Ex-general: 'No end in sight' in Iraq

[AFA]

Despite all the recent talk by Petraeus about the improvement in Iraq from the surge, (he's paid to say that I think), I thought this was a more accurate assessment. Of course this defines it as more Vietnam like, a comparison I made from day one.

ARLINGTON, Va. - The U.S. mission in Iraq is a "nightmare with no end in sight" because of political misjudgments after the fall of Saddam Hussein that continue today, a former chief of U.S.-led forces said Friday.

Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded coalition troops for a year beginning June 2003, cast a wide net of blame for both political and military shortcomings in Iraq that helped open the way for the insurgency — such as disbanding the Saddam-era military and failing to cement ties with tribal leaders and quickly establish civilian government after Saddam was toppled.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/sanchez_iraq

 

[Death_blooms08]

I know I should be avoiding this topic like the plague, but I just gotta say, I can't understand how maybe 95% of the service members don't want to be there, most American civilians in general don't want us to be there, most Iraqi's don't want us there, yet Congress wont take any action. Its Vietnam all over again in the fact that our own Congress wont listen to the people that elected them, and end the stupidity already.

 

[YMIHERE]

It seems that every high ranking military officer denounces Bush after they retire. This is true even after Bush hand picks the generals who will tow the official line. They tired to discredit them by calling them phony soldiers but nobody bought that. Bush has to find a way to keep his generals from retiring if he wants to keep up the façade.

 

[AFA]

It seems that every high ranking military officer denounces Bush after they retire. This is true even after Bush hand picks the generals who will tow the official line. They tired to discredit them by calling them phony soldiers but nobody bought that. Bush has to find a way to keep his generals from retiring if he wants to keep up the façade.

That's very true, I've noticed that as well. What about cabinet members slowly fading away?

I listen to local radio in the mornings and the call in host just has that attitude that whatever Bush does, there has got to be a good reason for it. He prefers to believe everything he says. Otherwise he's a bright guy, but this I can't understand. He/ they want so much to believe that Bush is some superman, they really just lie to themselves.

 

[blakey]

I listen to local radio in the mornings and the call in host just has that attitude that whatever Bush does, there has got to be a good reason for it. He prefers to believe everything he says. Otherwise he's a bright guy, but this I can't understand. He/ they want so much to believe that Bush is some superman, they really just lie to themselves.

i see that as coming from post-9/11 uber-patriotism and/or a neo-con & evangelical christian republican state of mind

Its Vietnam all over again in the fact that our own Congress wont listen to the people that elected them, and end the stupidity already.

true
what will be a test of how much more it gets like vietnam
<which it's already resembling>
is if a new democrat president comes in after george w how will they act ?


and there's afghanistan too,
the winter is coming, coalition troops will pull back a bit, the taliban & their allies will sneek back in, and then a lot of the hard fighting that has been done this year will need to be done again next year

 

[jdb67]

I know I should be avoiding this topic like the plague, but I just gotta say, I can't understand how maybe 95% of the service members don't want to be there, most American civilians in general don't want us to be there, most Iraqi's don't want us there, yet Congress wont take any action. Its Vietnam all over again in the fact that our own Congress wont listen to the people that elected them, and end the stupidity already.

Im sorry to say this but your Govt and Congress probably realise that they have created the biggest Shitstorm since WWII.... If The U.S. pulls out of Iraq, It wont end there... These Extremists that are leading the attack against the West will just move the warzone to your backyard. They will bring the violence to to the U.S.A.

These people just dont want U.S. out of the Middle East, they want the United States of America as we know it wiped off the face of the Earth..

You guys dont realise it yet but you are fighting for your right to exist on this Planet.

 

[bodie54]

Im sorry to say this but your Govt and Congress probably realise that they have created the biggest Shitstorm since WWII.... If The U.S. pulls out of Iraq, It wont end there...

I agree

They will bring the violence to to the U.S.A.

What's to prevent them from doing that now? Surely they haven't been stupid enough to be drawn exclusively, like a moth to a flame, to our troops in Iraq, while dispensing with plans to disrupt the U.S. proper. We ARE certain to see more terrorist attacks, whether we stay in Iraq in not.

You guys dont realise it yet but you are fighting for your right to exist on this Planet.

While I respect the opinions of those from other countries, who may be capable of being more dispassionate than we americans, I don't think they have the numbers or means to literally threaten our existence - though lord knows Bush has been the greatest facilitator and recruiting tool they could ever have wished for.

 

[bodie54]

I agree

I should probably qualify this a wee bit. The shit storm was initiated by the administration, with a republican majority in the Congress at the time. It's pretty amusing that rather than taking responsibility, many Republicans are chastizing the current Democratic congress for not readily solving the genuine clusterfuck a Republican administration created.

 

[AFA]

i see that as coming from post-9/11 uber-patriotism and/or a neo-con & evangelical christian republican state of mind

Yes, a sort of blind faith, but mistrust of others, that it takes some sort of higher level of integrity to walk down a road til the end. Albeit, the wrong road in the wrong direction. Stupid. Isn't it the basic nature of republican vs. democrat, in that the republican puts a goal of wealth and personal achievement above the service and nuture of others?

Im sorry to say this but your Govt and Congress probably realise that they have created the biggest Shitstorm since WWII....

You need a big WalMart smiley face on an otherwise ugly picture.

This is the result of years of support and puppet governments set up all over the world to promote self interests. Britain did that too for many years, but of course has scaled it way back in the 20th century.

 

[bodie54]

Yes, a sort of blind faith, but mistrust of others, that it takes some sort of higher level of integrity to walk down a road til the end. Albeit, the wrong road in the wrong direction.

'agnorance' - a combination of arrogance and ignorance;
blind wilfullness mistaken for integrity & character

 

[AFA]

'agnorance' - a combination of arrogance and ignorance;
blind wilfullness mistaken for integrity & character

That's a good explaination, but that word seems to be a conjugation of ignorance and arrogance. Possibly not used enough to be in the dictionary, but I like it.
:thumbsup:

 

[Facial_King]

Isn't it the basic nature of republican vs. democrat, in that the republican puts a goal of wealth and personal achievement above the service and nuture of others?

While I don't think the Dems are anywhere close to being some kind of polar opposite to that, yeah, that's quite true about the GOP. The whole "Greed is Good" thing (a la Ayn Rand, typified by that dickwad John Stossel's tv special a coupla years back) is a recurring theme in the right's ideology, and we're lucky whenever a Republican doesn't play along with it consistently.

As for the war:

1. I don't think anyone who currently favors our continued presence in Iraq can articulate exactly why we are there. At least not in any words that would not repulse someone who wasn't raised among rabid dogfight-trained pitbulls. Regardless of whether it was ever put on tape or paper as a stated goal, the reality is that the oil under Iraqi soil will be much more accessible to Americans now than it was before the war.

2. Our presence there is most certainly not safeguarding anyone from future terrorist attacks. The idea that the people who are now rigging up roadside bombs, launching mortars, and shooting at/against American and Coalition troops are "terrorists" is fairly absurd. The terrorists who will conduct the next attack, or attempt to, are probably plotting it in a dark room somewhere where they will not be suspected or known.

3. Considering that our presence there is only throwing fuel to the flames of hatred towards Americans (and not just among Arabs & Muslims), and is not safeguarding us, and is costing far more lives than the "not very damn many" lives that Cheney said an Iraq war would be worth back in '92 (maybe '94? - find the vids on YouTube or CrooksandLiars.com), and is killing Iraqi civilians that Bush claimed we cared about...well, our presence there is only harmful.

4. The idea that Bush or any of the war backers truly cared about bringing democracy to Iraq and spreading it around the Middle East like the flowers that were supposedly going to be tossed liberally at our feet by throngs of Iraqis (not 25-100 delusional dupes) is ludicrous. People who still insist that was a significant (or even partial) reason for our invasion should be laughed out the door of respectable conversation. Iraqis, individually or collectively, were and are only "cared" about to the extent that they lay down and take what "we" (the Coalition of the "Willing") give them, that they don't protest when we take something from them, and they don't even THINK of becoming a terrorist.

5. If the terrorists really attacked us because they "hate our freedoms" then some of them must surely be pleased by the direction American society and government have moved since 9/11. Incrementally, slowly, but steadily, long-cherished (at least by many, most? of us) freedoms have been chipped away at. Cops and agents are spying on the Quakers (the Quakers!!) and people are getting arrested for unacceptable t-shirts and bumper stickers, just for starters. The idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is increasingly a thing of the past. The idea that "the terrorists have already won" has slowly faded from being the mantra we heard the first few months after 9/11. Osama remains on the loose.

6. The notion that you simply can't truly support the troops and be against the war is wrong and perverse. Our military, and the troops that comprise it, is a tool. A tool that our government can use, misuse, and abuse. Bush and Co. have misused and abused our military. They are sent in and do the best they can in any given situation, but if the military action is reckless, irresponsible or immoral, then that's not any soldier's fault. I don't want any American soldier to be harmed in Iraq. I also don't want any troops to be killing civilians, raping civilians, taunting civilians, etc. I don't think our troops should be there. I think they should either be in Afghanistan or Pakistan looking for Osama, or they should be home with their families. I believe the current situation there is such a clusterfuck that the idea that any soldier can distinguish between a "terrorist," an "insurgent", or a guy who simply wants Americans out of his country is far-fetched. The reality is that our troops (like any army) are a mixed bag. There are some who are idealistic and actually want to protect America and help Iraqis and there are some who have become sadistic nihilists - ultimately I blame Bush and co. for that. The situation in Iraq could easily fuck up any good, normal person who was raised in a healthy family. In any case, to the extent that our soldiers display character and courage and do not engage in atrocities, I fully support them. But I don't support them no matter what they do. I didn't support the shit at Abu Ghraib, and I don't support the concept behind Gitmo.

7. If there is any respect at all left for "the will of the people" - be it the people of Iraq who want us out or the majority of Americans who want us out or the vast majority of the international community who want us out - then it is time to withdraw. We "lost" the moment we went in.

 

[Facial_King]

(and by the way, I actually knew a soldier who was killed - a good friend of my family. Amazingly, while he hated Bush and was against our going into Iraq, he wanted to go over to help kids who, as he put it, "were just in there so they could afford to go to college later" and were being ripped apart - he became a medic, but later was on a bomb defusal team, which was how he met his end. So I know how decent and good American soldiers can be!)

 

[silent_blue]

I do not know a lot about this but I have been reading the BBC and some British newspapers and it is obvious that the British army does not think that they (or the Americans) should be in Iraq and that the whole war in Iraq has taken attention and soldiers away from Afghanistan where they think the really important fight is taking place.

I wonder what other people think about this.

Mel

 

[D-rock]

I listen to local radio in the mornings and the call in host just has that attitude that whatever Bush does, there has got to be a good reason for it.

I would have a hard time believing any bright person would think that of Bush. In fact I have a hard time believing anybody should ever hold that position for any politician ever. It's amazing what some people will look past no matter how much reality lays upon them. I’m not a big “just trust them” type of person. The Bush administration is a perfect example of why.

 

[jdb67]

What's to prevent them from doing that now? Surely they haven't been stupid enough to be drawn exclusively, like a moth to a flame, to our troops in Iraq, while dispensing with plans to disrupt the U.S. proper. We ARE certain to see more terrorist attacks, whether we stay in Iraq in not.

At present I can only speculate that the Resources and Brainstrust behind these extremists are focused on "liberating" Iraq...

I have no doubt that there are other Terrorist "units" working on ways to strke in the U.S. again and I hope that your intellegence agencies & Law enforcement agents are able to stay on top...

:2 cents:

 

[AFA]

You know I've read several good books about the current administration, The Politics of Deceit, Worse Than Watergate and now Blood Money. It's no surprise how many books are written about these guys, and the fact the administration exists to profit from the war, and that the will of the American people who have information withheld from them at every turn, is ignored because they can't think for themselves. All the books and all the documentaries say all the same thing. This is written in history at this point about how the American people are ignored as fools, and being overtly screwed around.

 

[Paraniod]

I could have told you that, and shouldnt he have said that before we went in.

 

[georges]

War against terrorism was never an easy task. If in 1991 the 1st gulf war wasn't ended precipitately by GWB senior, you wouldn't have so many problems. General Normal Schwartzkopf aka the "Bear" wanted to continue and destroy every military installation, base, Saddam personnel but GWB (the father) said him no. The situation in 2003 was way worse than it was in 1991.
Clinton had possibilities to go to war against Iraq but he refused to do it. I am not going to mention his latitudinarian attitude after the 1st wtc bombing and the U.S.S Cole bombing. If you vote for Clinton's wife which has done nothing positive for the NY state, you will see America's safety endangered. Clinton was known to kiss the UN's ass and to apply the cowardice strategy as it was the case in Mogadisciu in 1993. Knowing how a bad strategist is Hillary, I wouldn't be so full of hopes for an embetterment of the country. I know that there are some former generals like Wesley Clark who is one of the most serious and down to earth Democrats but sadly they are not enough numerous to outnumber Republicans. Yes, I know situation in Iraq is dangerous but letting a dictatorship or extremism invade that country again will have worse consequences than you can imagine. So people blaming X over Y should perhaps first learn to inform themselves about who they are going to vote for and they have to think by their own self not being stubborn and brainwashed by tv or whatever media that exist. When you have an education, you have to make choices that defend your country's interests and not look or support what the others think. Voting by default is stupid and completely retarded, sorry but that is my opinion.

 

[Member2019]

Stossel is a Libertarian, not a Republican!

I'm not going to take a stance, just going to correct an incorrect statement ...

The whole "Greed is Good" thing (a la Ayn Rand, typified by that dickwad John Stossel's tv special a coupla years back) is a recurring theme in the right's ideology, and we're lucky whenever a Republican doesn't play along with it consistently.

That is not a Republican ideal, that is an Libertarian ideal!
Stossel is about the only major US media personality who is a Libertarian.

Democrats and Republicans want to federally tax.
The Democrats want to use that money to form large social agencies, increasing the size of government and control, which reduces fiscal freedom (socialist model).
The Republicans want to use that money to "privatize" (which it is not), increasing the size of privately-owned monopolies and their control, which also reduces fiscal freedom somewhat (facist model).

The Democratic model creates a large government "above the law."
The Republican model creates a few super-monopolies that are "above the law."

Libertarians believe strongly that the government should not take the money in the first place.
Libertarians believe that people should be responsible for themselves first and foremost, then help others.
Libertarians believe that the incentive that separates most people is their own, professional initiative to make money, or follow (i.e. work for) someone else who does.

Innovation is not driven by people who "just want to work for others."
Charity is not done well by people who "just want to work for others."
Innovation is best maximized by those who have a dream, and put forth the effort towards that dream, and not those who just want a job.
Charity is best maximized by those who actually help people of their own free will, time and money, and not those who just want a job.

Libertarians are not remotely Republicans, even if left-wingers want to demonize them as such.
In the view of left-wingers, Libertarians are actually even more dangerous, because unlike Republicans, they would gut a lot of government funding and control.
Please educate yourself on this.

Also understand that when you demonize Libertarians as "greed is good" and "tax cuts for millionaires," we take it as a complement.
We also take it as your utter ignorance of basic economics, and instantly disregard your ability to do basic math.
I.e., in a progressive tax system, any tax cut benefits millionaires at least as much as anyone who makes less than them.

Let alone most people don't know much about who millionaries actually are, and the difference between high income earners and the existing wealthy.
Libertarians promote the creation of new, first generation of millionaires, because they put nearly all of their discretionary income into creating jobs and opportunities.
"Greed is good."