Re: GO DENZEL!
PowerPointSamurai
>>> Good for defense contractors and morticians,
>>>anyway......
>>
>>I'm a US soldier if you haven't picked up on that.
> I don't guess you have some proof of
> that to share with the class.......
I don't need to prove anything. Read my other posts here and on
us.military.army. I really don't care if you believe me or not, but I'm
not about to post my DD214 for the world to see.
>> I was in the
>>invasion. It's not fun, but it was necessary for the reasons I outlined
>>in other threads and many others. I just think that a lot of people are
>>being a bunch of hobbits pretending the world is a big happy place where
>>people innately love Americans and that we can just leisurely stroll the
>>planet because everybody of course must love us. President Bush did not
>>create the animosity out there, they just hide it from the tourists. A
>>lot of people don't understand that people in other countries are PEOPLE.
>>
>
>
> Even countries that traditionally like the
> US now hate us.
Like? If you are referring the Germany, the same people there like us
and hate us as before. They are and have provided tons of intelligence
now and prior to the invasion of Iraq and have the largest contingent of
allied troops in Afghanistan. When I flew out of Iraq, it was from
Tikrit to Germany to home, and I spent a little time there waiting for
my flight. I spent three years there in the latter 90s. It was just
like old times.
If you are referring to France, the same goes there, or what part of the
NATO rift that began in the 50s and 60s and the embarassment they
suffered after WWII and their lost colonies did you miss. They have an
axe to grind with us simply because they have fallen from a pre-eminent
power to an also-ran.
If you mean Russia....um.
All the pre-9/11 closeness, all
> the post-9/11 sympathy, gone.
What closeness? I remember pre-911 there was a lot of suspicion
(including during the Clinton admin) about our "dominance" and
"arrogance". Other countries were harshly criticizing the sanctions on
Iraq and only hurting the Iraqi people and doing nothing about Saddam.
They wanted us to carry the load in Bosnia, but wouldn't do it without us.
After 911, I think in part some of the sympathy came because they were
fearful of what was going to come next. Most of it was genuine, and 911
impacted lots of countries, not just the US, but there were also a lot
of kook articles in the presses of many countries saying we had it coming.
All because Bush
> decided to invade a country that was no threat
> to the US and hadn't attacked the US.
We had ample reason to do it, and I've already stated why. Bush is
doing what's right, not necessarily what's popular.
> If the
> rest of the world thinks the US is an arrogant
> bully, well, we now know the cause.
That was on the table well before 911. The public got some insight into
this when Chirac got publicly pissed off when President Clinton gave him
a pair of cowboy boots. There were TONs of articles about US cultural
imperialism and such during the late 90s and leading up to 911.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
PowerPointSamurai
> PowerPointSamurai <nos...@dev.nul> wrote in news:LFGXc.522223$Gx4.269944
> @bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Incidentally, and I don't mean to imply anything here, just an
>>>>example... Do you have to watch a whole gay porno before you decide
>>>>this just ain't for you, or can you get the gist and maybe hear about it
>>>>if you don't understand it at first and decide it isn't for you?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you should confine this to political
>>>and military issues without bringing your fixation
>>>on gay porn into the mix.
>>
>>There you are with another personal attack, despite that I said I was
>>not implying anything about you with it. Really mature. Obviously you
>>could not attack the premise of my example head on so you attack me.
>
>
>
> When you accuse others of watching gay porn
> you have to expect that sort of response.
>
> And no, your allusions to gay porn have nothing
> to do with your attempts to condemn the content of
> a political movie you haven't even seen.
I did not. It was a METAPHOR. You got upset when the other guy used
the metaphor that if it smells like shit, I get the general idea and
don't need to taste it to know I want to pass on that. You apparently
didn't get the idea. The gay porn thing was something that many people,
even some gays, probably find objectionable. So if you knew the general
idea of what the contents were, and you find it objectionable, why the
hell would you sit there and force yourself through the ordeal? I even
explicitly said I was not implying I was referring to you.
Let's try this again with another example that should not hurt your
feelings if you don't understand the metaphor. Did you see Yu-Gi-Oh the
movie? If not, why not?
PowerPointSamurai
>>> Didn't it bother you that Osama went from being
>>>job #1 to being pushed on the back burner?
>>
>>Ok, here's the deal. You have light units and special ops in the Army,
>>and you have heavy units (with tanks and so forth). The heavy units
>>cannot effectively operate in Afghanistan, and it would be a suicidal
>>repeat of the Soviet Red Army's mistakes to try as they did. So you
>>have light units chasing Bin Laden in Afghanistan as much as you did
>>before OIF, and predominantly heavy units in Iraq. Why not have the
>>heavy guys leave their vehicles behind and re-train as light guys to
>>help? Because being good at being light is not simple.
>
>
>
> Do B-52 bombing raids count as "light" or "heavy"?
Neither. B-52s are aircraft. What I was discussing above is types of
Army units (and Marine). They are what really counts right now, and the
Navy and AF units aren't terribly busy except for occassional calls for
air support, a lot of recon, etc.
Heavy units are tanks and mechanized infantry, which conventional wisdom
says would be suicidal to deploy to mountainous Afghanistan, as did the
Soviet Army.
>>Plus, the Germans and Canadians have a substantial number of troops in
>>Afghanistan helping out.
>
>
>
> Not to mention the French.
Right. Predominantly though, are the Germans and Canadians. There are
tons of troops from many countries. Mine clearing specialists from
Norway are another good example.
>> I would say it is a major misinterpretation to
>>call Afghanistan "the back burner".
>
>
>
> The US has more policemen in NYC than troops
> in Afghanistan. Logical, given that Bush said his
> is "not concerned" about capturing Bin Laden.
The population density is a lot higher too, and there are many allied
troops there for reconstruction efforts. Besides, more troops in
Afghanistan in a *combat* role (or any role actually) would not
necessarily be helpful, and in fact may make them more of a target them
ala the Soviet Red Army in the 80s. We can't build these monstrous
static bases all over Afghanistan without drawing attacks. The troops
we've been sending are light, highly agile and deployed by helicopter to
move quickly and outmanuever them, while gathering and acting on intel
from multiple sources. Having them line up 100,000 abreast and march
across Afghanistan, or do search and destroy missions ala Vietnam would
be greatly counterproductive.
BTW, have you heard about all the senior Al Qaeda ops captured recently?
>>> What threat? When did Saddam ever pose a
>>>threat to the US, much less attack the US?
>>
>>I pretty much went through all of that already. The Brits and US
>>Marines found huge pre-positioned caches of NBC protective gear, new
>>atropine injectors (used to protect against nerve agent--think kind of
>>like an antidote), and new decontamination equipment in their positions
>>when they overran them.
>
> How does NBC protective gear on the other
> side of the world constitute a threat to the US?
It is a very good indicator that they were planning to use NBC agents
very soon. They went through an awful lot of trouble to purchase all
that equipment in violation of the sanctions and pre-position it forward
to their units when it would serve no other purpose.
>>We found at least 3 of those mobile bio-warfare labs exactly as Sec.
>>Powell described them--on their way to the Iranian border. This was
>>dismissed as not a "smoking gun" because they didn't find any agents on
>>them.
>
>
>
> Oh, yes, the laughable "mobile weapons labs"
> claim that even the Bush administration has backed
> away from in disgrace.
You have a weird sense of humor if you find them laughable.
>
>
>>I described the NYT article about the yellowcake already. There were
>>also tons of products used to make nerve agents very quickly and the
>>facilities capable of doing it. There were also repeated TBM launches
>>during the war that were illegal weapons under the restrictions the
>>inspectors were using for their criteria.
>
> Which of the above constituted a threat to the US?
What don't you get? People keep saying "no WMD", and while strictly
speaking we haven't found ready-to-use WMD, there are millions of
examples of stuff that could've been operational pretty quickly. The
mobile labs were real--I remember that 101st ABN seized at least on of
the three we got. The yellow cake--uranium ore--what don't you get
here? He had chem/bio capable illicit missiles and launched several at
coalition troops. You can argue they were shooting back at the time,
but those were missiles he wasn't supposed to have at all and were
bio/chem capable.
Back on the Moore thing, BTW, one day my wife was watching The View when
I was home and they interviewed him. This was back before F911 (Sep 03
I think). He said that SCUDS were not capable of carrying weapons of
mass destruction. This obviously proves he has no clue what he is
talking about because the SCUD (SS-1) was DESIGNED FROM THE GET-GO for
nuclear warheads. That's why they were so inaccurate with high
explosive warheads.
>>Incidentally, US and UK aircraft were fired on very regularly while
>>patrolling the No-Fly Zones long prior to OIF. You might not consider
>>that "attacking the US"....
> Funny Bush didn't mention said incidents being
> a "threat to the US" prior to 2002. Why is that, do
> you think?
Remember Clinton executing Desert Fox? And yes he and President Clinton
talked frequently about the ongoing threat on many occasions. Hell, it
was even mentioned by the President played by Harrison Ford in the movie
Air Force One, and the guy on West Wing.
Remember the inspectors getting kicked out in 98 and we sent a couple of
carrier battlegroups and 1st CAV division over to get them back in? How
many times do you have to do something like that to let the inspectors
finish without all the stupid games? This was a long time coming and
was purely provoked by Saddam.
>
>>After the level of surprise that led up to 911, what would you consider
>>a threat? Would you wait and see if he was a threat in that aftermath?
>
>
>
> And now we come full circle to the Saddam-9/11
> link that even BUSH HIMSELF says doesn't exist.
I wasn't referring to a Saddam-911 link, I was saying Saddam was a
definite threat for a long time now and was costing us a lot of effort
to contain him while his people suffered. He and his regime did sponsor
and certain encourage a lot of terrorism, such as the $25k payments to
the families of suicide bombers.
> In sum, every justification for the War Against
> Iraq has been soundly discredited.
>
Only by hobbits who would rather just wish the problem of terrorism away
rather than deal with it.
Leonard Caillouet
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > In sum, every justification for the War Against
> > Iraq has been soundly discredited.
Anyone who believes this should read The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas P. M.
Barnett, a defense analyst who happens to be a liberal. He makes a
compelling case for why action in Iraq was the right thing to do and why we
have to engage assholes like SH. He also happens to be a liberal and a
Democrat.
He does not cut Bush any slack but based his analysis on what makes sense
and is best for the future security of the world and for world justice. A
curiously non-partisan view that comes to some surprising conclusions for a
Democrat. It points out how ridiculous all of the partisan bickering and
recriminations are in the context of trying to understand security issues.
Leonard
x
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9553D8032...@216.148.227.77...
> PowerPointSamurai <nu...@dev.net> wrote in news:41312761_4
> @corp.newsgroups.com:
>
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>> Good for defense contractors and morticians,
> >>>>anyway......
> >>>
> >>>I'm a US soldier if you haven't picked up on that.
> >
> >
> >> I don't guess you have some proof of
> >> that to share with the class.......
> >
> > I don't need to prove anything. Read my other posts here and on
> > us.military.army. I really don't care if you believe me or not, but I'm
> > not about to post my DD214 for the world to see.
>
>
> prove is a good way to get a reputation around
> here.
>
>
> >
> >>> I was in the
> >>>invasion. It's not fun, but it was necessary for the reasons I
outlined
> >>>in other threads and many others. I just think that a lot of people
are
> >>>being a bunch of hobbits pretending the world is a big happy place
where
> >>>people innately love Americans and that we can just leisurely stroll
the
> >>>planet because everybody of course must love us. President Bush did
not
> >>>create the animosity out there, they just hide it from the tourists. A
> >>>lot of people don't understand that people in other countries are
> PEOPLE.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Even countries that traditionally like the
> >> US now hate us.
> >
> > Like?
>
>
> When Kennedy and Reagan and Clinton went Ireland the
> crowds turned out to greet them. When Bush went there
> thousands were in the street protesting his visit.
> Everywhere Bush goes there are massive protests against
> him and his policies.
He doesnt have to leave the US to get that you know.
>
>
> If you are referring the Germany, the same people there like us
> > and hate us as before. They are and have provided tons of intelligence
> > now and prior to the invasion of Iraq and have the largest contingent of
> > allied troops in Afghanistan. When I flew out of Iraq, it was from
> > Tikrit to Germany to home, and I spent a little time there waiting for
> > my flight. I spent three years there in the latter 90s. It was just
> > like old times.
> >
> > If you are referring to France, the same goes there, or what part of the
> > NATO rift that began in the 50s and 60s and the embarassment they
> > suffered after WWII and their lost colonies did you miss. They have an
> > axe to grind with us simply because they have fallen from a pre-eminent
> > power to an also-ran.
> >
>
> Funny that Bush has been going to those "also-ran"
> countries begging for help in the Iraq quagmire.
>
>
>
> > If you mean Russia....um.
> >
> >
> > All the pre-9/11 closeness, all
> >> the post-9/11 sympathy, gone.
> >
> > What closeness? I remember pre-911 there was a lot of suspicion
> > (including during the Clinton admin) about our "dominance" and
> > "arrogance". Other countries were harshly criticizing the sanctions on
> > Iraq and only hurting the Iraqi people and doing nothing about Saddam.
> > They wanted us to carry the load in Bosnia, but wouldn't do it without
> us.
> >
> > After 911, I think in part some of the sympathy came because they were
> > fearful of what was going to come next. Most of it was genuine, and 911
> > impacted lots of countries, not just the US, but there were also a lot
> > of kook articles in the presses of many countries saying we had it
> coming.
> >
> >
> > All because Bush
> >> decided to invade a country that was no threat
> >> to the US and hadn't attacked the US.
> >
> > We had ample reason to do it, and I've already stated why. Bush is
> > doing what's right, not necessarily what's popular.
> >
>
> Hardly. Iraq did not attack the US, Iraq did
> not threaten the US, and even it's neighbors said
> the US should stay out of the region. But nooooo,
> Bush had Iranian spy Ahmed Chalabi at his elbow,
> telling him about an Iraq brimming with WMD's, how
> the locals would welcome US troops and how the war
> would "pay for itself".
911 changed that line of thinking.
Flying wasnt dangerous before 911. It is now -
Just ask the Russians.
>
>
> How much taxpayer money did Bush pay to Iranian
> spy Chalabi,anyway? The last figure I heard was $27
> million. Can you imagine the uproar if Clinton did
> that?
>
>
>
>
>
>
x
"PowerPointSamurai" <nu...@dev.net> wrote in message
news:41313...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>
> >>> Didn't it bother you that Osama went from being
> >>>job #1 to being pushed on the back burner?
> >>
> >>Ok, here's the deal. You have light units and special ops in the Army,
> >>and you have heavy units (with tanks and so forth). The heavy units
> >>cannot effectively operate in Afghanistan, and it would be a suicidal
> >>repeat of the Soviet Red Army's mistakes to try as they did. So you
> >>have light units chasing Bin Laden in Afghanistan as much as you did
> >>before OIF, and predominantly heavy units in Iraq. Why not have the
> >>heavy guys leave their vehicles behind and re-train as light guys to
> >>help? Because being good at being light is not simple.
> >
> >
> >
> > Do B-52 bombing raids count as "light" or "heavy"?
>
> Neither. B-52s are aircraft. What I was discussing above is types of
> Army units (and Marine). They are what really counts right now, and the
> Navy and AF units aren't terribly busy except for occassional calls for
> air support, a lot of recon, etc.
>
> Heavy units are tanks and mechanized infantry, which conventional wisdom
> says would be suicidal to deploy to mountainous Afghanistan, as did the
> Soviet Army.
>
> >>Plus, the Germans and Canadians have a substantial number of troops in
> >>Afghanistan helping out.
> >
> >
> >
> > Not to mention the French.
>
> Right. Predominantly though, are the Germans and Canadians. There are
> tons of troops from many countries. Mine clearing specialists from
> Norway are another good example.
>
> >> I would say it is a major misinterpretation to
> >>call Afghanistan "the back burner".
sigh MMoore movie watcher is who you are arguing with.
> >
> >
> >
> > The US has more policemen in NYC than troops
> > in Afghanistan. Logical, given that Bush said his
> > is "not concerned" about capturing Bin Laden.
>
> The population density is a lot higher too, and there are many allied
> troops there for reconstruction efforts. Besides, more troops in
> Afghanistan in a *combat* role (or any role actually) would not
> necessarily be helpful, and in fact may make them more of a target them
> ala the Soviet Red Army in the 80s. We can't build these monstrous
> static bases all over Afghanistan without drawing attacks. The troops
> we've been sending are light, highly agile and deployed by helicopter to
> move quickly and outmanuever them, while gathering and acting on intel
> from multiple sources. Having them line up 100,000 abreast and march
> across Afghanistan, or do search and destroy missions ala Vietnam would
> be greatly counterproductive.
>
> BTW, have you heard about all the senior Al Qaeda ops captured recently?
It's over 2/3s of the leadership. Dont know if they have been replaced.
>
>
>
> >>> What threat? When did Saddam ever pose a
> >>>threat to the US, much less attack the US?
> >>
> >>I pretty much went through all of that already. The Brits and US
> >>Marines found huge pre-positioned caches of NBC protective gear, new
> >>atropine injectors (used to protect against nerve agent--think kind of
> >>like an antidote), and new decontamination equipment in their positions
> >>when they overran them.
Terrorist threats from Iraq go way back to before the first gulf war.
Putin tipped us off after 911 that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks
on the US.
> >
> > How does NBC protective gear on the other
> > side of the world constitute a threat to the US?
>
>
> It is a very good indicator that they were planning to use NBC agents
> very soon. They went through an awful lot of trouble to purchase all
> that equipment in violation of the sanctions and pre-position it forward
> to their units when it would serve no other purpose.
>
>
> >>We found at least 3 of those mobile bio-warfare labs exactly as Sec.
> >>Powell described them--on their way to the Iranian border. This was
> >>dismissed as not a "smoking gun" because they didn't find any agents on
> >>them.
13 Sarin shells already to go and hundreds of violations of 1441.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, yes, the laughable "mobile weapons labs"
> > claim that even the Bush administration has backed
> > away from in disgrace.
Iraq was never going to cooperate. We gave them 12 years of chances.
>
>
> You have a weird sense of humor if you find them laughable.
> >
> >
> >>I described the NYT article about the yellowcake already. There were
> >>also tons of products used to make nerve agents very quickly and the
> >>facilities capable of doing it. There were also repeated TBM launches
> >>during the war that were illegal weapons under the restrictions the
> >>inspectors were using for their criteria.
What about the 2 tons of radioactive material removed from Iraq?
In the hands of a mad man?
> >
> > Which of the above constituted a threat to the US?
>
> What don't you get? People keep saying "no WMD", and while strictly
> speaking we haven't found ready-to-use WMD, there are millions of
> examples of stuff that could've been operational pretty quickly. The
> mobile labs were real--I remember that 101st ABN seized at least on of
> the three we got. The yellow cake--uranium ore--what don't you get
> here? He had chem/bio capable illicit missiles and launched several at
> coalition troops. You can argue they were shooting back at the time,
> but those were missiles he wasn't supposed to have at all and were
> bio/chem capable.
How come he didnt just comply with 1441?
>
> Back on the Moore thing, BTW, one day my wife was watching The View when
> I was home and they interviewed him. This was back before F911 (Sep 03
> I think). He said that SCUDS were not capable of carrying weapons of
> mass destruction. This obviously proves he has no clue what he is
> talking about because the SCUD (SS-1) was DESIGNED FROM THE GET-GO for
> nuclear warheads. That's why they were so inaccurate with high
> explosive warheads.
you bet you can put all kinds of WMD in a SCUD
>
> >>Incidentally, US and UK aircraft were fired on very regularly while
> >>patrolling the No-Fly Zones long prior to OIF. You might not consider
> >>that "attacking the US"....
>
> > Funny Bush didn't mention said incidents being
> > a "threat to the US" prior to 2002. Why is that, do
> > you think?
You should watch "The Fog of War". It's a lot more credible than F911.
Also David Kay at the Senate Jan 28 2004.
>
> Remember Clinton executing Desert Fox? And yes he and President Clinton
> talked frequently about the ongoing threat on many occasions. Hell, it
> was even mentioned by the President played by Harrison Ford in the movie
> Air Force One, and the guy on West Wing.
>
> Remember the inspectors getting kicked out in 98 and we sent a couple of
> carrier battlegroups and 1st CAV division over to get them back in? How
> many times do you have to do something like that to let the inspectors
> finish without all the stupid games? This was a long time coming and
> was purely provoked by Saddam.
>
> >
> >>After the level of surprise that led up to 911, what would you consider
> >>a threat? Would you wait and see if he was a threat in that aftermath?
Saddam was interviewed befrore the war and basically wanted to set the
historical record straight. He said that he never lost the first Gulf War.
I think he has some kind of mental illness. Go find the interview with Dan
Rather.
hmm so a mentally ill person with WMD who says he is still at war with us.
I think that is a clear threat post 911.
> >
> >
> >
> > And now we come full circle to the Saddam-9/11
> > link that even BUSH HIMSELF says doesn't exist.
>
> I wasn't referring to a Saddam-911 link, I was saying Saddam was a
> definite threat for a long time now and was costing us a lot of effort
> to contain him while his people suffered. He and his regime did sponsor
> and certain encourage a lot of terrorism, such as the $25k payments to
> the families of suicide bombers.
Not to mention harboring, aiding, and financing terrorists.
>
>
> > In sum, every justification for the War Against
> > Iraq has been soundly discredited.
LOL - as near as I can figure, given what the facts are today, I totally
disagree.
And BTW so does David Kay.
> >
>
> Only by hobbits who would rather just wish the problem of terrorism away
> rather than deal with it.
The only other thing we could have done was wage a covert war in which many
more people could have died.
After 911, and the recent history with Iraq, it was totally and completely
unacceptable for Iraq to be non-compliant with 687 and all of the other
resolutions.
PowerPointSamurai
> PowerPointSamurai <nu...@dev.net> wrote in news:41312761_4
> @corp.newsgroups.com:
>
>
>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Good for defense contractors and morticians,
>>>>>anyway......
>>>>
>>>>I'm a US soldier if you haven't picked up on that.
>>
>>
>>> I don't guess you have some proof of
>>>that to share with the class.......
>>
>>I don't need to prove anything. Read my other posts here and on
>>us.military.army. I really don't care if you believe me or not, but I'm
>>not about to post my DD214 for the world to see.
>
>
>
> Your choice. Making grand claims you cannot
> prove is a good way to get a reputation around
> here.
Grand claims? I said I was in the invasion, not that I was Tommy
Franks. RTFA.
>>> Even countries that traditionally like the
>>>US now hate us.
>>
>>Like?
>
> Italy, the UK, Germany, Spain, Denmark - you name it.
Italy has troops there, as does the UK. Germany and Spain still have
people in Afghanistan. Basically the same people in those countries
liked us or not before.
> When Kennedy and Reagan and Clinton went Ireland the
> crowds turned out to greet them. When Bush went there
> thousands were in the street protesting his visit.
> Everywhere Bush goes there are massive protests against
> him and his policies.
Mainly by whack-jobs who oppose "globalization" (which Bush is no more
responsible for than Clinton) or the war, in which they would much
rather just pretend everything is fine and that we are the ones making a
big deal out of nothing rather than face the hard truth that we are
taking on a tough challenge that faces them too whether they know it or not.
>
> Funny that Bush has been going to those "also-ran"
> countries begging for help in the Iraq quagmire.
Are you Ted Kennedy or something? Iraq is far from a quagmire, and
President Bush has been asking for these countries to come to show
resolve and to give the new government legitimacy, because whether you
agree with the war in the first place or not, the only path from here is
to get a legitimate government in place that is internationally recognized.
>>All because Bush
>>
>>>decided to invade a country that was no threat
>>>to the US and hadn't attacked the US.
>>
>>We had ample reason to do it, and I've already stated why. Bush is
>>doing what's right, not necessarily what's popular.
>>
>
>
> Hardly. Iraq did not attack the US,
YES IT DID. The attacks in the No Fly Zones are an attack on us.
Iraq did
> not threaten the US,
Yes they did. Almost every speach Saddam gave was filled with
anti-American rhetoric.
and even it's neighbors said
> the US should stay out of the region.
Oh yeah. Iran and Syria wanted us to stay out for completely altruistic
reasons alright. Turkey only wanted us to stay out because they were
freaked out that the Kurds might get riled up and declare a separate
state, which would fire up their own Kurds. Saudi Arabia wasn't about
to say anything to further piss off the hard liners in their own
country, and Jordan was in the same boat. And finally, Kuwait was
enthusiastic about ending the menace that attacked them once and for all.
But nooooo,
> Bush had Iranian spy Ahmed Chalabi at his elbow,
> telling him about an Iraq brimming with WMD's, how
> the locals would welcome US troops and how the war
> would "pay for itself".
Chalabi was "the man" for everyone in Washington. They all fell for his
promises. However, we WERE welcomed by local Iraqis as I went North on
highway 1. Day after day after day I saw the road lined with people
(mainly kids) waving at us. The Iraqi Army mostly voted for us by
taking off their uniforms and chosing not to fight. 3ID (and the
Marines in the East) were not supposed to make it to Baghdad all by
themselves like that. Other divisions were supposed to come in behind
them and pass through them as the fighting wore on. The Iraqi Army
played an instrumental role in our common victory in Phase III. They
just need to get back on board now in Phase IV and take over the
security requirements again.
> How much taxpayer money did Bush pay to Iranian
> spy Chalabi,anyway? The last figure I heard was $27
> million. Can you imagine the uproar if Clinton did
> that?
Clinton DID do that. I don't have exact figures, but we've been funding
many Iraqi resistance groups since DS, including Chalabi. How about all
the cruise missiles wasted shooting into Iraq during the Clinton admin
which resulted in practically no results. They are about $1million a
pop. How many years were we supposed to just sit and let Saddam fester
and give us the finger while we waste all that money "containing" him
and periodically "punish" him while he laughs it up and buys off more
anti-war people with the Oil for Food program? Meanwhile, NPR was
railing, even during the Clinton era, about how the sanctions were only
hurting the Iraqi people and about all the WMD the inspectors were going
to find if they could just get back in. Part of the WMD frenzy, in case
you recall, was that Saddam's WMD program was much more *advanced* than
anyone imagined after the last war. Certainly that has an effect on
your reckoning if you are an intel analyst prior to this time around.
PowerPointSamurai
>>The population density is a lot higher too, and there are many allied
>>troops there for reconstruction efforts. Besides, more troops in
>>Afghanistan in a *combat* role (or any role actually) would not
>>necessarily be helpful, and in fact may make them more of a target them
>>ala the Soviet Red Army in the 80s. We can't build these monstrous
>>static bases all over Afghanistan without drawing attacks.
>
>
>
> How is that different that our building "monstrous
> static bases" in Iraq? Are they going to be immune from
> attacks?
Because the terrain in Iraq where the big bases are facilitates
mechanized units, allows us to use our long range weapons and see a
greater distance than we can in the mountainous terrain in Afghanistan,
where a bunch of guys can haul a mortar up in the mountains and use the
added altitude to boost the range and fire off a few shots and melt back
into the terrain. They do that in Iraq and we can have mech QRF (quick
reaction forces) on top of them seconds after the round leaves the tube
(fire finder RADAR). Our guys wear body armor and have their places
built up pretty well with Hesco Bastion barriers (new era sandbags) and
usually have a large perimeter to suck up most of the effective range of
enemy mortars and stuff. Furthermore, mech units give us a distinct
advantage in Iraq, where they would be a liability in Afghanistan. The
price is more logistical requirements, which contributes to the large bases.
>
>>The troops
>>we've been sending are light, highly agile and deployed by helicopter to
>>move quickly and outmanuever them, while gathering and acting on intel
>>from multiple sources. Having them line up 100,000 abreast and march
>>across Afghanistan, or do search and destroy missions ala Vietnam would
>>be greatly counterproductive.
>
>
>
> Isn't that how we captured Saddam? Why is he a
> higher priority than Bin Laden?
No, that is not how we captured Saddam. We got a good tip from some
locals and we searched the area. The same is happening in Afghanistan,
except that the Afghan Army and coalition troops are taking care of
security country wide in Afghanistan, while US troops are hunting Al
Qaeda in sync with the Pakistanis on the other side of the border. I
take that back, German, French, Australian, Spanish, UK, etc. special
ops are also in the fight.
BTW, they keep cranking the reward money for Bin Laden up to higher
amounts. I don't think that's going to make any difference. Many of
the people over there have a clue what to use the money for and the
previous amounts are almost unimaginable. By contrast, money was
helpful with Saddam and his ilk because the Iraqis were more cosmopolitan.
>
>>BTW, have you heard about all the senior Al Qaeda ops captured recently?
>
> There will always be "senior Al Queda ops".
> It was Bin Laden who attacked America, and Bin
> Laden who Bush said he was "not concerned about".
I've had cop friends tell me when you do a sting, sometimes you leave
the king-pin in place for a while to use him to track down all of his
2nd and 3rd tier guys. Looks to me like that's what's happening. He
can't plan an op all by himself. Take out his staff and he has nobody
to really do the REAL planning and gather resources to begin execution.
I'm surprised you haven't quoted the conspiracy theory that they already
know where he is so Bush can get him closer to the election to seal the
re-election.
>>>>> What threat? When did Saddam ever pose a
>>>>>threat to the US, much less attack the US?
>>>>
>>>>I pretty much went through all of that already. The Brits and US
>>>>Marines found huge pre-positioned caches of NBC protective gear, new
>>>>atropine injectors (used to protect against nerve agent--think kind of
>>>>like an antidote), and new decontamination equipment in their positions
>>>>when they overran them.
>>>
>>> How does NBC protective gear on the other
>>>side of the world constitute a threat to the US?
>>
>>
>>It is a very good indicator that they were planning to use NBC agents
>>very soon.
>
> WHAT NBC agents? By your logic having a
> fire extinguisher means you plan on starting
> a fire.
A fire that doesn't happen naturally--only one you start--more like
arson materials.
Iraq went through a lot of trouble to acquire this equipment in
violation of the sanctions. They spent a lot of money and went through
a lot of risk and effort for something that could ONLY be used if they
used chemical or biological weapons. Why else would they do that? Make
the republican guard feel good because they are so well equipt? Why not
spend the money and effort on their tanks or something that would
actually benefit them tactically--unless they were planning to use these
weapons at some point.
>> They went through an awful lot of trouble to purchase all
>>that equipment in violation of the sanctions and pre-position it forward
>>to their units when it would serve no other purpose.
>
> What equipment? There was no sanctions
> against having NBC protection gear.
It's possible they were allowed to purchase defensive equipment, but I
doubt it. Why would you? The equipment is for one purpose. They don't
protect you from JDAMs or bullets, and we denounced the use of chemical
and biological agents years ago. The only possible solution here is
that they planned to use chemical or biological agents. Just because
none have been found YET doesn't mean they weren't there, and again,
they had the equipment and materiel to produce it quickly.
>>
>>>>We found at least 3 of those mobile bio-warfare labs exactly as Sec.
>>>>Powell described them--on their way to the Iranian border. This was
>>>>dismissed as not a "smoking gun" because they didn't find any agents on
>>>>them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, yes, the laughable "mobile weapons labs"
>>>claim that even the Bush administration has backed
>>>away from in disgrace.
>>
>>
>>You have a weird sense of humor if you find them laughable.
>
>
>
> The "mobile weapons labs" claim is so
> completely debunked I am surprise you lower
> yourself to repeat it. Care to post some
> PROOF of these "mobile weapons labs"?
I have a NYT article where the reporter was there and saw it. I'll look
for the PDF.
>
> Huh? What "illicit weapons" got launched at what
> coalition troops?
Abadil-100 and Al Samoud TBMs (Tactical Ballistic Missiles). They were
banned along with the SCUDs, and were capable of launching chem and bio.
Several were launched at us. One attack occured on 27 March 2003.
>>>>Incidentally, US and UK aircraft were fired on very regularly while
>>>>patrolling the No-Fly Zones long prior to OIF. You might not consider
>>>>that "attacking the US"....
>>
>>> Funny Bush didn't mention said incidents being
>>>a "threat to the US" prior to 2002. Why is that, do
>>>you think?
>>
>>Remember Clinton executing Desert Fox? And yes he and President Clinton
>>talked frequently about the ongoing threat on many occasions. Hell, it
>>was even mentioned by the President played by Harrison Ford in the movie
>>Air Force One, and the guy on West Wing.
>>
>>Remember the inspectors getting kicked out in 98 and we sent a couple of
>>carrier battlegroups and 1st CAV division over to get them back in? How
>>many times do you have to do something like that to let the inspectors
>>finish without all the stupid games? This was a long time coming and
>>was purely provoked by Saddam.
>>
>
>
> Gads how can you be so wrong so often. The inspectors
> were not "kicked out", the UN ordered them to leave.
Same frigging difference because they were being stonewalled and threatened.
>>I wasn't referring to a Saddam-911 link, I was saying Saddam was a
>>definite threat for a long time now and was costing us a lot of effort
>>to contain him while his people suffered. He and his regime did sponsor
>>and certain encourage a lot of terrorism, such as the $25k payments to
>>the families of suicide bombers.
>
>
>
> Oh, major BFD. Saddam promises a paltry $25k for
> suicide bomber families. In the meantime the Saudi
> royal family gives them MILLIONS and "tough on
> terrorism" Bush treats them as honored guests at
> his ranch. Where was the concern over THEIR "support
> for terrorism?
That is a big deal in that part of the world, and some of the Saudi's
are very supportive and in some cases we need their help. But you are
right, some of the Saudis are definitely riding the tiger and are
feeding their own potential doom.
PowerPointSamurai
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even countries that traditionally like the
>>>>>>>US now hate us. All the pre-9/11 closeness, all
>>>>>>>the post-9/11 sympathy, gone. All because Bush
>>>>>>>decided to invade a country that was no threat
>>>>>>>to the US and hadn't attacked the US. If the
>>>>>>>rest of the world thinks the US is an arrogant
>>>>>>>bully, well, we now know the cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All we did was enforce 1441 and 687 - everyone agreed with this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny the Bush claimed to need UN justification
>>>>>to go to war, then said he didn't and went to war
>>>>>anyway.
>>>>
>>>>What further legal basis was needed?
>>>
>>>
>>> According to Bush, none. He took a page
>>>right out of the Pearl Harbor playbook. If
>>>you perceive another country might be a
>>>threat someday, attack them now.
>>
>>That is true but 687 was a conditional (conditional in bold)
>>cease fire agreement written by the UN.
>
>
>
> The UN had nothing to do with Bush's
> invasion. He tried to get Security Council
> approval, didn't get it, invaded anyway.
Except for 1441 and the other ones already in place. What did the rest
of the council mean by "serious consequences"? To bed without supper?
Mitchell Holman
news:41314...@corp.newsgroups.com:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>> PowerPointSamurai <nu...@dev.net> wrote in news:41312761_4
>> @corp.newsgroups.com:
>>
>>
>>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Good for defense contractors and morticians,
>>>>>>anyway......
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm a US soldier if you haven't picked up on that.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't guess you have some proof of
>>>>that to share with the class.......
>>>
>>>I don't need to prove anything. Read my other posts here and on
>>>us.military.army. I really don't care if you believe me or not, but
>>>I'm not about to post my DD214 for the world to see.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your choice. Making grand claims you cannot
>> prove is a good way to get a reputation around
>> here.
>
> Grand claims? I said I was in the invasion, not that I was Tommy
> Franks.
So you claim to be in the invasion now.
Without proof. The boy who cried wolf.
>
>>>> Even countries that traditionally like the
>>>>US now hate us.
>>>
>>>Like?
>>
>> Italy, the UK, Germany, Spain, Denmark - you name it.
>
> Italy has troops there, as does the UK. Germany and Spain still have
> people in Afghanistan. Basically the same people in those countries
> liked us or not before.
Massive demonstrations against Bush in every
country you mentioned. And as for Spain, their
government fell because of popular opposition to
the war, remember? And Blair may be the next to go.
>
>
>> When Kennedy and Reagan and Clinton went Ireland the
>> crowds turned out to greet them. When Bush went there
>> thousands were in the street protesting his visit.
>> Everywhere Bush goes there are massive protests against
>> him and his policies.
>
> Mainly by whack-jobs who oppose "globalization" (which Bush is no more
> responsible for than Clinton) or the war, in which they would much
> rather just pretend everything is fine and that we are the ones making a
> big deal out of nothing rather than face the hard truth that we are
> taking on a tough challenge that faces them too whether they know it or
> not.
Isn't that how the Japanese militarists justified
attacking a country they were at peace with - taking
on a "tough challenge" via a policy of "pre-emptive
self defense"?
>
>>
>> Funny that Bush has been going to those "also-ran"
>> countries begging for help in the Iraq quagmire.
>
> Are you Ted Kennedy or something? Iraq is far from a quagmire, and
> President Bush has been asking for these countries to come to show
> resolve and to give the new government legitimacy, because whether you
> agree with the war in the first place or not, the only path from here is
> to get a legitimate government in place that is internationally
> recognized.
Iraq is an utter quagmire. Popular resentment of
the US occupation, troops getting killed every day,
and we are reduced to negociating ceasefires with
locals. What is our exit strategy? When will the US
ever leave? How many troops will ultimately die there?
>
>
>>>All because Bush
>>>
>>>>decided to invade a country that was no threat
>>>>to the US and hadn't attacked the US.
>>>
>>>We had ample reason to do it, and I've already stated why. Bush is
>>>doing what's right, not necessarily what's popular.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hardly. Iraq did not attack the US,
>
> YES IT DID. The attacks in the No Fly Zones are an attack on us.
>
Oh, puh-leeze. Even Bush didn't claim that.
>
> Iraq did
>> not threaten the US,
>
> Yes they did. Almost every speach Saddam gave was filled with
> anti-American rhetoric.
So now we have a license to invade any country
who utters "anti-American rhetoric"?
And you guys wonder why the rest of the world
consider the US an arrogant bully.
>
>
> and even it's neighbors said
>> the US should stay out of the region.
>
> Oh yeah. Iran and Syria wanted us to stay out for completely altruistic
> reasons alright. Turkey only wanted us to stay out because they were
> freaked out that the Kurds might get riled up and declare a separate
> state, which would fire up their own Kurds. Saudi Arabia wasn't about
> to say anything to further piss off the hard liners in their own
> country, and Jordan was in the same boat. And finally, Kuwait was
> enthusiastic about ending the menace that attacked them once and for
> all.
Bingo. Bush invaded to provide "protection" for
a region that didn't want it. Where else should we
go where we are not wanted?
> But nooooo,
>> Bush had Iranian spy Ahmed Chalabi at his elbow,
>> telling him about an Iraq brimming with WMD's, how
>> the locals would welcome US troops and how the war
>> would "pay for itself".
>
> Chalabi was "the man" for everyone in Washington.
Wrong. He was Bush's confidant. Not Clinton's,
not Kennedy's, not Pelosi's.
> They all fell for his
> promises. However, we WERE welcomed by local Iraqis as I went North on
> highway 1. Day after day after day I saw the road lined with people
> (mainly kids) waving at us. The Iraqi Army mostly voted for us by
> taking off their uniforms and chosing not to fight. 3ID (and the
> Marines in the East) were not supposed to make it to Baghdad all by
> themselves like that. Other divisions were supposed to come in behind
> them and pass through them as the fighting wore on. The Iraqi Army
> played an instrumental role in our common victory in Phase III. They
> just need to get back on board now in Phase IV and take over the
> security requirements again.
More personal claims you won't, or can't, support.
>
>
>> How much taxpayer money did Bush pay to Iranian
>> spy Chalabi,anyway? The last figure I heard was $27
>> million. Can you imagine the uproar if Clinton did
>> that?
>
> Clinton DID do that.
Another unproven claim.
I don't have exact figures, but we've been funding
> many Iraqi resistance groups since DS, including Chalabi. How about all
> the cruise missiles wasted shooting into Iraq during the Clinton admin
> which resulted in practically no results. They are about $1million a
> pop. How many years were we supposed to just sit and let Saddam fester
> and give us the finger while we waste all that money "containing" him
> and periodically "punish" him while he laughs it up and buys off more
> anti-war people with the Oil for Food program?
Huh? You complain about wasted money and then
defend the bottomless pit of debt that the Iraq
war has become under Bush?
"The Bill So Far: Congress has already approved of $126.1
BILLION for Iraq and an additional $25 BILLION is heading
towards Congressional approval, for a total of $151.1 BILLION
through this year. Congressional leaders have promised an
additional supplemental appropriation after the election."
www.ips-dc.org/iraq/costsofwar/
Mitchell Holman
news:413151ee$1...@corp.newsgroups.com:
And who sold Saddam the NBC protective gear that you
claimed constitutes a threat? WE DID!!!
"Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing
and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -
- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations
of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including
anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to
Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to
tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included
brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium
perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Classified US Defence
Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that
Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve
gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine
can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas."
http://globalsecurity.com/weapons_of/how_did.htm
We invade a country because it possess the
materials we sold them. Sterling logic there.
>
>>> They went through an awful lot of trouble to purchase all
>>>that equipment in violation of the sanctions and pre-position it
>>>forward to their units when it would serve no other purpose.
>>
>> What equipment? There was no sanctions
>> against having NBC protection gear.
>
> It's possible they were allowed to purchase defensive equipment, but I
> doubt it. Why would you? The equipment is for one purpose. They don't
> protect you from JDAMs or bullets, and we denounced the use of chemical
> and biological agents years ago. The only possible solution here is
> that they planned to use chemical or biological agents. Just because
> none have been found YET doesn't mean they weren't there, and again,
> they had the equipment and materiel to produce it quickly.
If this protective gear is so threatening, why
did we sell them to Saddam in the first place?
>>>
>>>>>We found at least 3 of those mobile bio-warfare labs exactly as Sec.
>>>>>Powell described them--on their way to the Iranian border. This was
>>>>>dismissed as not a "smoking gun" because they didn't find any agents
>>>>>on them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, yes, the laughable "mobile weapons labs"
>>>>claim that even the Bush administration has backed
>>>>away from in disgrace.
>>>
>>>
>>>You have a weird sense of humor if you find them laughable.
>>
>>
>>
>> The "mobile weapons labs" claim is so
>> completely debunked I am surprise you lower
>> yourself to repeat it. Care to post some
>> PROOF of these "mobile weapons labs"?
>
> I have a NYT article where the reporter was there and saw it. I'll look
> for the PDF.
Blow to Blair over 'mobile labs'
Saddam's trucks were for balloons, not germs
Sunday June 8, 2003
The Observer
"Tony Blair faces a fresh crisis over Iraq's alleged weapons
of mass destruction, as evidence emerges that two vehicles
that he has repeatedly claimed to be Iraqi mobile biological
warfare production units are nothing of the sort."
observer.guardian.co.uk/international/ story/0,6903,973012,00.html
"A British biological weapons expert who examined the trailers
told the Observer, "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories.
You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not
even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they
were-- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill
balloons." The hydrogen-producing system, intended to fill balloons
that help correct for the effects of wind on artillery, was originally
sold to Iraq by the British firm Marconi Command & Control, the paper
reported."
www.fair.org/activism/npr-cheney.html
David Casey
[abpm snipped]
>> The UN had nothing to do with Bush's
>> invasion. He tried to get Security Council
>> approval, didn't get it, invaded anyway.
>
> Except for 1441 and the other ones already in place. What did the rest
> of the council mean by "serious consequences"? To bed without supper?
I think this guy you're debating with is part of the "let's give them
forever to comply!" crowd.
Over the past day or so I've been reading through some of the back and
forth between you two, I see you giving your side, and I see him with a lot
of "You can't prove it" and such. Typical strategy of those who have
nothing to bring to the debate.
Hey, did you all hear about the French citizen who was kidnapped in Iraq?
The kidnappers are demanding that France change a rule in their country
which says Muslim children aren't allowed to wear their head coverings in
public school.
Everyone thank those countries who have given in to the demands of the
kidnappers in the past!
Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
http://www.geocities.com/davidcasey98
Remove IH8SPAM to reply by email.
PowerPointSamurai
>>>>>>I'm a US soldier if you haven't picked up on that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't guess you have some proof of
>>>>>that to share with the class.......
>>>>
>>>>I don't need to prove anything. Read my other posts here and on
>>>>us.military.army. I really don't care if you believe me or not, but
>>>>I'm not about to post my DD214 for the world to see.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your choice. Making grand claims you cannot
>>>prove is a good way to get a reputation around
>>>here.
>>
>>Grand claims? I said I was in the invasion, not that I was Tommy
>>Franks.
>
> So you claim to be in the invasion now.
> Without proof. The boy who cried wolf.
WTF do you want? My DD214? My home address? I really don't care if
you believe me or not.
>>>>> Even countries that traditionally like the
>>>>>US now hate us.
>>>>
>>>>Like?
>>>
>>> Italy, the UK, Germany, Spain, Denmark - you name it.
>>
>>Italy has troops there, as does the UK. Germany and Spain still have
>>people in Afghanistan. Basically the same people in those countries
>>liked us or not before.
>
>
>
> Massive demonstrations against Bush in every
> country you mentioned. And as for Spain, their
> government fell because of popular opposition to
> the war, remember? And Blair may be the next to go.
The Spanish government fell because of an ill-timed terrorist act. The
pro-Bush government had the lead going into the election. BTW, there
have been massive demonstrations in all of those countries for
years--they didn't just come up with them because of Bush, or did you
miss the 1970s and 1980s.
Incidentally, an example of the Germans showing support privately is
that their military was very good about taking over security of our
bases there so our troops could deploy to Iraq. We got a lot of support
from them. Also, I know about 6 guys who were in Germany leading up to
the war, and returned there after their rotation and there was basically
no difference. The usual suspects were the ones who caused problems,
but overall, the local German communities are very friendly.
As for Italy, have you ever been there? The same goes for Italy as with
Germany. I went through Italy a few months after the incident where
that Navy/Marine aircraft hit that cable car. A few people responded by
putting bricks through the back windows of American service member's cars.
I just think you and many other people are just waking up to this sort
of thing for the first time and blaming Bush.
Incidentally, I'm confident PM Blair will be ok. He is amazingly
articulate and a very good leader.
But again, it's the right thing, even if it's not the POPULAR thing.
>
>>>When Kennedy and Reagan and Clinton went Ireland the
>>>crowds turned out to greet them. When Bush went there
>>>thousands were in the street protesting his visit.
>>>Everywhere Bush goes there are massive protests against
>>>him and his policies.
>>
>>Mainly by whack-jobs who oppose "globalization" (which Bush is no more
>>responsible for than Clinton) or the war, in which they would much
>>rather just pretend everything is fine and that we are the ones making a
>>big deal out of nothing rather than face the hard truth that we are
>>taking on a tough challenge that faces them too whether they know it or
>>not.
>
> Isn't that how the Japanese militarists justified
> attacking a country they were at peace with - taking
> on a "tough challenge" via a policy of "pre-emptive
> self defense"?
Not quite, but Japan made a bold dash and could've been a dominant
player in the world if they had succeeded. We certainly posed a threat
to them--even though we were allegedly at peace. We cut off their
supply of raw materials, like steel, and made it tough for them to get
oil. Their country was rapidly modernizing and they have very few raw
materials of their own. From their perspective, I could see where it
would be a tempting opportunity to grab it all.
This is totally different though. Terrorism has been on the rise since
the beginning of WWI, and has completely come out of the box with the
fall of the Soviet Union. We've been attacked over and again. Iraq was
part of the problem and certainly not part of the solution.
>
>>> Funny that Bush has been going to those "also-ran"
>>>countries begging for help in the Iraq quagmire.
>>
>>Are you Ted Kennedy or something? Iraq is far from a quagmire, and
>>President Bush has been asking for these countries to come to show
>>resolve and to give the new government legitimacy, because whether you
>>agree with the war in the first place or not, the only path from here is
>>to get a legitimate government in place that is internationally
>>recognized.
>
>
>
> Iraq is an utter quagmire.
Are you an aide for Ted Kennedy? A quagmire is something you are stuck
in and cannot get out of. We could certainly pull out of Iraq today and
just let them have it, but they would fall on each other in a grab for
power. We could invite the UN and the international community in
without conditions, and the dirty deals would begin again.
> Popular resentment of
> the US occupation,
That's pretty much confined to the Sunni triangle. The Kurds are
absolutely pro-American for example.
> troops getting killed every day,
That is complete hyperbole.
> and we are reduced to negociating ceasefires with
> locals.
Because if we killed Sadr in that Mosque, he'd be held up as a martyr by
his nut job followers.
What is our exit strategy? When will the US
> ever leave? How many troops will ultimately die there?
The exit strategy is that the elections will select their new
government, we will finish training their new security forces and their
civil engineers so they can upgrade their infrastructure and get their
economy cranking again, and we begin to phase out. We've said that all
along.
>>>>All because Bush
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>decided to invade a country that was no threat
>>>>>to the US and hadn't attacked the US.
>>>>
>>>>We had ample reason to do it, and I've already stated why. Bush is
>>>>doing what's right, not necessarily what's popular.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hardly. Iraq did not attack the US,
>>
>>YES IT DID. The attacks in the No Fly Zones are an attack on us.
>>
>
>
> Oh, puh-leeze. Even Bush didn't claim that.
Yes he did. The No Fly Zones were getting hot again in the months
leading up to 911 and GEN Franks was working plans to asymmetrically
respond to the attacks because the tit-for-tat you shoot at our plane,
we blow up the launcher attacks were not getting the message across.
>
>>Iraq did
>>
>>>not threaten the US,
>>
>>Yes they did. Almost every speach Saddam gave was filled with
>>anti-American rhetoric.
>
>
>
> So now we have a license to invade any country
> who utters "anti-American rhetoric"?
Intel says they have WMD + intent to use against us ???
>
> And you guys wonder why the rest of the world
> consider the US an arrogant bully.
Just the same people that thought so before.
>>But nooooo,
>>
>>>Bush had Iranian spy Ahmed Chalabi at his elbow,
>>>telling him about an Iraq brimming with WMD's, how
>>>the locals would welcome US troops and how the war
>>>would "pay for itself".
>>
>>Chalabi was "the man" for everyone in Washington.
>
>
>
> Wrong. He was Bush's confidant. Not Clinton's,
> not Kennedy's, not Pelosi's.
Yes he was. Chalabi has been wining and dining in Washington since the
end of the first Gulf War. He was absolutely funded by the Clinton
admin and was well connected in Washington.
>
>
>> They all fell for his
>>promises. However, we WERE welcomed by local Iraqis as I went North on
>>highway 1. Day after day after day I saw the road lined with people
>>(mainly kids) waving at us. The Iraqi Army mostly voted for us by
>>taking off their uniforms and chosing not to fight. 3ID (and the
>>Marines in the East) were not supposed to make it to Baghdad all by
>>themselves like that. Other divisions were supposed to come in behind
>>them and pass through them as the fighting wore on. The Iraqi Army
>>played an instrumental role in our common victory in Phase III. They
>>just need to get back on board now in Phase IV and take over the
>>security requirements again.
>
>
>
> More personal claims you won't, or can't, support.
I think you are desperate so this is the only way you can really try to
discredit me. I post anon because I can express my opinion because I
have met the legal minimum of trivially concealing my identity so no-one
confuses me with an official spokesperson. No matter what I post--to
include my DD214, you would dismiss because you are so pre-disposed to
your own beliefs.
>>
>>> How much taxpayer money did Bush pay to Iranian
>>>spy Chalabi,anyway? The last figure I heard was $27
>>>million. Can you imagine the uproar if Clinton did
>>>that?
>>
>>Clinton DID do that.
>
>
>
> Another unproven claim.
It is a proven claim. We've been funding the Iraqi National Congress
and other resistance groups for decades.
>
> I don't have exact figures, but we've been funding
>
>>many Iraqi resistance groups since DS, including Chalabi. How about all
>>the cruise missiles wasted shooting into Iraq during the Clinton admin
>>which resulted in practically no results. They are about $1million a
>>pop. How many years were we supposed to just sit and let Saddam fester
>>and give us the finger while we waste all that money "containing" him
>>and periodically "punish" him while he laughs it up and buys off more
>>anti-war people with the Oil for Food program?
>
>
>
> Huh? You complain about wasted money and then
> defend the bottomless pit of debt that the Iraq
> war has become under Bush?
Apparently you don't know the difference between paying for decades on
installments with no results and getting it all over quickly and having
results.
PowerPointSamurai
>
> And who sold Saddam the NBC protective gear that you
> claimed constitutes a threat? WE DID!!!
Only if you are from Russia. They were of Russian design (the new masks
and decon equipment).
> We invade a country because it possess the
> materials we sold them. Sterling logic there.
>
The last time the US sold Iraq any weapons was back prior to DS. 40% of
France's weapons exports went to Iraq prior to DS. Russia took over as
their dominant supplier. The only new equipment over there was Russian
in design (possibly via China when they installed the fiber optic commo
systems for their air defense batteries). Night vision equipment, NBC
protective gear, laser range finders for their tanks, etc.
We only sold them equipment back in the 80s to counter what we saw as a
larger threat at the time--Ayatollah Khomeni.
>>>>They went through an awful lot of trouble to purchase all
>>>>that equipment in violation of the sanctions and pre-position it
>>>>forward to their units when it would serve no other purpose.
>>>
>>> What equipment? There was no sanctions
>>>against having NBC protection gear.
>>
>>It's possible they were allowed to purchase defensive equipment, but I
>>doubt it. Why would you? The equipment is for one purpose. They don't
>>protect you from JDAMs or bullets, and we denounced the use of chemical
>>and biological agents years ago. The only possible solution here is
>>that they planned to use chemical or biological agents. Just because
>>none have been found YET doesn't mean they weren't there, and again,
>>they had the equipment and materiel to produce it quickly.
>
>
>
> If this protective gear is so threatening, why
> did we sell them to Saddam in the first place?
>
Only if "we" are from Russia...
PowerPointSamurai
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:55:59 -0500, PowerPointSamurai wrote:
>
> [abpm snipped]
>
>
>>> The UN had nothing to do with Bush's
>>>invasion. He tried to get Security Council
>>>approval, didn't get it, invaded anyway.
>>
>>Except for 1441 and the other ones already in place. What did the rest
>>of the council mean by "serious consequences"? To bed without supper?
>
>
> I think this guy you're debating with is part of the "let's give them
> forever to comply!" crowd.
>
> Over the past day or so I've been reading through some of the back and
> forth between you two, I see you giving your side, and I see him with a lot
> of "You can't prove it" and such. Typical strategy of those who have
> nothing to bring to the debate.
>
> Hey, did you all hear about the French citizen who was kidnapped in Iraq?
> The kidnappers are demanding that France change a rule in their country
> which says Muslim children aren't allowed to wear their head coverings in
> public school.
>
> Everyone thank those countries who have given in to the demands of the
> kidnappers in the past!
Maybe now some of the other countries, like France will see the big
picture here. I hope the journalist gets out ok, but it certainly
illustrates that this is not just some thing Bush and Co dreamed
up--this is something that theatens the whole civilized world.
x
> > people in Afghanistan. Basically the same people in those countries
> > liked us or not before.
>
>
> Massive demonstrations against Bush in every
> country you mentioned. And as for Spain, their
> government fell because of popular opposition to
> the war, remember? And Blair may be the next to go.
>
300,000 people in 270 mass graves and the 1.3 million missing
people are still silent.
>
>
> Iraq is an utter quagmire. Popular resentment of
> the US occupation, troops getting killed every day,
> and we are reduced to negociating ceasefires with
> locals. What is our exit strategy?
> When will the US
> ever leave?
given the current situation in the middle east.
>How many troops will ultimately die there?
>
has never been free.
And what will the Iraqi people say in twenty years?
How will history judge a man who killed thousands
of his own people, sqandered the nation's resourses
on palaces while people starved, and ultimatly failed
to do anything for his country.
Let freedom ring!!
> So now we have a license to invade any country
> who utters "anti-American rhetoric"?
>
Terrorist threats are quite different than "anti-American rhetoric".
>
> >
> >
> > and even it's neighbors said
> >> the US should stay out of the region.
> >
> > Oh yeah. Iran and Syria wanted us to stay out for completely altruistic
Not to mention the fact that we scare the poop out of them.
> > reasons alright. Turkey only wanted us to stay out because they were
> > freaked out that the Kurds might get riled up and declare a separate
> > state, which would fire up their own Kurds. Saudi Arabia wasn't about
> > to say anything to further piss off the hard liners in their own
> > country, and Jordan was in the same boat. And finally, Kuwait was
> > enthusiastic about ending the menace that attacked them once and for
> > all.
>
>
> Bingo. Bush invaded to provide "protection" for
> a region that didn't want it. Where else should we
> go where we are not wanted?
Iran
>
>
> >
> I don't have exact figures, but we've been funding
> > many Iraqi resistance groups since DS, including Chalabi. How about all
> > the cruise missiles wasted shooting into Iraq during the Clinton admin
> > which resulted in practically no results. They are about $1million a
> > pop. How many years were we supposed to just sit and let Saddam fester
> > and give us the finger while we waste all that money "containing" him
> > and periodically "punish" him while he laughs it up and buys off more
> > anti-war people with the Oil for Food program?
>
>
> Huh? You complain about wasted money and then
> defend the bottomless pit of debt that the Iraq
> war has become under Bush?
>
>
> "The Bill So Far: Congress has already approved of $126.1
> BILLION for Iraq and an additional $25 BILLION is heading
> towards Congressional approval, for a total of $151.1 BILLION
> through this year. Congressional leaders have promised an
> additional supplemental appropriation after the election."
> www.ips-dc.org/iraq/costsofwar/
>
hmm wonder how that compares to Veitnam or WW2 in todays dollars.
>
>
>
>
>
x
Let freedom ring!!!!!!!!!
The 300,000 people in 270 mass graves and the 1.3 million
missing people are happy we invaded.
The world is a much safer place with out Saddam the EEEEEvilll Doooooerrrr.
The Butcher of Bagdad.
Mission Accomplished
redc1c4
(snipage occurs)
this is something that theatens the whole civilized world.
true enough, but in this case we're talking about France.....
redc1c4,
that's hardly the same thing. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
PowerPointSamurai
> PowerPointSamurai <nu...@dev.net> wrote in news:4131fe62$1_4
> @corp.newsgroups.com:
>
>
>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And who sold Saddam the NBC protective gear that you
>>>claimed constitutes a threat? WE DID!!!
>>
>>Only if you are from Russia. They were of Russian design (the new masks
>>and decon equipment).
>>
>
>
> Another unfounded claim, I see.
>
> Here is the founded one.
>
> "Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing
> and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -
> - reveal that the US, under the successive administrations
> of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including
> anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to
> Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to
> tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included
> brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium
> perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Classified US Defence
> Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that
> Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve
> gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine
> can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas."
>
> http://globalsecurity.com/weapons_of/how_did.htm
You know, globalsecurity is a good website, but I find its material
suspect sometimes. The place is full of disgruntled former military who
got passed over or got out for some reason or another, including
honorable retirement.
At any rate, whatever transpired here, if it indeed happened, was not
something most policymakers would knowingly allow. The reverse
engineering thing is a good example. Right now there are a large number
of PCs and computer equipment that cannot be sold to even Pakistan
because of the restrictions on exporting them due to their tertiary use
in producing weapons. Look at the firestorm Caterpillar is facing about
their bulldozers being used to raze Palestinian villages. This is a
much simpler example, with rather obvious uses for the equipment, but
how was Cat to know that the Israeli customers were going to use them
for that purpose? Moreover, do they have the right to deny them the
right to purchase the equipment without some kind of sanction?
Some third party, on the other hand, has been selling very new Russian
ammunition, night vision equipment, upgrades for their tanks, the NBC
gear, etc. to Iraq very recently before the war in direct violation of
the sanctions.
>
>
>
>>> We invade a country because it possess the
>>>materials we sold them. Sterling logic there.
>>>
>>
>>The last time the US sold Iraq any weapons was back prior to DS. 40% of
>>France's weapons exports went to Iraq prior to DS. Russia took over as
>>their dominant supplier. The only new equipment over there was Russian
>>in design (possibly via China when they installed the fiber optic commo
>>systems for their air defense batteries). Night vision equipment, NBC
>>protective gear, laser range finders for their tanks, etc.
>>
>>We only sold them equipment back in the 80s to counter what we saw as a
>>larger threat at the time--Ayatollah Khomeni.
>
>
>
> I see. We sold weapons to Iraq to use against
> Iran, while we sold weapons to Iran to use against
> Iraq. Which country was our enemy and why were we
> arming it?
That was one of the centric problems and what made the Iran-Contra
affair such a huge controversy. Arming the Ayatollah was certainly not
something most policy makers wanted us to be doing at the time.
>
>>>>>>They went through an awful lot of trouble to purchase all
>>>>>>that equipment in violation of the sanctions and pre-position it
>>>>>>forward to their units when it would serve no other purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> What equipment? There was no sanctions
>>>>>against having NBC protection gear.
>>>>
>>>>It's possible they were allowed to purchase defensive equipment, but I
>>>>doubt it. Why would you? The equipment is for one purpose. They don't
>>>>protect you from JDAMs or bullets, and we denounced the use of chemical
>>>>and biological agents years ago. The only possible solution here is
>>>>that they planned to use chemical or biological agents. Just because
>>>>none have been found YET doesn't mean they weren't there, and again,
>>>>they had the equipment and materiel to produce it quickly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If this protective gear is so threatening, why
>>>did we sell them to Saddam in the first place?
>>>
>>
>>Only if "we" are from Russia...
>
>
>
> Another unfounded claim. And regardless of the source,
> how can NBC protective on the other side of the world
> POSSIBLY threaten the US?
>
> PS: Pakistan and India both have loads of this "threatening"
> NBC protective gear. When do we invade?
>
And neither has taken an aggressive stance against us or publicly
threatened to use them against us. I didn't say the NBC gear in itself
was threatening, I said it was a very good indicator they had the intent
to use NBC and they had taken a lot of time, effort and money into
updating their gear...for what? We renounced our own chemical and
biological weapons, so why?
Mitchell Holman
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>I'm a US soldier if you haven't picked up on that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't guess you have some proof of
>>>>>>that to share with the class.......
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't need to prove anything. Read my other posts here and on
>>>>>us.military.army. I really don't care if you believe me or not, but
>>>>>I'm not about to post my DD214 for the world to see.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your choice. Making grand claims you cannot
>>>>prove is a good way to get a reputation around
>>>>here.
>>>
>>>Grand claims? I said I was in the invasion, not that I was Tommy
>>>Franks.
>>
>> So you claim to be in the invasion now.
>> Without proof. The boy who cried wolf.
>
>
> WTF do you want? My DD214? My home address? I really don't care if
> you believe me or not.
>
Then stop making claims you cannot support.
>>>>>> Even countries that traditionally like the
>>>>>>US now hate us.
>>>>>
>>>>>Like?
>>>>
>>>> Italy, the UK, Germany, Spain, Denmark - you name it.
>>>
>>>Italy has troops there, as does the UK. Germany and Spain still have
>>>people in Afghanistan. Basically the same people in those countries
>>>liked us or not before.
>>
>>
>>
>> Massive demonstrations against Bush in every
>> country you mentioned. And as for Spain, their
>> government fell because of popular opposition to
>> the war, remember? And Blair may be the next to go.
>
>
> The Spanish government fell because of an ill-timed terrorist act. The
> pro-Bush government had the lead going into the election.
Wrong. Even the conservative president admitted
how unpopular his support for Bush made him.
"The electoral defeat of Mr. Aznar was a blow to Mr. Bush,
who met with him exactly one year ago today in the Azores
to map strategy on the eve of war. The Spanish leader and
his wife, Ana Botella, who was running for political office,
both privately expressed concern to Mr. Bush that their
support for war was enormously unpopular."
washingtontimes.com/national/20040316-121404-1835r.htm
"The new Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero,
said his country's presence in Iraq was illegal because
it lacked a mandate from the United Nations. Opinion
polls show that about 75% of Spaniards support this
position. Polls also indicate that 90% of voters opposed
former Popular Party Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's
decision to dispatch troops to Iraq. Before losing office,
Aznar was one of President Bush's staunchest allies."
www.worldpress.org/Europe/1877.cfm
"The British and Italian premiers are U.S. President
George W. Bush's closest remaining European allies in
the unpopular Iraq conflict and key players in his
"coalition of the willing". Analysis indicates Iraq
policy has cost both prime ministers heavily at the
ballot box. Parties aggressively opposed to the war
were clear winners in both countries, a pattern that
was repeated in other EU countries where Iraq was a
major issue."
www.worldpress.org/Europe/1877.cfm
>
> Incidentally, an example of the Germans showing support privately is
> that their military was very good about taking over security of our
> bases there so our troops could deploy to Iraq. We got a lot of support
> from them. Also, I know about 6 guys who were in Germany leading up to
> the war, and returned there after their rotation and there was basically
> no difference. The usual suspects were the ones who caused problems,
> but overall, the local German communities are very friendly.
>
> As for Italy, have you ever been there? The same goes for Italy as with
> Germany. I went through Italy a few months after the incident where
> that Navy/Marine aircraft hit that cable car. A few people responded by
> putting bricks through the back windows of American service member's cars.
>
> I just think you and many other people are just waking up to this sort
> of thing for the first time and blaming Bush.
>
> Incidentally, I'm confident PM Blair will be ok. He is amazingly
> articulate and a very good leader.
>
Blair's party suffered massive defeats in the
latest round of British elections, remember?
"In the UK local elections, Tony Blair's once-mighty Labour
Party came in an unprecedented third. It got an abysmal 26%
of the vote, and in the EU elections did even worse, receiving
just above 22% support. These are the worse results in living
memory for a governing British party and will likely result in
increased pressure on Blair from politicians fearful of losing
their seats in a general election possibly less than a year away."
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1877.cfm
> But again, it's the right thing, even if it's not the POPULAR thing.
Allied support for the war is neither right
NOR popular.
Plese post for us one thing Bush did about
terrorism prior to 9/11.
>
>
>
>>
>>>> Funny that Bush has been going to those "also-ran"
>>>>countries begging for help in the Iraq quagmire.
>>>
>>>Are you Ted Kennedy or something? Iraq is far from a quagmire, and
>>>President Bush has been asking for these countries to come to show
>>>resolve and to give the new government legitimacy, because whether you
>>>agree with the war in the first place or not, the only path from here is
>>>to get a legitimate government in place that is internationally
>>>recognized.
>>
>>
>>
>> Iraq is an utter quagmire.
>
> Are you an aide for Ted Kennedy? A quagmire is something you are stuck
> in and cannot get out of. We could certainly pull out of Iraq today and
> just let them have it, but they would fall on each other in a grab for
> power. We could invite the UN and the international community in
> without conditions, and the dirty deals would begin again.
By that logic we should still in the Vietnam
quagmire as well. The majority of Iraqis want us
to leave. So why don't we?
>> Popular resentment of
>> the US occupation,
>
> That's pretty much confined to the Sunni triangle. The Kurds are
> absolutely pro-American for example.
>
>> troops getting killed every day,
>
> That is complete hyperbole.
528 = days since invasion
972 = US troops killed in Iraq since invasion
You do the math.
>
>
>> and we are reduced to negociating ceasefires with
>> locals.
>
> Because if we killed Sadr in that Mosque, he'd be held up as a martyr by
> his nut job followers.
Sounds like an Iraqi problem for Iraqis
to solve.
PowerPointSamurai
> PowerPointSamurai wrote:
>
> (snipage occurs)
>
> this is something that theatens the whole civilized world.
>
> true enough, but in this case we're talking about France.....
>
> redc1c4,
> that's hardly the same thing. %-)
The ones I met in Normany weren't too bad, except for the funny food--if
I want something from the garden, I prefer it to be a plant, not an
invertebrate leaving a trail on my plant. If I want meat, I'll go for
something a little higher on the food chain.
Mitchell Holman
@corp.newsgroups.com:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>
>
>
> What is our exit strategy? When will the US
>> ever leave? How many troops will ultimately die there?
>
> The exit strategy is that the elections will select their new
> government, we will finish training their new security forces and their
> civil engineers so they can upgrade their infrastructure and get their
> economy cranking again, and we begin to phase out. We've said that all
> along.
Pie in the sky. Suppose the Iraqis vote
in a "death to America" Iranian style government?
Do we cancel their elections? Refuse to leave
when ordered?
>>>>>All because Bush
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>decided to invade a country that was no threat
>>>>>>to the US and hadn't attacked the US.
>>>>>
>>>>>We had ample reason to do it, and I've already stated why. Bush is
>>>>>doing what's right, not necessarily what's popular.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hardly. Iraq did not attack the US,
>>>
>>>YES IT DID. The attacks in the No Fly Zones are an attack on us.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, puh-leeze. Even Bush didn't claim that.
>
> Yes he did.
Prove it.
> The No Fly Zones were getting hot again in the months
> leading up to 911 and GEN Franks was working plans to asymmetrically
> respond to the attacks because the tit-for-tat you shoot at our plane,
> we blow up the launcher attacks were not getting the message across.
>
>>
>>>Iraq did
>>>
>>>>not threaten the US,
>>>
>>>Yes they did. Almost every speach Saddam gave was filled with
>>>anti-American rhetoric.
>>
>>
>>
>> So now we have a license to invade any country
>> who utters "anti-American rhetoric"?
>
> Intel says they have WMD + intent to use against us ???
>
Or so said Bush confidant Chalabi, anyway.
>>
>> And you guys wonder why the rest of the world
>> consider the US an arrogant bully.
>
>
> Just the same people that thought so before.
>
>
>>>But nooooo,
>>>
>>>>Bush had Iranian spy Ahmed Chalabi at his elbow,
>>>>telling him about an Iraq brimming with WMD's, how
>>>>the locals would welcome US troops and how the war
>>>>would "pay for itself".
>>>
>>>Chalabi was "the man" for everyone in Washington.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wrong. He was Bush's confidant. Not Clinton's,
>> not Kennedy's, not Pelosi's.
>
> Yes he was. Chalabi has been wining and dining in Washington since the
> end of the first Gulf War. He was absolutely funded by the Clinton
> admin and was well connected in Washington.
More unproven claims.
>>
>>
>>> They all fell for his
>>>promises. However, we WERE welcomed by local Iraqis as I went North on
>>>highway 1. Day after day after day I saw the road lined with people
>>>(mainly kids) waving at us. The Iraqi Army mostly voted for us by
>>>taking off their uniforms and chosing not to fight. 3ID (and the
>>>Marines in the East) were not supposed to make it to Baghdad all by
>>>themselves like that. Other divisions were supposed to come in behind
>>>them and pass through them as the fighting wore on. The Iraqi Army
>>>played an instrumental role in our common victory in Phase III. They
>>>just need to get back on board now in Phase IV and take over the
>>>security requirements again.
>>
>>
>>
>> More personal claims you won't, or can't, support.
>
> I think you are desperate so this is the only way you can really try to
> discredit me. I post anon because I can express my opinion because I
> have met the legal minimum of trivially concealing my identity so no-one
> confuses me with an official spokesperson. No matter what I post--to
> include my DD214, you would dismiss because you are so pre-disposed to
> your own beliefs.
I tired long ago of posters who brag about
their personal experience and credentials and
then refuse to back it up. If cannot back your
claims, quit making them.
>
>
>>>
>>>> How much taxpayer money did Bush pay to Iranian
>>>>spy Chalabi,anyway? The last figure I heard was $27
>>>>million. Can you imagine the uproar if Clinton did
>>>>that?
>>>
>>>Clinton DID do that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Another unproven claim.
>
> It is a proven claim.
So post your proof.
David Casey
> this is something that theatens the whole civilized world.
>
> true enough, but in this case we're talking about France.....
Yes, I keep waiting to hear news of their surrender... ;-)
PowerPointSamurai
> PowerPointSamurai <nu...@dev.net> wrote in news:4131f...@corp.newsgroups.com:
>
>
>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>I'm a US soldier if you haven't picked up on that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't guess you have some proof of
>>>>>>>that to share with the class.......
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't need to prove anything. Read my other posts here and on
>>>>>>us.military.army. I really don't care if you believe me or not, but
>>>>>>I'm not about to post my DD214 for the world to see.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your choice. Making grand claims you cannot
>>>>>prove is a good way to get a reputation around
>>>>>here.
>>>>
>>>>Grand claims? I said I was in the invasion, not that I was Tommy
>>>>Franks.
>>>
>>> So you claim to be in the invasion now.
>>>Without proof. The boy who cried wolf.
>>
>>
>>WTF do you want? My DD214? My home address? I really don't care if
>>you believe me or not.
>>
>
>
> Then stop making claims you cannot support.
The funny thing is that you tacitly complement me with your childish
demand. You failed to factually challenge my discourse on light vs.
mech forces and anything else that dealt directly with military related
topics. So evidently you chose to believe I am a well read poser, or
really creative. Have it your way.
Incidentally, any proof I offer--even by blowing my privacy--would
likely be rejected as a good photoshop job or something. I don't see
anything productive being gained by telling you exactly who I am.
>
>>The Spanish government fell because of an ill-timed terrorist act. The
>>pro-Bush government had the lead going into the election.
> Wrong. Even the conservative president admitted
> how unpopular his support for Bush made him.
Maybe you forgot he was leading the polls going into the election.
>>But again, it's the right thing, even if it's not the POPULAR thing.
>
>
>
> Allied support for the war is neither right
> NOR popular.
It is right, and I've already told you why, but you just keep throwing
back blog info and poll numbers.
>>Are you an aide for Ted Kennedy? A quagmire is something you are stuck
>>in and cannot get out of. We could certainly pull out of Iraq today and
>>just let them have it, but they would fall on each other in a grab for
>>power. We could invite the UN and the international community in
>>without conditions, and the dirty deals would begin again.
>
>
>
> By that logic we should still in the Vietnam
> quagmire as well. The majority of Iraqis want us
> to leave. So why don't we?
No they don't, and they would be enormously sorry if we did right now
because of the lack of security and rebuilding effort.
>>>and we are reduced to negociating ceasefires with
>>>locals.
>>
>>Because if we killed Sadr in that Mosque, he'd be held up as a martyr by
>>his nut job followers.
>
>
>
> Sounds like an Iraqi problem for Iraqis
> to solve.
Gee, maybe that's why they are. We are just providing cordon security,
they are doing the negotiations and setting the terms.
David Casey
[followups set]
[snip!]
>> Because if we killed Sadr in that Mosque, he'd be held up as a martyr by
>> his nut job followers.
>
> Sounds like an Iraqi problem for Iraqis to solve.
At least until a couple more planes crash into a building in the US. I
think it's always a good idea to keep problems as far away from home as
possible.
PowerPointSamurai
>>>>> Hardly. Iraq did not attack the US,
>>>>
>>>>YES IT DID. The attacks in the No Fly Zones are an attack on us.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, puh-leeze. Even Bush didn't claim that.
>>
>>Yes he did.
>
>
>
> Prove it.
Just one of many places was in GEN (ret) Tommy Frank's book "American
Soldier". I can't help it you didn't watch the news or were too busy
watching Survivor.
>>Intel says they have WMD + intent to use against us ???
>>
>
>
> Or so said Bush confidant Chalabi, anyway.
So said everyone, to include German, French and Russian intel passed to
us. Incidentally, you keep asserting that Chalabi just showed up and
courted President Bush. He was hanging around Western leaders drumming
up support (and succeeding handsomely) since the end of the first Gulf War.
>>I think you are desperate so this is the only way you can really try to
>>discredit me. I post anon because I can express my opinion because I
>>have met the legal minimum of trivially concealing my identity so no-one
>>confuses me with an official spokesperson. No matter what I post--to
>>include my DD214, you would dismiss because you are so pre-disposed to
>>your own beliefs.
>
>
>
> I tired long ago of posters who brag about
> their personal experience and credentials and
> then refuse to back it up. If cannot back your
> claims, quit making them.
Again, this just shows how desperate you are. I'm not claiming to be
anyone of any importance at all, and any "proof" I give you you will
just continue your claim, and erode my privacy here more and more. You
seem sane and civil enough that the two of us could sit down and have a
beer together if we ever met, even if we disagree with each other on
things, but there are whack-jobs out there that I'd rather not expose my
identity to, and I would rather not have a call from my boss if I get
too opinionated about a civil leader. If you can't understand that, too
bad for you.
>>>>> How much taxpayer money did Bush pay to Iranian
>>>>>spy Chalabi,anyway? The last figure I heard was $27
>>>>>million. Can you imagine the uproar if Clinton did
>>>>>that?
>>>>
>>>>Clinton DID do that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Another unproven claim.
>>
>>It is a proven claim.
>
>
>
> So post your proof.
Google it yourself. The INC and other resistance groups were funded by
the CIA and other organizations since at least 1992. There was an NPR
story around 1996 criticizing the US for boosting up these resistance
groups to rise up against Saddam after DS and then backed away and let
them get stomped when he cracked down. What do you think the whole
purpose of the No Fly Zones and Operation Southern/Northern Watch and
Operation Restore Hope were all about?
If you are really looking for a reason why people around the world get
pissed at us it's not because of bullying, it's because we are
developing a reputation of leaving with unfinished business after
promising to bring hope and democracy.
Mitchell Holman
@corp.newsgroups.com:
Globalsecurity is a better source of
information than anything you have cited.
Fact remains Reagan sold arms to both sides in
the Iran-Iraq war.
Who cares? You still haven't shown how Saddam
was the slightest threat to the US.
Mitchell Holman
Modern Conservative: Someone who believes the
Iraq invasion was self-defense because Saddam was
on the verge of using his non-existent navy and his
non-existent air force to attack the US with his
non-existent WMD's.
Mitchell Holman
news:41324...@corp.newsgroups.com:
Tom Clancy also writes very authoritatively
both things he has never seen and cannot prove.
But at least he admits it is well-researched fiction.
> Incidentally, any proof I offer--even by blowing my privacy--would
> likely be rejected as a good photoshop job or something. I don't see
> anything productive being gained by telling you exactly who I am.
Suit yourself. Would you mind if I contraticted
everything you posted by citing MY personal experience
without a shred of proof?
>
>>
>
>>>The Spanish government fell because of an ill-timed terrorist act. The
>>>pro-Bush government had the lead going into the election.
>
>> Wrong. Even the conservative president admitted
>> how unpopular his support for Bush made him.
>
> Maybe you forgot he was leading the polls going into the election.
>
Wrong.
The quote you deleted shows his massive
unpopularity A YEAR BEFORE the election.
"The electoral defeat of Mr. Aznar was a blow to Mr. Bush,
who met with him exactly one year ago today in the Azores
to map strategy on the eve of war. The Spanish leader and
his wife, Ana Botella, who was running for political office,
both privately expressed concern to Mr. Bush that their
support for war was enormously unpopular."
washingtontimes.com/national/20040316-121404-1835r.htm
You know, deleting the proof that proves you wrong
and then insisting you are right is not very convincing.
>
>>>But again, it's the right thing, even if it's not the POPULAR thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Allied support for the war is neither right
>> NOR popular.
>
>
> It is right, and I've already told you why, but you just keep throwing
> back blog info and poll numbers.
I prove my points with posted proof. You delete
them, post no proof to the contrary, and simply
repeat your unproven claims.
>
>>>Are you an aide for Ted Kennedy? A quagmire is something you are stuck
>>>in and cannot get out of. We could certainly pull out of Iraq today
>>>and just let them have it, but they would fall on each other in a grab
>>>for power. We could invite the UN and the international community in
>>>without conditions, and the dirty deals would begin again.
>>
>>
>>
>> By that logic we should still in the Vietnam
>> quagmire as well. The majority of Iraqis want us
>> to leave. So why don't we?
>
> No they don't, and they would be enormously sorry if we did right now
> because of the lack of security and rebuilding effort.
>
Here is more proof to the contrary, that you
are free to delete while repeating your unproven
assertions.
Poll: Iraqis out of patience
USA Today, 4/28/2004
BAGHDAD — Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that
the American-led occupation of their country is doing more
good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate
military pullout even though they fear that could put them
in greater danger"
>
>
>>>>and we are reduced to negociating ceasefires with
>>>>locals.
>>>
>>>Because if we killed Sadr in that Mosque, he'd be held up as a martyr
>>>by his nut job followers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sounds like an Iraqi problem for Iraqis
>> to solve.
>
>
> Gee, maybe that's why they are. We are just providing cordon security,
> they are doing the negotiations and setting the terms.
The people don't want us there. Fact.
Washington - More than nine out of 10 Iraqis consider
US-led forces as occupiers, and a strong majority think
their country would be safer if the coalition forces left,
according to a poll commissioned by the Coalition Provisional
Authority (CPA).
www.news24.com/News24/World/ Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1543739,00.html
Poll Finds Most Iraqis Want U.S., U.K. Out Soon
by Associated Press, Toronto Star
April 29th, 2004
WASHINGTON — Despite concerns about their own safety, the
majority of Iraqis say they want the U.S. and British troops
now in Iraq to leave within the next few months, according
to a countrywide poll of people in Iraq.
www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=4474
Mitchell Holman
news:1s0s0301...@sgtcaseycableone.net:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:18:01 GMT, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> [followups set]
>
> [snip!]
>
>>> Because if we killed Sadr in that Mosque, he'd be held up as a martyr
by
>>> his nut job followers.
>>
>> Sounds like an Iraqi problem for Iraqis to solve.
>
> At least until a couple more planes crash into a building in the US.
What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Oh, that's right - nothing.
At least Bush said so.
But come to think of it, he DOES lie. A lot.
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein
was involved with the 11 September attacks"
George Bush, Sept 18, 2003
Mitchell Holman
@corp.newsgroups.com:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>
>>>>>> Hardly. Iraq did not attack the US,
>>>>>
>>>>>YES IT DID. The attacks in the No Fly Zones are an attack on us.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, puh-leeze. Even Bush didn't claim that.
>>>
>>>Yes he did.
>>
>>
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> Just one of many places was in GEN (ret) Tommy Frank's book "American
> Soldier". I can't help it you didn't watch the news or were too busy
> watching Survivor.
>
Repeating your claim is not proof. Where did Bush
ever say that the No Fly zone violations amounted to
an attack on the US?
>
>>>Intel says they have WMD + intent to use against us ???
>>>
>>
>>
>> Or so said Bush confidant Chalabi, anyway.
>
> So said everyone, to include German, French and Russian intel passed to
> us. Incidentally, you keep asserting that Chalabi just showed up and
> courted President Bush. He was hanging around Western leaders drumming
> up support (and succeeding handsomely) since the end of the first Gulf
War.
>
More unproven claims.
>
>>>I think you are desperate so this is the only way you can really try to
>>>discredit me. I post anon because I can express my opinion because I
>>>have met the legal minimum of trivially concealing my identity so no-one
>>>confuses me with an official spokesperson. No matter what I post--to
>>>include my DD214, you would dismiss because you are so pre-disposed to
>>>your own beliefs.
>>
>>
>>
>> I tired long ago of posters who brag about
>> their personal experience and credentials and
>> then refuse to back it up. If cannot back your
>> claims, quit making them.
>
>
> Again, this just shows how desperate you are. I'm not claiming to be
> anyone of any importance at all, and any "proof" I give you you will
> just continue your claim, and erode my privacy here more and more. You
> seem sane and civil enough that the two of us could sit down and have a
> beer together if we ever met, even if we disagree with each other on
> things, but there are whack-jobs out there that I'd rather not expose my
> identity to, and I would rather not have a call from my boss if I get
> too opinionated about a civil leader. If you can't understand that, too
> bad for you.
If you want to protect your privacy, fine. Just
don't expect to be taken seriously when you make claims
you cannot prove. Esp ones from unproven personal
experience. These groups are full of people posing as
people they are not.
>
>
>>>>>> How much taxpayer money did Bush pay to Iranian
>>>>>>spy Chalabi,anyway? The last figure I heard was $27
>>>>>>million. Can you imagine the uproar if Clinton did
>>>>>>that?
>>>>>
>>>>>Clinton DID do that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another unproven claim.
>>>
>>>It is a proven claim.
>>
>>
>>
>> So post your proof.
>
> Google it yourself.
Not a chance. If you cannot prove your claims
then stop making them and insisting everyone else
do your homework.
> The INC and other resistance groups were funded by
> the CIA and other organizations since at least 1992. There was an NPR
> story around 1996 criticizing the US for boosting up these resistance
> groups to rise up against Saddam after DS and then backed away and let
> them get stomped when he cracked down. What do you think the whole
> purpose of the No Fly Zones and Operation Southern/Northern Watch and
> Operation Restore Hope were all about?
>
>
> If you are really looking for a reason why people around the world get
> pissed at us it's not because of bullying, it's because we are
> developing a reputation of leaving with unfinished business after
> promising to bring hope and democracy.
You mean like Reagan's retreat from Beirut?
Mitchell Holman
"Iran is the strangest collection of looney
tunes and squalid criminals since the Third Reich".
Ronald Reagan, just prior to selling weapons to
that same Iran in the Iran/Contra deal.
PowerPointSamurai
>>The funny thing is that you tacitly complement me with your childish
>>demand. You failed to factually challenge my discourse on light vs.
>>mech forces and anything else that dealt directly with military related
>>topics. So evidently you chose to believe I am a well read poser, or
>>really creative. Have it your way.
>>
>
>
> Tom Clancy also writes very authoritatively
> both things he has never seen and cannot prove.
> But at least he admits it is well-researched fiction.
I really don't see a point. I'm not sure you would recognize any proof
of who I am if I did post it, and I'm almost certain that no matter what
I post, you will try to discredit it (oh, you just got the uniform from
a surplus store and the ID card is a fake).
I think comparing me to Tom Clancy is a little over the top though.
That guy has a lot more talent than me.
>>Incidentally, any proof I offer--even by blowing my privacy--would
>>likely be rejected as a good photoshop job or something. I don't see
>>anything productive being gained by telling you exactly who I am.
>
> Suit yourself. Would you mind if I contraticted
> everything you posted by citing MY personal experience
> without a shred of proof?
Assuming that's your real name (which I don't see why it wouldn't be),
how would I know what background and experience you bring to the table?
It's a double-edged sword.
> You know, deleting the proof that proves you wrong
> and then insisting you are right is not very convincing.
Your claims are still intact in the thread--if we don't abbreviate the
thread for responses, this thing is going to exceed the line limit on
the server pretty quickly.
>>>>Are you an aide for Ted Kennedy? A quagmire is something you are stuck
>>>>in and cannot get out of. We could certainly pull out of Iraq today
>>>>and just let them have it, but they would fall on each other in a grab
>>>>for power. We could invite the UN and the international community in
>>>>without conditions, and the dirty deals would begin again.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> By that logic we should still in the Vietnam
>>>quagmire as well. The majority of Iraqis want us
>>>to leave. So why don't we?
>>
>>No they don't, and they would be enormously sorry if we did right now
>>because of the lack of security and rebuilding effort.
>>
>
>
> Here is more proof to the contrary, that you
> are free to delete while repeating your unproven
> assertions.
How can you possibly get an accurate poll in a country where the vast
majority have never had a telephone? Did the Post go door to door, did
they mail it out? What was the sample size? What demographics did they
ask? Tell me HOW you can possibly have an accurate poll in Iraq.
Notice you rarely hear of any incidents in Kurdish controlled territory,
and infrequently anywhere outside the Sunni triangle, except now lately
in Najaf. The Shiites are the majority and are very happy with us for
getting rid of Saddam, but inherently distrust us because of their
alignment with Iran. Many of the Shiites want to take their stake as
the majority to get back at the Sunnis or at least dominate the new
government. Naturally some of them are losing patience with setting up
the new government because they don't really see a need to protect
minorities.
Alf snabela
"PowerPointSamurai" <nos...@dev.nul> wrote in message
news:ldHYc.533514$Gx4.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>How can you possibly get an accurate poll in a country where the vast<
>majority have never had a telephone? <
Oh they all have cell-phones now!
PowerPointSamurai
> If you want to protect your privacy, fine. Just
> don't expect to be taken seriously when you make claims
> you cannot prove. Esp ones from unproven personal
> experience. These groups are full of people posing as
> people they are not.
I've been around usenet and weblogs for some time now, and understand
your concerns. However, I cannot think of anything I could post,
especially without disclosing my identity (which is only trivially
protected by the alias anyway) that you would agree to.
>> The INC and other resistance groups were funded by
>>the CIA and other organizations since at least 1992. There was an NPR
>>story around 1996 criticizing the US for boosting up these resistance
>>groups to rise up against Saddam after DS and then backed away and let
>>them get stomped when he cracked down. What do you think the whole
>>purpose of the No Fly Zones and Operation Southern/Northern Watch and
>>Operation Restore Hope were all about?
>>
>>
>>If you are really looking for a reason why people around the world get
>>pissed at us it's not because of bullying, it's because we are
>>developing a reputation of leaving with unfinished business after
>>promising to bring hope and democracy.
>
>
>
> You mean like Reagan's retreat from Beirut?
Or from Somalia, or Vietnam...there are plenty of examples without
picking on Reagan. There's plenty of blame to go around on this, and it
all comes back to starting something without finishing it and letting
our adversaries perceive that we will cave in if the fight gets tough
and let them have what they want. This sends a dangerous signal that
all they have to do is start a battle of attrition and we lose our will.
PowerPointSamurai
>>>>>>> How much taxpayer money did Bush pay to Iranian
>>>>>>>spy Chalabi,anyway? The last figure I heard was $27
>>>>>>>million. Can you imagine the uproar if Clinton did
>>>>>>>that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Clinton DID do that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another unproven claim.
>>>>
>>>>It is a proven claim.
Chalabi's bio. He was CIA funded throughout the 90s.
http://www.iraqinews.com/people_chalabi.shtml
Name
Dr Ahmad Chalabi
Official Site
Personal Information
Born - 1944.
Marital Status - Unknown.
Education - Mathematics (Chicago University and MIT).
Personal History
Dr. Ahmad Chalabi is a Shi'a Muslim. He is the son of a wealthy banking
family whose grandfather, father and brother held prominent posts in
Iraqi governments until Saddam Hussein's Baath Party seized power in
1968. He has not lived in Iraq since 1956, apart from a period
organizing resistance in the Kurdish north in the mid-1990s. Chalabi was
a math professor at the American University in Beirut until 1977. His
main political support came from the US Congress, the Pentagon and parts
of the CIA. The US State Department does not trust him and has raised
questions about Iraqi National Congress's accounting practices. In 1995
he organized an uprising in the Northern Iraq, which was called off by
the CIA at the crucial moment, and which subsequently led to the deaths
of thousands of INC members. A highly controversial figure, he is
charismatic and determined, though many also regard him as domineering.
Since he left Jordan, Chalabi has resided in London and he is now a
British citizen.
Political Activity
Dr. Ahmad Chalabi was leader of Iraqi National Congress until April of
1999, when he was demoted to the rank of an ordinary member. A
collective leadership of seven persons, each representing one of the
main opposition groups, was established in his place. He was the
chairman of the Petra Bank in Jordan and was eventually convicted (in
his absence) of fraud by a Jordanian court. He maintains he is innocent
and says the Iraqi government trumped up the accusations.
Additional Information
Dr. Ahmad Chalabi has little support from leaders of the various Iraqi
exile groups, or from Iraqis living in Iraq. The Arab governments in the
Persian Gulf region have told the administration that they would not
allow Chalabi to run a liberation army from their soil, even in an
operation mounted with U.S. help. The ruling Sunnis of Saudi Arabia
distrust Chalabi in part because he is Shi'a, a branch of Islam whose
adherents make up just over half of Iraq's 22 million inhabitants. The
Kuwaitis do not believe he could inspire a successful revolt and refuse
to give him a staging area. Jordan would put him in jail were he to
return because of the banking fraud. And on the other side of Iraq,
Turkey wants nothing to do with Chalabi or his plan.
________________________________________________________________
Here's what BBC has to say--note the line about President Clinton
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2291649.stm
Profile: Ahmed Chalabi
Chalabi: controversial opposition maverick
Ahmed Chalabi was, before the fall of Saddam Hussein, one of the best
known Iraqi opposition figures in the West. He has fallen from grace
dramatically since, and now faces a warrant for his arrest in Iraq.
Ahmed Chalabi led the foremost Iraqi opposition movement, the US-backed
Iraqi National Congress [INC].
The 57-year-old former businessman was even been tipped by some
analysts, and some leading officials in Washington, as a possible
successor to Saddam Hussein.
A Shia Muslim born in 1945 to a wealthy banking family, Mr Chalabi left
Iraq in 1956 and has lived mainly in the USA and London ever since,
except for a period in the mid-1990's when he tried to organise an
uprising in the Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.
The venture ended in failure with hundreds of deaths. Soon after, the
INC was routed from northern Iraq after Saddam's troops overran its base
in Irbil.
A number of party officials were executed and others - including Mr
Chalabi - fled the country.
Chequered career
A seasoned lobbyist in London and Washington, who studied mathematics at
Chicago University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr
Chalabi is often described as a controversial figure, charismatic and
determined but crafty and cunning at the same time.
I am not seeking any positions. My job will end with the liberation of
Iraq from Saddam's rule
Mr Chalabi has been accused by some opposition figures of using the INC
to try to further his own ambitions.
There are also allegations of financial misdemeanours. In 1992, he was
sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison with
hard labour for bank fraud after the 1990 collapse of Petra Bank, which
he had founded in 1977.
Although he has always maintained the case was a plot to frame him by
Baghdad, the issue was revisited later when the State Department raised
questions about the INC's accounting practices.
'Not seeking office'
In interviews after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Mr Chalabi discounted
the possibility he would take a role in any future government.
"Personally, I will not run for any office, and I am not seeking any
positions. My job will end with the liberation of Iraq from Saddam's
rule," he is quoted as telling the German weekly Die Zeit.
He had strong backing among some sectors of the US Congress and the
Pentagon, but had little grassroots support in Iraq and a number of
opposition groups sought to distance themselves from the INC.
*In 1998, the then US president, Bill Clinton, approved a plan to spend
almost $100m to help the Iraqi opposition - principally the INC - to
topple Saddam.*
But only a fraction of the money was ever spent, and the INC
subsequently suffered leadership infighting.
Fall from grace
In May 2004, Mr Chalabi's home and offices were raided.
He denounced the raid, which he said was carried out by American agents
and Iraqi police, as politically motivated.
There were whispers from Washington that Mr Chalabi had all along been
duping the Americans by spying for the Iranians.
It appeared that he was being sidelined by Washington because he and his
organisation were one of the sources for intelligence about Iraq's
weapons of destruction capability that is now widely viewed as faulty.
In August 2004, Mr Chalabi and his nephew Salem Chalabi has arrest
warrants issued against them while they were outside Iraq.
The charges against Ahmed Chalabi relate to alleged counterfeiting
activities. He denies the charges.
David Casey
>>> Sounds like an Iraqi problem for Iraqis to solve.
>>
>> At least until a couple more planes crash into a building in the US.
>
>
> What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
>
> Oh, that's right - nothing.
I didn't claim Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. You're making an
assumption that's what I meant. As with a lot of stuff I've read of yours
in the past few days, it's wrong. ;-)
> At least Bush said so.
You say a lot of things, too.
> But come to think of it, he DOES lie. A lot.
Bringing opinions to a debate isn't usually a good idea. But I'm sure you
won't let that stop you.
x
"Alf" <alfblume(snabela)hotmaildotcom> wrote in message
news:41334525$0$162$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
Isnt it wonderful?
>
>
Mitchell Holman
@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>>>The funny thing is that you tacitly complement me with your childish
>>>demand. You failed to factually challenge my discourse on light vs.
>>>mech forces and anything else that dealt directly with military related
>>>topics. So evidently you chose to believe I am a well read poser, or
>>>really creative. Have it your way.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Clancy also writes very authoritatively
>> both things he has never seen and cannot prove.
>> But at least he admits it is well-researched fiction.
>
> I really don't see a point. I'm not sure you would recognize any proof
> of who I am if I did post it, and I'm almost certain that no matter what
> I post, you will try to discredit it (oh, you just got the uniform from
> a surplus store and the ID card is a fake).
>
> I think comparing me to Tom Clancy is a little over the top though.
> That guy has a lot more talent than me.
>
>
>>>Incidentally, any proof I offer--even by blowing my privacy--would
>>>likely be rejected as a good photoshop job or something. I don't see
>>>anything productive being gained by telling you exactly who I am.
>>
>> Suit yourself. Would you mind if I contraticted
>> everything you posted by citing MY personal experience
>> without a shred of proof?
>
> Assuming that's your real name (which I don't see why it wouldn't be),
> how would I know what background and experience you bring to the table?
> It's a double-edged sword.
I haven't made a single claim based on my
personal experience or qualifications. However,
if you would like me to start making unsupported
claims based on my personal qualifications that
I refuse verify I can. Would that OK?
>
>> You know, deleting the proof that proves you wrong
>> and then insisting you are right is not very convincing.
>
> Your claims are still intact in the thread--if we don't abbreviate the
> thread for responses, this thing is going to exceed the line limit on
> the server pretty quickly.
>
>>>>>Are you an aide for Ted Kennedy? A quagmire is something you are
stuck
>>>>>in and cannot get out of. We could certainly pull out of Iraq today
>>>>>and just let them have it, but they would fall on each other in a grab
>>>>>for power. We could invite the UN and the international community in
>>>>>without conditions, and the dirty deals would begin again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By that logic we should still in the Vietnam
>>>>quagmire as well. The majority of Iraqis want us
>>>>to leave. So why don't we?
>>>
>>>No they don't, and they would be enormously sorry if we did right now
>>>because of the lack of security and rebuilding effort.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Here is more proof to the contrary, that you
>> are free to delete while repeating your unproven
>> assertions.
>
> How can you possibly get an accurate poll in a country where the vast
> majority have never had a telephone? Did the Post go door to door, did
> they mail it out? What was the sample size? What demographics did they
> ask? Tell me HOW you can possibly have an accurate poll in Iraq.
The polls I posted are verified proof. Your
personal recollections are not. Apples and oranges.
Poll: Iraqis out of patience
USA Today, 4/28/2004
BAGHDAD - Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that
the American-led occupation of their country is doing more
good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate
military pullout even though they fear that could put them
in greater danger"
>
> Notice you rarely hear of any incidents in Kurdish controlled territory,
> and infrequently anywhere outside the Sunni triangle, except now lately
> in Najaf. The Shiites are the majority and are very happy with us for
> getting rid of Saddam, but inherently distrust us because of their
> alignment with Iran. Many of the Shiites want to take their stake as
> the majority to get back at the Sunnis or at least dominate the new
> government. Naturally some of them are losing patience with setting up
> the new government because they don't really see a need to protect
> minorities.
Whatever the spin the result is the same, and
my point remains unchallenged. The Iraqis regard the
US as an occupying army and want us to leave.
Washington - More than nine out of 10 Iraqis consider
US-led forces as occupiers, and a strong majority think
their country would be safer if the coalition forces left,
according to a poll commissioned by the Coalition Provisional
Authority (CPA).
www.news24.com/News24/World/ Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1543739,00.html
Poll Finds Most Iraqis Want U.S., U.K. Out Soon
by Associated Press, Toronto Star
April 29th, 2004
WASHINGTON - Despite concerns about their own safety, the
PowerPointSamurai
>>Assuming that's your real name (which I don't see why it wouldn't be),
>>how would I know what background and experience you bring to the table?
>> It's a double-edged sword.
>
>
>
> I haven't made a single claim based on my
> personal experience or qualifications. However,
> if you would like me to start making unsupported
> claims based on my personal qualifications that
> I refuse verify I can. Would that OK?
I didn't say you did. I was demonstrating that even if you had my real
name, how would you know it was my real name? Even then, what would you
take as evidence that I am who I say I am and so forth? We could play
this game forever, but you seem intent on it more than any other part of
the discussion. Incidentally, I doubt you would be able to confirm or
deny the authenticity of my identity no matter what documents I posted.
You made no comment when I mentioned a DD214, so clearly you don't
understand what one is. (Hint: I would have to be retired or discharged
to have one, and I'm still regular Army)
> The polls I posted are verified proof. Your
> personal recollections are not. Apples and oranges.
Hello, there is absolutely no way they did an accurate poll in that
country. It is physically impossible to reach all the minority groups
outside the Sunni triangle. Furthermore, this ain't just about my
recollection as you keep trying to imply. Read the posts by Colin
Campbell and others in Iraq on us.military.army. All the guys I know
from the Diyala province to the Anbar province and everywhere in between
tell a different story, one that pollsters cannot possibly have
accurately guaged in a country that has never had a comprehensive
telecommunication system. The Post is posting garbage unless they get a
true demographic and geographically diverse sample. Without that, your
apples are completely rotten and your poll hopelessly skewed. Any
statistician or anyone with any math skills can tell you that.
Before you quote that useless poll story again, go back and look at all
the news around the 2000 election and tell me again how accurate polls are.
PowerPointSamurai
another 911 if you were given intel that suggested a known enemy of the
US had the capability and the intent to follow up on it?
What exactly does "serious consequenses" mean?
x
"> > Hello, there is absolutely no way they did an accurate poll in that
> > country.
>
>
> the US to leave. Every one. If you want to quibble
> about accuracy, fine. What makes think the contrary
> is true, that the Iraqis want us to stay?
We must be strong and help those poor people.
To leave them in their hour of need - they would never forgive us.
>
>
>
x
"PowerPointSamurai" <nu...@dev.net> wrote in message
news:41340072$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Incidentally, Mitch, hindsight is 20/20. Would you have waited for
> another 911 if you were given intel that suggested a known enemy of the
> US had the capability and the intent to follow up on it?
>
> What exactly does "serious consequenses" mean?
Everyone knew that meant war.
raymond o'hara
> data from multiple news sources that are all in
> agreement, or an anonymous poster making unverified
> claims in a newsgroup?
'
he's a samurai mitch , and he said his handle is a thin disguise so you
best watch out or it's
HAI!KARATE TO YOU.
Mitchell Holman
@corp.newsgroups.com:
> Incidentally, Mitch, hindsight is 20/20. Would you have waited for
> another 911 if you were given intel that suggested a known enemy of the
> US had the capability and the intent to follow up on it?
Bush didn't claim Iraq had anything to do
with 9/11, so why do you?
Mitchell Holman
Mitchell Holman
After all the Iragi people have done for us,
it is only fair that we bankrupt our country to
impose our brand of politicians on them.
Mitchell Holman
>
> "PowerPointSamurai" <nu...@dev.net> wrote in message
> news:41340072$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>> Incidentally, Mitch, hindsight is 20/20. Would you have waited for
>> another 911 if you were given intel that suggested a known enemy of the
>> US had the capability and the intent to follow up on it?
>>
>> What exactly does "serious consequenses" mean?
> Colon Powell saying "One last chance for Iraq to come clean"
> Everyone knew that meant war.
And as for Bin Laden, well, the less said the better.
After all, despite 9/11 it was Saddam who was the
REAL enemy..............
x
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95565D0F...@216.148.227.77...
> "x" <x...@x.com> wrote in news:2tTYc.97915$mD.48354@attbi_s02:
>
> >
> > "PowerPointSamurai" <nu...@dev.net> wrote in message
> > news:41340072$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> >> Incidentally, Mitch, hindsight is 20/20. Would you have waited for
> >> another 911 if you were given intel that suggested a known enemy of the
> >> US had the capability and the intent to follow up on it?
> >>
> >> What exactly does "serious consequenses" mean?
> > Colon Powell saying "One last chance for Iraq to come clean"
> > Everyone knew that meant war.
>
>
> And as for Bin Laden, well, the less said the better.
Bin Laden is only a matter of time.
>
> After all, despite 9/11 it was Saddam who was the
> REAL enemy..............
x
>
>
>
>
>
>
Alf snabela
"x" <x...@x.com> wrote in message news:auYYc.76086$9d6.2840@attbi_s54...
After "x" have spammed the group, I have to kill-file him - it's the only
way I can see what other people thinks - and I'm not missing any pictures in
the process.
He post multiple answers to the same post - 3-4-5 in a row, makes no sense.
Sorry
Alf
Mitchell Holman
news:41346834$0$143$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk:
I have noticed the same thing. The way
he retreated with his tail between his legs
when Bush's own quote proved him wrong says
it all. I don't normally use killfiles but
in his case I am willing to make an exception....
PowerPointSamurai
> PowerPointSamurai <nu...@dev.net> wrote in news:4133e8bf$1_4
> @corp.newsgroups.com:
>
>
>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Assuming that's your real name (which I don't see why it wouldn't be),
>>>>how would I know what background and experience you bring to the table?
>>>> It's a double-edged sword.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't made a single claim based on my
>>>personal experience or qualifications. However,
>>>if you would like me to start making unsupported
>>>claims based on my personal qualifications that
>>>I refuse verify I can. Would that OK?
>>
>>
>>I didn't say you did. I was demonstrating that even if you had my real
>>name, how would you know it was my real name? Even then, what would you
>>take as evidence that I am who I say I am and so forth? We could play
>>this game forever, but you seem intent on it more than any other part of
>>the discussion. Incidentally, I doubt you would be able to confirm or
>>deny the authenticity of my identity no matter what documents I posted.
>> You made no comment when I mentioned a DD214, so clearly you don't
>>understand what one is. (Hint: I would have to be retired or discharged
>>to have one, and I'm still regular Army)
>>
>>
>>> The polls I posted are verified proof. Your
>>>personal recollections are not. Apples and oranges.
>>
>>
>>Hello, there is absolutely no way they did an accurate poll in that
>>country.
>
>
>
> Every poll taken shows the public wants the
> the US to leave. Every one. If you want to quibble
> about accuracy, fine. What makes think the contrary
> is true, that the Iraqis want us to stay?
Oh, well then, lets not quibble about accuracy when it is so skewed that
it is useless data. Let's not quibble that only the groups most likely
to want us to leave are the only ones represented, and oh by the way,
people who were relatively more affluent than the average. By that same
logic, we could take an all white neighborhood some small town in
Alabama and use those results to get the view of America as a whole.
> It is physically impossible to reach all the minority groups
>
>>outside the Sunni triangle. Furthermore, this ain't just about my
>>recollection as you keep trying to imply. Read the posts by Colin
>>Campbell and others in Iraq on us.military.army. All the guys I know
>>from the Diyala province to the Anbar province and everywhere in between
>>tell a different story, one that pollsters cannot possibly have
>>accurately guaged in a country that has never had a comprehensive
>>telecommunication system. The Post is posting garbage unless they get a
>>true demographic and geographically diverse sample. Without that, your
>>apples are completely rotten and your poll hopelessly skewed. Any
>>statistician or anyone with any math skills can tell you that.
>>
>>Before you quote that useless poll story again, go back and look at all
>>the news around the 2000 election and tell me again how accurate polls
>
> are.
>
>
> So who are we to believe - posted and verified
> data from multiple news sources that are all in
> agreement, or an anonymous poster making unverified
> claims in a newsgroup?
It's not just me homey!
PowerPointSamurai
> PowerPointSamurai <nu...@dev.net> wrote in news:41340072$1_4
> @corp.newsgroups.com:
>
>
>>Incidentally, Mitch, hindsight is 20/20. Would you have waited for
>>another 911 if you were given intel that suggested a known enemy of the
>>US had the capability and the intent to follow up on it?
>
>
>
> Bush didn't claim Iraq had anything to do
> with 9/11, so why do you?
>
Nice sidestep. It's Sept 12, 2001 and you are President. Going to
Afghanistan is a given. Now (without the benefit of hindsight), you are
getting all this intel telling you of an imminent threat from someone
who has harbored hostility toward your nation for at least a decade.
You have pundits and your political opponents coming out of the woodwork
saying you failed to protect your country from this threat. You even
have some whack-jobs saying "you deserved it" and "it was a set-up--the
US air defense system was stood down". What do you do?
PowerPointSamurai
Do you really believe in democracy/republics Mitch, or are you one of
those people who subscribe to Aristotles "benevolent dictator"?
PowerPointSamurai
> "x" <x...@x.com> wrote in news:2tTYc.97915$mD.48354@attbi_s02:
>
>
>>"PowerPointSamurai" <nu...@dev.net> wrote in message
>>news:41340072$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>>
>>>Incidentally, Mitch, hindsight is 20/20. Would you have waited for
>>>another 911 if you were given intel that suggested a known enemy of the
>>>US had the capability and the intent to follow up on it?
>>>
>>>What exactly does "serious consequenses" mean?
>>
>>Colon Powell saying "One last chance for Iraq to come clean"
>>Everyone knew that meant war.
>
>
>
> And as for Bin Laden, well, the less said the better.
>
> After all, despite 9/11 it was Saddam who was the
> REAL enemy..............
>
About 2/3 of the important Al Qaeda guys are rounded up. I suspect, but
admit I cannot prove here, that the tactics have shifted to something
more like a sting operation than a door to door search and destroy
mission. IMO that's where we lost a little traction in Iraq.
x
"PowerPointSamurai" <nos...@dev.nul> wrote in message
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>
> >>13 sarin shells found and ready to rock and roll.
> >
> >
> > Leftovers from Iran Iraq war.
>
> How would insurgents get access to Sarin chemical shells? Even Saddam's
> army had pretty stringent access controls on something dangerous like
> that.
>
> IIRC a lot of chemical agents have a finite shelf life where they start
> to break down and render them useless over a period of time. Some
> agents are so simple that they don't really break down, but Sarin is a
> complex molecule (see the picture). It would have to eventually break
> down in nature. Is that likely to be a remnant of the Iran/Iraq war
> (circa 1980)? The chemical shells combined with the discovery of the
> NBC protective and decontamination gear tell more of a story than the
> simplistic "no WMD".
Ok so explain away the hundreds of violations of 1441 as stated
by Dr. Kay.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
x
>
>
>
>
Howard Berkowitz
<nu...@dev.net> wrote:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> > PowerPointSamurai <nu...@dev.net> wrote in news:41340072$1_4
> > @corp.newsgroups.com:
> >
> >
> >>Incidentally, Mitch, hindsight is 20/20. Would you have waited for
> >>another 911 if you were given intel that suggested a known enemy of the
> >>US had the capability and the intent to follow up on it?
> >
> >
> >
> > Bush didn't claim Iraq had anything to do
> > with 9/11, so why do you?
> >
>
> Nice sidestep. It's Sept 12, 2001 and you are President. Going to
> Afghanistan is a given. Now (without the benefit of hindsight), you are
> getting all this intel telling you of an imminent threat from someone
> who has harbored hostility toward your nation for at least a decade.
> You have pundits and your political opponents coming out of the woodwork
> saying you failed to protect your country from this threat. You even
> have some whack-jobs saying "you deserved it" and "it was a set-up--the
> US air defense system was stood down". What do you do?
>
Let me try to answer seriously, and give a couple of scenarios depending
on the interpretation given on what we recognize was imperfect intel at
the time. Hey, my birthday is September 12; I should have some
experience about thought on that day.
One essential decision is whether Iraq is an _immediate_ threat to
CONUS, as distinct from an immediate regional threat. I believe that
there was little to support the first decision, but a substantial amount
of support for the latter. I don't think I have ever said we should not
have gone after Saddam, but the question is how and when.
Quite a number of indicators support that Saddam was going for regional
status by threatening Israel. I should note here that I generally
believe the US tilts too far toward Israel, but Israel still provides a
degree of stability for the region. Ranging from Saddam's known subsidy
of Palestinian suicide bombers to UNSCOM-destroyed medium/regional range
missiles, there is hard evidence that Saddam was playing the Israeli
card for status among Arab nationalists. It is considerably less clear
that Saddam was significantly cooperating with al-Qaeda at an
operational level, or planned direct action against the US homeland or
facilities. Just having had intelligence contacts is not a smoking gun;
intelligence agencies worldwide occasionally meet with hostile
counterparts.
Now, I must get into an area that may be hindsight and may be
speculation, but should at least have been considered at the time: the
hypothesis that Saddam felt, based on French and Russian assurances,
that thwre was no appreciable chance the US would invade. I do believe
there was good reason to assume that Saddam _wanted_ the region and
perhaps the world to believe he had a WMD capability. My own read goes
with the interpretation that he had mothballed the actual WMD payload
development until his delivery systems were more mature. He probably
believed the WMD threat had some aspect of a Mahanian fleet-in-being
deterrent.
So, I don't necessarily see the urgency of attacking when we did, in a
period where we were drawing down forces and there was serious objection
by senior military that we did not have the resources for a long-term
occupation. A head-on-head military action would have only one possible
outcome, even if Saddam did use WMD.
I go back to the detailed planning that the Western Allies did for the
occupation and reformation of Germany (the COSSAC Operation RANKIN
series), along with the establishment of military government and
constabulary units. It is less that I object to the attack against Iraq
than what appears to have been poor preparation for the
post-high-intensity period. While I don't think a larger coalition was
needed for the high-intensity phase, I do think the occupation was badly
underestimated -- and presented, at best, in a wishful way to the
Congress and American people.
The Administration did not have a WWII-style occupation planned, which
we know worked. If the force drawdowns were to continue, with the
remaining forces to be network-centric intense battle forces, where were
the constabulary and civil affairs forces coming from? This is an area
where I believe thare should have been more multinational involvement,
and I suspect there still may be. There's been a Saudi trial balloon to
bring in troops from Arab countries not directly bordering Iraq --
haven't heard much more about it, but that has potential.
In short, I believe the administration chose to attack prematurely,
based on overemphasis on immediate risk and underestimation of the
difficulty of the post-high-intensity period. I believe that the risks
of waiting, if necessary, to the fall might have been warranted, if that
was coupled with a better occupation plan. Meanwhile, operations in
Afghanistan and strike/collaborative operations worldwide could have
continued.
PowerPointSamurai
[trimmed for brevity]
I think that was well considered and thought out, but I just have to
chime in on a few points.
#1) Iraq operation siphoning forces off operations in Afghanistan:
There are 10 divisions in the active US Army, two deployable Cavalry
regiments, the Ranger Regiment, Special Forces, 172nd Infantry Bde in
Alaska, and 173d Airborne Bde in Hawaii (am I missing any?)
Of those, about half are "light" and the other half are "heavy". Heavy
forces use tanks and tracked vehicles, while light guys are traditional
"leg" infantry, airborne, or air assault.
The fight in Afghanistan and Iraq are totally different conceptually.
Afghanistan was really a classic Special Ops fight at the beginning
(unconventional warfare, where you find an indigenous population and
support them to liberate themselves), supported by a relatively small
number of highly mobile light infantry in helicopters.
Iraq was predominantly fought with heavy units. We did not want to send
heavy units into Afghanistan because it didn't work out all that well
for the Soviets in the 1980s. Afghanistan is such a labyrinth that we
could probably do search and destroy missions for decades and only
succeed in inflaming the locals against us. I think the tactic in
Afghanistan right now is more like a sting operation--we have a fix on
some of the bad guys and are using them to smoke out the others. Notice
how pissed off the Pakistanis were at the announcement of the arrests of
those high level Al Qaeda operatives recently.
Bottom line: I really don't think the war in Iraq had any significant
impact on the war on Afghanistan. You might be able to argue that the
CENTCOM staff had a lot of juggling to do, but the subordinate
commanders in Afghanistan have the competence to carry on.
#2, the Occupation:
One of the things that enabled the spectacular victory in OIF in Phase
III was that the Iraqi Army voted in favor of the invasion by taking off
their uniforms and going home. A big factor in Phase IV (the
occupation) was the assumption that Iraqi Army units and police stations
were going to be captured in situ. Instead, these guys melted away back
into the civilian population. This caused a compound problem because we
were going to have them continue their role as security and
stabilization forces, but instead, they became a mass of unemployed
people.
When Saddam released all the prisoners--including people legitimately
sentenced for real crimes--this caused some real problems too. Imagine
going into a country where suddenly every thug in the local jails were
all released into the countryside at a time when the police all went on
strike at about the same time.
The infrastructure in Iraq was also much poorer than what you would've
seen in postwar Germany too. The sanctions took its toll on repairing
and upgrading a lot of public utilities.
Postwar Germany was also more demographicly homogeneous, whereas Iraq is
very ethnically and religiously diverse. The Shiites were a sorely
oppressed majority, and now some of them want payback. The Kurds have
enjoyed relative autonomy since the No Fly Zones were put in place after
DS. Getting them all to form a cohesive government and establish trust
and confidence in their police will be challenging. Just look at the
problems we have with trust in the government and the police (especially
with minorities) and the political rancor in our own country.
ssn...@earthlink.net
I'd agree if we're only discussing the forces being deployed to
each campaign. But would point out that the logistical support
fot these forces (especially transport assets) are a common set
and are the limiting factor on the total forces that can be
deployed anywhere. Our biggest problems in this area are with
regard to intra-theater airlift which the USAF has long neglected
opting instead for the "sexier" fighter aircraft while neglecting
this, most vital of their assets. The Navy's lack of support
platforms available to the Army for transport is also a problem
that is being solved to a large extent by the US Army
Transportation Corps push for the High Speed Semi Submersible
Hull cargo transports that are now moving between the US and the
Persian Gulf on a remarkable schedule.
That is, a succinct and reasonably accurate estimate of the
situation in comparison to post WWII Germany. Albeit, I'd have
included the caveat that such a succinct answer would necessarily
leave many of the complications unwritten.
Snark
PowerPointSamurai
>
> That is, a succinct and reasonably accurate estimate of the situation in
> comparison to post WWII Germany. Albeit, I'd have included the caveat
> that such a succinct answer would necessarily leave many of the
> complications unwritten.
I'm absolutely certain that some Major is sitting at CGSC (Command and
General Staff College), or a new Colenel is sitting at the War College
writing what amounts to a doctoral thesis on this very topic right this
moment.
Howard Berkowitz
<oY4Zc.283124$OB3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
PowerPointSamurai <nos...@dev.nul> wrote:
> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
> [trimmed for brevity]
>
> I think that was well considered and thought out, but I just have to
> chime in on a few points.
>
> #1) Iraq operation siphoning forces off operations in Afghanistan:
I don't think I said there was a direct type-for-type drain on combat
units, and certainly didn't mean to imply that.
[snip complete agreement on the different type of combat arms units
required in Aghanistan and Iraq]
>
> Bottom line: I really don't think the war in Iraq had any significant
> impact on the war on Afghanistan. You might be able to argue that the
> CENTCOM staff had a lot of juggling to do, but the subordinate
> commanders in Afghanistan have the competence to carry on.
If there was siphoning, I'd suggest it was more likely in combat support
and combat service support, and special forces [1]. When I said that
forces were being drawn down, I wasn't specifically referring to
Afghanistan. In part, I'm uncomfortable on the level of available
contingency forces.
[1] Obviously, you aren't going to retrain a Pashto or Dari speaker in
Arabic overnight.
>
>
> #2, the Occupation:
>
> One of the things that enabled the spectacular victory in OIF in Phase
> III was that the Iraqi Army voted in favor of the invasion by taking off
> their uniforms and going home. A big factor in Phase IV (the
> occupation) was the assumption that Iraqi Army units and police stations
> were going to be captured in situ. Instead, these guys melted away back
> into the civilian population. This caused a compound problem because we
> were going to have them continue their role as security and
> stabilization forces, but instead, they became a mass of unemployed
> people.
As you say, an assumption. About the only certainty in the Middle East
is there are no certainties. Shall we say that the average Iraqi (and
yes, I know that nationalist term is misleading) and the average German
have a little different cultural conditioning about the need for order
and civil service?
I still remember, with some amusement, the story of one of the groups
breaking out from the Fuhrerbunker in 1945. They were using subway
tunnels, and came to one where a gate had been closed, and was guarded
by two unarmed railroad workers with red lanterns. On being told the
gate was closed on superior orders, the heavily armed, desperate group
acknowledged the order, and marched up the stairs into Soviet fire.
I feel much better about contigency planning that operates on
pessimistic, not optimistic, assumptions. My impression is the
occupation force estimates from GEN Shinseki and others were not
optimistic, where the ones from Rumsfeld & Co. were.
>
> When Saddam released all the prisoners--including people legitimately
> sentenced for real crimes--this caused some real problems too. Imagine
> going into a country where suddenly every thug in the local jails were
> all released into the countryside at a time when the police all went on
> strike at about the same time.
Again, we planned optimistically and didn't consider this. Can anyone
say "Mariel Boatlift?" We've been stung by prisoner release before.
>
> The infrastructure in Iraq was also much poorer than what you would've
> seen in postwar Germany too. The sanctions took its toll on repairing
> and upgrading a lot of public utilities.
True. Then doesn't that mean, though, that the occupation planning
needed to have more infrastructure resource repair forces lined up?
While there are some capabilities for this in CA units, this would
probably be one of the best areas to use contractors -- as opposed to,
say, as interrogators.
>
> Postwar Germany was also more demographicly homogeneous, whereas Iraq is
> very ethnically and religiously diverse. The Shiites were a sorely
> oppressed majority, and now some of them want payback. The Kurds have
> enjoyed relative autonomy since the No Fly Zones were put in place after
> DS. Getting them all to form a cohesive government and establish trust
> and confidence in their police will be challenging. Just look at the
> problems we have with trust in the government and the police (especially
> with minorities) and the political rancor in our own country.
You are completely right. But should this have been any surprise?
Should there not have been recognition that we might very well need to
have forces to deal with the various political groups, rather than one?
It does appear that delegating local relations to around battalion level
has been more effective than central direction (did I hear Soviet
economic planners rolling in their graves?) How this decentralized US
operation will work with the transfer of sovereignty is problematic, in
that the CPA, to some extent, was a clearinghouse.
ssn...@earthlink.net
LMAO! I resembled that remark and may once or twice again. Who
says "publish or perish" is limited to the halls of academia. :-p
Snark
PowerPointSamurai
> In article
> <oY4Zc.283124$OB3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> PowerPointSamurai <nos...@dev.nul> wrote:
>>Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>>
>>[trimmed for brevity]
>>
>>#1) Iraq operation siphoning forces off operations in Afghanistan:
> I don't think I said there was a direct type-for-type drain on combat
> units, and certainly didn't mean to imply that.
>
> [snip complete agreement on the different type of combat arms units
> required in Aghanistan and Iraq]
> If there was siphoning, I'd suggest it was more likely in combat support
> and combat service support, and special forces [1]. When I said that
> forces were being drawn down, I wasn't specifically referring to
> Afghanistan. In part, I'm uncomfortable on the level of available
> contingency forces.
>
> [1] Obviously, you aren't going to retrain a Pashto or Dari speaker in
> Arabic overnight.
Combat support (like MPs) and SF might be strained, because they are in
demand for stability ops and securing MSRs and "winning hearts and
minds" respectively. I'll even go a step further and say the same SF
guys are probably in both theaters because even if they don't speak the
local dialect, someone on the team probably does, or they do "other SF
stuff".
As far as combat service support, every brigade technically has an FSB
(forward support battalion) organic to it, every division has an MSB
(main support battalion) and usually the corps sends a Corps Support
Battalion or Corps Support Group to augment/reinforce.
During the initial invasion and through the late part of Phase III
(combat ops) and early Phase IV (support and stability ops) the log
picture was sporty, in that it came in starts and fits due to a variety
of reasons, but I think that the assets were there, it was just a
synchronization problem for the most part.
>>#2, the Occupation:
> I feel much better about contigency planning that operates on
> pessimistic, not optimistic, assumptions. My impression is the
> occupation force estimates from GEN Shinseki and others were not
> optimistic, where the ones from Rumsfeld & Co. were.
Shinseki had some experience with Bosnia to guide him on that, but who
really knew that the Iraqi Army AND the police would just quit and go
home? I could see the Army leaving when sitting on your equipment in
your defensive positions could be outright deadly (as could be any
movement). Most of these units were given exact instructions what to do
NOT to get bombed for this reason. For the police to just go home in
the middle of all of that...
>>The infrastructure in Iraq was also much poorer than what you would've
>>seen in postwar Germany too. The sanctions took its toll on repairing
>>and upgrading a lot of public utilities.
>
> True. Then doesn't that mean, though, that the occupation planning
> needed to have more infrastructure resource repair forces lined up?
> While there are some capabilities for this in CA units, this would
> probably be one of the best areas to use contractors -- as opposed to,
> say, as interrogators.
I think everyone was really surprised at just how bad the infrastructure
was. Highway 1 looked like a German Autobahn, but the power lines in
some of the cities and some of the other stuff looked like something out
of a silent film.
>>Postwar Germany was also more demographicly homogeneous, whereas Iraq is
>>very ethnically and religiously diverse. The Shiites were a sorely
>>oppressed majority, and now some of them want payback. The Kurds have
>>enjoyed relative autonomy since the No Fly Zones were put in place after
>>DS. Getting them all to form a cohesive government and establish trust
>>and confidence in their police will be challenging. Just look at the
>>problems we have with trust in the government and the police (especially
>>with minorities) and the political rancor in our own country.
>
>
> You are completely right. But should this have been any surprise?
> Should there not have been recognition that we might very well need to
> have forces to deal with the various political groups, rather than one?
> It does appear that delegating local relations to around battalion level
> has been more effective than central direction (did I hear Soviet
> economic planners rolling in their graves?) How this decentralized US
> operation will work with the transfer of sovereignty is problematic, in
> that the CPA, to some extent, was a clearinghouse.
IMO this is in part to the strong cultural affinity in that part of the
world for personal trust and relationships vs institutional. Meeting
with the regional religious/ethnic leaders and winning them over
personally is a much bigger thing than negotiating a some impersonal
contract.
ssn...@earthlink.net
> In article
> <oY4Zc.283124$OB3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> PowerPointSamurai <nos...@dev.nul> wrote:
>
>
>>Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>>
>>[trimmed for brevity]
>>
>>I think that was well considered and thought out, but I just have to
>>chime in on a few points.
>>
>>#1) Iraq operation siphoning forces off operations in Afghanistan:
>
>
> I don't think I said there was a direct type-for-type drain on combat
> units, and certainly didn't mean to imply that.
>
> [snip complete agreement on the different type of combat arms units
> required in Aghanistan and Iraq]
>
>
>>Bottom line: I really don't think the war in Iraq had any significant
>>impact on the war on Afghanistan. You might be able to argue that the
>>CENTCOM staff had a lot of juggling to do, but the subordinate
>>commanders in Afghanistan have the competence to carry on.
>
>
> If there was siphoning, I'd suggest it was more likely in combat support
> and combat service support, and special forces [1]. When I said that
> forces were being drawn down, I wasn't specifically referring to
> Afghanistan. In part, I'm uncomfortable on the level of available
> contingency forces.
>
> [1] Obviously, you aren't going to retrain a Pashto or Dari speaker in
> Arabic overnight.
>
Actually, less in CS and CSS than in intra-theater transport and
logistics which are more of the function of the USAF and USN than
the theater logistical support of the US Army which is sufficient
but highly dependent upon the use of Army Reserve and Army
National Guard Personnel due to the post Gulf War force structure
developed to give the Active Duty component the appearance of
"more teeth than tail" while still having the capability of
actually supplying said "teeth".
As to SF units while it would be nice if we had specific teams
with fluency in the languages of a particular area assigned
specifically to the area where they have language skills, it is
not considered to be a limit on mission assignment. None of my
team in Afghanistan spoke either Dari or Pushtu, I have some
capacity in Farsi and we had a couple of Arabic speakers in a
couple of the A-detachments that we supported. We still managed
to perform our mission. It's just a matter of acquiring and then
practicing some very basic skills (at least basic to the SF).
Actually, CA units have relatively low capabilities in the actual
re-building. The units that actually do the work are Engineers
supplemented or augmented by other Soldiers as needed. These of
course come into play until the area is deemed secure enough for
civilian contractors who the CA units identify, and contract from
within the local populace to perform skilled and unskilled tasks
thereby aiding in reviving both local and on a scale this large
national economies. Wherever expertise or other capabilities
beyond that of the local contractors is encountered an
extra-local or even extra-national contractor like Fluor Daniels
or KBR may be brought in to perform those tasks.
>>Postwar Germany was also more demographicly homogeneous, whereas Iraq is
>>very ethnically and religiously diverse. The Shiites were a sorely
>>oppressed majority, and now some of them want payback. The Kurds have
>>enjoyed relative autonomy since the No Fly Zones were put in place after
>>DS. Getting them all to form a cohesive government and establish trust
>>and confidence in their police will be challenging. Just look at the
>>problems we have with trust in the government and the police (especially
>>with minorities) and the political rancor in our own country.
>
>
> You are completely right. But should this have been any surprise?
> Should there not have been recognition that we might very well need to
> have forces to deal with the various political groups, rather than one?
That was one of the contingencies that created a requirement for
a larger occupation force under the DA's planning. Many of the
required personnel were trimmed from that force on recommendation
of and contingent upon the representations made to the US by
expatriate Iraqis in whom a great deal of credibility and
capacity was given.
> It does appear that delegating local relations to around battalion level
> has been more effective than central direction (did I hear Soviet
> economic planners rolling in their graves?) How this decentralized US
> operation will work with the transfer of sovereignty is problematic, in
> that the CPA, to some extent, was a clearinghouse.
Only for the "high budget" items. A lot of these projects were
funded from the Division Commander's Discretionary funds (a lot
of which was money that had been captured in Saddam Hussein, his
family and his supporters possession) which were then allocated
to brigade and battalion project proposals based upon the merits
of the proposal.
Snark
Howard Berkowitz
<7X5Zc.538224$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
PowerPointSamurai <nos...@dev.nul> wrote:
And this could not be foreseen? Apparently there was optimism in the
number of prisoners with whom MPs would have to deal---but 1991 should
have offered at least a clue there.
>
> As far as combat service support, every brigade technically has an FSB
> (forward support battalion) organic to it, every division has an MSB
> (main support battalion) and usually the corps sends a Corps Support
> Battalion or Corps Support Group to augment/reinforce.
The issue here may have more CSS force protection and secure LOC than
the units themselves.
.
>
> >>#2, the Occupation:
> > I feel much better about contigency planning that operates on
> > pessimistic, not optimistic, assumptions. My impression is the
> > occupation force estimates from GEN Shinseki and others were not
> > optimistic, where the ones from Rumsfeld & Co. were.
>
> Shinseki had some experience with Bosnia to guide him on that, but who
> really knew that the Iraqi Army AND the police would just quit and go
> home? I could see the Army leaving when sitting on your equipment in
> your defensive positions could be outright deadly (as could be any
> movement). Most of these units were given exact instructions what to do
> NOT to get bombed for this reason. For the police to just go home in
> the middle of all of that...
Yurning around the phrase a bit, but the classic "estimate based on
capabilities rather than intentions" may well have turned into "estimate
based on worst-case personnel intentions rather than theoretical
capability." Again, a sense of optimism about the postwar environent
seemed to pervade things -- but this was NOT Germany or Japan.
Authoritarian as those societies were, they are both ones where people
have a sense of caring for their communities.
>
> >>The infrastructure in Iraq was also much poorer than what you would've
> >>seen in postwar Germany too. The sanctions took its toll on repairing
> >>and upgrading a lot of public utilities.
> >
> > True. Then doesn't that mean, though, that the occupation planning
> > needed to have more infrastructure resource repair forces lined up?
> > While there are some capabilities for this in CA units, this would
> > probably be one of the best areas to use contractors -- as opposed to,
> > say, as interrogators.
>
> I think everyone was really surprised at just how bad the infrastructure
> was. Highway 1 looked like a German Autobahn, but the power lines in
> some of the cities and some of the other stuff looked like something out
> of a silent film.
Again, I'm not sure why we were surprised. Talk to some US electrical
grid engineers, and it's frightening how many disasters are waiting to
happen. These are for different reasons, of course, than direct attack
and failure of maintenance in Iraq, but it's not as if we don't know how
to assess the viability of a power grid. A reasonable amount of such
information could come from remote sensing.
Good assessment. Again, did anyone bother to listen to the area
specialists?
>
PowerPointSamurai
> Actually, less in CS and CSS than in intra-theater transport and
> logistics which are more of the function of the USAF and USN than the
> theater logistical support of the US Army which is sufficient but highly
> dependent upon the use of Army Reserve and Army National Guard Personnel
> due to the post Gulf War force structure developed to give the Active
> Duty component the appearance of "more teeth than tail" while still
> having the capability of actually supplying said "teeth".
I would tend to agree with that in part. I think the division had the
assets to distribute materiel to subordinate units once we got it. I
think the Corps was able to push to us. I have less confidence about
the Theater assets which received the materiel from Kuwait, repackaged
it, and sent it forward to us. It would've been nice if they had more
assets to push with, but I think mostly it was a headspace and timing
issue. For example, they wasted a whole lot of flips with trucks
delivering friggin FOG OIL (used to make smoke for tactical concealment
for things like bridge crossings under fire) long after the "combat" was
over. I sure wish they put our A-rations (real food vs. MREs) on those
trucks...
Aside from that, some specific instances of some types of supplies were
tight (some really important, but we managed), but the stuff we
generally needed seemed to get to theater quickly enough (except mail).
ssn...@earthlink.net
My understanding (based primarily on AARs) generally indicates
that the problem was in the intra theater transport, the lack of
port facilities (we were counting too heavily on the Brits
securing Basra faster) and as you say, the inability of the depot
level contractors to "shift gears" when the Iraqi resistance folded.
Snark
PowerPointSamurai
>>Combat support (like MPs) and SF might be strained, because they are in
>>demand for stability ops and securing MSRs and "winning hearts and
>>minds" respectively. I'll even go a step further and say the same SF
>>guys are probably in both theaters because even if they don't speak the
>>local dialect, someone on the team probably does, or they do "other SF
>>stuff".
>
>
> And this could not be foreseen? Apparently there was optimism in the
> number of prisoners with whom MPs would have to deal---but 1991 should
> have offered at least a clue there.
MPs are always in a high demand in support and stability ops. They were
also in very high demand in Bosnia, and Kosovo. I don't think they
underestimated the need for these guys. More would be better, but I
think they actually brought enough to do what MPs are really supposed to
do IMO--they're just really busy.
>>As far as combat service support, every brigade technically has an FSB
>>(forward support battalion) organic to it, every division has an MSB
>>(main support battalion) and usually the corps sends a Corps Support
>>Battalion or Corps Support Group to augment/reinforce.
>
>
> The issue here may have more CSS force protection and secure LOC than
> the units themselves.
True. That's why they've totally refocused BCT (Basic Combat Training)
to re-emphasize to all Soldiers that they are riflemen first. We also
had a lot of standing policies that said every convoy had to have a
minimum of 4 vehicles with 360 coverage with a crew served weapon. That
really helps. I think the whole sad affair with the 507th Maintenance
Co really woke a lot of people up too. There was a little more
attention paid to cleaning weapons and stuff after that.
Mitchell Holman
@corp.newsgroups.com:
Every poll shows the Iqagis want us out. If
you want to remain in denial about that, fine.
>
>> It is physically impossible to reach all the minority groups
>>
>>>outside the Sunni triangle. Furthermore, this ain't just about my
>>>recollection as you keep trying to imply. Read the posts by Colin
>>>Campbell and others in Iraq on us.military.army. All the guys I know
>>>from the Diyala province to the Anbar province and everywhere in between
>>>tell a different story, one that pollsters cannot possibly have
>>>accurately guaged in a country that has never had a comprehensive
>>>telecommunication system. The Post is posting garbage unless they get a
>>>true demographic and geographically diverse sample. Without that, your
>>>apples are completely rotten and your poll hopelessly skewed. Any
>>>statistician or anyone with any math skills can tell you that.
>>>
>>>Before you quote that useless poll story again, go back and look at all
>>>the news around the 2000 election and tell me again how accurate polls
>>
>> are.
>>
>>
>> So who are we to believe - posted and verified
>> data from multiple news sources that are all in
>> agreement, or an anonymous poster making unverified
>> claims in a newsgroup?
>
> It's not just me homey!
Another post where you deny the validity
of posted proof while posting nothing to the
contrary.
Denial ain't just a river..........
Mitchell Holman
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>> PowerPointSamurai <nu...@dev.net> wrote in news:41340072$1_4
>> @corp.newsgroups.com:
>>
>>
>>>Incidentally, Mitch, hindsight is 20/20. Would you have waited for
>>>another 911 if you were given intel that suggested a known enemy of the
>>>US had the capability and the intent to follow up on it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bush didn't claim Iraq had anything to do
>> with 9/11, so why do you?
>>
>
> Nice sidestep. It's Sept 12, 2001 and you are President. Going to
> Afghanistan is a given. Now (without the benefit of hindsight), you are
> getting all this intel telling you of an imminent threat from someone
> who has harbored hostility toward your nation for at least a decade.
> You have pundits and your political opponents coming out of the woodwork
> saying you failed to protect your country from this threat. You even
> have some whack-jobs saying "you deserved it" and "it was a set-up--the
> US air defense system was stood down". What do you do?
What threat? Saddam had no navy, no air force
and an army a fraction of the one that Bush 41 brushed
aside a decade earlier and a country crawling with
inspectors. Even his hated enemies in the region said
he was no threat and should be left alone.
The fact that Bush didn't even MENTION this "threat"
until it became clear that Bin Laden got speaks volumes.
You DO remember Bin Laden - the guy who attacked
American and whom Bush is "no longer concerned about".
Mitchell Holman
"Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant
capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.
He is unable to project conventional power against his
neighbours."
- Colin Powell February 24 2001
Mitchell Holman
@corp.newsgroups.com:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>> "x" <x...@x.com> wrote in news:MpTYc.210969$8_6.124688@attbi_s04:
>>
>>
>>>"> > Hello, there is absolutely no way they did an accurate poll in that
>>>
>>>>>country.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every poll taken shows the public wants the
>>>>the US to leave. Every one. If you want to quibble
>>>>about accuracy, fine. What makes think the contrary
>>>>is true, that the Iraqis want us to stay?
>>>
>>>We must be strong and help those poor people.
>>>To leave them in their hour of need - they would never forgive us.
>>
>>
>>
>> After all the Iragi people have done for us,
>> it is only fair that we bankrupt our country to
>> impose our brand of politicians on them.
>>
>
>
> Do you really believe in democracy/republics Mitch, or are you one of
> those people who subscribe to Aristotles "benevolent dictator"?
If creating democracy is so great why are
we imposing it on Iraq but not Kuwait? Why did
we end the Gulf War by return the Emir to his
throne and denying the "fundemental freedoms" to
the people there? Bush acts like democracy is
punishment we impose on our enemies and ignore
entirely when it comes to our "friends" in the
region.
Mitchell Holman
In "Right from the Beginning", Pat Buchanan refers
to Spanish dictator Francisco Franco as a "Catholic
savior." He called Franco, along with Chile's Gen.
Pinochet, "soldier-patriots." (syndicated column 9/17/89)
Both men overthrew democracy in their countries.
Mitchell Holman
@corp.newsgroups.com:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>> "x" <x...@x.com> wrote in news:2tTYc.97915$mD.48354@attbi_s02:
>>
>>
>>>"PowerPointSamurai" <nu...@dev.net> wrote in message
>>>news:41340072$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>>>
>>>>Incidentally, Mitch, hindsight is 20/20. Would you have waited for
>>>>another 911 if you were given intel that suggested a known enemy of the
>>>>US had the capability and the intent to follow up on it?
>>>>
>>>>What exactly does "serious consequenses" mean?
>>>
>>>Colon Powell saying "One last chance for Iraq to come clean"
>>>Everyone knew that meant war.
>>
>>
>>
>> And as for Bin Laden, well, the less said the better.
>>
>> After all, despite 9/11 it was Saddam who was the
>> REAL enemy..............
>>
>
> About 2/3 of the important Al Qaeda guys are rounded up.
What hat did you pull THAT out of?
> I suspect, but
> admit I cannot prove here, that the tactics have shifted to something
> more like a sting operation than a door to door search and destroy
> mission. IMO that's where we lost a little traction in Iraq.
Bush's war is the greatest recruitment
tool Bin Laden could ask for.
Iraq War Swells Al Qaeda's Ranks, Report Says
by Peter Graff
LONDON - War in Iraq has swollen the ranks of al Qaeda
and galvanized the Islamic militant group's will, the
International Institute for Strategic Studies said on
Wednesday in its annual report."
www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1015-04.htm
Abu Ghraib pictures are recruitment posters for Al Qaeda
Staff Report
Washington: Commenting on the shocking pictures of Iraqi
prisoners being tortured, Dr Akbar Ahmed of the American
University told a news service that the one that showed a
smiling American woman soldier pointing at a naked, hooded
prisoner, “will become the recruiting poster of radicals
trying to attack the West. If Osama bin Laden had come to
Madison Avenue and asked for an advertising image to help
him recruit, this would be it.”
www.dailytimes.com.pk/default. asp?page=story_8-5-2004_pg7_43
"Pro-war commentator Charles Krauthammer correctly observed
that the sexual crimes committed at Abu Ghraib were a perfect
"symbolic representation of the Islamist warning about where
Western freedom ultimately leads." The furor over those photos
will produce a recruiting bonanza for Islamist terror groups."
www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/05-31-2004/iraq.htm - 28k
"An American invasion of Iraq is already being used
as a recruitment tool by Al Qaeda and other groups,"
a senior American counterintelligence official said.
"And it is a very effective tool." Another American
official, based in Europe, said Iraq had become "a
battle cry, in a way," for Al Qaeda recruiters.
www.iht.com/articles/89963.html
PowerPointSamurai
>>>>Hello, there is absolutely no way they did an accurate poll in that
>>>>country.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Every poll taken shows the public wants the
>>>the US to leave. Every one. If you want to quibble
>>>about accuracy, fine. What makes think the contrary
>>>is true, that the Iraqis want us to stay?
>>
>>
>>Oh, well then, lets not quibble about accuracy when it is so skewed that
>>it is useless data. Let's not quibble that only the groups most likely
>>to want us to leave are the only ones represented, and oh by the way,
>>people who were relatively more affluent than the average. By that same
>>logic, we could take an all white neighborhood some small town in
>>Alabama and use those results to get the view of America as a whole.
>>
>>
>
>
> Every poll shows the Iqagis want us out. If
> you want to remain in denial about that, fine.
It's not just denial--citing a poll without any way of doing it right is
purely contrived. News people make mistakes just like everyone else, so
I'm not saying they did anything intentional here, but it is absolutely
impossible to get a representative poll in that country right now and I
defy you and the Post and whoever was behind the poll to provide the
population size and the demographic/ethnic/geographic spread. Otherwise
I could do a poll just like this in, say, certain parts of Massachusetts
and say that nearly 99% of America supports Kerry.
To be fair, I'm not saying that every Iraqi loves having us there--I
think most just want to be getting on with this--but if they don't, then
they need to get their government and security forces working.
PowerPointSamurai
> PowerPointSamurai <nu...@dev.net> wrote in news:41347...@corp.newsgroups.com:
>
>
>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>PowerPointSamurai <nu...@dev.net> wrote in news:41340072$1_4
>>>@corp.newsgroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Incidentally, Mitch, hindsight is 20/20. Would you have waited for
>>>>another 911 if you were given intel that suggested a known enemy of the
>>>>US had the capability and the intent to follow up on it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bush didn't claim Iraq had anything to do
>>>with 9/11, so why do you?
>>>
>>
>>Nice sidestep. It's Sept 12, 2001 and you are President. Going to
>>Afghanistan is a given. Now (without the benefit of hindsight), you are
>>getting all this intel telling you of an imminent threat from someone
>>who has harbored hostility toward your nation for at least a decade.
>>You have pundits and your political opponents coming out of the woodwork
>>saying you failed to protect your country from this threat. You even
>>have some whack-jobs saying "you deserved it" and "it was a set-up--the
>>US air defense system was stood down". What do you do?
>
>
>
> What threat? Saddam had no navy, no air force
> and an army a fraction of the one that Bush 41 brushed
> aside a decade earlier and a country crawling with
> inspectors. Even his hated enemies in the region said
> he was no threat and should be left alone.
Once again, I think you sidestepped the question without answering it.
Hindsight is 20/20 and you got the same intel that Bush had that day
(and the frenzy of criticism to take action to protect America against
threats more proactively)
> You DO remember Bin Laden - the guy who attacked
> American and whom Bush is "no longer concerned about".
I've already given you my take on this over and over. We can't just go
door to door playing "Ollie Ollie Oxenfree" tearing up Afghanistan
looking for Bin Laden. I think it is really more of a sting
operation/stakeout, and by the way, it's working if you've been watching
the news.
PowerPointSamurai
>>> After all the Iragi people have done for us,
>>>it is only fair that we bankrupt our country to
>>>impose our brand of politicians on them.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Do you really believe in democracy/republics Mitch, or are you one of
>>those people who subscribe to Aristotles "benevolent dictator"?
>
>
>
> If creating democracy is so great why are
> we imposing it on Iraq but not Kuwait? Why did
> we end the Gulf War by return the Emir to his
> throne and denying the "fundemental freedoms" to
> the people there? Bush acts like democracy is
> punishment we impose on our enemies and ignore
> entirely when it comes to our "friends" in the
> region.
Ya know, that is an insightful question. Perhaps the answer is that we
can influence friends to change their behavior to enable more freedoms
without resorting to violence. Our enemies on the other hand.... Some
people have been critical of the choice of Iraq--why not North Korea
first? My opinion is that China and other nearby countries are taking
proactive steps to tame North Korea down coupled with the fact that any
war in Korea will be a complete holocaust like we haven't seen in
decades--even without WMD. There is such an enormous population density
and so many pieces of artillery pointed on each side that the civilian
casualties in the first few moments would be astronomical. IIRC, Seoul
is in the artillery fan of the pieces on the other side of the border.
I'm just curious though, Mitch, what WOULD you have done with Saddam?
> In "Right from the Beginning", Pat Buchanan refers
> to Spanish dictator Francisco Franco as a "Catholic
> savior." He called Franco, along with Chile's Gen.
> Pinochet, "soldier-patriots." (syndicated column 9/17/89)
> Both men overthrew democracy in their countries.
You don't expect me to defend Pat Buchanan, do you? Some people really
do believe in Aristotle's "Benevolent Dictator" model, and I think he's
one of them.
la n.
"Howard Berkowitz" <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
news:hcb-2473F7.1...@text.giganews.com...
Wow. Pretty interesting discussion between you and the PP Samurai,
Howard. Good reading.
- nilita
PowerPointSamurai
>>Well, Mitchell, you have a bit of history of this type of behavior
>>yourself. You spammed a website linking to Arnold Schwarzenegger's
>>campaign site with the same response. Maybe that was just an accident
>>though, but you did.
>>http://www.talkaboutpeople.com/group/alt.fan.schwarzenegger/messages/5402
>>.html
>>
>>Don't get too psyched up. I'm just trying to google up some background
>>on you
>
>
>
> I see. You are big on digging up the backgrounds
> others while hiding your own behind an anonymous handle.
>
> Is that the brand of "courage" you displayed in
> the military? Or the sort that got you kicked out of
> the military, perhaps?
I have my reasons for remaining anonymous, while you have quite a
prolific posting history in dozens of forums. I'm just trying to get a
feel for your background so I know more about where you are coming from
and hence the credibility of your arguments. That's all. You've posted
a lot of interesting military pics, but I don't see any sign you were
ever in the military and I was just curious about what you do and how
you get all that stuff.
As far as getting kicked out, no, I am still in and probably will be for
another 10 years or so. Unless you are trying really hard to ignore the
photos I've been posting, you'd have a pretty hard time saying I wasn't
in Iraq.
> so I can figure out why you post all these military pics, and yet
>
>>seem to have some of the opinions you have about Iraq (not mutually
>>exclusive, I know). This just goes back to proving my point that even
>>if you had my name and tons of personal info on me, you STILL would'nt
>>be able to prove/disprove my credentials.
>>
>>Incidentally, is the photo of you? It was the #1 find on google.
>
>
>
> Like I owe YOU any explanations..........
>
No, actually you don't, but I think you are getting a little touchy here
for nothing. I think you and I got off on the wrong foot with the whole
F911 discussion. This is the second time you've apparently derived
offense where none was meant.
x
"PowerPointSamurai" <nos...@dev.nul> wrote in message
David Kay sure thought it was a danger.
>
> > You DO remember Bin Laden - the guy who attacked
> > American and whom Bush is "no longer concerned about".
>
> I've already given you my take on this over and over. We can't just go
> door to door playing "Ollie Ollie Oxenfree" tearing up Afghanistan
> looking for Bin Laden. I think it is really more of a sting
> operation/stakeout, and by the way, it's working if you've been watching
> the news.
>
Got to agree with you here.
30k US troops on the ground in Afganistan looking for him.
Bin Laden is hiding in a hole in the ground.
Howard Berkowitz
<Hv6Zc.538336$Gx4.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
PowerPointSamurai <nos...@dev.nul> wrote:
> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
>
> >>Combat support (like MPs) and SF might be strained, because they are in
> >>demand for stability ops and securing MSRs and "winning hearts and
> >>minds" respectively. I'll even go a step further and say the same SF
> >>guys are probably in both theaters because even if they don't speak the
> >>local dialect, someone on the team probably does, or they do "other SF
> >>stuff".
> >
> >
> > And this could not be foreseen? Apparently there was optimism in the
> > number of prisoners with whom MPs would have to deal---but 1991 should
> > have offered at least a clue there.
>
> MPs are always in a high demand in support and stability ops. They were
> also in very high demand in Bosnia, and Kosovo. I don't think they
> underestimated the need for these guys. More would be better, but I
> think they actually brought enough to do what MPs are really supposed to
> do IMO--they're just really busy.
I'd like to throw out a very ill-formed idea. Perhaps this should go
into its own thread, but let me wonder a bit about a personnel
management issue that goes beyond the immediate circumstances.
Certainly from the combat arms people I've known, the MP branch tends
not to be regarded as the avenue to the stars. There's no argument that
many basic MP duties may not be the most challenging.
Your point is well taken that MPs are in high demand in support and
stability operations, which probably will become more common. Much as
there have been MOS designators for NBC, etc., does it make any sense to
create a "stability operations" designator that would tend to be career
enhancing. I might see people with such a designator certainly coming
from MP branch, and virtually any Civil Affairs type would have it. I
could see Engineer and Signal people, for example, getting the
designator and being available for reconstruction -- which may include
specific training on managing contractor support in that role.
x
> PowerPointSamurai <nu...@dev.net> wrote in news:41347b7d$1_4
> @corp.newsgroups.com:
>
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >
> >> "x" <x...@x.com> wrote in news:2tTYc.97915$mD.48354@attbi_s02:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"PowerPointSamurai" <nu...@dev.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:41340072$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> >>>
> >>>>another 911 if you were given intel that suggested a known enemy of
the
> >>>>US had the capability and the intent to follow up on it?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Colon Powell saying "One last chance for Iraq to come clean"
> >>>Everyone knew that meant war.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> And as for Bin Laden, well, the less said the better.
> >>
> >> After all, despite 9/11 it was Saddam who was the
> >> REAL enemy..............
> >>
> >
> > About 2/3 of the important Al Qaeda guys are rounded up.
>
>
> What hat did you pull THAT out of?
U.S. PRESIDENT BUSH: Nearly two-thirds of al Qaeda's known leaders have been
captured or killed, and we continue on al Qaeda's trail.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/09/otsc.boettcher/
>
>
> > I suspect, but
> > admit I cannot prove here, that the tactics have shifted to something
> > more like a sting operation than a door to door search and destroy
> > mission. IMO that's where we lost a little traction in Iraq.
>
>
> Bush's war is the greatest recruitment
> tool Bin Laden could ask for.
Not so sure about that. Join Al Qaeda and fight
your brother muslim. I dont think that is a good
recruiting slogan. That is what is going on in Iraq
and I dont think they want to fight other muslims.
>
>
>
> Iraq War Swells Al Qaeda's Ranks, Report Says
> by Peter Graff
>
> LONDON - War in Iraq has swollen the ranks of al Qaeda
> and galvanized the Islamic militant group's will, the
> International Institute for Strategic Studies said on
> Wednesday in its annual report."
> www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1015-04.htm
I hardly think it remotely compares to what Saddam was doing.
I have to agree - this doesnt help our cause.
ssn...@earthlink.net
Howard,
The MP CMF(Career Management Field) actually has a number of
attractions to those who might seek it. First, it is the only
field open to women that while not technically a combatant puts
them in the field with all of the weapons that any Combat Arms
troop might wish for and more of them than most of us Combat Arms
types can carry. Second, the MP field has skills that are
immediately and directly transferable to a civilian sector job
which most Combat Arms CMFs do not have.
You do realize for instance that MSG Colin Campbell is both a
Master Gunner (tanker) and an MP as one example?
The DA is currently expanding the number of MP slots in the Army
and increasing their presence in the new UA's as well as having
brought back the position of Provost Marshal of the Army right?
Snark
Mitchell Holman
news:Xm7Zc.538508$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Bush cherry-picked his information to support
the conclusion he wanted. Even his own Sec of State
said that Saddam was not a threat.
But as long as you are talking about sidestepping
questions, here is the one you deleted without answering:
Why was Saddam such a non-issue, non-threat, not even
worth mentioning petty tyrant in Bush's first year in
office and such a dire threat to our very existance in
his second? Why did the administration suddenly drop
all references to Bin Laden and suddenly become fixated
on Saddam?
>
>> You DO remember Bin Laden - the guy who attacked
>> American and whom Bush is "no longer concerned about".
>
> I've already given you my take on this over and over. We can't just go
> door to door playing "Ollie Ollie Oxenfree" tearing up Afghanistan
> looking for Bin Laden. I think it is really more of a sting
> operation/stakeout, and by the way, it's working if you've been watching
> the news.
Bin Laden is the worst mass murderer in
US history. And now he is barely worth a mention
by our "war on terrorism" president.
"Since the beginning of 2003, in fact, Bush has mentioned
bin Laden's name on only 10 occasions. And on six of those
occasions it was because he was asked a direct question.
In addition, there were four times when Bush was asked about
bin Laden directly but was able to answer without mentioning
bin Laden's name himself. Not once during that period has he
talked about bin Laden at any length, or said anything substantive.
During the same period, for comparison purposes, Bush has mentioned
former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on approximately 300 occasions."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A59518-2004Aug12.html?nav=rss_politics/administration/whbriefing
PS: Care to make a bet that Bush won't even
mention Bin Laden in his acceptance speech Thursday
night?
Mitchell Holman
@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>>>>>Hello, there is absolutely no way they did an accurate poll in that
>>>>>country.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every poll taken shows the public wants the
>>>>the US to leave. Every one. If you want to quibble
>>>>about accuracy, fine. What makes think the contrary
>>>>is true, that the Iraqis want us to stay?
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, well then, lets not quibble about accuracy when it is so skewed that
>>>it is useless data. Let's not quibble that only the groups most likely
>>>to want us to leave are the only ones represented, and oh by the way,
>>>people who were relatively more affluent than the average. By that same
>>>logic, we could take an all white neighborhood some small town in
>>>Alabama and use those results to get the view of America as a whole.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Every poll shows the Iqagis want us out. If
>> you want to remain in denial about that, fine.
>
> It's not just denial--citing a poll without any way of doing it right is
> purely contrived.
The cited polls have more credibility than
the personal recollections of recollections of an
anonymous usenet poster
> News people make mistakes just like everyone else, so
> I'm not saying they did anything intentional here, but it is absolutely
> impossible to get a representative poll in that country right now and I
> defy you and the Post and whoever was behind the poll to provide the
> population size and the demographic/ethnic/geographic spread. Otherwise
> I could do a poll just like this in, say, certain parts of Massachusetts
> and say that nearly 99% of America supports Kerry.
>
> To be fair, I'm not saying that every Iraqi loves having us there--I
> think most just want to be getting on with this--but if they don't, then
> they need to get their government and security forces working.
Can you imagine the US revolution ending with
the French picking a government for us and shooting
anyone who objected?
PowerPointSamurai
>>I have my reasons for remaining anonymous, while you have quite a
>>prolific posting history in dozens of forums.
>
>
>
> Translation: I am not afraid to post under
> my own name and you are.
Basically, yeah. You ever had kooks call your house and scare your
wife? I didn't make you post anything--it's your choice and there are
pros and cons to that.
>> I'm just trying to get a
>>feel for your background so I know more about where you are coming from
>>and hence the credibility of your arguments. That's all.
>
>
>
> If backgrounds are so important to you, why
> don't you post yours?
I've told you over and again, that's a great point, but I'm not going to
expose my family to that again. And I wasn't probing your background to
piss you off--I was doing it to find out how you acquire those photos
and know so much about, say, the Imperial Russian Fleet. It's pretty
impressive. It just seems strange to me when contrasted with your
opposition to the war in Iraq, and I'm curious about what your
perspective on other things are. BTW, when you post openly, you develop
a stature whether you like it or not.
>> You've posted
>>a lot of interesting military pics, but I don't see any sign you were
>>ever in the military and I was just curious about what you do and how
>>you get all that stuff.
>
> I have been a military buff for generations.
> I might have signed up if that godawful travesty
> of Vietnam hadn't been going on at the time.
That doesn't fully explain everything, but it's a start. Are you a
history prof or something?
>>As far as getting kicked out, no, I am still in and probably will be for
>>another 10 years or so. Unless you are trying really hard to ignore the
>>photos I've been posting, you'd have a pretty hard time saying I wasn't
>>in Iraq.
>
>
>
> I can post scads of pictures from the Civil War
> but that doesn't prove I was there.
Which goes back to my point that I could post my own picture in uniform,
my evaluation reports, etc. and you could still say it's a photoshop job.
>>> Like I owe YOU any explanations..........
>>>
>>
>>No, actually you don't, but I think you are getting a little touchy here
>>for nothing. I think you and I got off on the wrong foot with the whole
>>F911 discussion. This is the second time you've apparently derived
>>offense where none was meant.
>
>
>
> Maybe if you were to stop making an issue of
> my background while hiding your own that wouldn't
> happen.
I asked you about your background once out of curiousity--not to diss
you. My disguise protects my identity enough that I can candidly
express my opinion and protect my family. Sure, the protection is
trivial and anyone who really wanted to track me down could do it fairly
easily, but it's there. Without even the trivial level of protection, I
could not freely and openly express my opinion and would therefor be
more disingenuous than using an alias.
BTW, you are missing out on a good branch of this discussion in
us.military.army. You are interesting to discuss this topic with,
ESPECIALLY because we don't agree on everything.
PowerPointSamurai
> Bush cherry-picked his information to support
> the conclusion he wanted. Even his own Sec of State
> said that Saddam was not a threat.
I asked you what you would do about Saddam given that info. If I
understand your position correctly, it's to leave him be, or contain
him. Could you clarify? I mean how long do you contain him if you do
that, what do you do if he keeps kicking out arms inspectors, or do we
just leave him be and hope for the best?
To be honest though, this is all moot. The invasion HAS happened and
now we are where we are. What would you do from this point?
>
> But as long as you are talking about sidestepping
> questions, here is the one you deleted without answering:
> Why was Saddam such a non-issue, non-threat, not even
> worth mentioning petty tyrant in Bush's first year in
> office and such a dire threat to our very existance in
> his second? Why did the administration suddenly drop
> all references to Bin Laden and suddenly become fixated
> on Saddam?
Because I HAVE answered that over and over and over. I guess you just
disagree so you ignore my reasons.
>>> You DO remember Bin Laden - the guy who attacked
>>>American and whom Bush is "no longer concerned about".
>>
>>I've already given you my take on this over and over. We can't just go
>>door to door playing "Ollie Ollie Oxenfree" tearing up Afghanistan
>>looking for Bin Laden. I think it is really more of a sting
>>operation/stakeout, and by the way, it's working if you've been watching
>>the news.
>
> Bin Laden is the worst mass murderer in
> US history. And now he is barely worth a mention
> by our "war on terrorism" president.
[article snipped for brevity]
>
> PS: Care to make a bet that Bush won't even
> mention Bin Laden in his acceptance speech Thursday
> night?
I hope he doesn't. I could see why the Pakistanis were so pissed off
about the release of the info on those Al Qaeda operatives they
captured. You don't go riling up the target when you are trying to get
them complacent on a stakeout. There are people who are making it their
career to find him--quietly. That's why the Special Forces are also
known as the "quiet professionals".
David Casey
[followups set]
> Bush's war is the greatest recruitment
> tool Bin Laden could ask for.
Nice! It's always better to have them come to you than you having to go
find them. Notice how Sadr is good for sh*t talking for only a week or two
at a time? Once he gets spanked and his "army" reduced by several hundred
folks he turns around and begs for another cease-fire.
Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
http://www.geocities.com/davidcasey98
Remove IH8SPAM to reply by email.
Howard Berkowitz
<ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Thanks for the information. I don't intend to generalize from a small
personal sample. Additional comments inline.
>
> Howard,
>
> The MP CMF(Career Management Field) actually has a number of
> attractions to those who might seek it.
Given that under Total Force, there will be a significant MP component
in the reserve components, have you any suggestions about avoiding the
apparently localized low-quality recruiting that resulted in a small but
unfortunate group of ... missing links ... at Abu Ghraib? My
understanding is that almost all the MP violators were from one Reserve
company drawing from a common recruitment area.
I don't know any Army recruiting policy people, although I did know one
Marine LTC responsible for some excellent advertising programs. Do we
need any encouragement to people to go MP? Possibly cooperative Reserve
training with civilian law enforcement, or agreements for civilian LE to
give priority to hiring ex=MP's?
>First, it is the only
> field open to women that while not technically a combatant puts
> them in the field with all of the weapons that any Combat Arms
> troop might wish for and more of them than most of us Combat Arms
> types can carry.
You don't know the fantasies I have of certain annoying drivers being
given tickets by a courteous MP with a ticket book, and an equally
courteous MP team with Ma Deuce.
>Second, the MP field has skills that are
> immediately and directly transferable to a civilian sector job
> which most Combat Arms CMFs do not have.
Did you ever see the classified ad alleged to have been in Aviation
Week: "Master Air Gunner qualified in B-17, B-29, B-50 and B-52. Seeks
position with small but extremely competitive airline."?
>
> You do realize for instance that MSG Colin Campbell is both a
> Master Gunner (tanker) and an MP as one example?
No, I did not.
>
> The DA is currently expanding the number of MP slots in the Army
> and increasing their presence in the new UA's as well as having
> brought back the position of Provost Marshal of the Army right?
>
I regard that as very good news. What would be your thoughts about
reviving something along the lines of the European Occupation
Constabulary, meant to be impressive and yet also part of stabilization
and reconstruction? Obviously, such a unit is not appropriate for
intense urban combat, but I wonder if its visibility might be
psychologically effective in lower-intensity military government
situations. Along these lines, I wouldn't be surprised of the Baghdad
embassy might have have a ceremonial guard of Marines in dress blues,
along with a less stylish but more potent reaction force.
Mitchell Holman
$.d...@sgtcaseycableone.net:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:44:58 GMT, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> [followups set]
>
>> Bush's war is the greatest recruitment
>> tool Bin Laden could ask for.
>
> Nice! It's always better to have them come to you than you having to go
> find them. Notice how Sadr is good for sh*t talking for only a week or two
> at a time? Once he gets spanked and his "army" reduced by several hundred
> folks he turns around and begs for another cease-fire.
Ain't it ironic? The administration would never
negotiate with terrorists is negotiating ceasefires
with terrorists.
PowerPointSamurai
> In article <4135256A...@earthlink.net>, "ssn...@bangserver.na"
> <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the information. I don't intend to generalize from a small
> personal sample. Additional comments inline.
>
>>Howard,
>>
>>The MP CMF(Career Management Field) actually has a number of
>>attractions to those who might seek it.
>
> Given that under Total Force, there will be a significant MP component
> in the reserve components, have you any suggestions about avoiding the
> apparently localized low-quality recruiting that resulted in a small but
> unfortunate group of ... missing links ... at Abu Ghraib? My
> understanding is that almost all the MP violators were from one Reserve
> company drawing from a common recruitment area.
IIRC, many of those people were civilian prison guards. Many *might*
have gotten in with ACASP (Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program), which
is basically where you get advanced rank for having demonstrated
civilian skills (such as a certified plumber). I'm way out on a limb
here with that, but at any rate, they had no right to claim that they
didn't get proper training.
Furthermore, the USAR must abide by the same rules as regular Army for
recruiting, whereas the Guard does not. Regular Army and USAR must meet
moral (legal) background checks and meet education and ASVAB score
requirements. I think the Guard can put in people the USAR cannot, at
least when it comes to ASVAB scores. The Army's philosophy seems to be
that if you finish high school and have a high ASVAB score, (and of
course have a clean record) you will be less likely to be a problem-child.
As far as drawing from a common area, there is no way around it. If you
try to put someone into a unit that is more than an arbitrary distance
from the unit location (75 miles IIRC), the unit commander must sign a
statement accepting that risk.
> I don't know any Army recruiting policy people, although I did know one
> Marine LTC responsible for some excellent advertising programs. Do we
> need any encouragement to people to go MP? Possibly cooperative Reserve
> training with civilian law enforcement, or agreements for civilian LE to
> give priority to hiring ex=MP's?
The human behavior bell curve is at work again. I've heard that more
people are coming into the military for service to country and
adventure, and fewer for college money. Many of them (including the
"smart" ones) are requesting combat assignments.
My take on the whole prison scandal is that if I wish the courts martial
boards could sentence all of the ones found guilty in this debacle to go
around and apologize to all of the spouses/parents of all the Soldiers
deployed in Iraq, then go on a tour in Iraq apologizing for what they
have done. The humiliation is not the point--their actions have
prolonged and deepend the conflict we are in and have put everyone at
greater risk. Moreover, their apology may actually sauve some of the
hatred over there.
PowerPointSamurai
Not to quibble, but that's the interim government, not us.
ssn...@earthlink.net
> In article <4135256A...@earthlink.net>, "ssn...@bangserver.na"
> <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the information. I don't intend to generalize from a small
> personal sample. Additional comments inline.
>
>>Howard,
>>
>>The MP CMF(Career Management Field) actually has a number of
>>attractions to those who might seek it.
>
>
> Given that under Total Force, there will be a significant MP component
> in the reserve components, have you any suggestions about avoiding the
> apparently localized low-quality recruiting that resulted in a small but
> unfortunate group of ... missing links ... at Abu Ghraib? My
> understanding is that almost all the MP violators were from one Reserve
> company drawing from a common recruitment area.
>
> I don't know any Army recruiting policy people, although I did know one
> Marine LTC responsible for some excellent advertising programs. Do we
> need any encouragement to people to go MP? Possibly cooperative Reserve
> training with civilian law enforcement, or agreements for civilian LE to
> give priority to hiring ex=MP's?
>
those are some of the reasons why they re-instituted the Provost
Marshal's title and position in the Army.
>
>>First, it is the only
>>field open to women that while not technically a combatant puts
>>them in the field with all of the weapons that any Combat Arms
>>troop might wish for and more of them than most of us Combat Arms
>>types can carry.
>
>
> You don't know the fantasies I have of certain annoying drivers being
> given tickets by a courteous MP with a ticket book, and an equally
> courteous MP team with Ma Deuce.
>
I just have fantasies about mounting crew served weapons on my
vehicles. :-)
>
>>Second, the MP field has skills that are
>>immediately and directly transferable to a civilian sector job
>>which most Combat Arms CMFs do not have.
>
>
> Did you ever see the classified ad alleged to have been in Aviation
> Week: "Master Air Gunner qualified in B-17, B-29, B-50 and B-52. Seeks
> position with small but extremely competitive airline."?
>
Can't say that I have. There's a lot of things that I've missed
while deployed.
>
>>You do realize for instance that MSG Colin Campbell is both a
>>Master Gunner (tanker) and an MP as one example?
>
>
> No, I did not.
>
>
>>The DA is currently expanding the number of MP slots in the Army
>>and increasing their presence in the new UA's as well as having
>>brought back the position of Provost Marshal of the Army right?
>>
>
> I regard that as very good news. What would be your thoughts about
> reviving something along the lines of the European Occupation
> Constabulary, meant to be impressive and yet also part of stabilization
> and reconstruction? Obviously, such a unit is not appropriate for
> intense urban combat, but I wonder if its visibility might be
> psychologically effective in lower-intensity military government
> situations. Along these lines, I wouldn't be surprised of the Baghdad
> embassy might have have a ceremonial guard of Marines in dress blues,
> along with a less stylish but more potent reaction force.
I don't know, one of the things that seems to be on the "verboten
terms list" is the word occupation. Most of the time we're able
to use the local constabulary backed up by MPs and sometimes a
more heavily armed QRF to keep order in areas that we maintain a
presence. Iraq proved to be a bit of a horse of a different
color in that the police/constabulary disappeared along with the
government as the country fell. Apparently, the victims of too
much centralization, and undoubtedly a lesson learned in future
operations against a highly centralized regime.
I would bet that the Marine Corps detachment at the Baghdad
embassy does double duty with it's personnel serving as both
ceremonial guards and as the heavily armed QRF. At least that's
the case in almost every US embassy I've seen.
Snark
Colin Campbell
<ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
> If creating democracy is so great why are
>we imposing it on Iraq but not Kuwait? Why did
>we end the Gulf War by return the Emir to his
>throne and denying the "fundemental freedoms" to
>the people there? Bush acts like democracy is
>punishment we impose on our enemies and ignore
>entirely when it comes to our "friends" in the
>region.
Because if we are successful, democracy will impose itself on Kuwait
without any need for us.
I take it you have not researched out how we intend to win the war on
terror.
No electrons were harmed in the posting of this message.
Colin Campbell
<ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
> Every poll shows the Iqagis want us out. If
>you want to remain in denial about that, fine.
Maybe if you look at it in a simplistic manner - this would be true.
However the truth is more complicated. The Iraqis may not want us
here but also realize that they need us here.
Colin Campbell
<ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
> The cited polls have more credibility than
>the personal recollections of recollections of an
>anonymous usenet poster
So your mind is firmly closed I take it.
Colin Campbell
<ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> About 2/3 of the important Al Qaeda guys are rounded up.
>
>
> What hat did you pull THAT out of?
Actually reading the news.
> Bush's war is the greatest recruitment
>tool Bin Laden could ask for.
Not really. If this were the case there would have been an actual
increase in Al-Queda ranks.
Since this has not occurred - we can conclude that the 'experts' were
wrong (again).
ssn...@earthlink.net
First off, is Moqtada al Sadr's militia a terrorist organization?
If so, I guess we overlooked them and mis-classified them as
insurrectionists. Second, if we accept your allegations that the
Mehdi Army is a terrorist organization, you realize that it is
not the US government negotiating with him for a cease fire but
rather the sovereign interim government of Iraq that is doing so
don't you?
Snark
Howard Berkowitz
<nu...@dev.net> wrote:
> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
> > In article <4135256A...@earthlink.net>, "ssn...@bangserver.na"
> > <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the information. I don't intend to generalize from a small
> > personal sample. Additional comments inline.
> >
> >>Howard,
> >>
> >>The MP CMF(Career Management Field) actually has a number of
> >>attractions to those who might seek it.
> >
> > Given that under Total Force, there will be a significant MP component
> > in the reserve components, have you any suggestions about avoiding the
> > apparently localized low-quality recruiting that resulted in a small
> > but
> > unfortunate group of ... missing links ... at Abu Ghraib? My
> > understanding is that almost all the MP violators were from one Reserve
> > company drawing from a common recruitment area.
>
> IIRC, many of those people were civilian prison guards. Many *might*
> have gotten in with ACASP (Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program), which
> is basically where you get advanced rank for having demonstrated
> civilian skills (such as a certified plumber). I'm way out on a limb
> here with that, but at any rate, they had no right to claim that they
> didn't get proper training.
I'm tempted to wonder if they hadn't had exposure to something related
to plumbing, but the stuff you usually hire the plumber to help you
dispose.
>
> As far as drawing from a common area, there is no way around it. If you
> try to put someone into a unit that is more than an arbitrary distance
> from the unit location (75 miles IIRC), the unit commander must sign a
> statement accepting that risk.
Somehow, I wonder whether there should also be a biological
certification that the center of the area is not in a primate reserve...
>
> My take on the whole prison scandal is that if I wish the courts martial
> boards could sentence all of the ones found guilty in this debacle to go
> around and apologize to all of the spouses/parents of all the Soldiers
> deployed in Iraq, then go on a tour in Iraq apologizing for what they
> have done. The humiliation is not the point--their actions have
> prolonged and deepend the conflict we are in and have put everyone at
> greater risk. Moreover, their apology may actually sauve some of the
> hatred over there.
You have an interesting idea. Had this happened in East Asia, that
absolutely would help. I would have to defer to an area specialist to
see if there's any societal framework in the Middle East in which an
apology would not be interpreted as weakness.
Howard Berkowitz
<ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> > In article <4135256A...@earthlink.net>, "ssn...@bangserver.na"
> > <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the information. I don't intend to generalize from a small
> > personal sample. Additional comments inline.
> >
> >
> > I don't know any Army recruiting policy people, although I did know one
> > Marine LTC responsible for some excellent advertising programs. Do we
> > need any encouragement to people to go MP? Possibly cooperative Reserve
> > training with civilian law enforcement, or agreements for civilian LE
> > to
> > give priority to hiring ex=MP's?
> >
> To tell the truth I don't know the answers here. But, I suspect
> those are some of the reasons why they re-instituted the Provost
> Marshal's title and position in the Army.
I'm trying to remember whether Norman Schwarzkopf the Elder became PMG,
or was just in line for it. From what I understand, his is still a
respected name, especially in Iran due to his Constabulary work there
after WWII. I wonder what the reception would be if Schwarzkopf the
Younger, who spent at least some of his boyhood in Teheran, was a
special envoy?
> >
> >>The DA is currently expanding the number of MP slots in the Army
> >>and increasing their presence in the new UA's as well as having
> >>brought back the position of Provost Marshal of the Army right?
> >>
> >
> > I regard that as very good news. What would be your thoughts about
> > reviving something along the lines of the European Occupation
> > Constabulary, meant to be impressive and yet also part of stabilization
> > and reconstruction? Obviously, such a unit is not appropriate for
> > intense urban combat, but I wonder if its visibility might be
> > psychologically effective in lower-intensity military government
> > situations. Along these lines, I wouldn't be surprised of the Baghdad
> > embassy might have have a ceremonial guard of Marines in dress blues,
> > along with a less stylish but more potent reaction force.
>
> I don't know, one of the things that seems to be on the "verboten
> terms list" is the word occupation.
I can see how it's sensitive, and, at the same time, Occupying Power is
straight out of the Geneva Convention and implies both responsibility
and authority.
ssn...@earthlink.net
> In article <41353A8D...@earthlink.net>, "ssn...@bangserver.na"
> <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4135256A...@earthlink.net>, "ssn...@bangserver.na"
>>><ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Thanks for the information. I don't intend to generalize from a small
>>>personal sample. Additional comments inline.
>>>
>>
>
>>>I don't know any Army recruiting policy people, although I did know one
>>>Marine LTC responsible for some excellent advertising programs. Do we
>>>need any encouragement to people to go MP? Possibly cooperative Reserve
>>>training with civilian law enforcement, or agreements for civilian LE
>>>to
>>>give priority to hiring ex=MP's?
>>>
>>
>>To tell the truth I don't know the answers here. But, I suspect
>>those are some of the reasons why they re-instituted the Provost
>>Marshal's title and position in the Army.
>
>
> I'm trying to remember whether Norman Schwarzkopf the Elder became PMG,
> or was just in line for it. From what I understand, his is still a
> respected name, especially in Iran due to his Constabulary work there
> after WWII. I wonder what the reception would be if Schwarzkopf the
> Younger, who spent at least some of his boyhood in Teheran, was a
> special envoy?
>
I wouldn't know. It wouldn't be the first time we did something
like that. Albeit, "The Bear" as he is known is not noted for
witholding his opinions or his temper.
>
>
>>>>The DA is currently expanding the number of MP slots in the Army
>>>>and increasing their presence in the new UA's as well as having
>>>>brought back the position of Provost Marshal of the Army right?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I regard that as very good news. What would be your thoughts about
>>>reviving something along the lines of the European Occupation
>>>Constabulary, meant to be impressive and yet also part of stabilization
>>>and reconstruction? Obviously, such a unit is not appropriate for
>>>intense urban combat, but I wonder if its visibility might be
>>>psychologically effective in lower-intensity military government
>>>situations. Along these lines, I wouldn't be surprised of the Baghdad
>>>embassy might have have a ceremonial guard of Marines in dress blues,
>>>along with a less stylish but more potent reaction force.
>>
>>I don't know, one of the things that seems to be on the "verboten
>>terms list" is the word occupation.
>
>
> I can see how it's sensitive, and, at the same time, Occupying Power is
> straight out of the Geneva Convention and implies both responsibility
> and authority.
It may well be, but right now it bears a great deal of negative
connotations in part because of the context in which the term is
used and by whom it is used.
Snark
David Casey
>>> Bush's war is the greatest recruitment
>>> tool Bin Laden could ask for.
>>
>> Nice! It's always better to have them come to you than you having to go
>> find them. Notice how Sadr is good for sh*t talking for only a week or two
>> at a time? Once he gets spanked and his "army" reduced by several hundred
>> folks he turns around and begs for another cease-fire.
>
> Ain't it ironic? The administration would never
> negotiate with terrorists is negotiating ceasefires
> with terrorists.
You're wrong (again).
raymond o'hara
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
cyber stalking can get you in trouble,be careful
you hide behind a fake name and make claims you can't back up and you
wonder why we think you're an ass.
if you're going to make claims be ready to back them up or don't make them.