Let's 'Surge' Some More

Wanna talk about politics, your favorite hockey team... vegetarian recipes?
JansenFan
and Jackson
and Jackson
Posts: 8387
youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:37 am
Location: Charles Town, WV
Contact:

Let's 'Surge' Some More

Post by JansenFan »

Michael Yon, in the Wall Street Journal wrote:Let's 'Surge' Some More
By MICHAEL YON
April 11, 2008


It is said that generals always fight the last war. But when David Petraeus came to town it was senators – on both sides of the aisle – who battled over the Iraq war of 2004-2006. That war has little in common with the war we are fighting today.

I may well have spent more time embedded with combat units in Iraq than any other journalist alive. I have seen this war – and our part in it – at its brutal worst. And I say the transformation over the last 14 months is little short of miraculous.

The change goes far beyond the statistical decline in casualties or incidents of violence. A young Iraqi translator, wounded in battle and fearing death, asked an American commander to bury his heart in America. Iraqi special forces units took to the streets to track down terrorists who killed American soldiers. The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq, and many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about "GoArmy.com."

As the outrages of Abu Ghraib faded in memory – and paled in comparison to al Qaeda's brutalities – and our soldiers under the Petraeus strategy got off their big bases and out of their tanks and deeper into the neighborhoods, American values began to win the war.

Iraqis came to respect American soldiers as warriors who would protect them from terror gangs. But Iraqis also discovered that these great warriors are even happier helping rebuild a clinic, school or a neighborhood. They learned that the American soldier is not only the most dangerous enemy in the world, but one of the best friends a neighborhood can have.

Some people charge that we have merely "rented" the Sunni tribesmen, the former insurgents who now fight by our side. This implies that because we pay these people, their loyalty must be for sale to the highest bidder. But as Gen. Petraeus demonstrated in Nineveh province in 2003 to 2004, many of the Iraqis who filled the ranks of the Sunni insurgency from 2003 into 2007 could have been working with us all along, had we treated them intelligently and respectfully. In Nineveh in 2003, under then Maj. Gen. Petraeus's leadership, these men – many of them veterans of the Iraqi army – played a crucial role in restoring civil order. Yet due to excessive de-Baathification and the administration's attempt to marginalize powerful tribal sheiks in Anbar and other provinces – including men even Saddam dared not ignore – we transformed potential partners into dreaded enemies in less than a year.

Then al Qaeda in Iraq, which helped fund and tried to control the Sunni insurgency for its own ends, raped too many women and boys, cut off too many heads, and brought drugs into too many neighborhoods. By outraging the tribes, it gave birth to the Sunni "awakening." We – and Iraq – got a second chance. Powerful tribes in Anbar province cooperate with us now because they came to see al Qaeda for what it is – and to see Americans for what we truly are.

Soldiers everywhere are paid, and good generals know it is dangerous to mess with a soldier's money. The shoeless heroes who froze at Valley Forge were paid, and when their pay did not come they threatened to leave – and some did. Soldiers have families and will not fight for a nation that allows their families to starve. But to say that the tribes who fight with us are "rented" is perhaps as vile a slander as to say that George Washington's men would have left him if the British offered a better deal.

Equally misguided were some senators' attempts to use Gen. Petraeus's statement, that there could be no purely military solution in Iraq, to dismiss our soldiers' achievements as "merely" military. In a successful counterinsurgency it is impossible to separate military and political success. The Sunni "awakening" was not primarily a military event any more than it was "bribery." It was a political event with enormous military benefits.

The huge drop in roadside bombings is also a political success – because the bombings were political events. It is not possible to bury a tank-busting 1,500-pound bomb in a neighborhood street without the neighbors noticing. Since the military cannot watch every road during every hour of the day (that would be a purely military solution), whether the bomb kills soldiers depends on whether the neighbors warn the soldiers or cover for the terrorists. Once they mostly stood silent; today they tend to pick up their cell phones and call the Americans. Even in big "kinetic" military operations like the taking of Baqubah in June 2007, politics was crucial. Casualties were a fraction of what we expected because, block-by-block, the citizens told our guys where to find the bad guys. I was there; I saw it.

The Iraqi central government is unsatisfactory at best. But the grass-roots political progress of the past year has been extraordinary – and is directly measurable in the drop in casualties.

This leads us to the most out-of-date aspect of the Senate debate: the argument about the pace of troop withdrawals. Precisely because we have made so much political progress in the past year, rather than talking about force reduction, Congress should be figuring ways and means to increase troop levels. For all our successes, we still do not have enough troops. This makes the fight longer and more lethal for the troops who are fighting. To give one example, I just returned this week from Nineveh province, where I have spent probably eight months between 2005 to 2008, and it is clear that we remain stretched very thin from the Syrian border and through Mosul. Vast swaths of Nineveh are patrolled mostly by occasional overflights.

We know now that we can pull off a successful counterinsurgency in Iraq. We know that we are working with an increasingly willing citizenry. But counterinsurgency, like community policing, requires lots of boots on the ground. You can't do it from inside a jet or a tank.

Over the past 15 months, we have proved that we can win this war. We stand now at the moment of truth. Victory – and a democracy in the Arab world – is within our grasp. But it could yet slip away if our leaders remain transfixed by the war we almost lost, rather than focusing on the war we are winning today.

Mr. Yon is author of the just-published "Moment of Truth in Iraq" (Richard Vigilante Books). He has been reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan since December 2004.


This is the only place I go for news on the War in Iraq. Yon is not politically charged. He calls out whomever needs to be called out. He talks about the good, the bad and the ugly, regardless of who looks good or bad.
RIP 21

"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru
Countertrey
the 'mudge
the 'mudge
Posts: 16632
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Post by Countertrey »

Michael Yon is one of the heroes of Iraq. Soldiers rarely have much respect for today's journalists, but they love this man, in much the same way that Marines of WW2 loved Ernie Pyle.

The vast majority of the overpaid network bloviators do their "on the scene" reporting from within the Green Zone, as if that is "close enough". Michael Yon, however, lives the reality, and tells the stories as they truly are, without the agenda-laced spin of the NBC's and Fox News Channels of the world.

He gets it.
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
skinz74
aka Sarcastic Hog
aka Sarcastic Hog
Posts: 1085
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 10:47 am
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Post by skinz74 »

In one of his entries, he cited picking up a weapon to save the lives of our fellow soldiers...something he was later "scolded" for. Bottom line, I trust no other insight than his.
<~~~~~Runs with scissors X
(_E=mc2_)

“This is where I'm most comfortable, ... This is my life, where I work. I'm definitely glad to be back.” #21
Bob 0119
The Punisher
The Punisher
Posts: 2592
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:34 pm
Location: Manassas

Post by Bob 0119 »

Finally, a journalist who isn't trying to make this into the next "Vietnam".
Countertrey
the 'mudge
the 'mudge
Posts: 16632
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Post by Countertrey »

Bob 0119 wrote:Finally, a journalist who isn't trying to make this into the next "Vietnam".


Finally? Dude, he has been there pretty much from the beginning. Your point is outstanding, though.
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
JansenFan
and Jackson
and Jackson
Posts: 8387
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:37 am
Location: Charles Town, WV
Contact:

Post by JansenFan »

skinz74 wrote:In one of his entries, he cited picking up a weapon to save the lives of our fellow soldiers...something he was later "scolded" for. Bottom line, I trust no other insight than his.


This was one of my favorite dispatches.
RIP 21

"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru
crazyhorse1
ch1
ch1
Posts: 3634
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: virginia beach

Re: Let's 'Surge' Some More

Post by crazyhorse1 »

JansenFan wrote:
Michael Yon, in the Wall Street Journal wrote:Let's 'Surge' Some More
By MICHAEL YON
April 11, 2008


It is said that generals always fight the last war. But when David Petraeus came to town it was senators – on both sides of the aisle – who battled over the Iraq war of 2004-2006. That war has little in common with the war we are fighting today.

I may well have spent more time embedded with combat units in Iraq than any other journalist alive. I have seen this war – and our part in it – at its brutal worst. And I say the transformation over the last 14 months is little short of miraculous.

The change goes far beyond the statistical decline in casualties or incidents of violence. A young Iraqi translator, wounded in battle and fearing death, asked an American commander to bury his heart in America. Iraqi special forces units took to the streets to track down terrorists who killed American soldiers. The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq, and many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about "GoArmy.com."
As the outrages of Abu Ghraib faded in memory – and paled in comparison to al Qaeda's brutalities
– and our soldiers under the Petraeus strategy got off their big bases and out of their tanks and deeper into the neighborhoods, American values began to win the war.

Iraqis came to respect American soldiers as warriors who would protect them from terror gangs. But Iraqis also discovered that these great warriors are even happier helping rebuild a clinic, school or a neighborhood. They learned that the American soldier is not only the most dangerous enemy in the world, but one of the best friends a neighborhood can have.

Some people charge that we have merely "rented" the Sunni tribesmen, the former insurgents who now fight by our side. This implies that because we pay these people, their loyalty must be for sale to the highest bidder. But as Gen. Petraeus demonstrated in Nineveh province in 2003 to 2004, many of the Iraqis who filled the ranks of the Sunni insurgency from 2003 into 2007 could have been working with us all along, had we treated them intelligently and respectfully. In Nineveh in 2003, under then Maj. Gen. Petraeus's leadership, these men – many of them veterans of the Iraqi army – played a crucial role in restoring civil order. Yet due to excessive de-Baathification and the administration's attempt to marginalize powerful tribal sheiks in Anbar and other provinces – including men even Saddam dared not ignore – we transformed potential partners into dreaded enemies in less than a year.

Then al Qaeda in Iraq, which helped fund and tried to control the Sunni insurgency for its own ends, raped too many women and boys, cut off too many heads, and brought drugs into too many neighborhoods. By outraging the tribes, it gave birth to the Sunni "awakening." We – and Iraq – got a second chance. Powerful tribes in Anbar province cooperate with us now because they came to see al Qaeda for what it is – and to see Americans for what we truly are.

Soldiers everywhere are paid, and good generals know it is dangerous to mess with a soldier's money. The shoeless heroes who froze at Valley Forge were paid, and when their pay did not come they threatened to leave – and some did. Soldiers have families and will not fight for a nation that allows their families to starve. But to say that the tribes who fight with us are "rented" is perhaps as vile a slander as to say that George Washington's men would have left him if the British offered a better deal.

Equally misguided were some senators' attempts to use Gen. Petraeus's statement, that there could be no purely military solution in Iraq, to dismiss our soldiers' achievements as "merely" military. In a successful counterinsurgency it is impossible to separate military and political success. The Sunni "awakening" was not primarily a military event any more than it was "bribery." It was a political event with enormous military benefits.

The huge drop in roadside bombings is also a political success – because the bombings were political events. It is not possible to bury a tank-busting 1,500-pound bomb in a neighborhood street without the neighbors noticing. Since the military cannot watch every road during every hour of the day (that would be a purely military solution), whether the bomb kills soldiers depends on whether the neighbors warn the soldiers or cover for the terrorists. Once they mostly stood silent; today they tend to pick up their cell phones and call the Americans. Even in big "kinetic" military operations like the taking of Baqubah in June 2007, politics was crucial. Casualties were a fraction of what we expected because, block-by-block, the citizens told our guys where to find the bad guys. I was there; I saw it.

The Iraqi central government is unsatisfactory at best. But the grass-roots political progress of the past year has been extraordinary – and is directly measurable in the drop in casualties.

This leads us to the most out-of-date aspect of the Senate debate: the argument about the pace of troop withdrawals. Precisely because we have made so much political progress in the past year, rather than talking about force reduction, Congress should be figuring ways and means to increase troop levels. For all our successes, we still do not have enough troops. This makes the fight longer and more lethal for the troops who are fighting. To give one example, I just returned this week from Nineveh province, where I have spent probably eight months between 2005 to 2008, and it is clear that we remain stretched very thin from the Syrian border and through Mosul. Vast swaths of Nineveh are patrolled mostly by occasional overflights.

We know now that we can pull off a successful counterinsurgency in Iraq. We know that we are working with an increasingly willing citizenry. But counterinsurgency, like community policing, requires lots of boots on the ground. You can't do it from inside a jet or a tank.

Over the past 15 months, we have proved that we can win this war. We stand now at the moment of truth. Victory – and a democracy in the Arab world – is within our grasp. But it could yet slip away if our leaders remain transfixed by the war we almost lost, rather than focusing on the war we are winning today.

Mr. Yon is author of the just-published "Moment of Truth in Iraq" (Richard Vigilante Books). He has been reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan since December 2004.


This is the only place I go for news on the War in Iraq. Yon is not politically charged. He calls out whomever needs to be called out. He talks about the good, the bad and the ugly, regardless of who looks good or bad.


Yon is a total moron and The Wall Street Journal shills for Bush and Corporate America. Half of what he has to say about Iraq is idiotic, the other is a lie. The following is one of the best examples of idiocy combined with lying that I've ever encounted. Also, there a bit of flagrant misdirection that should be obvious to a child.

"As the outrages of Abu Ghraib faded in memory – and paled in comparison to al Qaeda's brutalities
– and our soldiers under the Petraeus strategy got off their big bases and out of their tanks and deeper into the neighborhoods, American values began to win the war."

Notice that the first part of atrocious bit of journalism attempts to create the impression that the victims of Abu Ghraib were and are members of al Qaeda. Almost all of the tortured people of Abu are and were innocent Iraqis. If Mr. Yon were in the least honest, he would have told us the percent of al Qaeda at Abu Ghraib and how many of them had tortured or executed anyone. Most Abu Ghraib victims were not only non-al Qaeda but also never tried for crimes or even accused.

American torture at Abu Ghraib will dog the name of America for hundreds of years.
crazyhorse1
ch1
ch1
Posts: 3634
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: virginia beach

Post by crazyhorse1 »

JansenFan wrote:
skinz74 wrote:In one of his entries, he cited picking up a weapon to save the lives of our fellow soldiers...something he was later "scolded" for. Bottom line, I trust no other insight than his.


This was one of my favorite dispatches.


I forget to mention that American values suck... thanks in great part to the Bush criminals and their minions who use the books of law and copies of the Constitution for toilet paper, as well as put the riches of the few above the teachings of Jesus.
JansenFan
and Jackson
and Jackson
Posts: 8387
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:37 am
Location: Charles Town, WV
Contact:

Post by JansenFan »

He doesn't say the things at Abu Ghraib were done to members of al Qaeda. You just make that connection to fit your argument, as you usually do.
RIP 21

"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru
GSPODS
Hog
Posts: 4716
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:20 am

Post by GSPODS »

This looks like a good place for the "Leftist Liberal Commie Pinko" remark.

Not everything reported has a political slant behind it, although certain members would lead us to believe otherwise.
Cappster
cappster
cappster
Posts: 3014
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:25 am
Location: Humanist, at your service.

Post by Cappster »

crazyhorse1 wrote:
JansenFan wrote:
skinz74 wrote:In one of his entries, he cited picking up a weapon to save the lives of our fellow soldiers...something he was later "scolded" for. Bottom line, I trust no other insight than his.


This was one of my favorite dispatches.


I forget to mention that American values suck... thanks in great part to the Bush criminals and their minions who use the books of law and copies of the Constitution for toilet paper, as well as put the riches of the few above the teachings of Jesus.


What are your personal values CH1? Do your values suck? You are an American so that means your values suck, because Bush and his minions have no value whatsoever? That doesn't make sense
Sapphire AMD Radeon R9 280x, FTW!

Hog Bowl II Champion (2010)
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

CH1, you are correct, but wasting your time. With 75% of America recognizing the truth about this illegal war and wanting both an immediate end to it, as well as prosecution of the criminals behind it, those remaining supporters are unreachable and unredeemable.

But Yon is no moron. He is a very skilled propagandist with an obvious political agenda even a blind man could see, and he has a large following that believes his every word.

My hope is that those ardent war supporters get their opportunity to truly support their worthy war causes in the form of an induction letter, which isn't too far off in the future since all of the draft boards are now fully staffed, and General Betray-Us has been working so diligently to solidify a case for attacking Iran next.
JansenFan
and Jackson
and Jackson
Posts: 8387
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:37 am
Location: Charles Town, WV
Contact:

Post by JansenFan »

His political agenda is so obvious, that he has taken stances that fail to follow party lines. He also covered the war on his own dime and those had through reader donations. He is now associated with the national standard, but only because the US government refused to let him back in country without an affiliated publication. Even then, he made them put in a condition in his contract that forbade them from editing his work. But yeah. You say he's a right propoganda puppet, so it must be true.
RIP 21

"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

I just know that the content of the posted article is pure 100% lies and deception.....at least according to a multitude of other journalists, international agencies, US service personnel, the Iraqis themselves.

True independent journalists are not "embedded" with US military units...and it shouldn't take an advanced mind or a master of critical thought to recognize the obvious compromise in such "arrangements". The term is too closely reflective of "in bed with" to miss this elementary point.

His political agenda is so obvious, that he has taken stances that fail to follow party lines


What a silly, naive remark. Even Sean Hannity takes a jab at Bush every now and then by disagreeing, but no one would argue (not even Hannity himself) that he eats, drinks, sleeps and breathes the neocon political agenda, as does every other talking head at Fox news who toe the neocon line and prove to be so instrumental in molding the malleable minds who tune in.

But if there is any mystery left as to why we are in such a mess....why this country has fallen to such depths of depravity to engage in illegal invasions and occupations....when the values and legality of torture are openly legitimized.....you clear up the mystery quite nicely.
GSPODS
Hog
Posts: 4716
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:20 am

Post by GSPODS »

RayNAustin wrote:True independent journalists are not "embedded" with US military units...


What do you think reporters should do? Walk around out in the open so they have no protection at all and end up as casualities? Be independent to the point where they can't identify the allies from the enemies?
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

GSPODS wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:True independent journalists are not "embedded" with US military units...


What do you think reporters should do? Walk around out in the open so they have no protection at all and end up as casualities? Be independent to the point where they can't identify the allies from the enemies?


How old are we here? Is this Sesame Street?

Read: Embedded journalists versus "unilateral" reporters by Paul Workman

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm? ... &paper=256

JEEZO-FREAKING-FLIP use your brain man!!!

The "embedded journalist" technique is to control every aspect of the reporting....isolate areas where military operations can and do engage any methods they please without fear of reports reaching the world and effecting world opinion.

The "embedded reporters" see only what the military chooses for them to see.....they take them along for the PR they get in return....see...look over here.....watch the nice soldiers passing out candy bars to the little Iraqi children.

What do the "embedded reporters" not see? They aren't taken into areas that have been bombed with other little Iraqi children blown to pieces with little body parts scattered about, with mothers and fathers wailing in agony and grief.

Only in the most childlike of naive minds is the ruse of protecting the well being of journalists accepted as the motive behind the "embedded" style of reporting. The reality is that the pentagon uses the embedded journalist approach to control and sensor the news reaching the public, sanitizing the images of war from it's more unsanitary realities that produce unhelpful public opinion.

Go read some articles written by guys like Dahr Jamail (an un-embedded journalist) and compare it to Von. Are they covering the same war? No they are not. Jamail is covering and reporting the realities of war, while Von is providing you the pentagon's sanitized version.

http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/10-24/journalist.asp

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

To label an "embedded journalist" report as independent is like saying "it's a bright, sunny night out there".

Henry Ford says that the Ford is the best car made in the world. Why would he lie about that? Why should we question such a smart man. Beats me? Of course Henry would never say such a thing just to sell more Fords. Certainly not....he just wants you to know the truth.

:roll:
GSPODS
Hog
Posts: 4716
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:20 am

Post by GSPODS »

RayNAustin wrote:
GSPODS wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:True independent journalists are not "embedded" with US military units...


What do you think reporters should do? Walk around out in the open so they have no protection at all and end up as casualities? Be independent to the point where they can't identify the allies from the enemies?


How old are we here? Is this Sesame Street?


We, as in I was born in 1950, so no, this is not Sesame Street. I also served in the military as a veteran of foreign war, so I might now a little something about the reality of war. Being drafted tends to do that. Now that we have established this is not Sesame Street, are you familiar with Terry Anderson or Terry Waite? Beirut? Lebanon? Iran? Syria? These refer to hostage crises, not to wars. Daniel Pearl should be familiar.

There might be a reason for imbedding oneself with a military unit that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with survival.
JansenFan
and Jackson
and Jackson
Posts: 8387
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:37 am
Location: Charles Town, WV
Contact:

Post by JansenFan »

It all falls back on, "Ray said it, so let it be true." They guy you read happens to report the side of the story you want to hear. I want to hear the side of the story of the marines and soldiers on the ground. That is what Yon reports. Not polital agenda. Simply what he observes as part of his daily journies.

And just out of curiousity, why can people, like yourself who are deathly opposed to the war at all costs, always point out the actions of a few rogue people who have been tried and convicted as the whole picture, bombs that kill kids terrorists are using as human shields, but never acknowledge that the atrocities commited by extremists over there are ten times worse, let alone actually happen.
RIP 21

"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

JansenFan wrote:It all falls back on, "Ray said it, so let it be true." They guy you read happens to report the side of the story you want to hear. I want to hear the side of the story of the marines and soldiers on the ground. That is what Yon reports. Not polital agenda. Simply what he observes as part of his daily journies.

And just out of curiousity, why can people, like yourself who are deathly opposed to the war at all costs, always point out the actions of a few rogue people who have been tried and convicted as the whole picture, bombs that kill kids terrorists are using as human shields, but never acknowledge that the atrocities commited by extremists over there are ten times worse, let alone actually happen.


No. I don't want to hear any of it. I wish none of it were happening. But because it is happening, the side I want to hear is the truth, and not some sanitized and censored version. You seem to want to embrace only the "feel good" stories, and ignore or dismiss the realities.

And I would suggest to you that 1 Million + Iraqis dead is not exactly the actions of a few rogue people. 30+ thousand imprisoned without charge, and tortured systematically is not a random act.

And just out of curiosity, why do people like yourself consider war preferable to peace?

I make no apologies for being a strong advocate of peace. At the same time, I recognize that their are evils in this world that can force one to defend against it. Iraq, however, does not fall into that category. There were no WMD's....Iraq was not involved in 911.....Iraq posed no threat to us....and the pretext for invasion was based on lies. That makes the Iraq war not only unnecessary, but easily avoidable. Consequently, those that pushed so strenuously for a war that was easily avoidable are interested in what exactly? They are only interested in war, not peace, not democracy, not freedom. And their motives are very transparent. What part of this escapes you? And why do you consider peace such a dirty word?

Do you hold stock in Haliburton, KBR, Rathyon, Boing, Blackwater ? Hmm?

There are two reasons one might support this war....greed or stupidity. Which one motivates you?

As a side note to the Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911, there is mounting evidence that Israel's mossad was involved. None the least of which is the issue of the "Dancing Israelis". research that, and educate yourself.

Here is a spoiler.....5 Israelis were arrested on 911 as they videotaped the events of 911. They were subsequently released, deported, and information associated with them, classified top secret.

The Israelis involved were interviewed on Israeli news. They stated on air that they were not involved in the attacks, but only there to "document" the event. Document the event? DOCUMENT THE EVENT???

How did they know that the "event" was going to occur? How did the Israeli instant messaging firm ODIGO (documented and proven warning messages sent over an hour before the first plane hit the towers) know the event was going to occur. If Israeli intelligence had foreknowledge of the attacks, would we not assume that such information was also provided US intelligence? If not, would that not make Israel complicit, before and after the fact?

You might also ask yourself about the huge number of Bush administration officials who hold dual US/Israeli citizenship (I'll post the link...the list is too long to post) http://www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html

You might want to also educate yourself about history, and the use of false flag terror as pretext for wars.

The Gulf of Tonkin (Vietnam War)

The USS Liberty (Iraelis attack US Warship to draw in the US into the Arab-Israeli war)

These are just 2 examples out of dozens of documented and declasified events that are NOT CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

This, the most damning of war and it's true purpose:

Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.


Stop being a "sheople" and rejoin the people.
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

GSPODS wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:
GSPODS wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:True independent journalists are not "embedded" with US military units...


What do you think reporters should do? Walk around out in the open so they have no protection at all and end up as casualities? Be independent to the point where they can't identify the allies from the enemies?


How old are we here? Is this Sesame Street?


We, as in I was born in 1950, so no, this is not Sesame Street. I also served in the military as a veteran of foreign war, so I might now a little something about the reality of war. Being drafted tends to do that. Now that we have established this is not Sesame Street, are you familiar with Terry Anderson or Terry Waite? Beirut? Lebanon? Iran? Syria? These refer to hostage crises, not to wars. Daniel Pearl should be familiar.

There might be a reason for imbedding oneself with a military unit that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with survival.


Well then, we both have a 5 starting in our age, so there is no excuse for you to be uninformed, and certainly enough years under your belt to expect to acquire a modicum of wisdom by now.

The above post can help you with that. So far, what I hear from you is like watching the TV news...same ole same ole.

Being a vet of Vietnam, you should be familiar with the Gulf of Tonkin...should be seems to be the operative here, but listening to you suggests you aren't familiar with it, otherwise you'd be hell bent against war. It was the pretext for your arse being shot at, so you should familiarize yourself with it, even if you are 30+ years late. It might also provide a little more context and insight into the false motives touted for Iraq which of course has nothing to do with all of the changing reasons used to justify it. Early on it was about WMDs and mushroom clouds. Then it was to get rid of the evil Saddam Hussien (a one time friend of the US and recipient of US military assistance, including chemical and biological warfare agents to use against Iran). Then it was to spread democracy and help the Iraqi people (Of course Cheney and Bush really do care soooo much about the Iraqi people...they really do). Now we are there to fight the Terrorists....the terrorists that were not there until we invaded, that is. And now...Iran is helping the terrorists...so you see, we have no choice but to address (invade) those evil Iranians.

Repeat after me....the Iranians are evil......the Iranians are evil......the Iranians are evil.....got it? What are the Iranians? They are evil. Correct. Good job. You are smart.

And none of this has anything to do with profit, and oil, and the dollar? None of it is anything more than the good intentions of the Bush cabal and their compassion for the Iraqi people.

Back in the day, it was the "communists". Got to stop those commies. We have a thousand nukes pointed at us from the USSR, and so we invade Vietnam. We cook up the Gulf of Tonkin incident (that never happened) claiming that the North Vietnamese fired on a US ship, so we have to defend ourselves.

This same sad story has been repeated decade after decade, war after war, and the sheople keep swallowing it, hook, line and sinker.

Don't you think it's past time to start thinking? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. What about fool me a dozen times? Two dozen? How about fooling you for 58 years?

What does that make you?
Countertrey
the 'mudge
the 'mudge
Posts: 16632
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Post by Countertrey »

Hyperbole AND untrue:
I just know that the content of the posted article is pure 100% lies and deception.....at least according to a multitude of other journalists, international agencies, US service personnel, the Iraqis themselves.


Feel free to name names... a "multitude" is warranted, but 40 would do (hey, you are the one who elected to use the hyperbolic "multitude")...
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

Countertrey wrote:Hyperbole AND untrue:
I just know that the content of the posted article is pure 100% lies and deception.....at least according to a multitude of other journalists, international agencies, US service personnel, the Iraqis themselves.


Feel free to name names... a "multitude" is warranted, but 40 would do (hey, you are the one who elected to use the hyperbolic "multitude")...


I've already been down this road with you. You're a lying scumbag....do your own research. What ever source that I'd bother listing, you'd then start twisting again.
JansenFan
and Jackson
and Jackson
Posts: 8387
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:37 am
Location: Charles Town, WV
Contact:

Post by JansenFan »

Can anyone point to where I made any indication on my thoughts regarding the start of the war, where I said I believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11 or where I mentioned Isreal?

Regardless of ones thoughts on the war, it is happening. So your truth and my truth may differ as to what is happening on the ground, but if you actually read Michael Yon instead of just railing against him in your long, unnecessary diatribe, you would know that he reports the good, the bad and the ugly. Sure, this particular posting describes positive thoughts on the surge and its results. He's part of it. He should know. But everything he writes is not smiles and sunshine.

He called the Shiite-Sunni in-fighting a Civil War when everyone associated with the Bush administration vehomently denied it. He talks about the personal stories of the injured and killed. He talks about being ambushed by insurgents on patrol routes known only to US and Iraqi soldiers, but he also talks about the good things, too. That is balanced. Not someone who seeks out anti-US sentement and only reports on accidental bombings and isolated criminal acts.
RIP 21

"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru
Fios
The Evil Straw
The Evil Straw
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:30 pm
Location: Leather Chair
Contact:

Post by Fios »

RayNAustin wrote:
Countertrey wrote:Hyperbole AND untrue:
I just know that the content of the posted article is pure 100% lies and deception.....at least according to a multitude of other journalists, international agencies, US service personnel, the Iraqis themselves.


Feel free to name names... a "multitude" is warranted, but 40 would do (hey, you are the one who elected to use the hyperbolic "multitude")...


I've already been down this road with you. You're a lying scumbag....do your own research. What ever source that I'd bother listing, you'd then start twisting again.


Gents, this is not the forum for personal attacks, consider this a friendly reminder
RIP Sean Taylor
Post Reply