Siirt, Sirnak, where Turkish forces fighting Kurdish PKK rebels are concentrated, and Hakkari.

It followed the outbreak of fierce battles between Turkish army and Kurdish PKK rebels on both sides of Turkish-Iraqi border. A Turkish Black Hawk shot down over Iraq and several tanks hit. Heavy casualties are reported on both sides.

<span class="ev_code_Green">Meanwhile, Iran predicts full-scale summer war in middle east.</span>

Talk about the decline of western civilization!

God help us all!

I'll soon be off the forums for a while. Headed down to Camp Lejeune NC for a while then off to the big sand box.

usmc1

06-08-2007, 04:56 AM

Al, suck some suds for me and keep your *** down. And, I've heard those girls around LeJeune are as sweet as Tupelo honey.

Please, whenever you're able, check in with us...you'll be in many of our thoughts.

Keep your "plan" at top of mind awareness. Remember if it don't look right, or if it don't feel right...it ain't right. But, watch your butt on the rules of engagement.

Get Some!

usmc1

06-08-2007, 10:20 AM

While America holds its breath to see if that bony-assed skank Paris Hilton will be sent back to jail....

06/08/07 wlns: Families say Michigan Marine, soldier killed in Iraq A Marine and a soldier from Michigan have been killed in Iraq. The military yesterday notified the family of Charlotte resident Ronald Kestner of his death...The circumstances of the death and where he was stationed weren't immediately available.

06/08/07 news-record: Wounded soldier's condition worsens The condition of Eden native Travis Sigmon has worsened during his hospital recovery following a bomb attack on his patrol in Iraq.On Friday morning his parents were being flown to the German Army hospital where he is being treated from injuries...

06/08/07 Reuters: 4 bodies found in near Falluja
The bodies of four men kidnapped from Ramadi were found in al-Khalidiah near Falluja, 50 km (30 miles) west of Baghdad, police said. All had been tortured and shot.

06/08/07 Reuters: Suspected insurgent killed in Anbar province U.S. and Iraqi soldiers killed one suspected insurgent and detained 12 others in raids targeting al Qaeda in Iraq in Anbar province west of Baghdad, police said.

06/08/07 Reuters: Roadside bomb kills 2 police officers south of Baquba A roadside bomb killed two high-ranking police officers and wounded a third south of Baquba, police said.

06/08/07 Xinhua: Death toll rises to 12 killed near Kirkuk suicide car bombing The death toll rose to at least 12 and more than 20 others injured in the suicide car bomb attack near a Shiite mosque near the city of Kirkuk in northern Iraq on Friday, police chief of Kirkuk said.

06/08/07 MoD: Corporal Rodney Wilson killed in Iraq It is with much sadness that the Ministry of Defence must confirm the death of Corporal Rodney Wilson from 4th Battalion The Rifles, in southern Iraq on Thursday 7 June 2007. Corporal Wilson, aged 30, was killed in the Al Atiyah district...

06/08/07 GrandRapidsPress: Grand Rapids soldier dies in Iraq Pfc. Shawn Gajdos...was killed in a roadside bombing and artillery shelling that same day, according to family and friends...The Department of Defense had not announced the death of the 2000 Gateway High School graduate as of early today.

06/08/07 WSJ: U.S. Investigates Firm Building Embassy in Iraq Federal prosecutors are investigating the Kuwaiti company building the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, probing allegations that foreign employees were brought to work on the massive project against their will and prevented from leaving the country.

06/08/07 VOA: Gunmen in Iraq Kidnap Police Chief's Children Iraqi security officials say gunmen have kidnapped three children of a police chief in Diyala province and killed 14 people in an attack on his home. Officials say the police officer's wife, two brothers and 11 bodyguards were killed...

06/08/07 AP: 2 suicide bombers strike Shiite mosque and nearby police station Two suicide bombers struck a Shiite mosque and a nearby police station near the oil-rich city of Kirkuk in northern Iraq, and more than 25 people were killed or wounded, police said.

06/08/07 AP: 14 Killed at Iraqi Police Chief's House In a dawn strike Friday, unidentified gunmen attacked the house of the police chief in Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad, killing his wife, two brothers and 11 guards, Diyala provincial police reported.

06/08/07 CNN: 199 killed in June, Iraq says
Nearly 200 people were victims of Baghdad's sectarian violence in the first week of June, with 32 bodies dumped around the capital on Thursday, an Iraq Interior

nacktman

06-08-2007, 12:12 PM

What do you want to bet that General Pace's ouster from the Joint-Chiefs was because he actually supported our troops and not the cabal?!

Just more of the same ole same ole from the one and only "cut and runner".

usmc1

06-08-2007, 02:48 PM

Pace, the first Marine to hold that post, really locked White House jaws a while back when he publically dissed some of Bush's claims.

Another in an ever growing line of esteemed warriors, both active and retired, at odds with this administration's lies.

Maybe we need to get some jerk-off from the Swift Boaters for lies organization in there so the little dry-drunk sociopath will have a more malleable group.

Semper Fi, mate!

nacktman

06-13-2007, 02:26 PM

usmc1

06-18-2007, 05:30 AM

<span class="ev_code_red">3525</span> U.S.A DEAD

<span class="ev_code_blue">Brits = 151</span>
<span class="ev_code_blue">Others = 127</span>

<span class="ev_code_red">TOTAL = 3803</span>

USA - Suicides = 111

Non-Mortal Casualties = 35,000 Plus

TOTAL CASUALTIES = AROUND 40,000

Some estimates have us there for at least another 10-years!

06/18/07 honoluluadvertiser: Disability pay full of disparitiesDisability compensation for veterans severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly the youngest, is set too low, creating a lifetime earnings gap with non-disabled peers...

06/18/07 honoluluadvertiser: Taguba claims Pentagon knew of abuse The Army two-star general who led the first investigation into detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq believes senior defense officials were involved in directing abusive interrogation policies...

06/18/07 Reuters: Gunmen kill manager of Diyala electricity stationGunmen attacked the office of Mohammed Abid, a manager in the Diyala electricity station, and shot him dead in the city of Baquba, police said.

06/18/07 Reuters: Car bombs kill 6, wound 12 in southern BaghdadSix people were killed and 12 wounded when two car bombs exploded in quick succession as motorists queued for petrol in the southern Saidiya district of Baghdad, police said.

06/18/07 Reuers: Gunmen kill 8 policemen north of BaghdadGunmen killed eight policemen when they attacked their convoy on Sunday on a road in the town of Mishahda, north of Baghdad, police at a Baghdad hospital where the bodies were brought said...

06/18/07 AP: U.S.-led forces kill 20 militants in south IraqU.S.-led coalition forces killed at least 20 militants after coming under heavy attack from Shi'ite gunmen during raids in southern Iraq's Maysan province early on Monday, the U.S. military said.

06/18/07 AP: 3 Iraqi policemen killed in fighting in AmarahMore than a 100 people were injured in the fighting in Amarah, the officials said. At least three of those killed were Iraqi policemen.

06/18/07 CBSNews: 36 Killed In Iraq ClashesIraqi and British forces fought a fierce battle with Shiite militiamen while conducting house-to-house searches early Monday south of Baghdad, and Iraqi police and hospital officials said 36 people were killed in the violence.

06/18/07 CNN: Coalition raids target flow of Iranian aid to insurgentsCoalition raids aimed at disrupting the flow of weapons and fighters between Iraq and Iran resulted in at least 20 militants killed early Monday in eastern Iraq, according to a statement from the U.S. military.

06/17/07 MCT: Suicide bomber kills 4, wounds 10 in south FallujahAt least four people were killed and 10 wounded in a suicide bombing. The incident happened Sunday afternoon in Jbil district, south Fallujah, when a bomber detonated a vest among the civilians who had gathered to renew their Fallujah residency badges.

06/17/07 MCT: IED kills 3 in FallujahPolice sources in Fallujah said a pregnant woman and her husband died and her mother and brother were wounded when an IED blew up their minibus while they were heading to Fallujah hospital.

06/17/07 MCT: 17 people killed in clashes in Diyala provinceMedical and security sources said that 17 residents from Jizani al-Emam village had been killed and injured in the ongoing clashes that started Saturday between residents of Jizani al-Emam village, one of the villages of Khalis...

06/17/07 MCT: 2 Policemen killed in TikritTwo policemen were killed and seven of their colleagues wounded when an IED targeted their patrol near the entrance of Siniyah district, north of Tikrit, early Sunday morning.

17/07 MCT: 2 security guards killed in KirkukTwo Kurdish security members were killed and three civilians wounded in a car bomb explosion in the al-Askari neighborhood in downtown Kirkuk around 8:40 a.m. Sunday.

17/07 MCT: Gunmen kill 2 civilians in southwest KirkukTwo civilians were killed when gunmen opened fire on their truck on al-Abbasi-Biji street in southwest Kirkuk Saturday night.

17/07 MCT: Five bodies found in BaghdadFive bodies were found in Baghdad Sunday. Four were found in Karkh, the western part of Baghdad, in the following neighborhoods: Two bodies in Amil, one in Bayaa, and one in Jihad. One body was found in Sadr City in the eastern part of Baghdad.

17/07 MCT: Mortar fire wounds 7 in Salman BakSeven people were injured when mortar shells hit Salman Bak district in southeast Baghdad around 5 p.m. Sunday.

7/07 MCT: 3 Iraqi soldiers injured by IED in BaghdadThree Iraqi soldiers were injured when an improvised explosive device targeted their patrol in al-Eskan intersection in the al-Mansour neighborhood of downtown Baghdad around 2 p.m. Sunday.

17/07 DoD Identifies Army Casualty Staff Sgt. Michael A. Bechert, 24, of New Castle, Ind., died on 14 June in San Antonio, Texas of wounds suffered when his vehicle struck an improvised explosive device on May 30 in Baghdad, Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion...

17/07 AFP: Maliki asks US troops to resist arming Iraqi tribesIraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki warned that US troops sometimes create new militias by arming Iraqi tribes, urging that such decisions be left to his government, in comments published on Saturday.

17/07 cantonrep: Another local soldier dies in IraqArmy soldier Zachary Grass...who turned 22 on May 22, was killed in Iraq Saturday morning, said Frank Grass. He said his son was in a vehicle that was hit by a roadside bomb.

17/07 AP: Baghdad lockdown gives way to problemsResidents emerged from their homes Sunday at the end of a four-day lockdown and found themselves caught in traffic congestion born of hundreds of new police and army checkpoints.

17/07 dmregister: Roadside bomb kills soldier born in DavenportArmy Pfc. Michael Patrick Pittman, 34, was killed Friday in Baghdad, Iraq, from what his wife, Jennifer Pittman, called an "ambush from a complex IED," or improvised explosive device, while he was on patrol in a Humvee.

17/07 AFP: Injured British troops face treatment delay A senior British Army surgeon said troops injured in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan faced delays of several hours before being transported to field hospitals, newspapers reported yesterday.

17/07 MNF: Task Force Lightning Soldiers attacked - 1 killedOne Task Force Lightning Soldier was killed as a result of injuries sustained from an explosion while conducting operations in Kirkuk Province, Saturday

17/07 MNF: Task Force Lightning Soldiers
attacked - 2 killedTwo Task Force Lightning Soldiers were killed as a result of injuries sustained from an explosion near their vehicle while conducting operations in Baghdad Province, Saturday.

17/07 AFP: Iraq deployment could last a decadeThe US commander in Iraq says American troops could be needed in the country for a decade to battle insurgents...General Petraeus was responding to a question about whether US forces could face a Korea-style deployment in Iraq for decades.

17/07 MoD: Lance Corporal James Cartwright dies in IraqIt is with deep regret that the Ministry of Defence must confirm the death of Lance Corporal James Cartwright of Badger Squadron, 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, following a vehicle accident in Southern Iraq at around 0100hrs on the morning of 16 June 2007.

17/07 LATimes: War, red tape haunt civilian workersA Times investigation of a taxpayer-financed insurance system, based on reviews of scores of cases, has found a pattern of repeatedly blocked claims for treatment of psychological injuries sustained by civilian workers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

17/07 WaPo: Soldier Finds Comfort at Dark Journey's EndEverything in Ward 3D East is locked, even the windows...the psychiatric ward is a refuge for mentally ill homeless veterans and those plagued by drug and alcohol addictions.

/17/07 WaPo: The War InsideTroops Are Returning From the Battlefield With Psychological Wounds, But the Mental-Health System That Serves Them Makes Healing Difficult

17/07 Reuters: Police commander wounded in NasiriyaGunmen wounded a police commander and three of his guards in central Nasiriya, 375 km (235 miles) southeast of Baghdad, police and hospital sources said.

17/07 Reuters: Body of newspaper editor found in Sadr CityThe body of Filaih Wadi Mijthab, the managing editor of the state-run al-Sabah daily newspaper, has been found in Baghdad's Sadr City neighbourhood, his newspaper said. He was kidnapped on Wednesday.

17/07 AFP: 10 Militants Killed, Daytime Curfew Lifted In Baghdad And Al-BasrahThe U.S. military says its troops killed 10 militants and detained nearly a dozen more in a series of operations targeting Al-Qaeda networks across Iraq today. Meanwhile, a daytime curfew was lifted in Baghdad and the southern city of Al-Basrah today

nacktman

06-18-2007, 07:31 PM

Since this is a nudist forum the editorial below should raise any eyebrows for the nudity.
A humorous look at a serious problem.

nacktman

06-18-2007, 07:35 PM

Now another look at the serious problem.

usmc1

06-19-2007, 04:56 AM

<span class="ev_code_red">3546</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

On average 2.5 per day. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

Not to worry though, isn't that the average for children in U.S. families? I mean it's not as though we'll be running out any time soon with a whole new crop every year.

nacktman

06-24-2007, 12:46 PM

31 more for the Reaper this week in Iraq.

The shrub is so proud!

usmc1

06-25-2007, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by nacktman:
31 more for the Reaper this week in Iraq.

The shrub is so proud!

<span class="ev_code_red">3560</span>

nacktman

06-27-2007, 05:48 AM

There are exceptions ...

nacktman

06-27-2007, 08:42 PM

Playing the only tune the shrub wants to hear!

usmc1

06-29-2007, 04:55 AM

<span class="ev_code_red">3577</span>

06/29/07 MNF: MND-B patrol struck by IED, small arms fire - 5 killed, 7 wounded
06/28/07 BBC: Village disputes story of deadly attack
06/28/07 telegraph: Basra set-up makes British deaths inevitable
06/28/07 AP: Radical Shiite cleric vows to go ahead with march to damaged shrine
06/28/07 AP: Roadside bomb kills 1 US soldier in eastern Baghdad
06/28/07 MoD: Three British soldiers killed in Basra roadside bomb attack
06/28/07 smh: Car Bombs kill 25
06/28/07 AP: 20 Beheaded Bodies Found in Iraq
06/28/07 Reuters: Mortar attack kills 2 in eastern Baghdad
06/28/07 Reuters: 4 people wounded by roadside bomb in northern Baghdad
06/28/07 Reuters: Mortar attack kills 2, wounds 14 in central Baghdad

nacktman

06-30-2007, 07:15 PM

This editorial cartoon illustrates another 'story' about Iraq that is ignored by the mainstream media, especially the broadcast media.

usmc1

07-07-2007, 06:04 AM

<span class="ev_code_red">3599</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

07/07/07 LATimes: Gunmen kill eight Iraqi soldiers in Mashahidah
Gunmen attacked a checkpoint near the town of Mashahidah...killing at least eight Iraqi soldiers, according to Hamid Mishedani, 19, a shop owner who saw the shooting. U.S. forces later encircled the town and arrested three suspects, police said.

07/07/07 Reuters; Suicide bomber kills 22 people and wounded 17 near Iranian border
A suicide car bomber killed 22 people and wounded 17 in an attack on Shi'ite Kurds in a village called Garghoush near the Iranian border on Friday, a local official said.

07/07/07 Reuters: Six militiamen killed in clashes with U.S. soldiers in Diwaniya
Six militiamen loyal to Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr were killed in clashes with U.S. soldiers in the southern city of Diwaniya, a source in Sadr's office in the city said.

07/07/07 Reuters: 4 Civilians wounded by roadside bomb in Kirkuk
Four civilians were wounded by a roadside bomb in Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

07/07/07 Reuters: 5 bodies found in Baghdad on Friday
Five bodies were found abandoned in different parts of the Baghdad on Friday, police said.

07/07/07 Reuters: Mortar fire kills family of 7
A mortar bomb killed a family of seven in central Baghdad on Friday as they slept on their roof, police said...Two civilians were wounded by a mortar attack in the central Baghdad district of Karradat Mariam, police said.

07/07/07 Reuters: Roadside bomb kills 1 person in southern Baghdad
One person was killed by a roadside bomb in the southern Baghdad neighbourhood of Zaafaraniya and two were wounded, police said.

07/07/07 Reuters: 4 Militants killed in Khan Bani Saad
KHAN BANI SAAD - U.S. forces killed four militants as they targeted al Qaeda insurgents in the town of Khan Bani Saad, north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.

07/07/07 AP: Suicide Bomber Kills 23 North of Baghdad
A suicide bomber detonated a truck packed with explosives in an outdoor market Saturday, killing at least 23 people and wounding at least 86 others in a village of Shiite ethnic Turkomen north of Baghdad, police said.

07/07/07 toledoblade: Oak Harbor soldier killed in Iraq
A 24-year-old solider from Oak Harbor was killed this week by a roadside bomb near Baghdad, his family told The Blade yesterday. Keith Kline...was a sergeant with the 82nd Airborne Division based in Fort Bragg, N.C., his uncle, Mark Lipstraw, said.

07/07/07 insidebayarea: Roadside bomb kills former Concord resident in Iraq
Army Maj. Jim "Jimmy" Ahearn, a former Concord resident, died in a roadside bomb explosion Thursday in Iraq. He was 43... Kevin Ahearn said he didn't know if other soldiers were killed in the same bombing.

07/07/07 MoD: 3 British Soldiers wounded - one serious condition
In three separate incidents, one soldier was very seriously injured and another received a minor injury from Small Arms Fire attacks, and a further soldier was injured from a separate IED attack.

07/07/07 MoD: British Soldier killed on operations in Iraq on 7 July 2007
a British soldier has been killed during a large scale operation in Iraq during the early hours of this morning, 7 July 2007. The soldier was killed when an...IED detonated...in the Tuninah district in the north of Basra.

07/07/07 MoD: Soldier dies at Basra Palace on 6 July 2007
It is with deep sorrow that the Ministry of Defence must confirm the death yesterday, 6 July 2007, of a soldier of 4th Battalion The Rifles at the Basra Palace base in Basra city centre, Southern Iraq. An investigation into the incident is on going...

07/07/07 MNF: MNC-I Soldier dies of non-battle related cause
An MNC-I Soldier died July 6 of a non-battle related cause. The name of the Soldier is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The cause of the Soldier's death is under investigation.

07/06/07 MNF: MNF-W forces attacked - 2 Marines killed
Two Marines assigned to Multi National Force-West were killed July 5 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province.

07/06/07 MNF: Improvised explosive device strikes MND-B patrol - 1 Soldier killed
A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier was killed when a patrol was struck by a roadside bomb in western Baghdad July 5

usmc1

07-08-2007, 05:37 AM

<span class="ev_code_red">3605</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/no.gif

A handful of powerful, middle-aged, wealthy, white-guys who have broken ranks with the drunken sociopath in the White House and his coven of river trolls, neo-cons and deep-forest hobgoblins:

Lamar Alexander
Judd Gregg
Pete Domenici
Chuck Hagel
Richard Lugar
Gordon Smith
George Voinovich
John Warner

nudeM

07-08-2007, 06:19 AM

Just as a personal comment, I do support the new strategy on increased troop strength. It is working to some extent, but the suicide attacks have significantly increased. With the thwarted attack in Britain just a couple of days ago, I believe we are making progress.

With that said, I must say we should seriously think about getting out. The Iraqi Government has done little to help their own cause. I truely hope that Bush was right when he gave the Iraqi Government the ultimatum of either do more, or we leave.

It is apparent that many of Bush's followers are now back-tracking and joining the growing list of Politicians calling for an immediate end to the war. I now, find myself on the verge of joining that list.

Though I do support the war, I agree we have made significant progress in hunting down Al Qaeda, but they just keep coming. Al Qaeda is now on the defensive, but the attacks on civilians have increased. Even though our troops are in their cross-hairs, but so is the general population throughout the world.

Do we simply stay the course to try to defeat Al Qaeda, or do we leave Iraq and declare victory for them? I believe in defeating Al Qaeda, but then again, we cannot afford to continue to lose our troops. We are now in a Catch-22.

Our major mistake was not to finish the job the first time around. We were there and we had the support of the world behind us. But since we 'decided' to go back, our role as a lead nation has dimished and our international support has gone south.

Again, I support the war and the cause, but this 'go it alone' policy has got to change. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

Naturist Mark

07-08-2007, 07:45 AM

Of course the surge is successful - so long as you use metrics that make every outcome count as evidence of success.
<LI>decreased insurgent attacks means they are losing ability to resist
<LI>increased insurgent attacks means they are desperate and on the verge of collapse
<LI>fewer allied losses mean we are winning
<LI>increased allied losses mean we are inflicting unacceptable losses on the enemy.
<LI>less civilian losses means the insurgency is failing
<LI>more civilian losses means the insurgency is failing and must redirect its efforts towards soft targets.

We see all of these arguments being applied to different regions in Iraq - PROVING we are finally winning the occupation - even though the "surge" under the direction of General Petraeus is only one fourth the strength the author of "the book" on counter insurgency says is necessary. The author of that book? General Petraeus.

Another thing we are seeing is the Administration's consistent use of the name al Qaeda instead of insurgents. This has many effects - one of which is to give them political room to start arming and training the very same Sunni insurgents that are responsible for 92% of American military deaths - since they have now vowed to "fight al Qaeda".

It also means that the Shi'ite resistance is now al Qaeda too - despite the fact that al Qaeda is a Sunni fundamentalist network dedicated to the replacement of Shi'ite regimes with Sunni Caliphates.

And most important - since the US Media has picked up the habit of referring to all insurgents as al Qaeda "The same people who attacked us on 9/11" the number of Americans with the mistaken belief that Iraq was behind the attacks of 9/11 has once again increased - to at least 41% (more if you are a Fox News victim).

In truth, the al Qaeda of Osama Bin Laden has very little presence in Iraq - despite the tremendous power of the war as a recruiting tool for them. The resistance is almost entirely made of Iraqi's, less than 5% are foreign nationals who were attracted to fight the new crusaders - and few of them are al Qaeda. Indigenous Iraqi groups have adopted al Qaeda names like al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, but they are not under the control, nor supported by, Osama Bin Laden's group - nope, they are supported by our allies in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates because they are anti-Shi'ite.

It is a civil war. One side has consistently cooperated with us - but we have decided to side with the other side - the one that is responsible for most of our casualties - but is supported by our Saudi masters.

Just wait until the magic month of September when we'll be told what an astounding success the Surge has been ... while our troops keep dying, and those who aren't killed or maimed will continue to be sent back over and over again, one tour after another, until they are expended.

NudeAl

07-08-2007, 01:37 PM

One thing I don't see mentioned here is that war is making many of the defense contractors quite rich. Once you break into the club you can get Uncle Suger to pony up for a lot of new gizmos that you just have to have. However it can be difficult to get the new and improved gear to the battle front in a timely and efficient manner. There is just too much money to be made for some to shut it down just yet.

I hope that the majority of Americans are fed up with the whole thing. I see that a few more prominent Republican politicians have broken ranks with the Pres over this I hope that this is the start of a flood. I see no good comming from further US occupation of that country. It may well break into an allout civil war and no doubt the Saudi's would back one faction and the Iranian's would back the other and much blood would be shed however I don't really care.

usmc1

07-09-2007, 10:11 AM

Turkish Troops Gather at Iraq Border
BAGHDAD (AP) _ The Iraqi foreign minister says Turkey has massed 140,000 troops on its border with Iraq.

Pete Knight

07-09-2007, 10:23 AM

That can only mean one thing, the Kurd's are going to have a very bad time sometime soon, the Turks treat the Kurd's in Turkey almost as bad a Saddam did, but Turkey is an ally of the coalition troops so they will get away with it!

The Palestinians are a people without a land whose plight is often televised, but very little is heard about the Kurdish people, their country is split between Turkey and Iraq.

Pete Knight

Naturist Mark

07-09-2007, 03:59 PM

Turkish Troops Gather at Iraq Border
BAGHDAD (AP) _ The Iraqi foreign minister says Turkey has massed 140,000 troops on its border with Iraq.
Gee, that's about the same number of troops as we have in Iraq.

Now if we can get Syria and Iran to each send 140,000 troops, AND get them all to join us on the same side of the 3 way civil war, we might have enough to stop the insurgency.

Do you suppose we'll all end up on the same side? Hmmmmmmm

-Mark

hm0504

07-09-2007, 04:04 PM

As we all know, Turkey is poised to invade Iraq because the regime in Iraq harbours terrorists that have been attacking Turkey, particularly over the past few years Given that the U.S., falsely, used this same justification, along with the WMD justification (also false), I have no doubt the U.S. will support Turkey's decision. ;-)

NudeAl

07-09-2007, 11:29 PM

Will the turks invade as long as we are there? I think not. That would piss off our CIC and Turkey would pay a price for that. Not sure what but whatever influence we have would be brought to bear. Now once we leave all bets are off, that is a different matter entirely.

You know reality sucks! The neo-cons in the White House are having to get a dose of it. We simply do not have the number of troops needed to succeed on the ground in Iraq. Practicality is triumphing over patriotism in that many soldiers and Marines who have done two or more tours in Iraq are saying enough! No matter how much money you might pay me it's not enough. In case anyone is wondering it is much more dangerous now in Iraq than it was 4 years ago. Things are going the wrong way if you define success by the body count our sides number is going up and the otherside seems to have an unlimited number of suicide bombers willing to do what ever it takes to kill Americans. Even if we were to reverse the trend and start to win we have alreadly lost the war of public opinion so that being the case we really can't win. Now the best we can hope for is a fig leaf to hide behind to use as a reason to exit. Now ol' bush won't allow that to happen on his watch,never apologize son it's a sign of weakness. In very basic terms this is true from the veiw point of the majority of Iraqis no one who has power would ever negociate it makes no sense to them. You fight to win. Trouble is we in our society do not have the guts to do the truely horrific things we would have to do to win. We would have to become our enemy to win in Iraq. That is not an option so being hamstrung by our sense of honor and decency we can not win. We also can not wait for the Iraqis to take the lead. That being the case can anyone tell me what exactly my brothers died for? Why am I supposed to put my life on the line? If I die what did I die for? We in the military are willing to give our lives for our country but in the current situation can anyone really tell me what our best and bravest are dieing for? Years from now, when our monument is built can anyone tell me what is it they died for?

Recently the head of state for Viet Nam visited this country now that we have normalized relations with our former enemy. What did those 58,000 names on the wall think of that? Did anyone of them think their sacrifice worth the price they paid? I wonder?

Most in the military have lost friends over there. We have a hard time accepting the idea that they died for nothing. I feel no one can offer any explantion worth their sacrifice.

Ours is not to reason why. Ours is but to do and die.

usmc1

07-10-2007, 05:03 AM

Several quick points. While it would be a bit of overstatement to to say that the Turks are back-channel allies of Israel there is a symbiotic relationship between the two countries--they have some common interests. And that is to ask several things: Wouldn't it be to Israel's advantage for the Turks to engage in Northern Iraq if the U.S. loses complete control or engages with Iran. And, could this troop movement be reacknowledgment that the Turks already view Iraq as being lost and are positioning themselves to take control of the Kurd controlled oil fields.

Then one asks, well wasn't this whole thing about Israel and the oil anyway?

Sometimes when you're watching the parts of the engine pinging away you lose track of the trip you're on.

And Al, you already know this dude. There's a reason it's call The Suck.

hm0504

07-10-2007, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by NudeAl:
Will the turks invade as long as we are there? I think not. That would piss off our CIC and Turkey would pay a price for that. Not sure what but whatever influence we have would be brought to bear. Now once we leave all bets are off, that is a different matter entirely.
...
.

It may be that part of Turkey's posturing is due to elections coming up but I think it would be a mistake to think that Turkey would not make some attacks into northern Iraq. First, the number of Coalition troops there is minimal (less than 200 I heard), not because of Bush's brilliant strategic planning, but because Iraqi Kurdistan has been effectively independent since 1992 when it was protected from Saddam by the no-fly zones. Second, Turkey has made claims to northern Iraq, part of the reason being social though I would also suspect that access to some of the world's biggest oil fields (Turkey has no oil of its own) would make a difference. A couple of conservative voices welcome a deal between the U.S. and Turkey in northern Iraq (and frankly I think they may have some merit):
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/26425.html

hm0504

07-10-2007, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by NudeAl:
...

Most in the military have lost friends over there. We have a hard time accepting the idea that they died for nothing. I feel no one can offer any explantion worth their sacrifice.

Ours is not to reason why. Ours is but to do and die.

In Afghanistan, the Canadian contingent (about 2000) has lost, to date, 66 members (1 in 30) to enemy fire, which, if my calculations are correct, gives Canada's military the highest casualty rate of all NATO/Coalition militaries operating in the Middle East (followed closely by the U.S. with a per military capita casualty rate of about 1 in 40 of stationed troops). Frankly, I find the courage of the men and women in uniform amazaing given that almost each of them will likely have personally known a few of the dead. My own perspective is that these soldiers, Canadian, American, and other NATO/Coalition, are all dying for the principle of freedom whether or not their respective governments are making sensible decisions or not. In that way, I consider their sacrifices as honourable as those made in WWII whether or not I consider the specific war, e.g. Iraq, to be justifiable or not.

nacktman

07-10-2007, 06:02 PM

War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed class think they are going to profit from it.

~ George Orwell

You know that 12 billion (more likely a heckuva lot more) that went missing?

Well, I think I've found it ... take a look below at this 'supposed to be secret' stash of cash in a vault in a place, oh, let's say "Se habla" and let it go at that.

And, if you look closely those are 100 dollar bills stacked up there not twenties.

NudeAl

07-10-2007, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
...

Most in the military have lost friends over there. We have a hard time accepting the idea that they died for nothing. I feel no one can offer any explantion worth their sacrifice.

Ours is not to reason why. Ours is but to do and die.

In Afghanistan, the Canadian contingent (about 2000) has lost, to date, 66 members (1 in 30) to enemy fire, which, if my calculations are correct, gives Canada's military the highest casualty rate of all NATO/Coalition militaries operating in the Middle East (followed closely by the U.S. with a per military capita casualty rate of about 1 in 40 of stationed troops). Frankly, I find the courage of the men and women in uniform amazaing given that almost each of them will likely have personally known a few of the dead. My own perspective is that these soldiers, Canadian, American, and other NATO/Coalition, are all dying for the principle of freedom whether or not their respective governments are making sensible decisions or not. In that way, I consider their sacrifices as honourable as those made in WWII whether or not I consider the specific war, e.g. Iraq, to be justifiable or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I appreciate the thought and it is wondrful comparison however we may have gone there wtih the idea of liberating the country but the don't want to be liberated. And freedon? They don't undersatnd it or want or need it they simply want to live and thatis becoming a luxery item that few can now afford.

I have lost friends over there. I have seen more than a few permantly F'ed up over what they saw or did. I know one who hung himself over something that happened over there. Everyday I have to look these young Marines, late teens early twenties, in the eye and tell them if they pay attention during training they will be okay. That's a lie. The truth is no one can prepare them for what they may see or have to do and there is nothing I or anyone else can do to ensure they will come home. I have had to deliver they news to a young widow I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I have had to bury more than a few and my belief system is on some pretty shakey ground now. I just want to know what they died for. Give me a reason that will satisfy a twenty year old widow and her young kids. I can't think of one.

Another thing that bothers me is that it seems that the majority of the public feels that this is acceptable, like it's no big thing. I bet if it was your son or brother or husband it would seem a little different.