Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: headhuntersix on August 13, 2007, 01:12:52 PM
-
I figured I would relay this report from the guys fighting in Iraq.
July 31, 2007
Members and Friends of the 9th Regiment,
Task Force 1-9 Infantry continues our counter-insurgency operations in East Ramadi, Iraq. Since my last report, things have quieted down here significantly. Quiet in combat is a little boring, but it is very good. We are enjoying now the reward of all the hard fighting and sacrifices during the first part of our deployment.
In late March, we conducted Operation Chickamauga which was a battalion deliberate attack to kill, capture, and clear the enemy from the densely populated neighborhood called “Al Iskan”. After the experience of fighting during the previous months, the rifle companies really tore into the enemy that stood and fought during more than 13 fierce firefights inside the tight confines of the city. Baker and Dog Company, along with the Scout Platoon, Battalion Assault Command Post, and several attached Iraqi Army companies fought day and night for five days. We employed lots of Manchus on foot with Tanks, Close Air Support, and Attack Helicopters backing us up. In small arms contact, our Infantrymen hunted down and killed 18 armed insurgents with very few civilian casualties. They found numerous IEDs, Caches, and detained many other known and suspected insurgents. We were fortunate to come away with only two wounded Manchus, and one Iraqi Army Officer was killed, and two more wounded. The Iraqi Army Officer killed in action was a Lieutenant who was killed by sniper fire leading his platoon in the assault. After we completed the clearance, we handed over the neighborhood to an incoming Marine Rifle Battalion. As we exfiltrated out of the area on foot after dark, my Assault CP was in position to watch all the Rifle Companies come by my position. After five days of hard fighting on foot, they were very tired and dirty, but heads were held high, weapons at the ready, Sergeants keeping perfect spacing and formations – I couldn’t have been any prouder of the battalion than at that moment. I am sure you can understand my bias.
Since then, the enemy activity in Ramadi has all but stopped. The enemy has either been killed, gone to ground, or gone elsewhere to fight some other unit. Now all of our energy is spent securing our hard won neighborhoods, training and operating with Iraqi Policemen, and conducting Civil Affairs operations to rebuild all the stuff that has been destroyed during the fighting – which is extensive. The people actually like us and really go out of their way to give us information and point out any insurgents that are still in the area. They turn in caches and have showed us where all the IEDs are. We have almost 1500 policemen who work for us now and they know who all the insurgents are. It is near impossible for an insurgent to openly operate in our area.
As you have probably heard, we are also doing the “extended” tour of 15 months. We are at month number ten now, with five to go. Morale is as good as it can be with the extended deployment and temperatures averaging around 120 degrees in the afternoon. Most of the Soldiers and Leaders have gone on their mid-tour leave and are back now to get it done. Our families are also sucking up the longer deployment and it is even more difficult on them. We may well spend a second Christmas here, but are keeping our fingers crossed that the Army might slide our redeployment just a hair earlier. That said, I have told everyone to expect to go home in early January.
I am deeply honored to serve with these great young American Soldiers. They have fought hard and in the best possible way represent our Regiment and our Nation.
Manchus! Keep Up The Fire!
LTC Chuck Ferry
Manchu 6
Commander, Task Force 1-9 Infantry
East Ramadi, Iraq
-
I just can't share your enthusiasm. I wish I could. You see with the eyes of a soldier and I see through lens of a lawyer.
I can't get past the illegal invasion part and all the rebuilt schools and all the US military progress will not change that fact.
When I see Bush on TV talking about the progress in Iraq (w/ that smirk) I'd like to remind him that if it weren't for his nefariously bumbling presidency, THE US WOULD NOT HAVE ATTACKED IRAQ. I would bet my life on that point.
Thanks to Bush's asinine and uneeded nationbuilding in Iraq we have:
*30,000+ US casualties
*30,000+ damaged or ruined american families
*anywhere between 75,000 and 125,000 dead iraqis
*the middle east on the brink of chaos
*and on and on.
So forgive me if I don't partake in LTC Ferry's enthusiasm.
Again, no disrespect to you HH. It's Bush that needs the attitude adjustment....and jail time.
-
I just can't share your enthusiasm. I wish I could. You see with the eyes of a soldier and I see through lens of a lawyer.
I can't get past the illegal invasion part and all the rebuilt schools and all the US military progress will not change that fact.
When I see Bush on TV talking about the progress in Iraq (w/ that smirk) I'd like to remind him that if it weren't for his nefariously bumbling presidency, THE US WOULD NOT HAVE ATTACKED IRAQ. I would bet my life on that point.
Thanks to Bush's asinine and uneeded nationbuilding in Iraq we have:
*30,000+ US casualties
*30,000+ damaged or ruined american families
*anywhere between 75,000 and 125,000 dead iraqis
*the middle east on the brink of chaos
*and on and on.
So forgive me if I don't partake in LTC Ferry's enthusiasm.
Again, no disrespect to you HH. It's Bush that needs the attitude adjustment....and jail time.
No offense, Decker, but I'm gonna go with the soldier. Forget the politics of the matter. Let's just deal with what is.
HH6, thanks for the update.
-
No offense, Decker, but I'm gonna go with the soldier. Forget the politics of the matter. Let's just deal with what is.
HH6, thanks for the update.
I can't do that.
The Iraq invasion is rotten from the head down and I don't see a good thing coming out of this.
There must be accountability for the crime and death and destruction.
-
Thats for the politicians to decide....this is a report about the ground truth in Iraq on that given day or days. Unless they had embeds you won't here it from the soldier point of view.
-
I figured I would relay this report from the guys fighting in Iraq.
July 31, 2007
Members and Friends of the 9th Regiment,
Task Force 1-9 Infantry continues our counter-insurgency operations in East Ramadi, Iraq. Since my last report, things have quieted down here significantly. Quiet in combat is a little boring, but it is very good. We are enjoying now the reward of all the hard fighting and sacrifices during the first part of our deployment.
In late March, we conducted Operation Chickamauga which was a battalion deliberate attack to kill, capture, and clear the enemy from the densely populated neighborhood called “Al Iskan”. After the experience of fighting during the previous months, the rifle companies really tore into the enemy that stood and fought during more than 13 fierce firefights inside the tight confines of the city. Baker and Dog Company, along with the Scout Platoon, Battalion Assault Command Post, and several attached Iraqi Army companies fought day and night for five days. We employed lots of Manchus on foot with Tanks, Close Air Support, and Attack Helicopters backing us up. In small arms contact, our Infantrymen hunted down and killed 18 armed insurgents with very few civilian casualties. They found numerous IEDs, Caches, and detained many other known and suspected insurgents. We were fortunate to come away with only two wounded Manchus, and one Iraqi Army Officer was killed, and two more wounded. The Iraqi Army Officer killed in action was a Lieutenant who was killed by sniper fire leading his platoon in the assault. After we completed the clearance, we handed over the neighborhood to an incoming Marine Rifle Battalion. As we exfiltrated out of the area on foot after dark, my Assault CP was in position to watch all the Rifle Companies come by my position. After five days of hard fighting on foot, they were very tired and dirty, but heads were held high, weapons at the ready, Sergeants keeping perfect spacing and formations – I couldn’t have been any prouder of the battalion than at that moment. I am sure you can understand my bias.
Since then, the enemy activity in Ramadi has all but stopped. The enemy has either been killed, gone to ground, or gone elsewhere to fight some other unit. Now all of our energy is spent securing our hard won neighborhoods, training and operating with Iraqi Policemen, and conducting Civil Affairs operations to rebuild all the stuff that has been destroyed during the fighting – which is extensive. The people actually like us and really go out of their way to give us information and point out any insurgents that are still in the area. They turn in caches and have showed us where all the IEDs are. We have almost 1500 policemen who work for us now and they know who all the insurgents are. It is near impossible for an insurgent to openly operate in our area.
As you have probably heard, we are also doing the “extended” tour of 15 months. We are at month number ten now, with five to go. Morale is as good as it can be with the extended deployment and temperatures averaging around 120 degrees in the afternoon. Most of the Soldiers and Leaders have gone on their mid-tour leave and are back now to get it done. Our families are also sucking up the longer deployment and it is even more difficult on them. We may well spend a second Christmas here, but are keeping our fingers crossed that the Army might slide our redeployment just a hair earlier. That said, I have told everyone to expect to go home in early January.
I am deeply honored to serve with these great young American Soldiers. They have fought hard and in the best possible way represent our Regiment and our Nation.
Manchus! Keep Up The Fire!
LTC Chuck Ferry
Manchu 6
Commander, Task Force 1-9 Infantry
East Ramadi, Iraq
Topping the list of stories you will not see on CNN. . . . Thanks for this headhunter. Good news.
-
That's consistent with a recent influential NY Times op-ed by Pollack and O'hanlon suggesting the tide was turning.
Only problem is that it's about 4 years too late and isn't accompanied by political cooperation.
Pollack: ‘Surge’ Producing Real Progress in Iraq
Kenneth M. Pollack, a leading expert on Iraq, supplied intellectual arguments for the 2003 invasion of Iraq but then turned quite critical of the war. He now says after his latest trip to Iraq that though conditions remain difficult, there were significant improvements on the ground as a result of the U.S. “surge” policy. “We came away feeling that Iraq was absolutely a mess, the situation remained grave, but that we did have the right strategy, and that if any strategy could create stability in Iraq, it was the counterinsurgency and stability strategy that General David Petraeus had brought with him,” Pollack said.
You and your colleague, Michael E. O’Hanlon, wrote an op-ed for The New York Times on your recent trip to Iraq whose headline says: “A War We Just Might Win.” That sounds very optimistic. Can you elaborate?
We weren’t quite comfortable with the word “win” when we talked about using it in the piece, but nevertheless we came away from this trip feeling that there was more progress than we expected, especially in regard to creating security in some important parts of Iraq, and to a lesser extent in terms of local, political, and economic developments. That said, to us there were enough signs of life in the “surge” that it was worth allowing it to continue for some additional months to see if it could continue to make progress. We didn’t come away having decided the war in Iraq was won, everything was fine, and it was just a matter of time before we could put up a real banner that said “Mission Accomplished.” Quite the contrary, we came away feeling that Iraq was absolutely a mess, the situation remained grave, but that we did have the right strategy, and that if any strategy could create stability in Iraq, it was the counterinsurgency and stability strategy that General David Petraeus had brought with him.
Let’s talk about some of the signs of real progress. Where would you start?
Starting with American forces, the first thing that was striking to me since my last trip to Iraq was the change in morale. In my previous trips to Iraq, I typically found American military personnel angry, frustrated, and confused, not really understanding their mission.
This time around, I was really struck by how positive a great many military personnel seemed. Now, this was not 100 percent. There are still some very frustrated people, and I’m sure there are many others who we didn’t get to meet. But the overall change in tone I felt was important. They seemed to believe they actually had a good strategy. They trusted General Petraeus; they felt the change in strategy and the change in tactics was actually accomplishing something. They could all point to tangible progress in their own particular corner of Iraq. A lot of that is attributable to this change in strategy, the emphasis on counterinsurgency, securing the Iraqi people, and helping them to rebuild their lives. Power, water, sanitation, all the things that I and other people have been talking about for years—these are now the principal mission of American military and civilian personnel in Iraq, and it does seem to be paying off, at least at the local level in certain important areas of Iraq.
Do you find the electric power is on more continuously?
We found there had been a real shift from trying to repair and defend the national power grid, which was extremely difficult to do. There now is a shift away from that toward helping the Iraqis essentially get their own local generators and bring local businesses and houses into those local generators.
There’s been a lot written by the journalists in Iraq in the last couple of months about Anbar province and how the Sunni tribal leaders have coalesced against al-Qaeda in Iraq. You saw this firsthand?
We did. I’ll be honest with you. I didn’t really have a full sense of just how far it had gone or how much of an impact it has had. As always in war, it’s important to be lucky, and this was one where it was mostly more about being lucky than being good--although the U.S. forces and General Petraeus did the right thing and took advantage of their good luck very quickly.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other Salafi jihadist groups set themselves up as the new local government in very big swathes of territory across the country and started imposing their brand of Sharia law that the Iraqi Sunnis didn’t care for it. AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] started doing things such as kidnapping sons of local sheikhs and holding them for ransom, kidnapping daughters and giving them away to their loyalists as wives, and killing local sheikhs or other leaders who weren’t participating and cooperating with them as much as they wanted. None of this sat well with the Sunni Arabs. They basically decided among themselves that they were done with al-Qaeda and the other Salafi groups. They wanted to get rid of them, and they came to the U.S. forces.
-
That's consistent with a recent influential NY Times op-ed by Pollack and O'hanlon suggesting the tide was turning.
Only problem is that it's about 4 years too late and isn't accompanied by political cooperation.
Pollack: ‘Surge’ Producing Real Progress in Iraq
Kenneth M. Pollack, a leading expert on Iraq, supplied intellectual arguments for the 2003 invasion of Iraq but then turned quite critical of the war. ...
This Pollack article was discussed in another thread. The man has always been an apologist for the war and was behind the invasion from the beginning. Here's an excerpt from that other thread:
Pollack and O'Hanlon are bullshit artists that have always supported the conquering of Iraq. The veneer of plausibility from their 'democrat' and 'NY Times" ties is just window dressing.
Just like Judith Miller, Pollack and O'hanlon are neocon whores and they broadcast their 'liberal' writings on the front page of the 'liberal' NY Times.
You know they might fool some people but just look at the book Pollack authored:
The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq
http://www.amazon.com/Threatening-Storm-Case-Invading-Iraq/dp/0375509283
-
Thats for the politicians to decide....this is a report about the ground truth in Iraq on that given day or days. Unless they had embeds you won't here it from the soldier point of view.
Yes and no. You are right that Bush put you into this untenable position.
But everybody always has a choice in determining the course of their actions and turning a blind eye to the moral and legal abominations surrounding this use of force in Iraq in the course of doing one's job as soldier is just not good enough.
-
Moral and legal, your kidding me right. Dude thats not my job, we're not murdering anybody over there. I'm doing my job, what i signed up for etc. If i bitch its because I want to win, and come home. Its not enough just to come home.
-
Moral and legal, your kidding me right. Dude thats not my job, we're not murdering anybody over there. I'm doing my job, what i signed up for etc. If i bitch its because I want to win, and come home. Its not enough just to come home.
Strictly speaking, if the invasion is held to be a war crime b/c it was a preventive attack, then the Nuremberg holdings (which are still relevant today) would apply. And crimes against humanity do not stop at the executive branch. They extend to the rank and file.
A soldier cannot absolve himself of responsibility by claiming "I was just following orders" or "I was just doing my job." Those were not recognized defenses to the criminal charge at Nuremberg and I doubt they would fly today.
That's why I just can't go along with the good news that comes out of Iraq. It might be true from that soldier's perspective but it is also a diversion from the unsavory facts underlying the propriety of the invasion.
I don't care much for writing those things. But Justice must be served to the man that pulled the trigger in 2003--President Bush.
-
Thats not what I'm saying. I certainly didn't commit any crime. Those few who have, have been punished by our own system. Blame Bush for the war, this was an article about how well our guys are doing.
-
I'm just wondering if ''victory'' per se was ever the goal of the iraq war...if that was the case the strategy war planned years before the invasion of iraq would have been used...and not the troop levels used at the beginning of the war. I don't know if it was illegal or not but it appears on the surface that the admin. had ulterior motives other than removing saddam or his wmd's...
-
Thats not what I'm saying. I certainly didn't commit any crime. Those few who have, have been punished by our own system. Blame Bush for the war, this was an article about how well our guys are doing.
what he is saying, and correct me if i am wrong, is that you have committed a crime if you participated (knowingly or unknowingly) in a illegal war.
-
Well he's welcome to try and drag me before the Haig..o' ;D wait I'm exempt. If the libs ever seriously tried that shit, they would be in serious trouble.
-
Oh come on. Comparing our troops in Iraq to German soldiers during the Holocaust? That's beyond absurd.
-
I can see the point that Decker is making. Of course this ridiculous. Nobody gives orders to kill civilians. We are expressly told to minimize casulties among non combatants. We work around civilians when possible, we limit the ROE to avoid these things. We are not Einzatsgruppen. If u want to look at a frustrated military, look at the Russians when they went intro Chechnia the second time. They used small scale fuel air explosives, they brough back flame throwers, they cleared streets with beehive rounds. Thats total war and thats not what we are doinbg in Iraq.
-
I can see the point that Decker is making. Of course this ridiculous. Nobody gives orders to kill civilians. We are expressly told to minimize casulties among non combatants. We work around civilians when possible, we limit the ROE to avoid these things. We are not Einzatsgruppen. If u want to look at a frustrated military, look at the Russians when they went intro Chechnia the second time. They used small scale fuel air explosives, they brough back flame throwers, they cleared streets with beehive rounds. Thats total war and thats not what we are doinbg in Iraq.
It is not a good comparison at all. Congress endorsed the war after it started, at least twice. Congress has continued to fund the war. The UN hasn't declared the war "illegal." And, as you mentioned, we have our ROE. The guys who violate the ROE go to jail. We have soldiers in jail for taking pictures of naked Iraqis.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq)
I have a hard time getting enthusiastic about the "progress" in Iraq when things like this happen.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq)
I have a hard time getting enthusiastic about the "progress" in Iraq when things like this happen.
I blame this most recent rash of deaths, injuries and destruction on the "Liberal Media" and not on the giant CLUSTERFUCK that is the Iraq War. After all if the "Liberal Media" weren't skewing every story in a "Liberal" way then the general population would never hear about all the people that are being killed and maimed in the giant CLUSTERFUCK that is Iraq.
This is all the "Liberal Media's" fault. Damn Liberal Media.
BTW, how's that Cheney prediction from 1994 that an invasion of Iraq would be a giant "quagmire" working out for him?
-
I just can't share your enthusiasm. I wish I could. You see with the eyes of a soldier and I see through lens of a lawyer.
I can't get past the illegal invasion part and all the rebuilt schools and all the US military progress will not change that fact.
When I see Bush on TV talking about the progress in Iraq (w/ that smirk) I'd like to remind him that if it weren't for his nefariously bumbling presidency, THE US WOULD NOT HAVE ATTACKED IRAQ. I would bet my life on that point.
Thanks to Bush's asinine and uneeded nationbuilding in Iraq we have:
*30,000+ US casualties
*30,000+ damaged or ruined american families
*anywhere between 75,000 and 125,000 dead iraqis
*the middle east on the brink of chaos
*and on and on.
So forgive me if I don't partake in LTC Ferry's enthusiasm.
Again, no disrespect to you HH. It's Bush that needs the attitude adjustment....and jail time.
where are you getting these numbers? I don't remember hearing about 30K US casualties....
-
Thats for the politicians to decide....this is a report about the ground truth in Iraq on that given day or days. Unless they had embeds you won't here it from the soldier point of view.
No, ...it is for the citizens of the USA to decide, ...before the rest of the world decides for them.
-
No, ...it is for the citizens of the USA to decide, ...before the rest of the world decides for them.
So, in other words, for the elected politicians to decide.
And the rest of the world doesn't decide jack for the United States.
-
I'm sorry I don't listen to pot smokers from Holland or pole smokers from France. They sit around doing nothing while the rags take over their country. They sit around and whine about the glory days of colonialism when they could commit mass murder and nobody cared. I don't care about international law or international opinion. They will still buy our shit and still want to travel here.
-
It is not a good comparison at all. Congress endorsed the war after it started, at least twice. Congress has continued to fund the war. The UN hasn't declared the war "illegal." And, as you mentioned, we have our ROE. The guys who violate the ROE go to jail. We have soldiers in jail for taking pictures of naked Iraqis.
Who is comparing the US to Nazis?
The reason the war is illegal is b/c the US’s attack of Iraq was unprovoked. It was not self-defense, defense of another or to stop an imminent attack by Iraq. The US attacked Iraq to enforce compliance with a UN resolution that Iraq was already complying with.
Look at Congress’s grant of authority to the president to use force against Iraq:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Since the US couldn’t attack Iraq based on Sec. 3. (a)(1), Bush chose to order the attack to enforce UN resolutions—namely Resolution 1441.
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement
Res. 1441 required Iraq to comply with inspections and be forthcoming with all relevant info re WMDs.
The only problem with Bush’s rationale of enforcing Res. 1441 is that Iraq was already complying with the inspections.
The inspectors were let into Iraq in Nov. 18, 2002.
The Iraqis were complying and cooperating. Iraq actively cooperated, says Blix http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/123.html
Mar. 20, 2003 Bush orders the invasion of Iraq to enforce Iraq’s compliance with Res. 1441 even though the country was actively complying with the resolution.
After attacking, the US deposes the Iraqi government, installs a new government, and occupies the country to keep the newly installed government afloat. Where the authority came for those things is beyond me.
Congress’s “endorsement” of the war, at any time, is irrelevant to the legality of the invasion b/c Bush misused that authority by ordering the invasion when it was not necessary to command Iraq’s compliance with the resolution it was already cooperating with. War crimes apply not only to individual acts in the field of battle but to the reason for ordering the war itself.
-
where are you getting these numbers? I don't remember hearing about 30K US casualties....
Casualties are a mixture of fatalities and injuries (and missing and captured soldiers). http://antiwar.com/casualties/ That site publishes the numbers from this site http://www.defenselink.mil/
-
Besides whining, nothing will come of this. What is important is whether we pull out, whether we stay, or whether we win. Much like the WMD's, important to find, but now that we didn't find them, we have to move on with reality.
-
Besides whining, nothing will come of this. What is important is whether we pull out, whether we stay, or whether we win. Much like the WMD's, important to find, but now that we didn't find them, we have to move on with reality.
It's not whining dammit. It's the law. The law is worth only what we put into it. Reality is unwarranted death and destruction continuing under this occupation.
I'm sorry you had to see me like this.
Whether we win?...I have yet to see this defined. Who's your enemy? The iraqi people with a few foreign fighters thrown in. So I guess victory is beating the Iraqi people into submission to the american's will and by extension, the will of the installed government. We're not doing the iraqi people any favors.
I'm not one for analogies but the US's invasion of Iraq is like a cop pulling over a driver suspected of DWI and the driver passes all field tests and breathalyzer tests yet the cop still arrests him for DWI, beats the shit out of the suspect, smashes up his car and then goes after his family before locking him up without rights and trial.
-
Who's fucking law..congress authorized it, The UN is not complaining...who. Just because the left is pissed and hates Bush, which is really why everybody is unhappy, does not mean its wrong. Further, i don't create foreign policy, I enforce the orders of the President. Its not my job to interpret foreign policy and selectively decide not to do something. Nobody is massaceing Iraqi's. They do enough of that themselves. I don't deliniate between foreign fighters and locals at my level. Thats for the Intel people to figure out. we report up what we find and we fight. They paint the big picture. I honestly don't care where the prick, who is trying to kill me, is from.
-
Who is comparing the US to Nazis?
Maybe I misunderstood your post, but aren't you comparing our troops to the German soldiers who were "just following orders" during the Holocaust?
Strictly speaking, if the invasion is held to be a war crime b/c it was a preventive attack, then the Nuremberg holdings (which are still relevant today) would apply. And crimes against humanity do not stop at the executive branch. They extend to the rank and file.
A soldier cannot absolve himself of responsibility by claiming "I was just following orders" or "I was just doing my job." Those were not recognized defenses to the criminal charge at Nuremberg and I doubt they would fly today.
Decker your claim that the war is illegal just falls when apart when you look at the fact Congress endorsed the war after it started, more than once, and the fact the UN has not stated that the war is illegal. The fact that other countries have been and continue to support the war kills that argument as well.
-
Who's fucking law..congress authorized it, The UN is not complaining...who. Just because the left is pissed and hates Bush, which is really why everybody is unhappy, does not mean its wrong. Further, i don't create foreign policy, I enforce the orders of the President. Its not my job to interpret foreign policy and selectively decide not to do something. Nobody is massaceing Iraqi's. They do enough of that themselves. I don't deliniate between foreign fighters and locals at my level. Thats for the Intel people to figure out. we report up what we find and we fight. They paint the big picture. I honestly don't care where the prick, who is trying to kill me, is from.
What he said . . . .
-
Decker's a nice guy but we always bog down on the "illiegal war" thing. I want to get past that and discuss other things. Much like we used to about 911 etc.
-
Decker's a nice guy but we always bog down on the "illiegal war" thing. I want to get past that and discuss other things. Much like we used to about 911 etc.
I agree. I like Decker. He reminds me of The Professor from Gilligan's Island, who I always thought was really smart. :) (That's a compliment Decker.)
-
Who's fucking law..congress authorized it, The UN is not complaining...who. Just because the left is pissed and hates Bush, which is really why everybody is unhappy, does not mean its wrong. Further, i don't create foreign policy, I enforce the orders of the President. Its not my job to interpret foreign policy and selectively decide not to do something. Nobody is massaceing Iraqi's. They do enough of that themselves. I don't deliniate between foreign fighters and locals at my level. Thats for the Intel people to figure out. we report up what we find and we fight. They paint the big picture. I honestly don't care where the prick, who is trying to kill me, is from.
Who's law? International law as embodied in various court holdings including the Nuremberg trials, the UN charter, various treaties, and most importantly, the United States Constitution.
The US helped write the law that it is breaking and which you are mocking as inconsequential.
If you think this argument over Iraq boils down to the left hating Bush then you do not understand what's at issue.
Look at my post on the other page laying out why this war is illegal. If you can refute it, then do it. Otherwise you're avoiding the topic.
I disagree with your notion that being a soldier removes you from thinking about the moral or legal ramifications of your actions. "Just following orders" is a cliche of evil.
I guess personal responsibility for one's actions by the president is just too much ask or expect.
The UN didn't complain about the legality of the war? Of all the sophistry, this takes the cake. The Secretary General called it illegal. Member nations France, Germany and Russia pleaded with the Security Council to push for stringent inspections instead of all-out war.
Richard Perle--a main idea man behind the invasion--called it illegal.
I suppose these hundreds and hundreds of legal scholars are wrong about the war's illegality? http://www.peacelawyers.ca/Documents/IALANA_appeal_Fb_2003.pdf
Signed by 350 Jurists and Lawyers from 40 countries
Signed by 1200 lawyers British and French Lawyers Statement European Lawyers: Appeal to the European Governments and the UN Security Council by European Association of Lawyers
LAWYERS' GROUPS CONDEMN U.S. WAR ON IRAQ AS CONTRARY TO UN CHARTER AND INTERNATIONAL LAW http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqWar.htm
But what do lawyers know about the law?
The US Government still has issued no official statement as to the legality of the invasion.
-
Maybe I misunderstood your post, but aren't you comparing our troops to the German soldiers who were "just following orders" during the Holocaust?
Decker your claim that the war is illegal just falls when apart when you look at the fact Congress endorsed the war after it started, more than once, and the fact the UN has not stated that the war is illegal. The fact that other countries have been and continue to support the war kills that argument as well.
The defense of "just following orders" is a Nuremberg defense used at the war crimes trials. It didn't fly then and it won't today. This topic is incendiary enough without adding Nazis to the mix.
I wasn't aware that US Congressional approval conclusively determines legality in international law. If that's the case then international lawyers have been doing it wrong since the start.
Here, I'll repost this part:
Congress’s “endorsement” of the war, at any time, is irrelevant to the legality of the invasion b/c Bush misused that authority by ordering the invasion when it was not necessary to command Iraq’s compliance with the resolution it was already cooperating with. No self defense, no defense of another and no imminent attack by Iraq.
That adds up to an 'illegal' use of military force.
But you and HH are correct. If things stay the same re the balance of power in the world, the US and Britain will get away with war crimes. Why? B/c we can blow anyone up that we want.
America already won't acknowledge the jurisdiction of the World Court b/c the US is #1 on the docket for terrorist activities in mining the harbors of Nicaruaga in the Reagan/Bush days.
Enjoy our standing as arbitrary ruler of the world. I'm not fooled for a moment though.
God forbid, Russia, China and Iran adopt the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. (really preventive, but at this point, who's counting?)
-
I agree. I like Decker. He reminds me of The Professor from Gilligan's Island, who I always thought was really smart. :) (That's a compliment Decker.)
mean, mean, mean, mean.....
But really, the reason why I enjoy this board so much is largely due to you and HH.
If we want reductionism, here it is:
The law in the abstract was violated by the US's invading Iraq. The concrete reality of that law is that it has effect only if the US honors the law. By virtue of its superior firepower, the US acknowledges international law only when it suits its purposes.
And as we know, that's not law.
-
Who's fucking law..congress authorized it, The UN is not complaining...who. Just because the left is pissed and hates Bush, which is really why everybody is unhappy, does not mean its wrong. Further, i don't create foreign policy, I enforce the orders of the President. Its not my job to interpret foreign policy and selectively decide not to do something. Nobody is massaceing Iraqi's. They do enough of that themselves. I don't deliniate between foreign fighters and locals at my level. Thats for the Intel people to figure out. we report up what we find and we fight. They paint the big picture. I honestly don't care where the prick, who is trying to kill me, is from.
That's the problem. You've been made into Bush's thug, when your job was to defend the USA and her constitution.
-
mean, mean, mean, mean.....
But really, the reason why I enjoy this board so much is largely due to you and HH.
If we want reductionism, here it is:
The law in the abstract was violated by the US's invading Iraq. The concrete reality of that law is that it has effect only if the US honors the law. By virtue of its superior firepower, the US acknowledges international law only when it suits its purposes.
And as we know, that's not law.
what are you thoughts on afghanistan...since the only real govt they had was the taliban...and we basically invaded that country...was that too, illegal?
-
what are you thoughts on afghanistan...since the only real govt they had was the taliban...and we basically invaded that country...was that too, illegal?
Wasn't that UN sanctioned?
-
See, while my boy Decker drowns us with legalize...You call me athug. He states its not because the Left hates Bush, but calling me a thug validates my claim. Know while Decker may have plenty of legal findings and petitions etc... would just tell him to get past it and allow me to break stuff in peace. Lawyers suck. We don't wipe our asses in Iraq withouta legal opinion, They have really taken the fun outa breaking shit.
-
That's the problem. You've been made into Bush's thug, when your job was to defend the USA and her constitution.
i'm pretty sure canada is involved in this war on terror too...so they must be considered thugs also.
-
i'm pretty sure canada is involved in this war on terror too...so they must be considered thugs also.
We didn't officially participate in Iraq.
-
We didn't officially participate in Iraq.
It's all one big ''war on terror''...you can't have it both ways...so canada supports the american agenda one way and not the other...so that absolves them of complicity?
-
They have fought hard in Afghanistan where small units can make a difference.
-
Oh come on. Comparing our troops in Iraq to German soldiers during the Holocaust? That's beyond absurd.
Especially since the Germans lost, that's outrageous.
On to thugs...
From what I have read, in Chalmers Johnsons's books, no one is a thug when they let the laws work for them, he tried to twist and tangle that issue but how is it thuggish when it is legit? Also I'm tired of hearing people quote the founding fathers and taking things out of context. If an American dies by the hand of a nemesis, then that means we have enemies, period.
-
No one is saying "America" doesn't have enemies, ...I just think that before one runs off half-cocked,
they ought to know exactly who their enemy is. Sometimes, the enemy comes from within.
-
Meaning Bush and the Republicans right ::)....it wouldn't be the rag wearing pricks who blew up our buildings on 911 or killed and maimed how mnay people over the last 30 years of this crap. They all gotta go.
-
what are you thoughts on afghanistan...since the only real govt they had was the taliban...and we basically invaded that country...was that too, illegal?
First my thoughts on the use of military force in Afghanistan. International law did not define terrorist acts. US law does, including a defintion of 'international terrorism' which the attacks of 9/11 match up with. Terrorism is a police problem and the use of the military is not necessary or appropriate. From that p.o.v., the use of military force by the US and Britain in Afghanistan was not appropriate. Some 7500 civilians were killed in that attack...a small town wiped out.
9/11 was not an act of war under any legal definition b/c that would require state on state violence. Terrorism was always handled as a police problem b/c legally it is not and cannot be an act of war. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a state sanctioned attack. 9/11 was not.
The UN denied the US's request to use force against Afg. The UN charter, to which the US is a signatory, requires members to first attempt to settle international differences peacefully--negotiation, arbitration, judicial settlement or such. The US did not do that. When the Afghan government asked for a modicum of proof that Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks, the US ignored the request and attacked Afghanistan without seeking other means of settling the dispute.
Article 51 of the Charter states that self-defense does not require UN Security approval for use of force b/c that is an "inherent right". The right exists where there's an armed attack against the country.
But this assertion also fails. The UN denied the request for use of force and the right to use force in self defense (unilaterally) expires once the Security Council has acted. As for the 'armed attack', the International Court of Justice (the UN's criminal court) has handled a case like this before. Nicaragua asked for restitution from the Court for the US's support of the Contras (and mining of Nicaraguan harbors) in defending El Salvador from anti-governmental rebels allegedly assisted by the Nicaraguan government. The IC rejected the US's contention of self-defense of El Salvador b/c the court "does not believe that the concept of 'armed attack' includes assistance to rebels in the form of the provision of weapons or logistical or other support."
If the IC did not recognize that instance as an armed attack, how on earth could it be concluded that the Taliban attacked the US b/c it is responsible for the actions of Al Qaeda? It cannot.
Geoffrey Robertson, a leading authority on international law, said, "It cannot sensibly be asserted that invading Afghanistan is necessary to protect America." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1645564.stm
In 1985 Israel bombed a PLO headquarters in Tunisia claiming that it harbored terrorists. The Security Council unanimously condemned that act.
Did the US attempt to settle this dispute by means alternative to military attack? No.
As you can see from my post, this is a very complex topic which provides terrific cover for someone asserting that we have been attacked in an act of war and our enemy is reachable so we must strike quickly.
This what I mean when I talk about the Bush administration's penchant for skirting, obfuscating and confusing the issues for political ends.
-
Let me make it clear, Afghanistan is much better after the Taliban, much better. While we found no WMD's in Iraq, there were plenty of of AQ agents, including the guy who ran the whole 911 show, hiding in that country. We had every right to go after that guy and we made it clear that the Taliban should comply and turn him over. They did not, so they went to. No amount of legal gobbeldigook, will explain to a 9 year old girl that she's better off under international law and the Taliban, then the Bush doctrine and Karzi. They needed to go and they went. While i don't have alot of compassion for these people because they will stab u in the back ina minute, the kids want to be educated and get out of this cycle.
-
Let me make it clear, Afghanistan is much better after the Taliban, much better. While we found no WMD's in Iraq, there were plenty of of AQ agents, including the guy who ran the whole 911 show, hiding in that country. We had every right to go after that guy and we made it clear that the Taliban should comply and turn him over. They did not, so they went to. No amount of legal gobbeldigook, will explain to a 9 year old girl that she's better off under international law and the Taliban, then the Bush doctrine and Karzi. They needed to go and they went. While i don't have alot of compassion for these people because they will stab u in the back ina minute, the kids want to be educated and get out of this cycle.
What about Bin Laden? I thought he perpetrated 9/11? Why didn't we get him? That's where this whole thing lost credibility with me.
I don't agree with regime change and nation building...bush mentioned that during his run up to president that the us wouldn't be in the business of nation building..yet, 7 years later..that's exactly what we are doing...just like the cheney video where he stated that invading iraq would be a quagmire--he was right, yet he and his admin were the ones who invaded...i'm not into all the legal stuff..just common sense stuff for me. Sure, we're helping out some afghani kid who was oppressed under the taliban but is it the united states' job to be the world police force? isn't that what the UN was supposed to do? We agreed to it, bought into the principles but don't always follow what we bought into? it doesn't make sense to me...If we are the world's police force then why haven't we invaded north korea and free them from oppression, or darfur, or somalia (oops, did that, didn't work) mexico (who has one of the most corrupt governments on the planet)---
-
I agree...but we're there now. So we're doing the right thing by helping these people. There was no real infrastructure to begin with so we are building the country. Further, a littel good will in that region is nota bad thing.
-
Let me make it clear, Afghanistan is much better after the Taliban, much better. While we found no WMD's in Iraq, there were plenty of of AQ agents, including the guy who ran the whole 911 show, hiding in that country. We had every right to go after that guy and we made it clear that the Taliban should comply and turn him over. They did not, so they went to. No amount of legal gobbeldigook, will explain to a 9 year old girl that she's better off under international law and the Taliban, then the Bush doctrine and Karzi. They needed to go and they went. While i don't have alot of compassion for these people because they will stab u in the back ina minute, the kids want to be educated and get out of this cycle.
I understand your point. But we are a nation of laws or we are not. It is not gobbledygook. We had every right to pursue AQ but that must be done according to legal procedure that the US has agreed to follow. We don't have the right to attack whoever the hell we please even if it's for an ostensibly good reason.
There are ways to do this and ways not to do it. Bush chose the wrong way again.
I'm not going to argue that things are much better in Afg thanks the US efforts. I know one things for certain. There 7500 dead Afg citizens and their families that are not better off for the invasion.
-
What about Bin Laden? I thought he perpetrated 9/11? Why didn't we get him? That's where this whole thing lost credibility with me.
I don't agree with regime change and nation building...bush mentioned that during his run up to president that the us wouldn't be in the business of nation building..yet, 7 years later..that's exactly what we are doing...just like the cheney video where he stated that invading iraq would be a quagmire--he was right, yet he and his admin were the ones who invaded...i'm not into all the legal stuff..just common sense stuff for me. Sure, we're helping out some afghani kid who was oppressed under the taliban but is it the united states' job to be the world police force? isn't that what the UN was supposed to do? We agreed to it, bought into the principles but don't always follow what we bought into? it doesn't make sense to me...If we are the world's police force then why haven't we invaded north korea and free them from oppression, or darfur, or somalia (oops, did that, didn't work) mexico (who has one of the most corrupt governments on the planet)---
Common sense. It assumes common experience. It is supposed to reduce the complex in life to obvious choices.
I think you are a lot smarter than to think that procedural complexity in international relations is devoid of some sort of common sense.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with everything you've said.
-
I understand your point. But we are a nation of laws or we are not. It is not gobbledygook. We had every right to pursue AQ but that must be done according to legal procedure that the US has agreed to follow. We don't have the right to attack whoever the hell we please even if it's for an ostensibly good reason.
There are ways to do this and ways not to do it. Bush chose the wrong way again.
I'm not going to argue that things are much better in Afg thanks the US efforts. I know one things for certain. There 7500 dead Afg citizens and their families that are not better off for the invasion.
Dude, your wrong, alot more folks would be dead at this point if we were'nt there. Life is very cheap in that country. I spent alot of time all over the place. They are, by and large happy to have us there.
-
Dude, your wrong, alot more folks would be dead at this point if we were'nt there. Life is very cheap in that country. I spent alot of time all over the place. They are, by and large happy to have us there.
And what was the point of the entire exercise, since after ousting the taleban government, you are now negotiating with them to form part of the government? how does that advance Afghan reform if you are calling for the very oppressors of afghan society to make up her government? Does that not mean that all those who died fighting the Taliban died in vain? Or is that all irrelevant, and things can go back to business as usual with the Taliban in Afghanistan, ...now that an oil exec has been installed as head of state, and the pipeline is back in the hands of US construction firms. Afterall, we all know it wasn't like the pipeline was never going to be built. Even under the Taliban it was going to be built, ...except by an Argentinian firm, and not a US one.
-
Ever set foot inside that country, ever see what good we have done for the people......silence....e nough with your Lib drivel.
-
And what was the point of the entire exercise, since after ousting the taleban government, you are now negotiating with them to form part of the government?
To eliminate Afghanistan as a terrorist training ground for Al Qaeda, a haven for Bin Laden, and a launching pad for attacks against Americans on American soil.
-
Ever set foot inside that country, ever see what good we have done for the people......silence....e nough with your Lib drivel.
Yep.
-
Eloquent as ever my good man. ;D
-
To eliminate Afghanistan as a terrorist training ground for Al Qaeda, a haven for Bin Laden, and a launching pad for attacks against Americans on American soil.
ok..i'll bite...we didn't get OBL...and how does eliminating one training ground--sorta kinda---see because the recent stuff that has been published is that al qaeda is as strong as it was since 9/11---but back to my point--how does clearing out ONLY afghanistan solve the problem of terrorist training grounds when the world knows that afghanistan isn't the only training ground...iran, syria, chechnya, all have been havens for muslim extremists, no? so we whacked out afghanistan but what about the rest?
-
Eloquent as ever my good man. ;D
You just continue to speak the truth mang. ;D
Hey I was at Schofield Barracks yesterday and they have a new monument in front of the HQ building. It's four life sized soldier's, one each from the current war, Vietnam, Korean War, and WWII. They're all facing a pair of boots, upside down rifle, and headgear. Gave me chicken skin. Beautiful.
-
ok..i'll bite...we didn't get OBL...and how does eliminating one training ground--sorta kinda---see because the recent stuff that has been published is that al qaeda is as strong as it was since 9/11---but back to my point--how does clearing out ONLY afghanistan solve the problem of terrorist training grounds when the world knows that afghanistan isn't the only training ground...iran, syria, chechnya, all have been havens for muslim extremists, no? so we whacked out afghanistan but what about the rest?
We were attacked by OBL and terrorists based in Afghanistan. Because of our invasion, OBL is no longer being hosted by a country and being allowed to use that country as a terrorist training ground. He's hiding in a cave or dead or living in a hole in the ground (like Saddam did).
The war on terror will probably never end, but we made great strides by wiping out the base responsible for 911.
-
We were attacked by OBL and terrorists based in Afghanistan. Because of our invasion, OBL is no longer being hosted by a country and being allowed to use that country as a terrorist training ground. He's hiding in a cave or dead or living in a hole in the ground (like Saddam did).
The war on terror will probably never end, but we made great strides by wiping out the base responsible for 911.
what about places like iran, syria, chechnya...even saudi arabia...where most of the 19 hijackers came from...ok, i'll give you afghanistan..but what did iraq have to do with 9/11....see what i'm saying here..you can go on and on but you can't wage a military war forever---and you can't invade everyone...and if there are still countries like those just mentioned you better be willing to wipe them completely off the fucking planet and stop pussy-footing around with them. i don't see the great strides when i see stuff like this....
U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that al-Qaeda has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 attacks, the Associated Press has learned.
The conclusion suggests that the group that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to regroup along the Afghan-Pakistani border despite nearly six years of bombings, war, and other tactics aimed at crippling it.
Still, numerous government officials say they know of no specific, credible threat of a new attack on U.S. soil.
A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the new government threat assessment called it a stark appraisal to be discussed at the White House today as part of a broader meeting on a forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate.
The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the secret report remains classified.
The document, produced by counterterrorism analysts, focuses on the terror group's haven in Pakistan and makes a range of observations about the threat posed to the United States and allies, officials said.
Al-Qaeda is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."
The group also has created "the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying.
At the same time, the official said, the report speaks of "significant gaps in intelligence" so U.S. authorities might be ignorant of potential or planned attacks.
John Kringen, who heads the CIA's analysis directorate, echoed the concerns about al-Qaeda's resurgence during testimony and conversations with reporters at a House Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday.
"They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven and the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan," Kringen testified. "We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications. We see that activity rising."
The threat assessment comes as the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies prepare a National Intelligence Estimate focusing on threats to the United States. Kringen and aides to National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell would not comment on the details of that analysis.
"Preparation of the estimate is not a response to any specific threat," McConnell's spokesman, Ross Feinstein, said, adding that it would be ready for distribution this summer.
Counterterrorism officials have been increasingly concerned about al-Qaeda's recent operations. This week, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he had a "gut feeling" that the United States faced a heightened risk of attack this summer.
The Bush administration has repeatedly cited al-Qaeda as a key justification for continuing the fight in Iraq.
The findings come as Capitol Hill support for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq.
The threat assessment says that al-Qaeda stepped up efforts to "improve its core operational capability" in late 2004 but did not succeed until December 2006 after the Pakistani government signed a peace agreement with tribal leaders that effectively removed government military presence from the northwest frontier with Afghanistan.
The agreement allows Taliban and al-Qaeda operatives to move across the border with impunity and establish and run training centers, the report says, according to the counterterrorism official.
It also says that al-Qaeda was particularly interested in building up the numbers in its middle ranks, or operational positions, so there is not as great a lag in attacks when such people are killed.
The counterterrorism official said the
-
what about places like iran, syria, chechnya...even saudi arabia...where most of the 19 hijackers came from...ok, i'll give you afghanistan..but what did iraq have to do with 9/11....see what i'm saying here..you can go on and on but you can't wage a military war forever---and you can't invade everyone...and if there are still countries like those just mentioned you better be willing to wipe them completely off the fucking planet and stop pussy-footing around with them. i don't see the great strides when i see stuff like this....
I was only talking about Afghanistan, because I was responding to Jag's comment:
Quote from: jaguarenterprises on Today at 10:24:55 AM
And what was the point of the entire exercise, since after ousting the taleban government, you are now negotiating with them to form part of the government?
But regarding the other countries you mentioned, we need to fight terrorism wherever the terrorists are located, both here and abroad. And as I mentioned, the war on terror will likely never end. We'll never completely eliminate those animals. There will be progress and setbacks, victories and losses. I'll leave it to our military brethren like Headhunter to figure out how best to combat the crazies.
-
Area's like Chechnya were largely ignored by the West. I think they knew it was a very bad thing militarily. You had a modern army almost stopped cold by a bunch of guys with RPG's. I reallly studied this war hard. there is not alot written but its pretty damm interesting. One point is that after the Russians decided to can the Western approach to collateral damage and go into Grosni full force, they still had major problems.Certains things about our campaign in Iraq and the Russian experience in Chechnya are very similar. Our command and control is much better, as well as our troops but some things are the same. Its hard to move armor in urban areas. The Russians found that ouit the hard way with teams of RPG armed nutbags, using cell phones to coordinate attacks against Russina Armor. they would tag tream and isolate one tank and blow it to shit. Its harder to do that to us, but they dveloped IEds etc. Many folks who we face in Iraq were fighting the Russians. The Russians did do some cool things. They designed small hyperbaric or fuel air explosives to use in street to street fighting. They also dug out old ww2 flamethrowers. I think I'd rather get gang rapped then face flamethrowers...maybe :'(
-
....But regarding the other countries you mentioned, we need to fight terrorism wherever the terrorists are located, both here and abroad. And as I mentioned, the war on terror will likely never end. We'll never completely eliminate those animals. There will be progress and setbacks, victories and losses. I'll leave it to our military brethren like Headhunter to figure out how best to combat the crazies.
The war on terror will never end b/c anybody can be a terrorist. Terrorist tactics live forever, groups using those tactics do not.
The military is not equipped to take on terrorism in the 4 corners of the planet. It can't even manage Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously. You have to admit that Beach Bum.
Use of the military for invading any and every country that the US claims to harbor terrorists will bankrupt the US financially and morally. It's an unsustainable strategy.
Police work and international cooperation are the best ways to go.
-
The war on terror will never end b/c anybody can be a terrorist. Terrorist tactics live forever, groups using those tactics do not.
The military is not equipped to take on terrorism in the 4 corners of the planet. It can't even manage Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously. You have to admit that Beach Bum.
Use of the military for invading any and every country that the US claims to harbor terrorists will bankrupt the US financially and morally. It's an unsustainable strategy.
Police work and international cooperation are the best ways to go.
Yes anyone can be a terrorist. Part of the problem is they don't have a visible base (anymore), are very fluid, hide, and stay underground until they attack. They're also nuts. Those are the primary reasons we'll always have to fight them IMO.
We did just fine in Afghanistan. "Mission Accomplished" as far as I'm concerned. We achieved our primary objectives in Iraq too. I do agree we have not managed the war in Iraq properly. That isn't because we cannot, it's because we made a tactical error at the onset by not sending in a large enough force and by keeping an imbecile in charge for too long (Rumsfeld).
We really have no choice but to fight terrorism everywhere.
I'm not sure what you mean by "police work"? If we know there is a terror group in, say, Argentina :) that is a threat to the U.S., who do we send to wipe them out? I'd think it would have to be the military.
-
Yes anyone can be a terrorist. Part of the problem is they don't have a visible base (anymore), are very fluid, hide, and stay underground until they attack. They're also nuts. Those are the primary reasons we'll always have to fight them IMO.
We did just fine in Afghanistan. "Mission Accomplished" as far as I'm concerned. We achieved our primary objectives in Iraq too. I do agree we have not managed the war in Iraq properly. That isn't because we cannot, it's because we made a tactical error at the onset by not sending in a large enough force and by keeping an imbecile in charge for too long (Rumsfeld).
We really have no choice but to fight terrorism everywhere.
I'm not sure what you mean by "police work"? If we know there is a terror group in, say, Argentina :) that is a threat to the U.S., who do we send to wipe them out? I'd think it would have to be the military.
i'm not sure anything was accomplished in afghanistan...if you read the article above al qaeda is as strong as ever in the afghan-pakistani border...
-
i'm not sure anything was accomplished in afghanistan...if you read the article above al qaeda is as strong as ever in the afghan-pakistani border...
I'm sure. Before we invaded, a country played host to the world's most notorious terrorist. That's not the case anymore. That's a major accomplishment.
I'm concerned about the things discussed in the article, but it doesn't say they are as strong as ever. It says Al-Qaeda is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions.
This tells me our fight is not over. We will be fighting those cockroaches till Jesus comes.
-
then how is the mission accomplished against al qaeda if they are operationally at levels of six years ago...that tells me they are as strong as they have been in six years, no?
-
I'm sure. Before we invaded, a country played host to the world's most notorious terrorist. That's not the case anymore. That's a major accomplishment.
...
I think Pakistan or Saudi Arabia holds that mantle now of most notorious terrorist state. I would not hold my breath waiting for the US to invade either country.
Police work is just that--detective work...Infiltrating these criminal organizations to get the jump on them. Handle these terrorists the way we handle other organized crime syndicates. Go after the financing. That's eminently more sensible and efficient than trying to bomb or geurilla fight them into submission. The US cannot simply does not have the resources to continue a full military assault of every country with ties to terrorist orgs.
The problem with that is that the financial institutions that launder money for US interests http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/news2.shtml want that law gutted. Offshore accounts suddenly becoming accountable to inspection would be a problem for a lot of the movers 'n shakers here in the US.
Have a great weekend my friend!
-
then how is the mission accomplished against al qaeda if they are operationally at levels of six years ago...that tells me they are as strong as they have been in six years, no?
Because they are no longer being hosted by a country and allowed to use that country as their operational base. (We're kinda going in circles.) The article says they "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001." That doesn't mean they are as strong now as they were in 2001. I don't think they can be, because Afghanistan is no longer their host.
-
I think Pakistan or Saudi Arabia holds that mantle now of most notorious terrorist state. I would not hold my breath waiting for the US to invade either country.
Police work is just that--detective work...Infiltrating these criminal organizations to get the jump on them. Handle these terrorists the way we handle other organized crime syndicates. Go after the financing. That's eminently more sensible and efficient than trying to bomb or geurilla fight them into submission. The US cannot simply does not have the resources to continue a full military assault of every country with ties to terrorist orgs.
The problem with that is that the financial institutions that launder money for US interests http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/news2.shtml want that law gutted. Offshore accounts suddenly becoming accountable to inspection would be a problem for a lot of the movers 'n shakers here in the US.
Have a great weekend my friend!
I agree with your definition of police work and that we should use those methods to fight terrorism. We also cannot foreclose military action, like Operation Enduring Freedom. We really had no choice in Afghanistan. We had to take those guys out.
Have a great weekend too. I know I will. My hammock is calling . . . :)
-
I agree with your definition of police work and that we should use those methods to fight terrorism. We also cannot foreclose military action, like Operation Enduring Freedom. We really had no choice in Afghanistan. We had to take those guys out.
So why are Republicans calling for them to form part of the Government in Afghanistan?
Have a great weekend too. I know I will. My hammock is calling . . . :)
We've got hammock weather too, ...at least for the next week. :)
-
So why are Republicans calling for them to form part of the Government in Afghanistan?
We've got hammock weather too, ...at least for the next week. :)
No one is calling for OBL and Al Qaeda to be part of the government in Afghanistan.
Current temperature is about 75-79. Tomorrow's forecast is about 89 (much cooler in between my trees at Kailua beach, where I have to wear a jacket).
What's Canadian hammock weather? Fifty degrees? :P
-
No one is calling for OBL and Al Qaeda to be part of the government in Afghanistan.
Neither OBL nor Al Qaeda were the government of Afghanistan,
...the taliban was, and that's who republicans are calling for to form part of the government again.
Current temperature is about 75-79. Tomorrow's forecast is about 89 (much cooler in between my trees at Kailua beach, where I have to wear a jacket).
What's Canadian hammock weather? Fifty degrees? :P
21 degrees Celcius aka 70 degrees Fahrenheight. And they're forcasting 81 degrees Fahrenheight for Wednesday.
-
Neither OBL nor Al Qaeda were the government of Afghanistan,
...the taliban was, and that's who republicans are calling for to form part of the government again.
21 degrees Celcius aka 70 degrees Fahrenheight. And they're forcasting 81 degrees Fahrenheight for Wednesday.
OBL and Al Qaeda were being hosted by the "government of Afghanistan." We put a stop to that.
-
OBL and Al Qaeda were being hosted by the "government of Afghanistan." We put a stop to that.
You sure did, ...now instead of being limited to Afghanistan, you've got OBL god knows where, and AlQ all over the middle east and possibly beyond. Good move. ::)
-
You sure did, ...now instead of being limited to Afghanistan, you've got OBL god knows where, and AlQ all over the middle east and possibly beyond. Good move. ::)
Whatever. We did the right thing and we're safer because of it.
-
Whatever. We did the right thing and we're safer because of it.
Not according to the NIE you're not, ...and not according to those of us with a working brain cell or two. :'(
-
Whatever. We did the right thing and we're safer because of it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!!