us military deaths in iraq reach 3,000

[saz]

Texas soldier's death raises U.S. toll in Iraq to at least 3,000 dead

BAGHDAD (AP) -- The death of a Texas soldier, announced Sunday by the Pentagon, raised the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq to at least 3,000 since the war began, according to an Associated Press count.

The grim milestone was crossed on the final day of 2006 and at the end of the deadliest month for the American military in Iraq in the past 12 months. At least 111 U.S. service members were reported to have died in December.

Specialist Dustin Donica, 22, of Spring, Texas, was killed Thursday by small arms fire in Baghdad, the Defense Department said. Donica was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division.

His death was not announced by U.S. military authorities in Baghdad. At least 820 U.S. military personnel died in Iraq in 2006, according to the AP count.

[yeahwho]

Happy New Years America!

We have managed to snuff out the life of one pathetic old man who thought his word was law. What a shame it cost us 3,000 of our own sons and daughters. Really, we have truly won a victory of which we can be proud.

Have a great night out!

[sam i am]

Are you done sallivating yet?

Do you feel justified now?

[Schmeltz]

Yeah, nobody would ever mention this unless they were happy about it.

[Echewta]

I bet you it will hit 4000

[Pres Zount]

So, fifty five thousand to go?

[sam i am]

OK.

Is there a realistic likelihood that the deaths will reach Vietnam-like proportions?

No.

Different type of war and at least portions of the population in all segments still support the US being there (unlike the South Vietnamese, who almost universally despised us at the end).

For instance, the Kurds would rather we be there than not, as would large segments of the Shiites and the Sunnis. Unfortunately, the tide of Iraqi public opinion SEEMS to be turning to the US out sooner rather than later.

[Ali]

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 1, 2003

President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html)

"Please Mr President, when can we go home?"

[Ali]

Are you done sallivating yet?

Do you feel justified now?So, proxy wars, costing hundreds of thousands of civilian lives are OK, because they clarify a situation, but the loss of a few thousand American soldiers over nearly fours years is distasteful, is it?

Anybody notice the hypocrisy here?

Anybody?

[yeahwho]

Are you done sallivating yet?

Do you feel justified now?

I have never felt more compassion for the families of these dead soldiers than I do now, If you think I derive some sort of self justification due to the deaths of humans you are sadly mistaken or have never understood a word anybody has posted on this site.

The Beastie Boys have a message board of which I'm a member and post on almost daily. The Beastie Boys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beastie_Boys), the band that released the song "In a World Gone Mad"?

Beastie Boys: In a world gone mad
BeastieBoys.com is supporting the anti-war movement by changing their web site to let everyone know what they think about the war.

"We felt it was important to comment on where the US appears to be heading now. A war in Iraq will not resolve our problems. It can only result in the deaths of many innocent civilians and US troops. If we are truly striving for safety, we need to build friendships, not try to bully the rest of the world." - Adam Yauch
"Being together, writing and recording, we felt it would be irresponsible not to address what’s going on in the world while the events are still current. It didn’t make sense to us to wait until the entire record was finished to release this song."
- Mike D

"This song is not an anti-American or pro-Saddam Hussein statement. This is a statement against an unjustified war."
- Adam Horovitz



They have also made a song that express their feelings, which is available for download at their site.

Sometimes sam i am you leave me just wondering if your not some sort of troll.

[drizl]

what about dead iraqis? i wonder how many of them have died unjustly.


i think its terrible that us soldiers are dying, and i think its even more terrible that innocent iraqis have been put through this. have you any idea of what we have done to that country in the last 15 years?

i remember the iraqi death toll, a conservative estimate at the time, about 2 and a half years ago, was around 100-200 THOUSAND. and those were mostly innocent people caught in the crossfire, people who didnt sign up to go to war, or in the possibility that they might go to war.

[Echewta]

We went over there to give them democracy and to bring the terrorist fight to their doorstep. That always amazes me. Better to fight them over there than here. I'm sure most Iraqis are just thrilled.

[sam i am]

Sometimes sam i am you leave me just wondering if your not some sort of troll.

I've been in a pissy mood the past half year..........


Hmmm....

wonder who's truly being "trollish" with your admission on the other thread?

[Echewta]

Sam is not a troll. I don't understand why people would think that.

Trolls say "USA RULES #1" and really mean it and don't back it up. Sam speaks his mind and says why.

[yeahwho]

Sam is not a troll. I don't understand why people would think that.

Trolls say "USA RULES #1" and really mean it and don't back it up. Sam speaks his mind and says why.

I have to admit one thing, I live in a completely different part of the country than the rest of the members posting in the BBMB political discussion forum. Seattle is an anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-WTO, anti-anti type of town. We're against it!

My view is like those all around me, at the cashier stand in grocery stores, waiting to get movie tickets, Christmas shopping I am bombarded with propaganda from the otherside of the political spectrum.

I am not a believer in conspiracies nor do I partake in any skewering of any statistic, the truth is very evident in these soldiers being dead. The reason they are dead is not the reason we were told they would die. The president is currently charting a new plot (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-usiraq5jan05,1,4477440.story?ctrack=1&cset=true) in Iraq as 2007 begins, territory never imagined in 2003. An actual escalation to achieve a victory that is not shared by all those who live in this region. With Iraqis leaving in record numbers (http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/1264/2007/00/3-184700-1.htm) it is becoming more and more obvious this country is flatout unlivable. A war torn death trap for regular citizens.

And now we're getting ready for the Iraqi surge (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=iraqi+surge&btnG=Search+News), if that doesn't worry anybody who has been critical of this war, what will?

I don't care if sam i am is a troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) or not. It just surprises me that he is posting on a white jewish rap groups site that is anti-war.... It's unique (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unique). Not trollish. Accolades should be given rather than the usual yeahwho bronx cheer.

[DroppinScience]

OK.

Is there a realistic likelihood that the deaths will reach Vietnam-like proportions?

No.


Even if Iraq war casualties don't reach Vietnam war casualties (which was 50,000+ U.S. dead), Iraq is STILL a quagmire.

Remember May 2003 when the war was declared "over"? Fast-forward to 3 years and 8 months later and see the state that everything is in. Yeah, that alone means this is a big clusterfuck.

Let's face it: Bush and co. promised the public the war would be over within a few weeks and reconstruction would be a breeze. It's the complete opposite.

Whether it's 3,000 or the death toll goes higher, a quagmire is a quagmire.

Be in denial all you like, but the vast majority of even CONSERVATIVE voices are fed up (I saw Joe Scarborough last night blast Bill O'Reilly for being blind kiss-assing Bush administration shills).

It's just you and Barney who's behind the President now.

[Documad]

Different type of war and at least portions of the population in all segments still support the US being there (unlike the South Vietnamese, who almost universally despised us at the end).

For instance, the Kurds would rather we be there than not, as would large segments of the Shiites and the Sunnis. Unfortunately, the tide of Iraqi public opinion SEEMS to be turning to the US out sooner rather than later.
Depends on who you talk to in Iraq and what that person's motives are. Some of their leaders are saying two different things in the same day to different audiences and it's not like we're getting accurate polling data from the civilians -- I mean we don't have even close to an accurate Iraqi death toll all these years later.

Anyhow, I don't understand why that matters so much. The questions most Americans have are: what are we doing? Is it helping? Is it likely to help in the long run? What's the goal? Do we even have one anymore? What are we doing that is likely to get us to that goal?

In my opinion, the only goal I see at this point is George W. Bush's goal of keeping our soldiers there long enough so he's not the guy who admits it was a huge mistake and we can't "win." The other goal is to make the democrats force him to so something so again it won't be his fault even though the whole thing was a dumb idea that was handled about as badly as it could have been handled. As much as I want something to happen and I don't want to throw more of our precious budget that could be helping other people down this sinkhole, if I were a democratic congresswoman I would sit back and let the president twist in the wind because there is no solution and even if a leading democrat sponsors the best one of all the bad choices, it will become the democrats' fault. No way to lead a country I know, but none of the people who sponsored the war in the first place are being held accountable either.

[drizl]

to me, the issue is this:

WE KNOW that the president and his cainet lied to us about going to war. we know that evidence was fabricated and, so we must ask why? why did we go to war with iraq and make all these false claims that iraq had this and that and those satellite images presented by colin powell showing the mobile WMD trucks...where did that come from, who did it? who gained from all of this?

that is what bothers me. there are answers, and its not hard to see what is going on. but what bothers me further, is that people dont want to accept it, they dont want to ask the right questions and do the right thing.


yes, doing the right thing is pulling out the troops now. i dont care what it does to iraq, it cant be any worse off than it is now. we need to make an honest effort, show that we are truly wanting to rebuild and help that country get back on its feet. that does not mean sending haliburton over there to lounge and bank. it means seeing projects through, rebuilding their infrastructure etc....but most of all, it means getting a new us leadership in place that can win the trust and express the goodwill of the american people, and not its corrupt, tyrannical leadership.

WE NEED BUSH OUT NOW. WE NEED CORRUPTION BROUGHT TO AN END. WE NEED A TRUSTWORTHY LEADERSHIP CAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

americans are largely, a good people. terrorism will only get worse so long as our government goes around fucking shit up, and misrepresenting us.

we need these assholes out.

[Schmeltz]

yes, doing the right thing is pulling out the troops now. i dont care what it does to iraq


Leaving aside the atrocious inhumanity of that statement, you'll care if Iraq becomes another Afghanistan, that's for sure. A terrorist playground is a pretty rotten thing, but an entire nation-state given over to militant religious fundamentalism - and especially one astride the world's largest petroleum reserves - is far worse.

There is no right thing about withdrawing the troops and watching the entire region slip into chaos. The American forces in Iraq right now are the only means of securing any kind of order not only in Iraq but in an enormous and extremely significant swath of the planet. Yes, this is frustrating. Yes, the people who committed this mind-boggling error deserve to be held to account. But pulling out now will only make things worse, especially in the long term.

[D_Raay]

That may be too much to ask for a Christian-crusader President, still lodged inside a bubble universe and determined to crush all evil-doers. And it may be too clever by half for an administration that has been as utterly inept as this one.

At the same time, it may also be too much to expect that the Democrats will really go to the mat to fight Bush if he orders a surge that is "long and large." Maybe they will merely posture and fulminate and threaten to… well, hold hearings.

If so, it will be the Iraqis who end the war. It will be the Iraqis who eventually kill enough Americans to break the US political will, and it will be the Iraqis who sweep away the ruins of the Maliki government to replace it with an anti-American, anti-US-occupation government in Iraq. That is basically how the war in Vietnam ended, and it wasn't pretty.

[MIKEtotheD]

I don't really know much about politics and war, but what a waste of lives.
All the soldiers and civilians are dying for no reason. (n)
They caught and hung Hussein already.
If Bush was smart (which he clearly isn't), they would pull out of Iraq.

[drizl]

schmeltz, that bullshit about iraq becoming a playground for terrorist if we pull out stinks like the same crap that the administration and its loyal followers have dished out for the past 3 years.
wake up, iraq is a playground for terrorists and is in total chaos and totally destroyed. we are not doing any good by being there. we are only risking more of our lives, and only angering the iraqi people more and more. there is no end to this. it is over. we need to pull out. send more troops? thats fucking insane, unless iran is next...

[D_Raay]

To illustrate a point on the complete ineptitude of the handlers of this war:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6237607.stm

The US Army is to apologise to the families of officers killed or wounded in action who were sent letters urging them to return to active duty.

The letters were sent to more than 5,100 Army officers listed as recently having left the military.

But this figure included about 75 officers killed in action and about 200 wounded in action.

[Schmeltz]

I think you misunderstood me - my point was that Iraq is indeed already a terrorist playground. Worse than that, it's a terrorist playground riven with sectarian rivalry, economic collapse, and total social insecurity. But if you think it's as bad as it can get, you are sorely mistaken. As nightmarish and appalling as the situation is now, it would be far worse to see Iraq fall under the control of an organization like the Taliban, or for Iran to assert a dominant role in the direction of the country, or for the various ethnic and religious factions to mount an actual civil war (which, if similar to other past civil wars, would be exponentially more destructive than even the vicious level of violence that takes place daily in Iraq now).

Again, I suggest that if you think "it's over" you haven't considered the situation seriously enough. The long-term significance of major events unfolds only gradually over lengthy periods of time. The long-term consequences of the destruction of Iraq have yet to unfold and to withdraw American forces now would essentially mean surrendering all influence over those consequences to other forces with interests in diametric opposition to any kind of productive future for the country. Even if the only good served by the continued presence of the troops concerns the prevention of a worst-case scenario, that's worlds better than withdrawing for the sake of political expediency (which at any rate is too late to achieve, either domestically or internationally) and allowing Iraq's future to be dictated by religious fanatics, regional strongmen, and ethnic nationalism.

You simply cannot afford to pull out now; there is too much at stake to simply bring the troops home and hope with fingers crossed that everything works out for the best. The invasion of Iraq was a bad idea and it has had horrific consequences - but these consequences will not be improved by abandoning the situation to further chaos.

[drizl]

there is no fixing this situation by sending reinforcements, or maintaning a military "occupation" of the country. im curious of what you think we can do by staying in iraq?
how long is it going to take?
what are the costs?
is it even worth it?

[D_Raay]

I think you misunderstood me - my point was that Iraq is indeed already a terrorist playground. Worse than that, it's a terrorist playground riven with sectarian rivalry, economic collapse, and total social insecurity. But if you think it's as bad as it can get, you are sorely mistaken. As nightmarish and appalling as the situation is now, it would be far worse to see Iraq fall under the control of an organization like the Taliban, or for Iran to assert a dominant role in the direction of the country, or for the various ethnic and religious factions to mount an actual civil war (which, if similar to other past civil wars, would be exponentially more destructive than even the vicious level of violence that takes place daily in Iraq now).

Again, I suggest that if you think "it's over" you haven't considered the situation seriously enough. The long-term significance of major events unfolds only gradually over lengthy periods of time. The long-term consequences of the destruction of Iraq have yet to unfold and to withdraw American forces now would essentially mean surrendering all influence over those consequences to other forces with interests in diametric opposition to any kind of productive future for the country. Even if the only good served by the continued presence of the troops concerns the prevention of a worst-case scenario, that's worlds better than withdrawing for the sake of political expediency (which at any rate is too late to achieve, either domestically or internationally) and allowing Iraq's future to be dictated by religious fanatics, regional strongmen, and ethnic nationalism.

You simply cannot afford to pull out now; there is too much at stake to simply bring the troops home and hope with fingers crossed that everything works out for the best. The invasion of Iraq was a bad idea and it has had horrific consequences - but these consequences will not be improved by abandoning the situation to further chaos.
You're right of course Schmeltz, but what considerations have to be taken to insure even a modest defeat here.

Leaving exponentionally wouldn't be prudent, so maybe we are looking at the problem the wrong way.

What I mean to say is, we need help. Lots of help.
And we, quite simply, are not going to get it. A troop "surge" is not the answer. More violence is not the answer. We need mediation. We need truly impartial influence to come in and gain the respect of all for the benefit and safety of all.

In short, our present leadership and it's corresponding policies have to go. No other way around it. I realize that is another huge can of worms in and of itself, and it probably isn't likely to happen, but I can see no other alternative.

It drives me crazy to hear all the nonsense in the media about what needs to be done, or what should be done, or who has a doctrine, or whatever other ridiculous notion they are hoping someone swallows.

It really just comes down to this. Our leadership is inept and has royally fucked up, and now they won't accept the responsibility for it so they need to go, and fast. With every passing day more and more die.

[drizl]

amen.

[yeahwho]

It really just comes down to this. Our leadership is inept and has royally fucked up, and now they won't accept the responsibility for it so they need to go, and fast. With every passing day more and more die.

The number one concern for me is this fact, There is and was no connection between Iraq, 9/11. I can't believe that there is still one person out there who actually believes that Iraq had anything at all to do with the terrorist attack of 9/11. Every person on the planet knows by now the false excuses that Cheny/Bush/Rumsfeld gave us for sending our children to die and kill in Iraq turned out to be false. The truth is, and this was well known before Bush invaded Iraq, that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were enemies.

Iran has been silently waiting for the next move in Iraq, they surely are enjoying the chaos the US has created. Iran has kept close tabs on this region for decades, here is an example ofthe Iran Chambers documentation on legal and illegal intervention.... funding of weapons (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php)

This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

This gives into some very suspicious motives for the death of Saddam and the whole Iraqi operation. The whole picture is much larger than the distraction of the WMD theory we were first asked to believe.

Now that we removed Hussein, al-Qaida has moved in to Iraq and is fomenting instability and would love to install an Islamic government there. We created that situation that allows them to do that.

So now we're left with Iran on one side, insurgency gone rampant within the borders of Iraq and Israel on the trigger finger (http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20070106-094335-8237r.htm)....this is not an aftermath situation, it is just the buildup scenario to an whole uglier level. If we pullout or not.

My current conclusion is very frightening and could turnout to be one of the ugliest scenarios mankind may ever encounter. I pray I'm wrong.

[drizl]

PNAC

[drizl]

i cant believe we let this happen. i cant believe we are still arguing about this. i cant believe that we are still letting this asshole run our country and kill innocent people. american politics is so twisted and so sickening. and so many people think we are great, courageous and free. its sad, really sad.

i worry about the future too.

[Lollapalooza]

Bush is a fuking idiot................................... He is a Black Man to want a Black World..he want attack Iran And Syria , But he can't now ............ He wait to Al Qaida Attack USA Again ...... so he can Attack again



Like Ad Rock Always Say : Fuck W Bush

[D_Raay]

Can't someone give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him?

[drizl]

Can't someone give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him?


that is so sadly hilarious

[QueenAdrock]

I'm sure Ann Coulter would love to. She's already all up on his dick as it is.

[sam i am]

I'm sure Ann Coulter would love to. She's already all up on his dick as it is.

Really?

I always pictured her as more of the strap-on type while Bush took it from behind.

Just me.:p

[sam i am]

I don't care if sam i am is a troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) or not. It just surprises me that he is posting on a white jewish rap groups site that is anti-war.... It's unique (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unique). Not trollish. Accolades should be given rather than the usual yeahwho bronx cheer.

While I appreciate the accolades......here's my "credentials" :

I'm quite sure that I have been a fan of the Beastie Boys far longer than you. To (re)quote a favorite line : "Man...I was listening to the Beastie Boys when you were sucking your mother's dick."

From my years of experience with the Beasties, I'm quite confident that they would embrace a diversity of ideologies and ideas, mine included.

Your pathetic attempt to portray me as a troll is unwarranted and ridiculous.

I came to the Beastie Boys website a bit later than some, but once I did, I migrated to the political forum because I was a History major and politics intriques me.

Although the Beasties and I do not see eye-to-eye on politics, I still appreciate their musical and rap virtuosity, what they bring to the table as far their opinions, and the fact that, like me, they often want to have fun while still being serious about their personal beliefs.

Yeahwho, again, I appreciate your ability to see things a bit differently after echewta said something, but don't presume to call me a troll again.

[yeahwho]

While I appreciate the accolades......here's my "credentials" :

I'm quite sure that I have been a fan of the Beastie Boys far longer than you. To (re)quote a favorite line : "Man...I was listening to the Beastie Boys when you were sucking your mother's dick."

From my years of experience with the Beasties, I'm quite confident that they would embrace a diversity of ideologies and ideas, mine included.

Your pathetic attempt to portray me as a troll is unwarranted and ridiculous.

I came to the Beastie Boys website a bit later than some, but once I did, I migrated to the political forum because I was a History major and politics intriques me.

Although the Beasties and I do not see eye-to-eye on politics, I still appreciate their musical and rap virtuosity, what they bring to the table as far their opinions, and the fact that, like me, they often want to have fun while still being serious about their personal beliefs.

Yeahwho, again, I appreciate your ability to see things a bit differently after echewta said something, but don't presume to call me a troll again.

I decided to not call you a troll, even did this in more than one post. You do not agree with the content of my posts probably over 50% of the time. Thats OK with me and I really do not mind, what would be the point of a mutual admiration society.

I will apologize to you here and now sam i am, I am sorry I called you a troll on the BBMB political board.

It just feels creepy to worry about this sort of thing on a "over 3000 US soldiers dead in Iraq thread".

[Schmeltz]

What I mean to say is, we need help. Lots of help.
And we, quite simply, are not going to get it. A troop "surge" is not the answer. More violence is not the answer. We need mediation. We need truly impartial influence to come in and gain the respect of all for the benefit and safety of all.


Yes. This cuts to the very heart of the matter. It was a bad enough idea to begin this war in the first place - but the Bush administration has made it exponentially worse through its direct alienation of all of the best sources of the help that is so desperately needed to actually make progress in the reconciliation of the situation in Iraq. Bush and Cheney and Condi thought they could go it alone and that American willpower could somehow overcome a religious and ethnic divide that stretches back nearly fourteen centuries. Somehow, there are some people who still buy into this fantasy (*cough samiam cough*) but it is increasingly plain that this will not work now or ever.

drizl and D_Raay and yeahwho are all correct on one level: the current American leadership has to go. All of it. Bush will go down as the worst American President in the history of the nation. Absolutely. People in 2052 will read the neocon editorials from fifty years previous and they will laugh derisively and pitiably at the sheer idiocy expressed by the right-wing "intelligentsia." But it isn't enough to simply acknowledge the wrongdoings of this administration. Even if Bush were to be impeached and half of Congresss prosecuted alongside him, it would not be enough. The real challenge before the American people is to produce a statesman - not a politican, not a leader, not a vote-pandering ideologue, but a statesman - with the vision, knowledge, and commanding presence and personality necessary to admit the severity of the error made in Iraq, and the capacity to redress this wrong and really come to grips with the challenge posed by militant fundamentalist Islam.

This does not mean bombing the shit out of every city in the Islamic world, as though such a thing would somehow discourage people from flocking to the banner of al-Qaeda and its associated organizations. This means having the diplomatic and cultural wherewithal to productively promote and interact with the progressive currents in the Islamic world, whatever is left of them, in order to counter the rising tide of regressive fundamentalism that threatens to overtake an enormously broad section of humanity. And in turn, and this is the difficult part, this means acting in opposition to very powerful American interests who seem to consider that a reactionary military solution is so financially profitable in the short term that the invasive course of action is better than the diplomatic solutions that could yield vastly more productive and beneficial results in the long term.

In other words, America now confronts an inherent Catch-22. To maintain America's current political and economic system apparently dictates the maintenance of the current military model in Iraq, while the entrapment of the American military in Iraq would seem to inherently require the maintenance of the current political and economic system. The two are inextricably linked and it doesn't matter which of the two parties controls the House and Senate because the governing members all come from the same class of robber barons and economic elitists who are making money from all of this death and suffering no matter what the short-term outcome is. To simply replace the current occupiers of the top positions will therefore not be enough. America needs a new vision, a new and more comprehensive outlook, a group of leaders with the kind of integrity and wisdom to understand their opponents in the Islamic world, to come to grips with the real challenges involved in maintaining productive links with the truly progressive elements of Islam (and they are there, even if they need a nudge to be reawakened) and make the tough decisions necessary to formulate compromises that will yield truly beneficial results in the long term.

America needs visionary statesmen who look beyond two terms in office toward the next generation in human relations. The whole world needs American statesmen who are capable of this depth of understanding, sacrifice, and vision. Only in America will we find these people. And if we cannot find them in America... I don't know what we'll do. The Bush era is almost past, but its staggering errors will remain with us for a long time. Decades. Maybe generations. Maybe centuries. The true challenge before Americans is not to prosecute the current criminals, but to provide real solutions to the future consequences of their actions. And this has to begin with the formulation of compromises with those elements of the Islamic world that may be unpalatable, regressive, immature, and violent - but which have to be better than the alternative.

Anyway, I do ramble on, but that's what I think.

[drizl]

you know, i really wander what would happen if we pulled out of the middle east, cut our ties with israel and stopped with the new imperialism. i wander what would happen if we withdrew from iraq, quit banging on irans doorstep, let israel handle its own affairs, vacated all of our overseas bases....
it would be a much different america i am sure. we might not be the super power. we might not be so controlling of global poltics, so dominant a force economically politically and militarily...


would another country rise to destroy us?

with our defenses down, would we be infiltrated and attacked?

would america become respected?


just a thought....

[Schmeltz]

You might as well wonder what would happen if America discovered the Philosopher's Stone or the Fountain of Youth or the Last Unicorn. It would take an unspeakably violent and destructive contraction to achieve the things you mentioned. But I don't think it's too far-fetched to conceive of an American statesman or group of statesmen who could reconcile the seemingly contradictory interests that have produced the current global situation. Especially if they acted in concert with others of their ilk internationally.

[Pres Zount]

But I don't think it's too far-fetched to conceive of an American statesman or group of statesmen who could reconcile the seemingly contradictory interests that have produced the current global situation. Especially if they acted in concert with others of their ilk internationally.
I don't think there us any chance of that happening either. Not even the slightest.

[D_Raay]

In other words, America now confronts an inherent Catch-22. To maintain America's current political and economic system apparently dictates the maintenance of the current military model in Iraq, while the entrapment of the American military in Iraq would seem to inherently require the maintenance of the current political and economic system. The two are inextricably linked and it doesn't matter which of the two parties controls the House and Senate because the governing members all come from the same class of robber barons and economic elitists who are making money from all of this death and suffering no matter what the short-term outcome is. To simply replace the current occupiers of the top positions will therefore not be enough. America needs a new vision, a new and more comprehensive outlook, a group of leaders with the kind of integrity and wisdom to understand their opponents in the Islamic world, to come to grips with the real challenges involved in maintaining productive links with the truly progressive elements of Islam (and they are there, even if they need a nudge to be reawakened) and make the tough decisions necessary to formulate compromises that will yield truly beneficial results in the long term.

America needs visionary statesmen who look beyond two terms in office toward the next generation in human relations. The whole world needs American statesmen who are capable of this depth of understanding, sacrifice, and vision. Only in America will we find these people. And if we cannot find them in America... I don't know what we'll do. The Bush era is almost past, but its staggering errors will remain with us for a long time. Decades. Maybe generations. Maybe centuries. The true challenge before Americans is not to prosecute the current criminals, but to provide real solutions to the future consequences of their actions. And this has to begin with the formulation of compromises with those elements of the Islamic world that may be unpalatable, regressive, immature, and violent - but which have to be better than the alternative.

Ah thank you schmeltz. Very well put and right in line with what I am hoping for.

If only we had a leader who would put it this way to the american people.

I know a pessimistic view will prevail, this may be seen as a pipe dream, but it certainly could be achieved with the right force of will and determination.

And you're right, it has to start with the American people. We have allowed this era of corruption and consistently supported leaders who don't act in our best interests at all.

[drizl]

i would love to see a real leader, an honest leader, a statesman, whatever...someone who can bring peace and dignity back to america. im not saying its impossible, but i think it would take a miracle for that person to get into power, maintain power and survive in america. land of the free.

[Schmeltz]

With regard to the state of American politics - really interesting post by Greg Saunders over at This Modern World (www.thismodernworld.com) today:


The GOP has spent the last few decades bashing the “Democrat(ic) party” as a bunch of out-of-control liberals and comforted themselves with the talking point that the country was moving to the right. The result? They’re controlled by the radical right while the Dems have been transformed into a party of Liebermen (and Liber-women). Thanks to the dynamic the GOP has put into place, the choices at the polls are rarely right vs. left, but extreme right vs. gutless centrist. With the Democrats finally being empowered to get some work done and stand up for themselves, the Republican party’s flaws are becoming clearer and clearer to the American people.

Which brings us to the “First 100 Hours”. Looking at this summary of the Dem’s agenda, the only thing shocking is how obvious every one of these proposals is. Raising the minimum wage for the first time in ten years. Enacting 9/11 Commission recommendations. Lowering prescription drug costs and student loans. Funding stem cell research. These aren’t wedge issues, they’re just common sense. The fact that these issues have been ignored while the Washington elite were busying themselves with Schiavo, Abramoff, and Foley will underscore how clueless the GOP has become.

What we’re seeing now is the Republican Party’s worst nightmare. The Democrats are defining themselves not just by what they would do, but specifically by what the Republicans wouldn’t do.


He makes a really good point, I think: the last six years have been so riven with bald-faced incompetence and bungling and radical ideology by the incumbent administration that perhaps we've all forgotten that it is indeed possible for elected officials to act in the interests of common sense and produce legislation that actually serves the interests of the electorate. Perhaps we're witnessing the early stages of a shift away from foaming-at-the-mouth hotbutton grandstanding in American politics and back towards the pursuit of government as a responsibility rather than a pulpit. In which case there just might be some hope for real leadership from the next generation of officials.

[drizl]

government in america, and in most cases for that matter, is not pretty. its just a matter of hiding it from the public. for example, the federal reserve and the income tax in america...something that has been around for a long long time here in this country, and is designed to make the extremely rich, richer so they can have more influence over global politics and the ruling elite. its designed to seperate people and dominate them. its astounding to hear about how much money each year goes to income tax, what it is used for, and how much profit is made by those who control the federal reserve.

this constitution here was written by those who had a very real fear of what could happen should the system be abused. and they saw within their own lifetimes, that it was doomed from the get-go. its impossible to consolidate power and have a clean system.




im still wondering why george bush isnt being impeached. im still waiting to see if our congress is going to end this war. i dont hold much faith in the democrats. they are both corrupted in the same manner. decentralization is the only hope in this system- that is, the only hope in breaking the system and returning power to the individuals who make up this country.

[yeahwho]

They don't make them like they used too, er..or..uh...wait (http://www.attytood.com/2007/01/eday_it_was_40_years_ago_today.html), maybe they do still make them like they used too.

[Ali]

Leaving aside the atrocious inhumanity of that statement, you'll care if Iraq becomes another Afghanistan, that's for sure. A terrorist playground is a pretty rotten thing, but an entire nation-state given over to militant religious fundamentalism - and especially one astride the world's largest petroleum reserves - is far worse.

There is no right thing about withdrawing the troops and watching the entire region slip into chaos. The American forces in Iraq right now are the only means of securing any kind of order not only in Iraq but in an enormous and extremely significant swath of the planet. Yes, this is frustrating. Yes, the people who committed this mind-boggling error deserve to be held to account. But pulling out now will only make things worse, especially in the long term.
Iraq is just the second in a four stage plan: 1. Afghanistan (leave NATO to fight the Taliban), 2. Iraq (foment secular rivalry to keep Shia and Sunni at each others throats, giving you an excuse not only to stay, but to bring in even more troops, to quell the insurgency, which you blame on...) 3. Iran (pulling the same WMD trick as you did on Iraq to get UN approval, using Iraq as supply base and teaming up with Israel). 4. China - the REAL threat to the US.

Don't expect there to be peace in Iraq any time soon. If there's no insurgency, then there's no need for coalition forces to stay, is there?

[Schmeltz]

That is crazy talk, mang.


3. Iran (pulling the same WMD trick as you did on Iraq to get UN approval


The Iraq War never had UN approval and the WMD trick was a sham from start to finish - as many, many people said before the war and as everybody acknowledges now. It didn't work before, why would it be trotted out again? If Iran is going to be invaded - and "if" is really much too strong a word to use - the operation will proceed without the assent of the UN.



4. China - the REAL threat to the US.


And this is really wild. Even the USA couldn't hope to mount an invasion of China with hundreds of thousands of its troops, vehicles, aircraft, ships and other war materiel tied down in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. Even if the entire country was on a similar war footing to that of WWII (which would be impossible for any American government to achieve anyway) there's simply no way it could hope to hold down that much territory - and especially that particular territory - while facing down the biggest army ever assembled. You guys are going way beyond the bounds of realism here. Again, I stress: the American military machine is not run by total idiots, and it is not an inexhaustible reserve of man- and firepower that can be deployed against any target on the whim of its civilian leadership, whatever form that leadership takes.

There won't be any peace in Iraq for a long time, I'll grant you that - but that's not because it is somehow in the best interests of the American military to bleed itself dry fighting IEDs and religious fanatics for years to come. It's because the American government made a grotesquely stupid miscalculation in choosing how to deploy that military strength, and is now confronted with a foe it may be unable to defeat.

[drizl]

That is crazy talk, mang.



The Iraq War never had UN approval and the WMD trick was a sham from start to finish - as many, many people said before the war and as everybody acknowledges now. It didn't work before, why would it be trotted out again? If Iran is going to be invaded - and "if" is really much too strong a word to use - the operation will proceed without the assent of the UN.




And this is really wild. Even the USA couldn't hope to mount an invasion of China with hundreds of thousands of its troops, vehicles, aircraft, ships and other war materiel tied down in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. Even if the entire country was on a similar war footing to that of WWII (which would be impossible for any American government to achieve anyway) there's simply no way it could hope to hold down that much territory - and especially that particular territory - while facing down the biggest army ever assembled. You guys are going way beyond the bounds of realism here. Again, I stress: the American military machine is not run by total idiots, and it is not an inexhaustible reserve of man- and firepower that can be deployed against any target on the whim of its civilian leadership, whatever form that leadership takes.

There won't be any peace in Iraq for a long time, I'll grant you that - but that's not because it is somehow in the best interests of the American military to bleed itself dry fighting IEDs and religious fanatics for years to come. It's because the American government made a grotesquely stupid miscalculation in choosing how to deploy that military strength, and is now confronted with a foe it may be unable to defeat.


maybe you are not from this country schmeltz, but i was one of the MINORITY who was actually protesting against the war, who knew from the get go that it was all bullshit. MINORITY. almost everyone, even the majority of the folks who today believe the contrary, believed what the president and his men were saying, believed saddam was the most evil man in the world, was in on 9-11 with osama, blah blah blah. almost the whole country weas duped into thinking iraq had WMDs because the fucking media shoved it down our throats every goddamn second.
CHINA WILL BE A THREAT. read PNAC. not a military threat yet, but in terms of being a superpower. PNAC's main goal is to make the US the only dominant single super power in the world. the only thing is, the us economy is dying (the value of the dollar, and national debt), and chinas will continue to grow
exponentially and they continue to destroy the dollar with their currency and continue to buy our debt. china will be a superpower, pretty much is, and the rogue group of assholes in power, who wrote PNAC have chosen this strategy in the middle east, with words like freedom and terrorist, to strategically place themselves in position to "deal" with china in the future.

[Schmeltz]

You're not listening. Embroiling themselves in massively expensive and destructive wars like Iraq and Iran does not yield any strategic military advantage to the United States. To invade Iran would be to take the current insoluble security problems of Iraq and magnify them tenfold; it would require hundreds of thousands more soldiers, more airplanes, and ships, and trucks, and medical personnel, and supplies; it would lengthen the lines of American supply into China across thousands of miles of dangerous and untenable terrain; it would provide the immensely numerically superior Chinese forces with the exact sort of absorbent land-based defensive battle for which they have been developed; and it would deny the American forces their strongest weaponry - the aircraft and carrier groups which constitute the real strategic and tactical military advantages of the Americans over China.

It would be suicide. The people who run the American military know this. It doesn't make any sense. I don't dispute that PNAC's avowed goal is to exert an increased level of American influence over as much of the globe as possible - it's in their charter. But even if they were willing to pull off something that crazy, they wouldn't be able to - it would stall before it got anywhere, like Iraq.

[drizl]

im not saying its a good plan. all im saying is that if it is left up to bush and his cronies, if we allow them to do whatever they want, they will take the next step in PNAC, and that is destroying iran. keep in mind it will also involve israels military, i mean the US funded israeli military. money is nothing to them.

if money were really an issue at all, then america would be bankrupt and in severe depression to the extent that it could never lift itself out.our national debt is in the trillions, you cannot argue that money has anything to do with it.

if we are "attacked", if we provolk an attack, if we are involved in a convincing staged terrorist attack, if israel is attacked (there are hundreds of possible scenarios that could lead to war right now with iran) it wouldnt take much to rally us troops, and us people. even if the majority still did not support it.

[Schmeltz]

if we allow them to do whatever they want, they will take the next step in PNAC, and that is destroying iran.


It's not about what they want to do, but about what they can do. It wouldn't really matter how much popular support they managed to swing, by whatever tactic they might employ to convert the public away from the current malaise concerning the war - such a plan is still militarily unworkable and I don't consider your belief in the dictatorial agenda of the Bush administration to offer a convincing argument to the contrary.

[drizl]

excerpts from the 60 minutes interview a day or two after his speech. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX0uuXDPxFE)
i hope you are right schmeltz. i hope that it is totally impossible that american will go to war with iran. i really hope you are right.

[Schmeltz]

Exactly. You think this man has the ability to direct what would amount to one of the most massive military projects ever conceived? He mixes with reality like water with oil.

[drizl]

do you know how many "smart bombs" missiles UAVs etc... we have? come on schmeltz, remember? first its shock and awe, then when the country has been completely blown to peices then we invade onthe ground. then when the country is in complete dissaray and chaos, and in civil war we blame it on the insurgents. come on schmeltz havent you learned anything?

[drizl]

and this man doesnt direct shit when it comes to fighting wars. he just gives the orders to invade and destroy. you have the worlds most powerful military in the hands of an imbicile. all he has to do is push the button.

[Schmeltz]

then when the country is in complete dissaray and chaos, and in civil war we blame it on the insurgents.


Yes, and then you get mired in an insoluble conflict that weakens your forces, and public support for the war, more with every day. You still haven't explained how this is supposed to confer any kind of advantage on the American military.


you have the worlds most powerful military in the hands of an imbicile. all he has to do is push the button.


Don't you think that's really way too simplistic for anyone to take seriously?

[Ali]

the American military machine is not run by total idiots, and it is not an inexhaustible reserve of man- and firepower that can be deployed against any target on the whim of its civilian leadership, whatever form that leadership takes......so far, it has been.

Some points to ponder.

1. The US and Israel have air superiority over Iran, thanks to UN arms sanctions called for by the US and Israel and backed up with (unproven) allegations of Nuclear Weapons program. They can cluster bomb Iran into the stone age and blame the ensuing chaos on Syria, Jordan, Pakistan... whoever. Israeli and US ground troops can then go in and mop up the last of the Iranian ground troops - whose command headquarters have been bombed out of existence, so cannot put up much resistance.

2. Iran is (allegedly) the cause of the post-war problems in Iraq, along with Syria. Take out Iran and you solve the insurgency in Iraq (or move it to Iran). NATO is embroiled in Afghanistan, Syria can be dealt with in the same way as Iran... not a problem (unless you are a civilian).

3. Once a US military presence is established in Iran (and has to stay in order to quell the insurgency), the US can turn its attention to Taiwan and N.Korea... invading them and setting up air bases from which to threaten the Southern and South-Eastern borders while US bases in Japan will look after the Eastern border of China.

China is now effectively surrounded. All sea ports can be attacked (especially from Taiwan) and her main supply of oil (Iran) under enemy control. She can no longer fuel her economy, nor can she trade.

[drizl]

nice, ali.
you have to see the broader picture within the "war on terror". you have to understand PNAC, to understand what is really going on. once you understand PNAC, you see it all unfolding, just as they had planned, going in the exact direction that was laid out. and then you see why the president is so arrogant and sure of himself. he doesnt give A shit about legacy (as he has said several times) he is just there to "reshape americas defenses".

other things to ponder- the draft. several times in the last few years the draft has been snuck into the media circles, the idea being tossed out there for the public to familiarize themselves with. just recently there was a massive test on the selective service process, "just in case we need to use it". there were groups at my campus a few years ago that were organizing discussing te draft, and legal ways out of it (conscientious objector) because we had all just heard that iran was next- that was almost three years ago now, maybe 2.5. since then, there has been plenty of time to plan and scheme, for the administration to get us used to the idea that iran is dangerous, has nuclear weapons, blah blah blah. you HAVE to see the larger picture.

american forces are exhausted out in iraq. people have been on their third tour out there. all the more reason to be patriotic! rise up america, and support our troops, give them a brake, we need you! for the war on terror! to step up and help your country, help the world defeat terrorism! we need you, america! to be brave and fight these terrorists. our troops are tired and we need you! draft.

[Schmeltz]

Alright, if I do you guys the courtesy of addressing your points, will you please do me the courtesy of addressing mine?


1. The US and Israel have air superiority over Iran...


The United States has air superiority over every other country in the world, regardless of the imposition of sanctions or what have you. But this alone does not guarantee a military victory, particularly against Iran where the nerve centers and key installations of the armed forces are speculated to be widely spread across the country and concealed in subterranean bunkers highly resistant to aerial assault. A massive ground campaign would be required to defeat the Iranian regular military and secure the country - which would be even more difficult due to the presence of the Iranian paramilitary forces, estimated at nearly twelve million, who would doutless form the backbone of the ensuing insurgency quite apart from any interference by neighbouring countries. This operation would require an enormous commitment from the American military, which would quickly become bogged down just like in Iraq (only worse because of the difference in scale between the two countries) and at the end of the day that military would be so severely weakened and overstretched that it would hardly be in any shape to mount an assault against another country, let alone China.


2. Iran is (allegedly) the cause of the post-war problems in Iraq...


The cause of the post-war problems in Iraq is a religious divide that stretches back fourteen centuries. Saddam Hussein kept a lid on the tension between the two sides of the civil war brewing there by ruling through fear, with an iron fist, and keeping things orderly. Donald Rumsfeld, incompetent buffoon that he is, blew the lid off this situation expecting Iraqis of every ethnic and religious stripe to willingly embrace the destruction of their country in the name of their own freedom; he grossly miscalculated. That's all. Iran is doubtless doing all it can to support the Shiite side of the insurgency, and will dramatically vamp up their influence on the situation should the United States withdraw its forces and their corresponding ability to exert their own form of control, but that doesn't mean there would be no insurgency if it wasn't for Iran.

It follows that attacking Iran will not resolve the Iraqi insurgency, it will merely spread it and its attendant chaos and destruction to an immensely wider area and make it exponentially more difficult for American forces to maintain any kind of grip on the situation. Casualties and expenditures will mount until the American military breaks. This is not a winning situation.


3. Once a US military presence is established in Iran (and has to stay in order to quell the insurgency), the US can turn its attention to Taiwan and N.Korea...


And this is the most wild one yet. Once a US military presence is established in Iran (and arguably now that there is such a presence established in Iraq) there cannot be any question of the assumption of prolonged military operations elsewhere - especially against the enormous (and possibly nuclear-equipped) forces of North Korea. The American military has run into insurmountable difficulties in Iraq, which would be dramatically escalated by any kind of action against Iran. And you think it will somehow be in any kind of shape for another war on the Korean peninsula?

This is not a formula for "effectively" surrounding China, it is a formula for the self-destruction of the American armed forces. And even if it wasn't - how is destroying the Chinese economy supposed to advance American interests? Bringing a halt to Chinese trade will destroy an enormous sector of the American economy, and cutting off China's access to resources like oil will have a similar effect. Generating chaos of that nature will harm America, not help it. The neocons are incompetent, and irrational, but they're not that crazy. Nobody is.

Now, if you please:


american forces are exhausted out in iraq. people have been on their third tour out there.


Yes, exactly. The American military has been powerfully strained by its operations in Iraq; its personnel are exhausted and becoming demoralized, its recruitment is down, its political standing is suffering, it is plagued with shortages of equipment, and it is trapped in a reactive, defensive strategy forcing it to expend its resources by barely maintaining a thin veil of control over a violent and chaotic country without any corresponding gains. So can you please tell me why in the world you think it likely that the American military will make this situation exponentially worse by committing itself to a similar situation in Iran?

I do not see the PNAC strategy unfolding exactly as its architects had planned. I see it foundering in a sea of colossal ineptitude, blindsided by the vicious realities of conflict that appeared nowhere in its rose-coloured vision of American pre-eminence. I see it crumbling under the burgeoning weight of its own impracticality. Iraq has stalled this project for good - it has nowhere else to go.

PS - The strength of an all-volunteer army lies in its qualities as a professional force. Conscripting people will invariably yield a force of lesser quality and will actually detract from the efficiency of the American military. A big problem with the American military's approach to Iraq is that it is not being used in the capacity for which it was actually designed. The draft isn't going to help that.

[drizl]

Alright, if I do you guys the courtesy of addressing your points, will you please do me the courtesy of addressing mine?



The United States has air superiority over every other country in the world, regardless of the imposition of sanctions or what have you. But this alone does not guarantee a military victory, particularly against Iran where the nerve centers and key installations of the armed forces are speculated to be widely spread across the country and concealed in subterranean bunkers highly resistant to aerial assault. A massive ground campaign would be required to defeat the Iranian regular military and secure the country - which would be even more difficult due to the presence of the Iranian paramilitary forces, estimated at nearly twelve million, who would doutless form the backbone of the ensuing insurgency quite apart from any interference by neighbouring countries. This operation would require an enormous commitment from the American military, which would quickly become bogged down just like in Iraq (only worse because of the difference in scale between the two countries) and at the end of the day that military would be so severely weakened and overstretched that it would hardly be in any shape to mount an assault against another country, let alone China.



The cause of the post-war problems in Iraq is a religious divide that stretches back fourteen centuries. Saddam Hussein kept a lid on the tension between the two sides of the civil war brewing there by ruling through fear, with an iron fist, and keeping things orderly. Donald Rumsfeld, incompetent buffoon that he is, blew the lid off this situation expecting Iraqis of every ethnic and religious stripe to willingly embrace the destruction of their country in the name of their own freedom; he grossly miscalculated. That's all. Iran is doubtless doing all it can to support the Shiite side of the insurgency, and will dramatically vamp up their influence on the situation should the United States withdraw its forces and their corresponding ability to exert their own form of control, but that doesn't mean there would be no insurgency if it wasn't for Iran.

It follows that attacking Iran will not resolve the Iraqi insurgency, it will merely spread it and its attendant chaos and destruction to an immensely wider area and make it exponentially more difficult for American forces to maintain any kind of grip on the situation. Casualties and expenditures will mount until the American military breaks. This is not a winning situation.



And this is the most wild one yet. Once a US military presence is established in Iran (and arguably now that there is such a presence established in Iraq) there cannot be any question of the assumption of prolonged military operations elsewhere - especially against the enormous (and possibly nuclear-equipped) forces of North Korea. The American military has run into insurmountable difficulties in Iraq, which would be dramatically escalated by any kind of action against Iran. And you think it will somehow be in any kind of shape for another war on the Korean peninsula?

This is not a formula for "effectively" surrounding China, it is a formula for the self-destruction of the American armed forces. And even if it wasn't - how is destroying the Chinese economy supposed to advance American interests? Bringing a halt to Chinese trade will destroy an enormous sector of the American economy, and cutting off China's access to resources like oil will have a similar effect. Generating chaos of that nature will harm America, not help it. The neocons are incompetent, and irrational, but they're not that crazy. Nobody is.

Now, if you please:



Yes, exactly. The American military has been powerfully strained by its operations in Iraq; its personnel are exhausted and becoming demoralized, its recruitment is down, its political standing is suffering, it is plagued with shortages of equipment, and it is trapped in a reactive, defensive strategy forcing it to expend its resources by barely maintaining a thin veil of control over a violent and chaotic country without any corresponding gains. So can you please tell me why in the world you think it likely that the American military will make this situation exponentially worse by committing itself to a similar situation in Iran?

I do not see the PNAC strategy unfolding exactly as its architects had planned. I see it foundering in a sea of colossal ineptitude, blindsided by the vicious realities of conflict that appeared nowhere in its rose-coloured vision of American pre-eminence. I see it crumbling under the burgeoning weight of its own impracticality. Iraq has stalled this project for good - it has nowhere else to go.

PS - The strength of an all-volunteer army lies in its qualities as a professional force. Conscripting people will invariably yield a force of lesser quality and will actually detract from the efficiency of the American military. A big problem with the American military's approach to Iraq is that it is not being used in the capacity for which it was actually designed. The draft isn't going to help that.


first off, im not going to argue with you about military strategy in iran. im not a military strategist, or a military commander, and neither are you. you have no idea about how many underground bases there are, or what type of bases there are.
secondly, rumsfeld did not expect iraqis to rejoice american occupiers. you obviously are totally unfamiliar with PNAC. it was not a miscalculation, it was no lack of forsight that has led to the civil war in iraq. they knew it would happen, and they are taking advantage of it. they care not about the american people, the soldiers, or the iraqi people, only about their agenda, and they are willing to do anything to accomplish it.
there is no winning situation, only the further accomplishing of more permanent military bases in the region to deal with the situation as it becomes worse. these permanent bases are ultimately aimed at keeping china at bay, and ali brings up a very good point- if we blow up iran and take control of their oil reserves, which are going to china right now, how will china react? the fastest growing country in the world, the next superpower, will not be happy with that, and you can be certain they are not happy with the us trying to provoke iran. so therefore, china is involved.


what difficulties are americans dealing with in iraq? they are not winning, because there is no winning. so there is no difficulty. remember the goal is not to win, only to convince the american public that there is something to be won, and to set up permanent military bases, that is the winning.

i think it is extrememly likely that our president will try to go to war with iran in any way possible, be it provokation, be it false flag terrorism, be it whatever. anything to fuck up the region even more, have more of an excuse to be their longer, to set up more, and bigger permanent military bases.

iraq has stalled no part of this project. we are building our permanent bases as we speak, many have already been built in the area- bases that are like entire cities, totally enclosed and protected with extrememly high areas of security. it is all about sacrificing our troops for their "greater" cause. and confusing the american people into rallying behind the cause, that is why 9-11 had to happen, it was the only thing that could keep the american public committed to the "war on terror".


and to your postscript. the strength of the american military lies in its weapons. we destroyed iraq by blowing it to kingdom come with cruise missiles. and we have plenty more for iran.

[Schmeltz]

im not a military strategist, or a military commander, and neither are you.


Certainly I am not. So if the patent absurdities inherent in this scenario are so clear to me, doubtless they are even more glaringly obvious to the career directors of the forces concerned with the actual situation.


it was no lack of forsight that has led to the civil war in iraq. they knew it would happen, and they are taking advantage of it.


But I keep pointing out that the situation in Iraq has put the American military at a severe disadvantage. How does situating a modern army in the middle of a raging war zone confer an advantage on its ability to operate? How does tying down significant portions of its firepower and resources into maintaining security and order enhance its advantageous position? How would the immense stresses and pressures on these forces be alleviated by exponentially widening the war zone and superimposing the same intransigently problematic situation over a territory even more difficult to control?

I simply do not understand how you interpret this situation as some kind of brilliant coup in the execution of a perfectly planned ploy to advance American influence in the world. Iraq is a disaster that has brought the United States no more advantage in its global position and has actually conferred direct and dramatic disadvantages on the country and its government in more than one area. I find your interpretation of this conflict skewed and irrealistic.

PS - Iraq still required an intensive ground campaign. Also "shock and awe" missile campaigns would be far less effective in Iran, even if only because the area of the country is so much greater than that of Iraq - a factor which would also make the required ground campaign even larger, longer, and more difficult than the Iraqi one. You might also think about Iran's own proven missile capabilities, to say nothing about what might be unknown about them.

[drizl]

in know way do i find it brilliant. they are struggling, but they simply dont give a fuck.

[Schmeltz]

But that just doesn't make any sense.

[D_Raay]

The very last act of powerful men will be rational thought.

I don't pretend to have all the answers here, all I see is the the desperate words and policies of men not wanting to concede they have lost.

[yeahwho]

This is a great read you guys, an excellent debate. One point that is being made that i do have to concur on is this current administration really has proven to not give a wits end to how the planet earth percieves the United States.

Diplomacy and peaceful solutions went out the window when we went to war with Iraq. Everything is intertwined or labeled "Terror", which gives this administration more power to achieve their agenda and rendering citizens less freedom and say in the process.

During our lifetime we are letting this happen, aiding and abetting the process.

death count update (http://www.icasualties.org/oif/BY_DOD.aspx)

[Ali]

Alright, if I do you guys the courtesy of addressing your points, will you please do me the courtesy of addressing mine?

Respek, but I'm supposed to be working... so I can't address all your points in full, but I'll try.

The United States has air superiority over every other country in the world, regardless of the imposition of sanctions or what have you. But this alone does not guarantee a military victory, particularly against Iran where the nerve centers and key installations of the armed forces are speculated to be widely spread across the country and concealed in subterranean bunkers highly resistant to aerial assault. A massive ground campaign would be required to defeat the Iranian regular military and secure the country - which would be even more difficult due to the presence of the Iranian paramilitary forces, estimated at nearly twelve million, who would doutless form the backbone of the ensuing insurgency quite apart from any interference by neighbouring countries. This operation would require an enormous commitment from the American military, which would quickly become bogged down just like in Iraq (only worse because of the difference in scale between the two countries) and at the end of the day that military would be so severely weakened and overstretched that it would hardly be in any shape to mount an assault against another country, let alone China.

Iran have no air power to speak of, thanks to sanctions. Air superiority is what wins battles. The US and Israel have more than enough airbore firepower to decimate the Iranian Armed forces. They'll level the place, if they have to, regardless of civilian casualties. Did you see what happened in Lebanon? That was a warning to Iran and both the US and Israel have implied that they'll use nukes and will justify their use with the alleged Iranian Nuclear weapons program.

The cause of the post-war problems in Iraq is a religious divide that stretches back fourteen centuries. Saddam Hussein kept a lid on the tension between the two sides of the civil war brewing there by ruling through fear, with an iron fist, and keeping things orderly. Donald Rumsfeld, incompetent buffoon that he is, blew the lid off this situation expecting Iraqis of every ethnic and religious stripe to willingly embrace the destruction of their country in the name of their own freedom; he grossly miscalculated. That's all. Iran is doubtless doing all it can to support the Shiite side of the insurgency, and will dramatically vamp up their influence on the situation should the United States withdraw its forces and their corresponding ability to exert their own form of control, but that doesn't mean there would be no insurgency if it wasn't for Iran. Bush and Cheney keep saying it's Iran causing all the shit in Iraq. Rumsfeld knew damn well what would happen when he chopped off the head... looting, massive retaliation by the Shias on the Sunnis, counter attacks by Sunnis, Iranian support of Shia interests. He was involved in the Iran/Iraq conflict during the Reagan era, ferchrissakes, do not underestimate what he knows. Or knew. Or unknew the known unknowns. You know?

It follows that attacking Iran will not resolve the Iraqi insurgency, it will merely spread it and its attendant chaos and destruction to an immensely wider area and make it exponentially more difficult for American forces to maintain any kind of grip on the situation. Casualties and expenditures will mount until the American military breaks. This is not a winning situation. seems to me that if the insurgency ends, coalition forces will have to leave and US military bases in the middle east would no longer be necessary. That is not the object of this campaign.

And this is the most wild one yet. Once a US military presence is established in Iran (and arguably now that there is such a presence established in Iraq) there cannot be any question of the assumption of prolonged military operations elsewhere - especially against the enormous (and possibly nuclear-equipped) forces of North Korea. The American military has run into insurmountable difficulties in Iraq, which would be dramatically escalated by any kind of action against Iran. And you think it will somehow be in any kind of shape for another war on the Korean peninsula? not in the long term. Perhaps the aim is not to invade and occupy China, but to control oil reserves and sea ports. The US could not invade China, but they could inflict heavy damage on its economy, using the people of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Taiwan, N.Korea and Japan as 'human shields' and shooting down any missiles which China does manage to launch.

This is not a formula for "effectively" surrounding China, it is a formula for the self-destruction of the American armed forces. And even if it wasn't - how is destroying the Chinese economy supposed to advance American interests? Bringing a halt to Chinese trade will destroy an enormous sector of the American economy, and cutting off China's access to resources like oil will have a similar effect. Generating chaos of that nature will harm America, not help it. The neocons are incompetent, and irrational, but they're not that crazy. Nobody is. not destroy, control.

So can you please tell me why in the world you think it likely that the American military will make this situation exponentially worse by committing itself to a similar situation in Iran? Bush is about to send another 20,000 young men and women to Iraq, which will make this situation exponentially worse. Why is he sending more? Why can nobody stop him?

I do not see the PNAC strategy unfolding exactly as its architects had planned. I see it foundering in a sea of colossal ineptitude, blindsided by the vicious realities of conflict that appeared nowhere in its rose-coloured vision of American pre-eminence. I see it crumbling under the burgeoning weight of its own impracticality. Iraq has stalled this project for good - it has nowhere else to go.You see what they want you to see.

PS - The strength of an all-volunteer army lies in its qualities as a professional force. Conscripting people will invariably yield a force of lesser quality and will actually detract from the efficiency of the American military. A big problem with the American military's approach to Iraq is that it is not being used in the capacity for which it was actually designed. The draft isn't going to help that.
Agreed. My school mates who were conscripted into the South African army in the 80's were soundly thrashed by SWAPO in Angola, FRELIMO in Mozambique and the ANC in South Africa.

But you don't need the draft, when you have cruise missiles and proxy soldiers, do you?

Dude, I'd love to agree with you, but I see a much darker reality than the one you're being fed by the US media. I think that this 'quagmire' is an excuse to stay in the region and build up an even greater military presence there. Bush is taking the rap right now and will be kicked out in 2008, but whoever comes in then will be forced to do something when the next 9/11 goes down and is blamed on Iran.

[Schmeltz]

Air superiority is what wins battles.


I'm not sure where you got that notion, but all you have to do is look at every war fought since the inception of aircraft to realize that air power is only supplementary to the ground campaigns that actually win battles. Even the effect of the colossal bombing campaigns against the Nazis is hotly debated today, while the massive air superiority enjoyed by the United States in Vietnam certainly didn't win that war. Israel and the United States have unchallenged air superiority in the region, but that doesn't mean they will be effectively able to destroy the regular Iranian forces with it, to say nothing of the millions of paramilitary troops in the country.


Did you see what happened in Lebanon?


What happened in Lebanon just cost the Israeli chief of defense his job. Israel bombed the shit out the civilian infrastructure and couldn't dislodge Hezbollah, or stop them from firing rockets into its territory, or get back their kidnapped soldiers. Not a very healthy warning, if you look at the actual results.


Rumsfeld knew damn well what would happen when he chopped off the head


So he deliberately took a path that would weaken his army and its ability to perform? You continue to skip around this issue but I'm going to keep bringing it up: if these men knew they were going to have to use their military for a years-long task that would exert strenuous demands on its capabilities, why would they knowingly employ tactics and strategies designed to make that task and the exercise of those capabilities immensely more difficult than it needed to be?


That is not the object of this campaign.


Yes, seemingly the object of this campaign is for the American military to deliberately ruin itself for the sake of no real gains whatsoever. I wonder which classes at West Point teach you how to do that.


The US could not invade China, but they could inflict heavy damage on its economy


Again, this would run completely counter to American interests. Are the neocons hell-bent on not only ruining their own armies, but on their own economies as well?


Bush is about to send another 20,000 young men and women to Iraq, which will make this situation exponentially worse.


That's roughly a 13% increase in the troop levels already there, which will be rendered even less significant by the departure of most of the "coalition of the willing" - including Britain's 8000 or so soldiers - by the end of the year. I don't think this will make the situation exponentially worse. On the other hand, simply throwing more soldiers into the same wood-chipper of a strategy isn't going to make things any better - but you can't explain anything to these bumbling, ignorant, arrogant, incompetent fools.


You see what they want you to see.


Yes, clearly I am incapable of thinking on my own and rationally assessing the situation; I have obviously been hoodwinked by the clever neocon ploy to take over the world, with its devilishly foolproof front of incompetence and negligent buffoonery that only conspiracy theorists on the internet are capable of discerning. Oh, woe is me.


I see a much darker reality than the one you're being fed by the US media.


I'll thank you to take that back; I don't view any US media (apart from Yahoo News) and I temper my perspective through researching a variety of sources. I also wonder what you see about my perspective that's so bright and cheery - to me things seem very bleak and dark indeed.


I think that this 'quagmire' is an excuse to stay in the region and build up an even greater military presence there.


And I continue, and will continue, to insist that this course of action will result in nothing more than the overexertion and straining of the American military until it is no good for anything but keeping Mexicans out of the Arizona desert. The top brass in the forces involved know this. They know about their declining recruitment, they know about the deleterious effects of shutting down bases at home, they know about the wearying public perception of the war, they know about the troops' declining morale and cumulative exhaustion, they know about the costs of diverting too many resources into a static theater at the expense of their tasks in America (as Katrina showed). The neocons made a huge mistake in Iraq, they sold America up the river and now they're stuck there without a paddle, to mix metaphors. They're in damage control mode, and they can't even pull that off without looking like the most incompetent pack of idiots ever to mislead a country. How you think this ship of fools is able to pull off a caper as colossal as the one you describe is beyond me.

[sam i am]

And I continue, and will continue, to insist that this course of action will result in nothing more than the overexertion and straining of the American military until it is no good for anything but keeping Mexicans out of the Arizona desert.

This is the funniest line yet. We (the US) can't keep illegal immigrants out of the Arizona (or California or New Mexico or Texas) deserts despite all our years of "trying."

What makes you think the Liberals (or Democrats) in the US will ever allow the US to truly control it's own borders, let alone the borders of Iraq?

[Schmeltz]

http://www.susieperring.com/pic/Spot_the_Red_Herring.jpg

[DroppinScience]

Air superiority is what wins battles.I'm not sure where you got that notion...

Victory Through Air Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Through_Air_Power), anyone?

[sam i am]

http://www.susieperring.com/pic/Spot_the_Red_Herring.jpg

Wow.

Great post.

Among your top 10, certainly.

Keep up the good work!

[Ali]

And I continue, and will continue, to insist that this course of action will result in nothing more than the overexertion and straining of the American military until it is no good for anything but keeping Mexicans out of the Arizona desert. The top brass in the forces involved know this. They know about their declining recruitment, they know about the deleterious effects of shutting down bases at home, they know about the wearying public perception of the war, they know about the troops' declining morale and cumulative exhaustion, they know about the costs of diverting too many resources into a static theater at the expense of their tasks in America (as Katrina showed). The neocons made a huge mistake in Iraq, they sold America up the river and now they're stuck there without a paddle, to mix metaphors. They're in damage control mode, and they can't even pull that off without looking like the most incompetent pack of idiots ever to mislead a country. How you think this ship of fools is able to pull off a caper as colossal as the one you describe is beyond me.So why are they continuing to goad Iran? You don't pick a fight with somebody unless you know you are going to win (unless you are drunk, in which case you don't feel pain, but that's an aside).

[Schmeltz]

Saber-rattling.

[sam i am]

Saber-rattling.

The true answer.

As Schmeltz correctly points out (and I pointed out on previous threads), the US wants no part of a ground war in Iran. Even an air war would be far more costly than any campaign since Korea, what with the Iranians having MIGs and some French aircraft, along with a decently trained air force pilot cadre.

IF Iran feels threatened, the line of reasoning goes, they'd be much less likely to make OVERT moves on Iraq or to sustain Hezbollah. Instead, they will continue to COVERTLY do the same, but at least it's not out in the open.

BTW, as an aside, what do y'all think of the signing-on of the majority of Sunni countries to the US surge to help sustain the Mailki Shiite government in Iraq?

[drizl]

bushes surge has already began. 3200 more troops arrived in iraq yesterday.

[Schmeltz]

Iran said Monday it has barred 38 members of a U.N. nuclear inspection team from entering the country, in what appeared to be retaliation for sanctions imposed last month over its contentious atomic program.


Rattle rattle rattle (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear)

[drizl]

i hate ap news, its never good.

grrreeeeeaaaaaaaaaaattttt (in the sarcastic, not the toni the tiger sense of the word.)

[D_Raay]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm

We are just getting more popular by the day...

[drizl]

rattle rattle thunder clatter boom boom boom

[Ali]

There was plenty of Sabre-Rattling before Iraq...

I really, really hope you guys are right and I'm wrong.

I hope that Iraq settles down and the US and UK withdraw completely and utterly from the Middle East and that Israel withdraws to the '67 borders and Al Queda quit bombing and killing.

But I believe that the people who planned the invasion of Iraq wish to maintain their influence in the region and so are continuing to stir up trouble in order to have a reason to stay.

Until those people are removed from power, the situation will stay the same.

[Schmeltz]

The head of the National Guard said Wednesday his troops lack the necessary equipment and that will hurt their ability to respond to natural or manmade disasters at home.

"I am not as comfortable as some others seem to be in accepting the low readiness levels here at home," Lt. Gen. Steven Blum said. "It creates a problem. It will cost us time and time will translate into lives."

...

Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, and Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, told the House Armed Services Committee that the buildup is putting more pressure on the military, and that the response to a crisis elsewhere probably would be slower and more risky.


Top brass on Bush's Iraq proposal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_homeland)

[EN[i]GMA]

rattle rattle thunder clatter boom boom boom

This is, by far, the best post you've ever made.

I mean this seriously, without a hint of humor.

[sam i am]

I hope that Israel withdraws to the '67 borders.

Why those borders and not where the border is currently being drawn now (with the "Wall")?

[Ali]

Why those borders and not where the border is currently being drawn now (with the "Wall")?
Because neighbouring states will not ever give up until Israel does this.

Right or wrong, Israel needs to retreat. I know they took the land after being attacked and have the right to keep it - but the cost of keeping this land is too much. There are too many lives being lost or ruined for principle.

[sam i am]

Because neighbouring states will not ever give up until Israel does this.

Right or wrong, Israel needs to retreat. I know they took the land after being attacked and have the right to keep it - but the cost of keeping this land is too much. There are too many lives being lost or ruined for principle.

I appreciate, more than you know, your thoughtful reply to the question.

You acknowledged that the Israelis acquired the land through right of conquest (after being attacked multiple times, BTW), then acknowledged their right to keep it, again by dint of arms, then made a cogent and coherent argument for the cost being greater than the benefit, in your opinion.

No rambling, no condescension, no stridency nor bloviating to attempt to impress others.

Thank you.



I still think you're wrong, but my opinion is based on the security of the Israelis as they've been, demonstrably, attacked over and over again throughout their (state's) history.

BTW, check this out :http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070129/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_arab_minister

Could that ever happen in a Muslim state? A Jew elected to office in the government? Ahmadinejad would commit suicide before he'd let that happen...:)

[freetibet]

Jeeez, even I have to admit the loss of precious American lives is a sad thing in that war :(

[freetibet]

BTW, check this out :http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070129/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_arab_minister

Could that ever happen in a Muslim state? A Jew elected to office in the government? Ahmadinejad would commit suicide before he'd let that happen...:)

Wow, that's a reasonable move. Such gestures can only do good.

Tollerance is still our civilisation's attribute. ;)

[sam i am]

Wow, that's a reasonable move. Such gestures can only do good.

Tollerance is still our civilisation's attribute. ;)

By "our civilization," are you referring to the West?

Cuz the Middle East "civilization" would certainly never allow that kind of "gesture."

The only gesture Jews get in most of the Middle East is the index finger across the throat gesture.

[Schmeltz]

Now now - don't forget the arms-extended-outward "Please don't bulldoze my home" gesture, or the arms-above-the-head "Please don't fire missiles from your helicopter gunship at me" gesture.

[sam i am]

Now now - don't forget the arms-extended-outward "Please don't bulldoze my home" gesture, or the arms-above-the-head "Please don't fire missiles from your helicopter gunship at me" gesture.

Now now....

How about the please-don't-behead-me-and-broadcast-it-to-the-world gesture (Daniel Pearl, etc.) or the "Please don't deny the Holocaust" gesture or the "Please don't invade me one more time after trying and failing 5 separate times in the past half century" gesture?

[Schmeltz]

Why would any of those gestures be directed at Israelis?

Or are you just making some trite, overwrought point that nobody but yourself cares to hear repeated?

[freetibet]

Now now - don't forget the arms-extended-outward "Please don't bulldoze my home" gesture, or the arms-above-the-head "Please don't fire missiles from your helicopter gunship at me" gesture.

owned




You should add "while-hiding-a-bomb-in-his/her-pants"

[freetibet]

By "our civilization," are you referring to the West?

Cuz the Middle East "civilization" would certainly never allow that kind of "gesture."

The only gesture Jews get in most of the Middle East is the index finger across the throat gesture.

The almighty West.

That's no news to me. Yet many Western people still try to be tollerant. Good for them!

All-those-gesture-suggestions are so funny :o

[Schmeltz]

Yet many Western people still try to be tollerant.


Well, nobody would ever accuse a bigot like you of that, so don't worry.

[freetibet]

I'm no bigot, I love muslims. They just bomb my love away. get it? BOMB.

No seriously, whatever my opinions are - I don't want to bomb a mosque or sth. The first thing to do is calm down. And that's what all Middle-Easterners are incapable of;]

[saz]

stating that all people from the middle east are incapable of being calm or rational, is just like saying all christians are incapable of being calm and rational as well. because hey, there are christians out there who like to bomb abortion clinics, kill doctors, harrass and physically assault homosexuals, and of course bomb government buildings in oklahoma city.

'ignorance is bliss' definitely works for some people, however i don't base my views of an entire race or religious sect on the actions of extremists.

[freetibet]

stating that all people from the middle east are incapable of being calm or rational, is just like saying all christians are incapable of being calm and rational as well. because hey, there are christians out there who like to bomb abortion clinics, kill doctors, harrass and physically assault homosexuals, and of course bomb government buildings in oklahoma city.

'ignorance is bliss' definitely works for some people, however i don't base my views of an entire race or religious sect on the actions of extremists.

That's funny, 'cause I added "all" in order to put also the Israelis under the term Middle-Easterners and not to turn out to see only the not-calm muslims. I must agree that christians can be bitches too. That's why we Roman Catholics don't like them ;)

Yeah yeah, I base my views on the actions of extremists. And on the fact 99% do nothing to stop them.

[Bob]

arg

[sam i am]

Why would any of those gestures be directed at Israelis?

Or are you just making some trite, overwrought point that nobody but yourself cares to hear repeated?

Actually, I was just mocking your incoherent rhetorical retort to my original posting...about the only fun left to have with you as you've become completely serious all the time now....