Jump to content


Advanced Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Countrydave55

  1. I don't want to rehash old history but I am confused about the origins of this war. I thought Mr. Bush said the week before the war that this 'is about the WMD and that the war is not inevitable. If Saddam would tell the truth about his WMD and destroy his WMD America would not attack.' Now that is what I remember him saying. Yesterday Mr. Bush said that "knowing everything we know now I would still have gone to war". My question is which one of these statements is deceitful? They both can't be right can they? We know Saddam had destroyed his WMD and we know that he was telling the truth about it. So on what basis could the attack have been justified if Bush was accurately reporting that the war was not inevitable?
  2. 100,000 plus is a very large handful. It is also a hard handful to identify to eliminate. Besides, like a cancer each insurgent killed seems to result in 3 or 4 more produced. As an aside the "find an eliminate" policy has not been to successful when used by Israel against Palestinian terrorists. Why would one think it would work faster or more effectively when used by the US against people that do not want us there? The latest NGO report indicates that based upon employment, educational opportunity, and utilities the Iraqi people have now shown decline since Saddam. Why would the average Iraqi think that this is a good thing or that they are better off? What concrete accomplishment can the average Iraqi be shown to demonstrate that their life is better or getting better? The possibility that they may get a democratic govt. ? Many want a theocracy. The one thing that GWB said would come out of this (a democracy in the middle east) is not something that the Iraqis appear to want.
  3. I, for one, don't care to take pride in having done something wrong just so I can say I have done something. Actually the Iraqi excitement should begin Nov. 2, 2004. That is when every Iraqi going to vote must register at their voting precinct. It will be interesting to see how many of those registration places are attacked. That, of course, is the message that the insurgents want to disseminate. A vote is a death warrant. This is like watching a B movie. You know how it ends and you know it is poorly done it is just a matter of when the end will come and of course all of the action.
  4. I agree with you. I think McCain would have been right 15 months ago but things are different now. In addition to the occupation role there is a need to reoccupy cities that have be given up. Since Bush has decided not to contest cities where control is lost I would expect that other cities will soon fall. I am wondering how long the coalition will remain in tact. Costa Rica left and now Britain is planning to reduce their forces. Since Britain has the 2nd largest number of troops in theater and since we are already under manned I am not sure why the other participants with troops in sizable numbers would want to risk their troops in a deteriorating security situation.
  5. According to ABC news program this morning there are more than 100,000 insurgents in Iraq. The CIA estimates the total population at 23,000,000. That sounds like a sizable insurgency population to me. The number is even more significant when one considers that the insurgents are concentrated in large portions of the country. A single concentration might allow for isolation while a broad dissemination would result in dilution and ineffectiveness. Except for those people with an interest in "claiming things are going well" there is no evidence that the main issues, security and improved quality of life, are improving. According to the administration there are "0" Iraqi policeman that have completed the training required by the US to be considered competent to perform their duty. I do not know how many of the Iraqi National Guard have been trained but we do know that the Iraqi National Guard have not been tested in battle and have been found assisting the insurgency. According to John McCain today the Army and the Marines need 250,000 plus regular military in Iraq (not reserve and guard) to secure Iraq. That is apart from service personnel needed for other responsibilities. He took the position that the Guard and Reserve were/are 1. not trained adequately 2. not designed for lengthy deployment 3. not equipped for the service they are being asked to perform.
  6. I find that hard to believe too. I think the report said that the Bush administration determined that the prisoners were not governed by Geneva and so anything could be done with them. Rumsfield told his subordinates that the amount and quality of intelligence was inadequate. No one ordered torture. Torture started to extract information and the generals did not stop it. An act of omission is no less culpable than an act of commission. But I am sure you can read the same reports that I read.
  7. According to Pentagon reports General Sanchez is implicated in the torture. Now I am not too sure but I think General Sanchez reports to the Joint Chiefs and they report to Rumsfield. So I guess that is low level.
  8. So then if 140,000 armed men came and said that you will be killed or locked up if you are suspected of something then I guess "there would be little going on that" they "didnt want." ? I didn't say it was in Rumsfield' chain of command the Pentagon did. Maybe your beef is with the military and all of their investigations that say that the "torture" was under tacit approval of ranking officers. I would suggest you take your foul mouth and aim it at the Army. If the truth telling is traitorous then there are a lot people in the military you need to go after. "If the people were supporting the terrorist as you say they are then there would be little or no people signing up for the police and military force in Iraq. They have been the targets of the new terrorism, not the U.S. troops. " By your logic one could argue that if so many Iraqis are opposed to the terrorists then there would not be 20,000 turning out to protest our presence. I have not heard of any lines to sign up into the Army or police that have 20,000 people ion them. Maybe this is another lie by those traitors in the pentagon.
  9. Some one once defined guerrilla warfare as " its a group of combatants that engage the enemy in a nonconventional attack/withdrawl which is not meant to gain or occupy teritory but only to cause damage, injuries, and loss of moral on enemy troops." I think Iraq fits that definition. If the problem with the Viet Nam war was that the politicians prevented victory then we already know how Iraq will end. The politicians have run the war from the beginning. The military advised against a military solution to Iraq. Bush said attack. The military advised more troops were needed. Bush advised go anyway. The military advised addressing the Fullujah takeover. The Marine General said he was ordered to withdraw. The military advised against torture of the prisoners in Abu Garheb somebody in Rumsfield chain of command said torture them. So if political interference is a cause of military defeat then this war is already lost. "The people of Iraq are for the most part not supporting the crap that is going on there by the terrorist. There have been many that have stated that they want it stopped no matter the cost, even if it means an increase in civilian casualties." I guess it depends upon what you mean by many. The pentagon has lost control of 4 cities sin 2 months. That is a lot of people allowing the insurgents to take over. The pentagon said that there were more than 20,000 people protesting the presence of the US in one city. That is a lot of people. The people of Iraq say they were better off under Saddam. That doesn't sound like we have one hearts or minds. Finally. The US says that the Iraqis will not be supportive of the occupation until infrastructure is restored and people are safe on the streets. Bush announced that the money Berg given to Haliburton for infrastructure will be rerouted to security. If security is achieved (which I doubt) the other part of the equation is neglected and the Iraqis will still not be accepting of occupation. This Bush solution is not a solution.
  10. The problem with guerrilla warfare is that it can be effective. North Vietnam knew it, Afghanistan proved it against the Russians, and the Confederacy knew it. The means of defeating guerrilla warfare is allying the population with your cause and turning the population against the guerrillas and their cause. Guerrillas need safe havens, financial support, and arms to survive and remain viable. That guerrilla activity is increasing (significantly) in Iraq demonstrates that the indigenous population is supporting the guerrillas more and the occupiers less. This eventually results in occupiers holding small, relatively safe, fortified structures while having little influence on the occupied country except to (1) illustrate the impotence of the occupier (2) increase the resentment of those occupied. As can be seen the US is well along the path of the fortress mentality. Troops cannot go into larger and larger areas of various cities and some cities are no longer in US control. With US troop strength gradually increasing to now 145,000 and combined losses to death and wounds reaching 30,000 the issue of demoralization is a significant issue. I think that the army defines demoralization as loss of 25% troop strength. Now the units are being continuously replenished but it looks like we are approaching a 20% loss now. I wonder if there is a similar demoralization effect that can be expected even as troop strength is maintained. After all demoralization is based upon the loss of leadership and group cohesion. Someone out there must have been to West Point and knows this answer?
  11. As I recall the CIA trained Bin Laden and Reagan's drug money payed for his weapons. Maybe Reagan and Bush Sr. are responsible for 9-11. To say that Al Quieda came to Iraq to fight Americans does not mean that Iraq contributed to 9-11. Arab money and Iranian money support and supported Osama more and more directly than Iraq. Why didn't they get attacked? I think this issue has been argued over enough. Past is past. Lets move on to this secret means of winning the Iraq occupation (as Bush calls it).
  12. Even Collin Powell says that 9-11 was unrelated to Iraq. It certainly is related now because it has put a lot of American lives in easy striking distance of a lot of angry people with a lot weapons available. But that is of GWB's making not 9-11. Please explain these few unpopular ways to win in Iraq that Bush and his thinkers have not come up with.
  13. This discussion of WWII is interesting but probably irrelevant. We don't know if the Japanese planned to invade America or not. We know that they launched terror weapons against the mainland. We know that they expected to eventually occupy the Hawaiian islands. Hawaii was not then a state. We know that they occupied part of Alaska (the Aleutians) but Alaska was not then a state. So I don't know if the Japanese had long term plans to conquer and occupy the US or not. As for 50 year olds in the military having spent a long time in armed service. Not necessarily. The ready reserve is composed of every man and women that has ever served in the US military. They can be called up the day after discharge or 50 years latter. The latest call up in my area included a 56 year old that has not been in uniform for 8 years. As for this being an all volunteer service. Yes it sort of is. But I think that for it to remain volunteer you cannot compel people to remain in service after their commitment is fulfilled. Under stop loss you are required to remain in service even after your discharge date so long as the military has a need. What is voluntary about that? Isn't this why some of the guard and reserve are suing the US? If we have so much military strength that we can fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, and take on Iran then why do the Generals think we don't have enough people in theater? Why do they say that we have 1/2 as many people as we need to occupy Iraq? Why have we lost control of formerly pacified cities in Iraq and have not retaken them? Why does the leader of Iraq say that "Baghdad" must be retaken if there is to be a fair election in January. I agree that we have a sophisticated competent military that has many force multipliers at their disposal but house to house combat or booby-traps are not amenable to force multipliers. If Iran were to mount a traditional attack I am confident we could beat them back but an offense and occupation is not achievable under our current force structure and deployment.
  14. Yes we might have won Vietnam if we had attacked harder and longer but it is just as likely that the Russians would have supplied arms to N Vietnam just like we did to the Afghan insurgents that were fighting the Russians. And there was China and its nuclear arsenal and North Korea with its huge standing army. All possible reinforcements for N Vietnam. We might have won or we might have genuinely precipitated WW III. Talking of pulling out of Vietnam had the same complaints. 'It would be worse. We will be seen as weak. Our friends and allies won't trust us. Others will take advantage of us.' We pulled out and I don't think that it is clear that we are worse for it. As for some of the worse. We are already seen as weak. We are begging other countries for reinforcements, we have 50 year old men in combat. Do you hear the Iraqis - 'The most powerful country in the world, the only super power but you can't protect us and stop the killing' As for our friends and allies not trusting us. Look at the polls. Foreign countries citizens including British and Australians think that the US is the greatest threat to stability. We have already upset all of the world leaders. WE have little international support for anything we do as a nation. As for others taking advantage of us. It is already happening. N Korea is thumbing their nose at us. So is Iran. They know we have no military to backup our threats. They know our military is over extended and over committed in Afghanistan and Iraq. What is the plan? A Nixon peace plan? We will turn over sovereignty after the January elections and say "Democracy is restored. Here are the keys. Good luck". If that is the case we will have the same results as Nixon. The government will fall before we can get the troops on the helicopters. So why wait. Lets save lives and leave now.
  15. Bush, Sr. did accomplish the objective before leaving. But as he, Powell, and Baker said afterward they stopped when they did because: 1) Our allies said they would not support us in overthrowing Saddam. 2) The cost in money and people to control and democratize Iraq was considered excessive. 3) The Saudis thought that occupying Holly lands would foment Muslim resentment and increase terrorist acts. It would certainly seem that Bush Sr. had far better advice than than Bush Jr. While I still don't see how we can leave it is clear that we cannot stay. Terrorist acts are increasingly increasing. American death toll continues to rise. The American military is unable to bring in recruits at the rate that they are killed, wounded, or retired from the military. The terorsit attacks are driving the average Iraqi further away from and not closer to America. The cost of the war continues to expand. The funds for repair and infrastructure in Iraq are now being diverted to security efforts. The Bush administration has long contended that infrastructure is required to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. The Bush administration continues to claim that the increasing attacks on the US and its military in Iraq are evidence that the insurgents are loosing and desperate. If their desperation increases there will be no safe bunker in the whole country. It would seem that we are not capable of pacifying and uniting Iraq. If that is the case we need to leave sooner and not latter. The lesson of Vietnam is to determine when to cut your losses.
  16. According to the CIA an not just the military the most favorable outcome that can be expected in Iraqi is years of chaos and insurgency. The report doesn't seem to suggest that the most favorable outcome is the most likely. Intelligence Report on Iraq As for the Iraq Vietnam comparison. If you are comparing lives lost then I agree that it is not a legitimate comparison. If you compare costs in current dollars it is close. If you compare the lack of preparation then Iraq seems worse. No one said Vietnam would be easy or short. That is not true of Iraq. No one said that we didn't have the man power to do Vietnam while we were there or before going in. The Generals told us we lacked the troop strength to do Iraq. Vietnam was based upon a flawed theory that a communist victory would cause other countries to become communistic. Except for the administration there are few people that do not expect that Iraq will become a Theocracy ruled by Muslims. Many expect that it will be a radical Muslim state. That could easily spark revolt in and other radical theocracies in the region. This would seem both more likely and and more problematic than the spread of communism would have been. We were in Vietnam 8 years. Colin Powell says we will need to maintain a significant military presence for 10 to 15 years. We had many allies and supporters during much of the Vietnam war. We never had support for Iraq (except for Britain and Australia) from any other major nations. The coalition is dwindling down in Iraq just as it did in Vietnam. Spain has left, the Philippines have left, Costa Rica has left. The limited Iraqi war support we had is dwindling rapidly. Vietnam did not present a risk of breeding terrorists to attack the US on US soil. Iraq has created more terrorists and they pose a danger to the US. Vietnam did not jeopardize our security or distract US from other security issues. Iraq has caused us to loose sight of what was supposed to be the main threats Osama Bin Laden and nuclear proliferation. We have no saber to rattle at Iran or North Korea. We are putting 50 year olds in to combat! Do we pose a credible defensive military against Iran and North Korea?
  17. Thank you very much but no advertising allowed. & I think Volt is at least semi-involved.
  18. The reason oil prices are going up is in part due to concern about instability in the oil market. To suggest that we are acting to insure a stable oil market would seem inconsistent with the increase in oil prices, the number of attacks on refineries and oil pipelines since the start of the second gulf war.
  19. I don't wish to change the subject but someone said that they have all the information that they want or need to make a decision. I am curious as to how anyone could ever hold the position that they don't want more information about a subject. I am not suggesting that one shouldn't act without all the information because one can never have all of the information but I don't understand why one would make a decision and stick by it even if there may be contradictory information.
  20. Yes but that leaves me stuck. Even if I don't upgrade ZA to Ver. 5 My Pc-Cilin is no longer updating (no longer supported). The upgrade Pc-Cillin doesn't want ZA installed. I haven't tried installing Pc-Cillin and reinstalling the old ZA yet.
  21. ZA has an AV. I have read good things about it but I would like to see an objective test and see what kind of system burden it is. No thanks no NAV for me.
  22. I have their firewall turned off. But ZA 5.0 pro won't install with Pc-Cillin installed. Bit of a vicious circle.
  • Create New...