Iraqi Parliment Bombed

[Dreadsox]

The real question I have is....who made Iraq the safehaven for Al-Qaeda?

Could it be time to look in the mirror and say......

Naaaahhhhhhh


Never mind.

 

[deep]

1. Who disbanded hundreds of thousands of Iraqi trained soldiers?


2. Who left tons and tons of weapons unguarded for weeks and weeks for anyone and everyone to collect and put to their own uses.


3. Who handed out billions of unmarked, untraceable U S dollars to tribal chiefs with absolute no records?



4. Who threw out highly trained government officials because they were members of the wrong party?

 

[Diemen]

But we're making such progress now. It's just starting to come together, give it another .....25years.... week, you'll see!

 

[Irvine511]

i think the only thing i have left to add is that it may well take 10 years to get Iraq up and running.

so let's state the obvious: time for a Draft.

this is, essentially, STING's position. we must battle Al Qaeda, we must keep Iraq stable, we had to remove Saddam Hussein.

thusly, in order to do all this, and not completely break the army, it's time for a Draft.

when the American people gave the cautious political approval for the invasion in 2002/3, and when they re-elected Bush in 2004, they knew very well that we might have to be in Iraq for a very long time. they sleep better at night knowing that, praise Jesus, Saddam is out of power and he can no longer harm American children as they sleep in their beds. there was no deception on the part of the administration, whatsoever.

a Draft is the logcial next step.

so who's first?

 

[deep]

i think the only thing i have left to add is that it may well take 10 years to get Iraq up and running.

so let's state the obvious: time for a Draft.

this is, essentially, STING's position. we must battle Al Qaeda, we must keep Iraq stable, we had to remove Saddam Hussein.

thusly, in order to do all this, and not completely break the army, it's time for a Draft.

when the American people gave the cautious political approval for the invasion in 2002/3, and when they re-elected Bush in 2004, they knew very well that we might have to be in Iraq for a very long time. they sleep better at night knowing that, praise Jesus, Saddam is out of power and he can no longer harm American children as they sleep in their beds. there was no deception on the part of the administration, whatsoever.

a Draft is the logical next step.

so who's first?

no draft

that would be shades of Viet Nam


it would not be palatable
even to the President's supporters,
(both of them, Sting and McCain)

We can win this WAR on Terror, if we do not flinch.

We have volunteers that can be stop-lossed, and called up by executive order, indefinitely.

Yes, it is true that even Graduates of West Point are not signing up at record refusal rates.


But, there is an answer, we need more money to protect America. More bonus money for sign ups.

And if that does not work, and 150,000 - 180,000 enlisted can not be provided.


There is always private contractors.

If they will not enlist for crappy benefits and $150 a day.

Let's see them turn down $1000 dollars a day from KBG or Blackwater.

These private contractors have 100,000 to 150,000 on the books now.

They know how to get the warm bodies.

We give them wonderful contracts.

Cost plus 20-25%.


I bet they could get 500,000 on the payroll.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Contract the war on terror

 

[deep]

/\

 

[A_Wanderer]

It worked against pirates, why not terrorists?

 

[deep]

without giving it a lot of thought

i will say this

pirates were/ are criminals
and a private police force could be successful


terror is a tool for a political objective -
think King David Hotel Bombing

settlements from political disagreements can be settled with Wars, negotiations or a combination of both.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Pirates and terrorists are non-state actors that attack the civilian interests of countries; if we want a model of dealing with a perpetual problem there are better options than a perpetually militarised state.

 

[trevster2k]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5Kngf803dQ

Sneak peek at Bill Moyer's 90 minute special "Buying the War" on PBS on April 25 at 9pm local time. Check your local listings. Examines the failure of the media to have a pair.

Hmm, I have been wondering just how much of a sacrifice has the Bush, Cheney and Rice family made to protect America from terror.

 

[Irvine511]

i found this quite illuminating.

basically, the administration only felt it needed to be responsible for the overthrow of Hussein, nothing more. give the Iraqis a copy of the Federalist Papers, and then wish them good luck.

 

[trevster2k]

Bolton is a twit but that is the new strategy, blame the Iraqis for the failures and wash their hands of the whole affair.

This was interesting too.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm

 

[STING2]

i think the only thing i have left to add is that it may well take 10 years to get Iraq up and running.

so let's state the obvious: time for a Draft.

this is, essentially, STING's position. we must battle Al Qaeda, we must keep Iraq stable, we had to remove Saddam Hussein.

thusly, in order to do all this, and not completely break the army, it's time for a Draft.

when the American people gave the cautious political approval for the invasion in 2002/3, and when they re-elected Bush in 2004, they knew very well that we might have to be in Iraq for a very long time. they sleep better at night knowing that, praise Jesus, Saddam is out of power and he can no longer harm American children as they sleep in their beds. there was no deception on the part of the administration, whatsoever.

a Draft is the logcial next step.

so who's first?

The United States active Army and Marine Corp need to be expanded regardless of how that is accomplished, the volunteer system, draft, re-mobilization of National Guard units, or transfering as much logistical and support functions to civilians to free up soldiers and marines to form more combat units.

1. The Defense Department under Rumsfeld kept to a policy of only allowing each National Guard Combat Brigade to be deployed once in any 5 year period. This policy has been temporarily rescended for four National Guard Brigades that will be going to Iraq for their second tours at the start of 2008. 40% of the United States ground combat strength is in the National Guard and the old deployment rules place a much heavier burden on the active brigades with the ratio of active brigades deployed to active brigades resting and refiting at nearly 1 to 1. Ending all restrictions on the deployment of National Guard combat brigades as well as Marine reserve brigades would come close to doubling the amount of brigades available for deployment there by allowing for increases in the number of troops deployed in anyone area, or providing longer non-deployed periods for all brigades.

2. By transfering non-combat jobs in the United States to civilians, it has freed up the number of troops available, and the active Army has been able to add 6 new combat brigades in just 3 years. An 18% increase in the number of combat brigades from 33 to 39 without actually increasing the total number of personal in the active army.

3. The all volunteer active Army and Marine Corp are being expanded and with the transfer of more non-combat jobs to civilians, it is expected that 3 more combat brigades will soon be formed which would give the active army a total of 42. It is possible that the all volunteer active Army will be expanded beyond 42 brigades. Recruitment and retention overall in the active army remains solid making expansion of the force through regular recruiting means possible. Its important to remember that the all volunteer army used to have over 60 Brigades in the 1980s when the pool of potential recruits was much smaller than it is today. But then came the 1990s and the end of the Cold War and defense budgets were cut back, and the active army's combat strength as well as the National Guards combat strength was almost cut in half.

4. If the active army at any time cannot meet its needs through the above options then a draft can certainly meet those needs. Military leaders have previously been the most resistent to a draft because they feel it would degrade the overall quality of the volunteer force which is considered to be the finest military force ever fielded in the history of the planet. But no matter how great the quality of the force is, certain situations may call for a larger force and if a draft is needed to get there then the military will have to manage any loss in quality which hopefully could be offset by the larger numbers that could be obtained through a draft.

But regardless of how the active army and active marine corp is expanded with the options above, with the exception of the use of the National Guard, it will take time to expand the force and there are limits to how fast the force can be expanded whether its through an all volunteer system or a draft. The number of new recruits or draftees is limited by the number and size of training facilities, trainers, and equipment. For the rate to be increased, they would have to be expanded which will take time. The formation of new combat brigades with senior officers, NCO's, pilots and other positions often requiring several years of training and experience, plus tanks, armored vehicles, artillery will all have to be built. Regardless of how the expansion is done, it will take several years to significantly grow the force to a new level. It is also made more difficult by equipment shortages that are showing up for non-deployed units and which will require Billions of dollars and time to replace even with the current force structure.

 

[STING2]

And just WHY do you think Al Qaeda is in Iraq?

Because we are. That we brought this upon ourselves should be GLARINGLY obvious.

Saddam's behavior, his failure to comply with the UN and the crumbling of the containment regime are things that are far from being entirely in the control of the Coalition so the invasion and the risk it entailed are not things that the Coalition brought upon itself. But, certainly the mistakes made after the invasion have made bringing stability to Iraq much more difficult and has aided Al Quada's ability to operate within the country. Regardless of how mistake free the post occupation phase could have been, given the scale of what needed to be done, plus Al Quada's greater ability to hide among the local population in Iraq than Afghanistan, there were going to be problems with them.

Going foward though, it makes little sense to be pre-maturely withdrawing coalition forces given the current capability of the Iraqi military which would be unable to replace all the tasks that the coalition forces are currently performing and has yet to develop its own logistical and supply capabilities. The instability that would follow would be difficult if not impossible to contain and would create a safe haven for Al Quada, one that they do NOT currently have with an entire Marine Expeditionary Force currently stationed in Al Anbar Province.

 

[Zoomerang96]

guys

the president said there'd be good days and there'd be bad days.

if you can't handle that, then maybe you shouldn't watch the news.

besides
i think it's becoming more and more clear that permanent and true peace in iraq
will only come after iran has been attacked.

anyone else agree?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I definitely agree! But you are only thinking halfway through the plan. Don't just attack them, actually invade and occupy Iran. Fuck it all up and turn it into a completely lawless state that just becomes an Al Quada hotbed. Don't understand why? Well, it will then justify the attack and occupation, plus, it will mean that Iraq is no longer the current main Al Quada base. So, victory in Iraq!!!

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't think Iran has terrific potential for Al Qaeda.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Well that then loses half the advantages of invading. Scratch the plan.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Hmmm Sunni states versus nuclear Shiite state and don't want either side to win; what could possibly be done about such a problem.

 

[anitram]

If the active army at any time cannot meet its needs through the above options then a draft can certainly meet those needs.

Should we mobilize our Canadian minutemen to seal off the border?

 

[Irvine511]

Should we mobilize our Canadian minutemen to seal off the border?

don't worry -- half the military would revolt, including most of the top brass, if any sort of draft were signed into law.

i'm still amazed at STINGs post. i'd love to see a copy of the original.

Bush is right, a dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier.

 

[Diemen]

I definitely agree! But you are only thinking halfway through the plan. Don't just attack them, actually invade and occupy Iran. Fuck it all up and turn it into a completely lawless state that just becomes an Al Quada hotbed. Don't understand why? Well, it will then justify the attack and occupation, plus, it will mean that Iraq is no longer the current main Al Quada base. So, victory in Iraq!!!

Nicely done.

 

[A_Wanderer]

don't worry -- half the military would revolt, including most of the top brass, if any sort of draft were signed into law.

i'm still amazed at STINGs post. i'd love to see a copy of the original.

Bush is right, a dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier.

Do you have a problem with slavery?

 

[Irvine511]

Do you have a problem with slavery?

not if it removes Saddam Hussein -- the biggest threat to global stability ever in the history of the world -- from power.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Thats done already. it's a very different war.

 

[Irvine511]

Thats done already. it's a very different war.

i think you're missing the ironical point.

to accomplish what the administration wishes now to accomplish -- which necessitates, now, the total reconstruction of Iraqi society, in fact, the construction of "Iraq" -- one would need a veritable Sparta, especially after such a unilateral invasion.

only slaves could be asked to do what US troops are now being asked to do, to police another country's civil war and to wage war while rebuildling, and all predicated upon proven falsehoods about the threat SH and Iraq presented to the average american person.

for many, their loyalty to the Armed Forces and their sense of duty might trump the logic of this failed endeavour. but, for your average American who is not a slave, there is little chance you could get someone to lay down their life for the Iraq project unless one were a slave.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But this has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or WMD at this stage; and I think that the very valid point raised about US interests not being worth it does gloss over the concequences of leaving Iraqis to slaughter.

 

[Irvine511]

But this has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or WMD at this stage; and I think that the very valid point raised about US interests not being worth it does gloss over the concequences of leaving Iraqis to slaughter.

so we draft Americans to save Iraqis?