Iraq....i know.......

gilligan · 12-06-2005, 07:04 AM

Meat and potatoes. Metrics and specifics. That's what George W. Bush provided, finally, for the American people in his speech last week at the Naval Academy in Annapolis.

Metrics: "80 Iraqi battalions are fighting side by side with coalition forces," "30 Iraqi Army battalions have assumed primary control of their own areas of responsibility," "3,500 new police officers every 10 weeks."

Specifics: "Regional support units and base support units have been created across the country"; "an Iraqi military academy, a noncommissioned officer academy, a military police school, a bomb disposal school"; "Iraqi battalions have taken over ... the area around Baghdad's Haifa Street."

And answers to the question: Why didn't we achieve this progress earlier? "Because we learned from our earlier experiences and made changes in the way we help train Iraqi troops." Less time in lectures and more training in small arms. More firepower and training for the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps. Redirecting Iraqi Army units from border control to internal policing.

Bush's critics have long pressed him to admit mistakes. He has been reluctant, for fear critics would pounce on any concession. But now he is saying that our military has been doing what every competent military does: learn from mistakes and adapt to circumstances. Franklin Roosevelt's military learned from setbacks and blunders in the Philippines and North Africa. Bush's military has been learning similarly, and arguably more quickly, in Iraq.

"Americans should have a clear understanding of this strategy," Bush said, and noted that a 38-page National Strategy for Victory in Iraq has been posted on www.whitehouse.gov. But many Americans don't have a clear understanding of that strategy or what has been happening in Iraq. One reason is that adversarial mainstream media have insisted on viewing Iraq through the prism of Vietnam and seeing nothing but endless, pointless slaughter.

In fact, as influential blogger Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit.com) points out, Iraq is a reverse Vietnam. The vast majority of Iraqis want us to succeed and are confident things are getting better; as Sen. Joseph Lieberman put it, this is a fight between 27 million Iraqis and 10,000 terrorists. U.S. military personnel on the ground are buoyant about the progress they've seen, and re-enlistment rates have regularly exceeded quotas.

Franklin Roosevelt broadcast 13 of his fireside chats during World War II. They were pretty candid about early setbacks and ongoing obstacles -- but Roosevelt did not have to worry about political opponents and media critics who wanted to see America lose the war. Since the major military action in Iraq, Bush has emphasized steadfastness and insisted that America stay the course. Last week, he got more specific and made what should have long been an obvious point, "If by 'stay the course' (critics) mean that we're not learning from our experiences, or adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground, then they're flat wrong. ... Our strategy in Iraq is clear, our tactics are flexible and dynamic -- we have changed them as conditions require, and they are bringing us victory against a brutal enemy."

My sense from such occasional glimpses that I get of life at the top of the administration is that people there have believed for some time that Iraq is obviously headed for success. But that's not how things have looked on the outside. Bush came to Washington from Texas, where the political dialogue was set by the Dallas Morning News and other newspapers with not much in the way of an ideological agenda.

But in Washington, the dialogue is set by papers like The New York Times, whose White House correspondent wrote in a front-page story of "administration claims that Mr. (Saddam) Hussein posed an imminent threat to the world" -- despite the fact that Bush in his 2003 State of the Union message did not say that the threat was "imminent," but said it should be addressed anyway. So deeply ingrained in the Times' newsroom are the distortions and talking points of the anti-Bush left that its top people let a howling error like this on their front page.

"In the days ahead, I'll be discussing the various pillars of our strategy in Iraq," Bush said in his speech. About time. The commander in chief needs to give Americans a steady diet of meat and potatoes.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...05/177868.html

sidious · 12-06-2005, 08:47 AM

I've given up with the guy, i mean he's Dduuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmbbbbbbbbbbbb........... ..with a capital D............talk about Saddam being a threat and using gas on his own people............Bush is at it using White Phosphorous, banned by everyone except America, and now breaking the Geneva Convention with the torture of suspects over international airspace, while going via airports like Prestwick which is less than 50 miles from me..............and Germany and a few other countries, and some of these countries knew about it, but some i.e. spain didn't................that and prisons in the former Soviet block...................so who exactly are the criminals?

"Just do as i say, don't do as i do"..............guess phil Collins knew bush a long time ago............lol

Peace out............Sid

JamaicanHerb · 12-06-2005, 09:21 AM

they found a loophole give them a break sid... all they gotta do is take them to a country where it's legal, or way up where noone controls anything and they can beat the fuck outta them, now that takes brains..

gilligan · 12-06-2005, 09:50 AM

um, that had really nothing to do with the article sid but ok.

Lets not forget that jimmy carter but him in power. Lets not forget its been our policy since 1998 to overthrow saddam, signed by bill clinton.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Bush isnt the first one to harp on iraq's WMDs, amazing how elections change peoples views, eh?

Im not going to debate bush isnt a moron. I think he has done a pretty crappy job as president and a crappy job in iraq. I am glad however we stopped talking and did something. I am tired of relying on the un to do, well anything. They cant even keep Africa under control, with the reports of thousands of rapes and the situation getting worse every single day.

You can say what you want, but your not going to convince me bush is on the same level with saddam. If he was, he would torture and kill you for speaking out against him.

Im not saying bush hasnt done anything illegal. Im not saying i support him. Im not saying he has done a good job. Im simply saying he isnt on the same level as saddam and hitler.

As president, he developed a pervasive personality cult, ran an authoritarian government, and maintained power through the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) and the Persian Gulf War (1991), which were both devastating to Iraq, lowering living standards and human rights. Saddam's regime severely repressed movements that it deemed threatening, particularly those from ethnic or religious groups that sought independence or autonomy.

Saddam's internal security regime achieved notoriety for its extreme ruthlessness. In 1982, an assassination attempt was mounted against Saddam in the town of Dujail 40 km (25 miles) north of Baghdad. In retaliation, Saddam's security forces attacked the town, killing and executing up to 160 of its inhabitants, including a number of children. Around 1,500 townspeople were sent to prison and tortured, and the entire town was punished by having 1,000 square kilometres (250,000 acres) of farmland destroyed; replanting was only permitted 10 years later. The events in Dujail became the subject of criminal charges following Saddam's overthrow in 2003. [4]

Thats straight from wikipedia, a unbias source. Say what you will be no american leader reguardless of party is on that level, im sorry.

The oil for food scandle alone would be enough to take him out of power in my eyes.

blunts&teriyaki · 12-06-2005, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by gilligan

Thats straight from wikipedia, a unbias source. Say what you will be no american leader reguardless of party is on that level, im sorry.

Really?
What about Jimmy Carter who approved CIA operations that put a crazy lunatic in power (Saddam). What we put a crazy in power then got angry when he did crazy shit? give me a break
What about Ronald Regan- whos dirty administration sold arms to Iraqis and Iranians which led to the war being esclated, and prolonged. In that war over 1 million people died on either side. He also gassed Iranians several times during the war, killing many people.
What about George Bush (the original), who's Ambassador to the UN had a secret meeting called by Saddam officials (at whiich they announced plans to invade Kuwait and the response was "affairs of the Iraqi govt. are an internal matter...and not the businnes of the US")///then the only reason that the Gulf War I started was cause the crazy asshole started lighting Kuwaiti oil fields on fire, not allowing them to export, and disrupting world oil supplies.

American Leaders (of both parties) are on that level, they are beyond that level...lets not pretend our shit doesn't stink. And why shouldn't they be they have the power, the money, and the technologies to back them.

gilligan · 12-06-2005, 10:12 AM

^^ how many of them come to your door and drag you away for being against them?

Your entire post is things saddam did and the president under which he did them. Ill give you jimmy carter put him power, just like we and every other major power has put assholes into power that just didnt work out.

case closed.

BTW, i fucking hate jimmy carter.

EDIT: The french and other "allies" sold him way, way more arms than we ever did.

Boondock · 12-06-2005, 10:38 AM

white phosphorus is not a wmd. that has been discussed all over the place. that is really reaching

the white phosphorus is used as an illumination round or a type of grenade flare. it's not a fucking chemical weapon and the people that claim so are really reaching at straws

blunts&teriyaki · 12-06-2005, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by gilligan

^^ how many of them come to your door and drag you away for being against them?

Your entire post is things saddam did and the president under which he did them. Ill give you jimmy carter put him power, just like we and every other major power has put assholes into power that just didnt work out.

case closed.

BTW, i fucking hate jimmy carter.

EDIT: The french and other "allies" sold him way, way more arms than we ever did.

No this is not true Gilligan (I suggest u read some books on the subject and stop listening to FOX news which loved to tout this supposed fact).
Reagan probably did have direct knowledge of the Iran-Contra operation ( a secret we will probably never find out) and in case u don't remember Iran Contra was selling arms to a country that we declared "barbarians" (Reagan's own words.) He claimed he would never deal with them ,but then sold them arms. Now how is that not directly related to them (u can't just say we were innocent bystanders, thats absolute BS). As is evident now, not a damn thing happens in the middle east that we don't have a hand in; its just the way it is when u are the only global superpwer.

The contras by the way were extremists that we backed over a democractically elected leftist regime in Nicragua.

Now u might say that selling bullets and guns, to both sides in war (Iran and Iraq), and spare parts (for army copters, jets, etc), is not that bad. but what about to both sides? to kill each other more, so we can take advantage of both weakened states (Iran and Iraq) when it was all over. and its not like they didn't know where the bullets they were selling them would go. So who is worse the guy and shoots somebody, or the guy who knew that he was going to go out and kill somebody and still sell them the gun and bullet...morally debating aside, in my opintion both of those people are guilty as sin. And we can't claim that we were supporting the right side (cause we sold to both sides. . Bush Sr. killed over 500,000 innocent civilians in the first Gulf War(some one has to answer for those deaths). and it is estimated that 200,000+ innocent civilians have been killed in this current war in Iraq. I mean I agree Saddamm was a horrible dude, but unless u look at our government just as critically, the arguements are invalid.

No Jimmy Carter helped put him in power, although the British were more heavily involved than the US. Ronald Reagan supported him (we claimed to be Iraq's allies in the 80's to refresh ur memory), and George Bush Sr. was going to allow him to invade Kuwait until we saw that it wasn't going to work out our way. EVERYBODY HAS GOT DIRTY HANDS...please stop pretending America's shit doesn't stink.

Boondock · 12-06-2005, 11:50 AM

bush senior killed over 500,000 civilians????

blunts&teriyaki · 12-06-2005, 06:29 PM

Absoloutely, it is not a widely known fact...the media always likes to harp on the 500,000 children and ill that are estimated that were killed as a result of sanctions after the first Gulf War. But in the first actual war, there were estimated 500,000 innocent civilians killed. They said they used smart bombs widely for the first time in that war, but the truth is only 8% of the bombs dropped in the first Gulf War were smart bombs. Second, more than half of those were little more than a bomb with a GPS device strapped to it, nothing like some of the smart bombs today.
The first Gulf War was much more deadly beacuse of the awesome level of bombs dropped all over the country. There was no need to stop bombing cause there was no real invansion then.

blunts&teriyaki · 12-06-2005, 06:30 PM

Absoloutely, it is not a widely known fact...the media always likes to harp on the 500,000 children and ill that are estimated that were killed as a result of sanctions after the first Gulf War. But in the first actual war, there were estimated 500,000 innocent civilians killed. They said they used smart bombs widely for the first time in that war, but the truth is only 8% of the bombs dropped in the first Gulf War were smart bombs. Second, more than half of those were little more than a bomb with a GPS device strapped to it, nothing like some of the smart bombs today.
The first Gulf War was much more deadly beacuse of the awesome level of bombs dropped all over the country. There was no need to stop bombing cause there was no real invansion then.

gilligan · 12-06-2005, 06:46 PM

Reagan probably did have direct knowledge of the Iran-Contra operation

lmfao probably. That doesnt cut the mustard friend.

i dont watch tv, much less fox news.

so for the 3rd time, show me where our leaders directly tortured people. oh fucking shit they didnt. Their policies might have resulted in this or that, but they didnt personally and physically have a hand in it.

They dont kill political opponents like saddam did, they might they to scare them, but they dont KILL them.

i know full well our shit stinks to use your term, but i in no way think our leaders actually, themselves, torture and kill people and rule with the same iron fist saddam did.

nice try but that was ball 3. 1 more ball and its a walk.

AnnonUSA · 12-06-2005, 06:52 PM

War sucks Period. People die, soldiers die, sons & daughters die. Civilians die. That's why war sucks! That's why it's called war.

You can bet your damn ass off that if the shoe was on the other foot, and a foreign country was killing Americans (civilians) the world would not be doing body counts on the Innocent American victims. Unlike the US, other countries don't care about civilian body counts unless they are going for sympathy.

War SUCKS!

Mr Skinner · 12-06-2005, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by AnnonUSA

You can bet your damn ass off that if the shoe was on the other foot, and a foreign country was killing Americans (civilians) the world would not be doing body counts on the Innocent American victims. Unlike the US, other countries don't care about civilian body counts unless they are going for sympathy.

Nope...we'd buy a case of beer, roll up and watch the carnage...

You a bit paranoid lately?

gilligan · 12-06-2005, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Skinner

Nope...we'd buy a case of beer, roll up and watch the carnage...

You a bit paranoid lately?

still using the same tireless reply skinner? Ive heard it countless time. what annon is saying is true friend.

Mr Skinner · 12-06-2005, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by gilligan

still using the same tireless reply skinner? Ive heard it countless time. what annon is saying is true friend.

What? That if someone started invading america and killing innocent civilians, the rest of the world would stand by and not do shit?

The fact that someone said it before me doesn't mean it isn't true: You're paranoid. If someone did the aforementioned, you'd get help, believe me.