STING2 said:
Thats real fascinating, and I know how much you love to talk about me, but I think it would be a good idea to get back to the topic of your thread since this is obviously not it.
Irvine511 said:
i don't talk about you, STING, i talk about your posts. big difference.
anyway, back to your posts and the discussion at hand ...
[q]The real and longterm solution is not more US troops on the ground, although I agree at the current stage it would defintely help, but building the Iraqi military and police force in size and capability. What will ultimately end and defeat the insurgency is the Iraqi military/police force and the political process now in place since June. The Iraqi police and military forces once they are trained and increased in size, will be more effective at counterinsurgency operations just as the Police in Northern Ireland were more effective than the British Army in ultimately defeating the IRA. Both have important roles to play, but intelligence is best gathered by locals in their communities, and good intelligence is usually the more important factor than large numbers of police or troops when it comes to cracking down on insurgencies. The political and economic aspects are just as important as the security aspect. Running from the political and economic accomplishments of the past 3 years instead of strengthening them is an excellant way to make the security situation worse.[/q]
this is the mantra amongst the Kissingers of the world. it will happen. just keep funding, and fighting, and don't pull out, and all will work out because we say it will, but this isn't the case. in 2003, there were, essentially, 0 members of the Iraqi army and police force. the mantra has been, "as they stand up, we stand down." but this hasn't been the case. today, there are over 300,000 and violence is far, far worse:
[q]U.S. Military Is Still Waiting For Iraqi Forces to 'Stand Up'
Security Personnel Increase, but Insurgency Is Unabated
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 1, 2006; Page A21
The strategy in Iraq, President Bush has said often over the past year, is to stand down the U.S. military as Iraq's security forces stand up.
By strict numbers, the Iraqi side of that equation is almost complete. Training programs have developed more than 300,000 members of the Iraqi army and national police, close to the desired number of homegrown forces. Yet as that number has grown, so, too, has violence in Iraq. The summer was worse than ever, with July the deadliest month in three years, according to U.S. military data.
With the insurgency undiminished and Iraqi forces seemingly unable to counter it, U.S. commanders say they expect to stay at the current level of U.S. troops -- about 140,000 -- until at least next spring. That requirement is placing new strains on service members who leave Iraq and then must prepare to return a few months later. Tours of duty have been extended for two brigades in Iraq to boost troop levels.
So is the "stand down as they stand up" policy defunct? Not according to the Bush administration. But the meaning of the phrase appears to have changed, as leaders have begun shifting the blame for Iraq's problems away from the U.S. military and onto the country's own social and governmental institutions.
When Bush began invoking "stand up, stand down" in 2005, he repeatedly indicated that he was talking about getting Iraqi defense forces trained and on the job. For example, on Nov. 15, he said, "The plan [is] that we will train Iraqis, Iraqi troops, to be able to take the fight to the enemy. And as I have consistently said, as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
More recently, Bush has insisted that "the 'stand up, stand down' still holds." But he added more conditions, saying the troops can come home "when our commanders say . . . the Iraqi government is capable of defending itself and sustaining itself and governing itself."
[/q]
AEON said:
Quoting a Washington Post staffer is like quoting a writer from the old Soviet Pravda. To half of this country - this paper and the NY Times has ZERO credibility.
STING2 said:
7,000 dead, mainly from a single province of over 5 million people does not make it crystal clear that the process has failed. If the situation was not working, the elections and passing of the constitution would have been impossible. There would be no Iraqi government in place out all. In a country the size of Iraq, a disasterous Civil War as you so often describe it would have involved 80,000 dead through out Iraq in July and August.
You can't site single casualty figures from one or two provinces in a country with 18 provinces and claim that it is representive of what is going on everywhere.
AEON said:
Quoting a Washington Post staffer is like quoting a writer from the old Soviet Pravda. To half of this country - this paper and the NY Times has ZERO credibility.
AEON said:
Quoting a Washington Post staffer is like quoting a writer from the old Soviet Pravda. To half of this country - this paper and the NY Times has ZERO credibility.
We now know that, because WWII is a done deal.AliEnvy said:FDR knew the oil embargo on Japan would leave them no choice but to fight or die. He knew the consequences (how much he may or may not have known about the specifics leading up to the attack is almost irrelevant) and knew that it served a higher purpose.
No one wanted the day that would live in infamy but it turned out to be a necessary sacrifice in the bigger picture.
I don't think Bush was serious on Al Qaida up until 9/11. That's the difference between him and FDR - FDR took the threat of Nazi Germany ahead of time, but had to sell it to the American public, who detested the post-WWI reconstruction policies. They were to some degree, correct. The policies were so strict on Germany that the Germans ignored them naturally. But Bush, unless you can prove otherwise, had no information on the exact date, times, and locations that the 9/11 attacks were to take place. Just as I pointed out earlier, there was little communication on pre-9/11 intel between the FBI, CIA, NYPD, and the Air Force, which would have been vital in foiling the attacks.AliEnvy said:No one wanted the 2nd day that will live in infamy, but could it be that it was a necessary sacrifice in the bigger picture?
Would anyone even have the balls to say 'yes' to that question as a possibility and explore why?
It hasn't made us "less safe" - there haven't been any terror attacks on US soil since 9/11. Much of Europe has unfortunately become a target of terrorism because they are less likely to strike back with an offensive strategy.AliEnvy said:To the point of the thread, knocking out Saddam and occupying Iraq has made America and Americans less safe from jihadist terrorism yet that was a known risk worth taking in March 2003....despite no WMD or Saddam posing any materially imminent threat to the Kuwait and Saudi borders.
NYT is funny however - they had attempted to challenge for the "innocence" of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the Venona cables.anitram said:
Then half of your country needs to get educated.
Some of us here actually lived in Communist countries and read communist papers. When you make a statement like you just did, we find it hysterical.
Thanks for the laugh.
http://www.nsa.gov/venona/ The VENONA files are most famous for exposing Julius (code named LIBERAL) and Ethel Rosenberg and help give indisputable evidence of their involvement with the Soviet spy ring.
Remembering the Rosenbergs
June 19, 2003, Thursday
Editorial Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 24, Column 1, 326 words
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Editorial says espionage case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg still haunts American history 50 years after they were put to death; says they were neither as innocent as they claimed nor as guilty as government alleged
Irvine511 said:the NYT, if anything, is implicated in the selling of the war and the furthering of Bush propaganda.
My emoticon was directed at your comment - "the NYT, if anything, is implicated in the selling of the war and the furthering of Bush propaganda."Irvine511 said:do you even know who Judy Miller is?
Macfistowannabe said:My emoticon was directed at your comment - "the NYT, if anything, is implicated in the selling of the war and the furthering of Bush propaganda."
But that doesn't mean they deserve criticism for THIRTY TWO days in a row of ABU GHRAIB cover stories.
April 29: TREATMENT OF PRISONERS; G.I.'s Are Accused of Abusing Iraqi Captives
May 1: CAPTIVES; Bush Voices 'Disgust' at Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners
May 2: DETAINEES; OFFICER SUGGESTS IRAQI JAIL ABUSE WAS ENCOURAGED
May 3: PRISONERS; COMMAND ERRORS AIDED IRAQ ABUSE, ARMY HAS FOUND
May 4: PUNISHMENT; ARMY PUNISHES 7 WITH REPRIMANDS FOR PRISON ABUSE
May 5: INMATE; Iraqi Recounts Hours of Abuse By U.S. Troops
May 6: THE PRISON GUARDS; Abuse Charges Bring Anguish In Unit's Home
May 7: THE SOLDIER; From Picture of Pride to Symbol of Abuse
May 8: COMBAT; G.I.'S KILL SCORES OF MILITIA FORCES IN 3 IRAQI CITIES
[NOTE: Abu Ghraib mentioned in first paragraph ]
May 9: THE MILITARY; In Abuse, a Portrayal of Ill-Prepared, Overwhelmed G.I.'s
May 10: PROSECUTION; FIRST TRIAL SET TO BEGIN MAY 19 IN ABUSE IN IRAQ
May 11: THE REPORT; Head of Inquiry On Iraq Abuses Now in Spotlight
May 12: Afghan Gives Own Account Of U.S. Abuse
May 13: PRISON POLICIES; General Took Guantánamo Rules To Iraq for Handling of Prisoners
May 14: THE WHISTLE-BLOWER; Accused Soldier Paints Scene of Eager Mayhem
May 15: MISTREATMENT; Earlier Jail Seen as Incubator for Abuses in Iraq
May 16: THE COURTS-MARTIAL; ACCUSED G.I.'S TRY TO SHIFT BLAME IN PRISON ABUSE
May 17: PRISONERS; SOME IRAQIS HELD OUTSIDE CONTROL OF TOP GENERAL
May 18: INTERROGATIONS; M.P.'s Received Orders to Strip Iraqi Detainees
May 19: ABU GHRAIB; Officer Says Army Tried to Curb Red Cross Visits to Prison in Iraq
May 20: THE COURT-MARTIAL; G.I. PLEADS GUILTY IN COURT-MARTIAL FOR IRAQIS' ABUSE
May 21: THE INTERROGATORS; Afghan Policies On Questioning Landed in Iraq
May 22: THE WITNESSES; Only a Few Spoke Up on Abuse As Many Soldiers Stayed Silent
May 23: SUSPECT; Translator Questioned By Army In Iraq Abuse [Page 12]
May 24: ABUSE; Afghan Deaths Linked to Unit At Iraq Prison
May 25: ARMY SHIFTS; No. 2 Army General to Move In As Top U.S. Commander in Iraq
May 26: INVESTIGATION; ABUSE OF CAPTIVES MORE WIDESPREAD, SAYS ARMY SURVEY
May 27: Three Accused Soldiers Had Records of Unruliness That Went Unpunished
May 28: U.S. Releases More Prisoners From Abu Ghraib
May 29: Cuba Base Sent Its Interrogators to Iraqi Prison
May 30:Scant Evidence Cited in Long Detention of Iraqis
May 31: Army Is Investigating Reports of Assaults and Thefts by G.I.'s Against Iraqi Civilians
[NYT Memorial Day Special]
June 1: Searing Uncertainty for Iraqis Missing Loved Ones
June 2: Afghan Prison Review
[Not on Front Page!]
Nah, all that means is that they're in bed with the War in Iraq.
Irvine511 said:
this is the mantra amongst the Kissingers of the world. it will happen. just keep funding, and fighting, and don't pull out, and all will work out because we say it will, but this isn't the case. in 2003, there were, essentially, 0 members of the Iraqi army and police force. the mantra has been, "as they stand up, we stand down." but this hasn't been the case. today, there are over 300,000 and violence is far, far worse:
[/q]
Irvine511 said:
7,000 dead over two months. has the process failed? by what measure? is the process working? most assuredly not.
i also find it ironic that you'd point to Bosnia as a comparable situation, at least as the death toll is concerned, when it was because of such a death toll (among other factors) that foreign intervention was widely supported, not least by the members of U2, as a way of stopping the bloodshed, so it's ironic that you'd point to Bosnia when it is the presence of American troops and the toppling of Saddam without any semblance of a postwar plan that has created a Civil War in Iraq (remember, even Colin Powell thinks it's a civil war) that is giving us numbers comparable to Bosnia. so ... perhaps you'd support the deployment of NATO troops to Iraq to stop the violence created by the invasion of American troops?
anyway ... back to the topic at hand, which is the NIE statement that Iraq has given the jihadist a "cause celebre." this seems quite undeniable, and just as ironic as the above point since the invasion of Iraq was presented to the American public as a way to prevent a psychopath like Saddam from giving WMDs to jihadists so that a nuke might never float it's way up the East River and flatten part of Manhattan.
but why has this happened? manifest incompetence. so what amazes me is why people who supported the war in the first place -- perhaps for reasons independent from the reasons given to the American public over the course of 2002 and early 2003 and exemplified with Colin Powell's hugely embarassing presentation to the UN -- aren't asking for the heads of people like Rumsfeld and Cheney. the absence of a call for accountability and competence, and blind assertions that things will get better if we just continue doing the same thing, speaks to me of an unwillingness to look back, take responsiblity, address what went wrong, fire the guilty, and try to make it work. continually defending what is clearly a failing policy doesn't seem to be doing anyone much good,
[/q]
STING2 said:Defeating insurgencies and building nations are projects that are not accomplished in 3 years. They normally take 10 to 20 years provided that the commitment to them never wavers. You can't claim that the process is a total failure when its impossible for such a process to work in the time span since everything started.
If there is a better plan for Iraq out there than the current one, it must be a plan that is actually for Iraq, and not a plan to simply withdraw ones military and satisfy the domestic political situation at home.
STING2 said:
So then, your logic would suggest that the United States should withdraw from Afghanistan immediately.
Irvine511 said:
but this was never, ever the case made to the American public, and if it were, there would never have been the political support for the invasion that there was in 2002/3.
many would argue that the money could be better spent on myrid other projects and that containment as it was understood in the late 1990s was a preferable situation than what is currently going on.
the reason support has fallen is that this was not what the US public signed on for. and it has nothing to do with terrorism. it has nothing to do with 9-11. it has nothing to do with a potential threat of WMDs to New York, DC, or LA.
all the rationale you've given for the ouster of Saddam and a 20 year nation building process are all fine and good, but the majority of the American public are not receptive to the idea that their tax dollars and the blood of their sons and daughters should be spent and shed for a war that never had to happen and to fix a country that never posed a threat to the United States. you can point all you want to the oil in the Gulf Region, but that becomes a global problem requiring a global response, not something that should fall directly on the backs of American soldiers who are doing the majority of the dying.
but this isn't what's happening. there are 300,000 Iraqi army and police members and the violence is significantly worse, the government is weak, and Shiite militias have infilatrated at all levels of society. with 300,000 Iraqis effective at doing their jobs you might not see a total end of violence, but you would never have a situation where over 3,000 Iraqis are dying a month, and in horrible, horrible fashion.
it would have been nice if the initial invasion was actually for the well being of the Iraqi people and not a plan to satisfy a politcal agenda at home and to bolster the idea of Bush as a "war president," but what has passed has passed.
i have no idea what to do. but it's clear that what's going on now isn't working.
the only suggestion i can give would be to fire Rumsfeld.
Irvine511 said:
i have to go home so i have no time for this -- but, please, read my posts: NOWHERE have i said that immediate withdrawal is a good idea.
i know this fits into the idea of what all "liberals" are like, and it helps to create a straw man, but that's not the case at all.
LOLIrvine511 said:
you know, i typed a response, but i don't think this posts even deserves one.
Macfistowannabe said:LOL
So from now on, NOBODY is allowed to copy and paste any facts!
Again, the context was that you claimed "the NYT, if anything, is implicated in the selling of the war and the furthering of Bush propaganda."Irvine511 said:?your facts had nothing to do with anything, not least of which any sort of context to make them comprehensible.
Entertainment Weekly interviews Michael Moore
EW: You were one of the first Americans to see the sexual-abuse images.
MM: My first thought was, Why haven't I seen this? The networks are over there every day. Think about this! They've got millions of dollars, they have tons of reporters and cameras, and are you telling me that one of my little freelancers just happened to stumble on, not in the prison, but out in the field, four or five soldiers taking turns touching the erection of this Iraqi under this blanket? That they see this erection under a blanket and they take turns humiliating him? Now, if we caught that randomly, you know it's going on all the time.
EW: Did you get the footage of the sexual abuse before or after the prison scandal broke?
MM: Before.
EW: Why didn't you make it public? Or at least give it to the government?
MM: I thought, What should we do? We don't have a show, we're not going to give it to these networks. They're all cheerleaders for Bush.
EW: Do you really believe that?
MM: There's not a single network I would give this footage to and expect them to handle it properly.
Macfistowannabe said:Again, the context was that you claimed "the NYT, if anything, is implicated in the selling of the war and the furthering of Bush propaganda."
If she had faulty information to begin with, then yes, that hurts her credibility, and the Times for backing her up. If she indeed had bad information to begin with, and a good reputation with her employer, then it explains why they came to her defense. It has nothing to do with the Times' apparent support for Bush or the War in Iraq, as you asserted. It is perhaps the largest newspaper I've ever seen, and it would be a grueling process to research every source for every story. That's why Jayson Blair got away with his fabrications for as long as he did, as did Walter Duranty.Irvine511 said:
i'll respond to this, since the rest of the post isn't worth responding to.
leading up to the invasion of Iraq, there were many, many articles on the front page of the NYT written by Judy Miller about Iraq's supposed WMDs, when most of the information given to her was from Ahmed Chalabi.
without these articles, and the working assumption that, yes, Iraq did have weapons, there would have been far less support for the war amongst the political middle and political left.
the NYT deserves blame for this because they did a poor job vetting Ms. Miller's articles.
http://www.newpaltz.edu/commencement/sulzberger.html
"You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life; the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where oil still drives policy and environmentalists have to relentlessly fight for every gain. You weren't. But you are. And for that I'm sorry."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/slipsky/?id=95000407
In "The Trust," authors Susan Tifft and Alex S. Jones tell of a confrontation over the war that took place between its young publisher to be, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., and his father, Arthur "Punch" Sulzberger.
The father had rushed up to Boston after his son, then a student, had gotten arrested in an antiwar demonstration. The authors recount how the two had dinner at Locke-Ober and then, "slightly tipsy," took a stroll around Boston Common. There, say Ms. Tifft and Mr. Jones, Punch asked his son this question: "If a young American soldier comes upon a North Vietnamese soldier, which do you want to see get shot?"
"I would want to see the American get shot," the young publisher-to-be replied defiantly, according to Ms. Tifft and Mr. Jones.
"It's the other guy's country; we shouldn't be there," the younger Mr. Sulzberger had said by way of explanation. The authors describe Arthur Jr.'s answer as "calculatedly provocative." "To Punch," write Ms. Tifft and Mr. Jones, "such sentiments bordered on treason, and he exploded in anger." They say that the younger Mr. Sulzberger would later characterize his father's query as "the dumbest question I've ever heard in my life" and his own reply as "the dumbest answer."