Disconnected from Reality While More Soldiers Die

[RickSp]

In Rumsfeld's recent show tour of Iran, he said the insurgency is an Iraqi, not American, problem .

Earlier in Fallujah, the restive city that had been the insurgents' main haven until U.S. forces overran it last month and are still rooting out holdout fighters Rumsfeld used a simple analogy to explain his view that the time is arriving for Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security. Faced with a chore like digging a ditch, a typical American, he said, will grab a shovel and start digging. In Iraq now, however, the task is to step aside and get the Iraqis to dig their own ditches. He warned against allowing the Iraqis to become too dependent on the U.S. military. More independence is what's needed, he said.

His ditch-digging disconnect with reality would be laughable if American soldiers were not dying and being maimed daily. The problem is - the Iraqi military is fully infiltrated by the insurgency. As we learned in a bloody mess tent in Mosul, the Iraqi in uniform may be friend or foe, and it is almost impossbile to tell which.

Insurgents infiltrating coalition, US says

Iraqi insurgents and their informants have been infiltrating US and coalition organizations, Iraqi security units, and political parties in growing numbers, posing a daunting challenge to efforts to defeat the guerrillas and create a stable Iraqi state, according to US military officials, Iraq specialists, and a new study of Iraqi security forces. ..... ''Penetration of Iraqi security and military forces may be the rule, not the exception," according to a draft version of a study of Iraqi security forces by a senior Pentagon consultant. Military analysts concur that such infiltration is a worsening threat that is undermining US and Iraqi efforts to stand up viable security forces and to protect coalition troops from increasingly deadly attacks.

While the Bush administration blathers on in its fantasy world, more soldiers die. Anthony Cordesman estimates that if Rumsfeld's estimates of a US occupation of Iraq until 2008 or 2009 holds true, over 5,000 U.S. troops will die and 25,000 will be wounded.

We have made a disaster in Iraq. We cannot escape from all of its consequences. But the human consequences of staying—the Iraqi civilians we will kill, the young American men and women alive this minute who will die or be maimed in body or mind—are worse than the political consequences of withdrawing. In any case, the political consequences are notional, as weighed against the certainty of death, suffering, and grief. In our own eyes, our prestige diminished after we withdrew from Vietnam, but our international position was not weakened. Asked for the hundredth time why we were in Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson, according to Arthur Goldberg, his U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "unzipped his fly, drew out his substantial organ, and declared, 'This is why!'" In Iraq as in Vietnam, at risk is not America's prestige but the President's. No one should have to die to save George W. Bush's face.

5,000 U.S. soldiers dead, 25,000 wounded, 4,000 bereaved children. A look at the future of the war in Iraq

[RickSp]

TIKRIT, Iraq, Dec. 26 -- Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, made a surprise visit to a small group of soldiers here at Forward Operating Base Danger and said in an interview that the war in Iraq was "going pretty well."

Army Chief of Staff Is Third Major Visitor to Troops in Iraq

Pretty well? Damn, I 'd hate to see what dreadful looks like.

[bullshitdetector]

Yes more people die while the anti war anti american tree huggers pretend they don't have privelege thanks to the lives sacrificed which allow them to pretend if they froze their asses off they would be war advocates too.

When 911 happened everybody was a patriot, then time passes and the left gets comfy and complacent and sooner than later they're back on track stabbing their own in the back.

[Gorgo]

Keep defending these criminals, and one day there will be no one left to defend you.

[bullshitdetector]

What you fail to understand is that if we waited for the left to fight for what privelege they have none of us would ever have it. Tell me how many lefties who were patriotic flag waivers ever thought to join the troops to fight for the cause when 9/11 happened? No one wants to answer that but they sure do love running that worthless screed you just ran to me, right? I never had or ever will have the lack of reason to believe the left will fight for anything, literally.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: bullshitdetector What you fail to understand is that if we waited for the left to fight for what privelege they have none of us would ever have it. Tell me how many lefties who were patriotic flag waivers ever thought to join the troops to fight for the cause when 9/11 happened? No one wants to answer that but they sure do love running that worthless screed you just ran to me, right? I never had or ever will have the lack of reason to believe the left will fight for anything, literally.

You asked the question as though you have the answer, so I'm asking. How many liberals DID join the military after 9/11? Some, none, any actual number? Tough call, I know, but you are implying NO liberal joined the military.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: bullshitdetector What you fail to understand is that if we waited for the left to fight for what privelege they have none of us would ever have it. Tell me how many lefties who were patriotic flag waivers ever thought to join the troops to fight for the cause when 9/11 happened? No one wants to answer that but they sure do love running that worthless screed you just ran to me, right? I never had or ever will have the lack of reason to believe the left will fight for anything, literally.

And what you fail to understand, or maybe more appropriately refuse to acknowledge, is that there are a lot of what you like to call "the left" that are Vietnam era vets that have already fought for their country, and yet oppose this asinine war. We were willing to fight "for the cause" then, and I think we'd all fight for "the cause" again, if it were really a matter of National Security. You continue to try and label all those opposed to Bush's war as "the left", it's time you stopped being so deceitful.

And as for "lives sacrificed" (in your earlier post), sacrifice implies a voluntary action that, while I am sure some in Iraq have done so, a lot of others have gone and "sacrificed" their lives solely because they have been ordered to do so. Let us know when you plan to volunteer.

[Rainbow]

Iraqi insurgents and their informants have been infiltrating US and coalition organizations, Iraqi security units, and political parties in growing numbers, posing a daunting challenge to efforts to defeat the guerrillas and create a stable Iraqi state, according to US military officials, Iraq specialists, and a new study of Iraqi security forces. ..... ''Penetration of Iraqi security and military forces may be the rule, not the exception," according to a draft version of a study of Iraqi security forces by a senior Pentagon consultant. Military analysts concur that such infiltration is a worsening threat that is undermining US and Iraqi efforts to stand up viable security forces and to protect coalition troops from increasingly deadly attacks.

Put the right people on the right place, and those so-called "insurgents" can penetrate not much (if anything at all). Adding to it the wrong security policy, sums that up.

Iraqi insurgents and their informants have been infiltrating US and coalition organizations

This is really "the best". I think that author of that article (Bryan Bender) made it up himself, since no quotes available in that matter.
There is a bad security policy in Iraq, with a reference to non-U.S. military personnel to be present at U.S. (and Coalition) bases. That non-U.S. military personnel - like translators, ect. - is the source for leaks, ect. and suicide attacks what happened lately.
Removing non-U.S. military personnel from U.S. military bases and/or checking them much more rigorously would solve the issue.

Rule #1
Nobody comes closer than 150 feet - 50 yards to the checking point
Otherwise, use of fire arms is fully authorized.
Rule #2
No exception.

Results : no suicide attacks, no so-called "penetration", ect.

Reading this article one may come up to the conclusion as if pro-Saddamist along with pro-Islamic fundamentalists (along with alll the anti-U.S. "intellectualists") have better intelligence than the whole nations around and within the Middle East region, and maybe even more. They are getting stronger and stronger, day-by-day and they would rule the world, soon, so be scared.

Why did the author of this article posted such a nonesense ?
Maybe he was busy, or tired ? Maybe.
If he wanted to point out some security issues, then he should stick with it, instead.

I do not see any reason to get into the rest of the sources or links.
Example :
A man runs the calculus of probabilities, and tries to predict the future.
The next Houdini.
If we go that way, we should be either very happy or very sad. Choose your option, guys :-)))

[RickSp]

It is clear that Rumsfeld and Bush are not the only ones wholly disconnected from reality. The chicken hawks keep squawking and scratching, still trying to connect 9/11 with a brutal invasion of a country that never attacked us. Preaching patriotism but not giving a damn about the good Americans dying for King George's fantasies.

And all the while the folks who did attack us release almost weekly tapes and videos. If this keeps up, Osama will have a weekly talk radio program and Bush's cabal still won't be able to find him.

[kharmajunkie]

Quote by: bullshitdetector Yes more people die while the anti war anti american tree huggers pretend they don't have privelege thanks to the lives sacrificed which allow them to pretend if they froze their asses off they would be war advocates too. When 911 happened everybody was a patriot, then time passes and the left gets comfy and complacent and sooner than later they're back on track stabbing their own in the back.

Enough melodrama Bull, people aren't dying because of of anti-war protesters, they're dying in a misguided war. It's the protesters right, not privilege, to speak their minds and they owe nothing to anyone but themselves.

[Gorgo]

Keep fighting for criminals, and no one will be left to defend you.

Quote by: bullshitdetector What you fail to understand is that if we waited for the left to fight for what privelege they have none of us would ever have it. Tell me how many lefties who were patriotic flag waivers ever thought to join the troops to fight for the cause when 9/11 happened? No one wants to answer that but they sure do love running that worthless screed you just ran to me, right? I never had or ever will have the lack of reason to believe the left will fight for anything, literally.

[kharmajunkie]

Quote by: bullshitdetector What you fail to understand is that if we waited for the left to fight for what privelege they have none of us would ever have it. Tell me how many lefties who were patriotic flag waivers ever thought to join the troops to fight for the cause when 9/11 happened? No one wants to answer that but they sure do love running that worthless screed you just ran to me, right? I never had or ever will have the lack of reason to believe the left will fight for anything, literally.

That's funny because you call me a lefty and I'm a veteran. What I see from many like you on the right is a lot of wannabe tough guys that flinched on 9/11 and followed the tough but hollow rhetoric of guys like Bush. A lot of guys that talk a good game but when the time comes to actually go to fight
they get a deferrment; or five.

[Scribbler1]

"It's the protesters right, not privilege, to speak their minds and they owe nothing to anyone but themselves."

I would only change the word "right" to 'RESPONSIBILITY" and I agree with you 100%. If you see something wrong, it is your patriotic DUTY to at the very least expose it. You may not have the power to change something but at least you can shine some light on it.

[kharmajunkie]

Not to nitpick Scrib but I think it's a right instead of responsibility; after all, you have a right to be apathetic and do nothing. Isn't that the predominant attitude in America today? I wish more people thought of it as a responsibility but instead we fire baseball and basketball coaches in less than four years with more impressive 'records' than GW or Rumsfeld.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: BSD Yes more people die while the anti war anti american tree huggers pretend they don't have privelege thanks to the lives sacrificed which allow them to pretend if they froze their asses off they would be war advocates too.

Oh, please. We oppose the war because it's harming America and wasting lives instead of helping America and saving lives. Get a clue.

Quote by: BSD What you fail to understand is that if we waited for the left to fight for what privelege they have none of us would ever have it.

WWI -- Democratic President Woodrow Wilson
WWII -- Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt
Vietnam -- Democratic President Lyndon Johnson

Bush is defending our privilege to drive SUVs. Burying us neck deep in a bad war is NOT defending America, it's harming America. There's a difference.

Quote by: Rainbow Put the right people on the right place, and those so-called "insurgents" can penetrate not much (if anything at all). Adding to it the wrong security policy, sums that up.

By golly, it's just that simple, isn't it. E-mail Rumsnamara and let him know, I'm sure this will solve our problems.

Quote by: Rainbow They are getting stronger and stronger, day-by-day and they would rule the world, soon, so be scared. Why did the author of this article posted such a nonesense ?

Gosh, I dunno. Because Americans need to know what's going on?

Quote by: Karmajunkie That's funny because you call me a lefty and I'm a veteran. What I see from many like you on the right is a lot of wannabe tough guys that flinched on 9/11 and followed the tough but hollow rhetoric of guys like Bush. A lot of guys that talk a good game but when the time comes to actually go to fight

Bingo! 'Chickenhawks' is a term that describes conservatives, not liberals.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt


.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: kharmajunkie Not to nitpick Scrib but I think it's a right instead of responsibility; after all, you have a right to be apathetic and do nothing. Isn't that the predominant attitude in America today? I wish more people thought of it as a responsibility but instead we fire baseball and basketball coaches in less than four years with more impressive 'records' than GW or Rumsfeld.

Not nitpicking but a different slant on the same thing. You are right that we have a right to do nothing, but I am looking at involvement as a patriotic gesture, much like the difference between a sofa spud and Patrick Henry (the REALLY old one, not ours! :) ) Unfortunately it IS the norm rather than the exception and your coach analogy is dead on.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: RickSp It is clear that Rumsfeld and Bush are not the only ones wholly disconnected from reality. The chicken hawks keep squawking and scratching, still trying to connect 9/11 with a brutal invasion of a country that never attacked us. Preaching patriotism but not giving a damn about the good Americans dying for King George's fantasies. And all the while the folks who did attack us release almost weekly tapes and videos. If this keeps up, Osama will have a weekly talk radio program and Bush's cabal still won't be able to find him.

You have posted the thread (yourself) on a public forum up for a debate.
Complaints ? To yourself.
This thread is not about some of my alleged characteristics, but a bad security policy on U.S. military bases and "James Bond - alike, or better" penetration by pro-Saddamists and pro-Islamic fundamentalists "intelligence" ( ??? )
Neither chickens nor hawks but facts and arguments is what we may debate about/on.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Sonart By golly, it's just that simple, isn't it. E-mail Rumsnamara and let him know, I'm sure this will solve our problems. Gosh, I dunno. Because Americans need to know what's going on?

#1
The issue concerns a negligence, among U.S. military personnel security staff in Iraq.
#2
I have no clue, either, especially since you have mixed up the 2 separate expressions together as one.

[bullshitdetector]

Quote by: Scribbler1 You asked the question as though you have the answer, so I'm asking. How many liberals DID join the military after 9/11? Some, none, any actual number? Tough call, I know, but you are implying NO liberal joined the military.

I am making a generalization, surely you must recognize that right? :rolleyes:

[bullshitdetector]

Yes and Bush just knows its all conservatives who drive SUV's right, Sonart? Democratic presidents of yesteryear are the republicans of today. Presidents don't fight wars, soldiers do. Who supports wars, people, voters....so are you saying the democrats only support wars their own declare? You have to make up my mind on this one, Sonart, you can't have it both ways.