The New ' Nam, or We seen this before

[KafirChobee]

Blame it on Wilma (the hurricane), she gave me to much time to catch up on the back issues of my reading (Time, Newsweek, USN&WR, NewYorker, Washington Weekly, Washingtom Spectator, and Playboy (I really do read the articles - honest; after looking at the centerfold of course).

Point is, the new investigations in Washington are more about why we went to war in Iraq, than who lied or perjured themselves about giving up the name of a CIA opperative (btw, Ms. Plame was no simple clerk, she ran a counter-terrorism cooperative - which has now become compromised; to think it is other wise is to acknowledge that giving up a CIA employee is OK under any circumstances. Those in the know, know that those on top play down their real roles - those that don't .... die, or their agents do).

I don't believe that Bush43 actually understood what his mentors, prodders, and "friends" were doing - primarily because I have little if any respect that he actually comprehends anything beyond maintaining his familys' fortune (which seems to be his main intent for supporting the legislation he so fervently believes in).

Now, first off. The comparrisons between Iraq and 'nam are bogus - well not exactly. You see, there were mitigating circumstances - primarily people that wanted us (USA) to go to war. Now the difference is that in the first there were men that spoke out against it, in the latter there weren't (well, there were - but, they were either fired, retired, or embarrased - "Plame case", etc). Now in 'nam LBJ feared being the first Prez to lose a war, and he suffered for every man lost during his term (he actually signed all the "it is with great sympathy .... etc and actually attended more than a few brials of the men that died during his watch); he was regretful for his part in going along with the MilitaryIndustrialComplex's plan to keep us there. Bush43's team on the hand planned theirs.

First off, ever hear of the PNAC? Project for the New American Century, I kid you not. It was formed right after Desert Storm's conclusion - you know the "Powell fiascal", where we didn't finish the "job" (that the PNAC boys wanted, and many felt needed - but, then what? Now we know). Who is the PNAC? Well, it go find out - they must have a blog, website (did) etc.

PNAC:
Purpose:
1. Military Expansion - to secure "American" interests (as in Halibutons, Exxon's, etc.
2. Action against Iraq - name it, Christianic Jihad (the new Crusade).
3. "Star Wars", missle defense an Space Weapons; including nukes - "we are willing to destroy ourselves before ....." Rational geniocide.
4. ............(mine) take over befor the American people wake up that other powers are controlling them (offer them $50 a week in tax breaks, while we give millions to billionaires - "thy're" to left behind to figure out the reality of what we do.

The Members (PNAC):
Founders: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield + + + [think of any billionaire that may fit?]
Chairmen and members: (same +)
Charles Krathammer (appears weekly on ABC-TV & syndicated with the Washingtom post - of course).
Lewis Libby (guess we all know who he is)
Wm. Kristol - go look it up, he really is sorta important
Tom Donnelly - samosamo
Robert B. Zoellick - Deputy Secritary of State
Peter Rodman - Asst. Sec. of Def. for Int'l Security
Dov S. Zoellick - Deputy Sec. of State
John R. Bolton - US ambassador to the UN (who also has ties to Taiwan - especially financially)
Ramdy Scheuneman - was President for "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq", it ain't like this fiascal wasnot planned. You know? btw, the CLI was funded by defense and security contractors (you know those good old boys in thar fund the GOPp coffers).
Stephen Cambone - Under Sec. fo Defense for Intlligence; a pawn - one of those they use to leak untruths, or truths they think will embarress those that oppose their will (refferance "Plame")
R. James Woolsey - former CIA Director
---- Now VP at Booz-Allen-Hamilton (sound familiar? Cheney just awarded them a multi-billion$$$ unconteste contract in Iraq/ well, maybe not Cheney - but it wasn't congress.


So? Comparrisons to 'nam? Well, we (as citizens) were lied to about our reason to got to these regions. Those leading us didn't understand the regions or comprehend the impact of our presence to the surrounding areas.
Er, tbc

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Propaganda at it's finest.

[KafirChobee]

Newsweek, Oct. 31st - Last Word. by Anna Qindlen.
Now, first off, I rarely quote this rag - because tend to be to honest (I prefer real liberal gist stuff me self, but ... I liked this bit)

I will post it in its entirety. For now, the principle of it:

First, she asks Bush43 to go visit the WALL - not that he knows anyone on it, but just to see his face in the names of the men that died without a cause (except to serve their country - what a crock that is).

Then she explains how Bush43 disavowed the war becoming personal by not allowing photos to be taken of the coffins returning home, and how his admin decided it was a good idea not to keep track of how many Iraqis' were dying (100,000 - to date). She then goes into the nut case crap about stations (TV) refusing to broadcast the Koppel show that depicted the faces of those that had died (well below 2.000 I might add).

She then goes into an explanation of how Bush43's Iraq policy became a moving target:
1) WMD
2) The terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were trained or came from there (er , weren't they form Saudi Arabia?)
3. Getting rid of Saddam -removal of.
4. Bringing freedom to Iraq
5. Spreading democracy througout the Middle-East (well, why not? I'm sure the Saudis love to hear that - don't you?)

Point is, Bush needs to visit the Vietnam Memorial. He needs to realize - we already done this. We really don't need to lose more sons to a useless cause.

IMO. Too. TBC

[Reverend Joe]

Just wait for Gawain to show up... he will "tear this thing apart" with wierd, nonsensical facts and made-up propaganda. The truth is not a popular thing amongst the right these days. Keep it up, Kafir.

[Xiahou]

Just wait for Gawain to show up... he will "tear this thing apart" with wierd, nonsensical facts and made-up propaganda. The truth is not a popular thing amongst the right these days. Keep it up, Kafir.

So you're saying he'll fight fire with fire?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Just wait for Gawain to show up... he will "tear this thing apart" with wierd, nonsensical facts and made-up propaganda. The truth is not a popular thing amongst the right these days. Keep it up, Kafir.

The Left's no better.

[Grey_Fox]

That's why Moderates are on the Path of Enlightenment.

[ichi]

Well Kaf you just barely touched on one of the biggest reasons, and that is to distract the public from real issues and create a climate where rational dissent is impossible.

Just before this war started Enron had collapsed and there were many other potential PR disasters awaiting the Bush White House. Hard to worry about little things like corporate malfeasance when we are at war.

And even today, no one in this country can have a productive discussion of the current situation without 'left', 'right', and other posturing overwhelming any meaningful content.

We are on a collision course with some serious conflict, both internally and abroad, and we have to address important issues before they cripple us.

ichi

[Reverend Joe]

That's why Moderates are on the Path of Enlightenment.

Suuuuuuuuuure...

Moderates are on the path to oblivion. I despise moderates with every ounce of my body, even more so than facists, nihlists and anarchists combined.

[Sjakihata]

Moderators are on the path to oblivion. I despise moderates with every ounce of my body, even more so than facists, nihlists and anarchists combined.

gives a whole new meaning, eh?

[Red Harvest]

Suuuuuuuuuure...

Moderates are on the path to oblivion. I despise moderates with every ounce of my body, even more so than facists, nihlists and anarchists combined.

And there is the problem, right there. Those trying to span the gap are assaulted by both sides. No wonder the parties pull to each extreme. Twits that would be dismissed by the public in rational government are instead given more air time than anyone in between.

The country is operating like a dysfunctional team, concensus decision making is gone. The team is working against itself, rather than pulling toward common goals. It is now about trying to wrest control for one side to impose their own will on everyone else. That is the legacy of this Administration.

[Papewaio]

Suuuuuuuuuure...

Moderates are on the path to oblivion. I despise moderates with every ounce of my body, even more so than facists, nihlists and anarchists combined.

So if you don't have a strong feeling about something you are to be despised?

Surely politics should not require an emotional response. I get worried if people get a woody over fiscal policy.

What happens if you are a moderate about say school uniform. You think each school should decide for its self on its code of uniform. Instead of all students must wear a uniform... the right, or no uniforms except sandals as given by the state ... the left. So as the moderate you are to be considered worse then Nazis, Pol Pot and random terrorists?

[Togakure]

... no one in this country can have a productive discussion of the current situation without 'left', 'right', and other posturing overwhelming any meaningful content.

We are on a collision course with some serious conflict, both internally and abroad, and we have to address important issues before they cripple us.

ichi

Indeed. On the latter, my take is: it's too late. Now, it's just a matter of time.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Zorba is a bit harsh toward the moderates -- even harsher than is Rush Limbaugh (the radio host, not Gawain's avatar). Rush derides them for indecision and lack of guiding principles, suggesting that all they are doing is waiting for a majority to form so that they may jump on the bandwagon and feel good about themselves. Rush is, no doubt, describing some of them.
On the other hand, there are a few -- like Bill O'Reilly -- who take it more "issue by issue" and may well come down at different points depending on the subject area.

Despising them seems a little harsh. I don't, myself, understand how you can read/hear/think about any of this without developing an opinion. Especially in the case of Iraq -- where some of our own are dying -- I do not understand the lack of engagement.

Finally, we have the even larger crowd (ever larger?) who simply can't be bothered with anything aside from their own daily/weekly existence and remain ignorant about most political issues. They are moderate only in that they haven't developed any staunchly-held opinion.

I too have wondered about why Iraq and why that moment in time. Saddam was hardly unique in being a quasi-fascist thug who supported terrorism. At the time, I found the continued nuclear program disturbing. I have been subsequently disappointed with the quality of information used for this decision. In retrospect, all of the information gathered pointed to renewed nuclear efforts as a "distinct possibility" (later disconfirmed) as opposed to the "near certainty" as it was presented. I do not think anything was fabricated, merely poorly analyzed by decision makers who were alreadly leaning toward a political decision. Group communication scholars call this "groupthink" and note that it can adversely affect decision-making. It is an easy, and very human, thing to do however and virtually every government worldwide and throughout history has been prone to it.

However, we are there -- alea acta est -- and need to make it work. Either we prod Iraq into a semi+ successful democratic state (or better) or we will lose some ground. Even a successful three-state devolution would be acceptable, as long as it was accomplished along the lines of the devolution of Czechoslovakia. The long term advantages of a successful democratic state(s) in the Middle East will end up justifying the cost incurred, but the job is far from over and the cost is not yet paid in full. Cutting our losses now, pulling out and leaving it to the Iraqis at this juncture, will very likely not yield a positive enough outcome.

On a positive note, there is far more buy-in to this effort on the part of everyday Iraqis than the USA ever enjoyed in Vietnam. It is far easier to garner support for a nascent democracy than for a corrupt dictatorship such as we had originally backed in S. Vietnam.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Just wait for Gawain to show up... he will "tear this thing apart" with wierd, nonsensical facts and made-up propaganda. The truth is not a popular thing amongst the right these days. Keep it up, Kafir.

I think its the left who cant face the truth. Kafir like all liberals would like nothing better than for this to be another Nam. There is little if any comparison. Thats all I have to say. No need for propaganda or nonsensical facts. I leave that to you Libs.

[Papewaio]

Well I'm on the Left of some and I reckon they should triple or quadruple the amount of soldiers. Including bodyarmour and equipment. Get them on foot patrols in the streets. Have full backup from wheeled troop transports to tanks to overhead patrols. Curfews, stronger border patrols, focus on building vital infrastructure (electricity and water to the people).

Need a large visible presence on the streets. Constant patrols and awareness of changes in the local environment. Disarming of gangs and militia.

[Leet Eriksson]

Well I'm on the Left of some and I reckon they should triple or quadruple the amount of soldiers. Including bodyarmour and equipment. Get them on foot patrols in the streets. Have full backup from wheeled troop transports to tanks to overhead patrols. Curfews, stronger border patrols, focus on building vital infrastructure (electricity and water to the people).

Need a large visible presence on the streets. Constant patrols and awareness of changes in the local environment. Disarming of gangs and militia.

I still don't understand one thing, how come the US spends more than the world combined on the military, yet are not able to do what you mentioned.

[Reverend Joe]

I think its the left who cant face the truth. Kafir like all liberals would like nothing better than for this to be another Nam. There is little if any comparison. Thats all I have to say. No need for propaganda or nonsensical facts. I leave that to you Libs.

A picture is worth more words than I can ever write down.

[Papewaio]

I still don't understand one thing, how come the US spends more than the world combined on the military, yet are not able to do what you mentioned.

Maybe the dollar value doesn't go as far?

Over reliance on technology? Maybe.

Actual amount of people in patrols?

Ratio of support to frontline?

[Red Harvest]

Kafir like all liberals would like nothing better than for this to be another Nam. There is little if any comparison. Thats all I have to say. No need for propaganda or nonsensical facts. I leave that to you Libs.

That is a specious argument. There are undoubtedly some liberals who want to see it fail, but I do not believe that most feel that way. Your are living in "Gawain's World" of "nonsenical facts." I don't believe 60% of the population is liberal, but 60% of us (the general population) do not feel that this has been worth it. Now where was that "conservative mainstream" Gawain?

In terms of casualties, I don't see Iraq ending up like Vietnam. In terms of damage to our prestige, and national psyche, it is already doing the same sort of number as Vietnam did. We had shaken the paralyzing effects of that and the cries of "it's gonna be another 'Nam" had finally become nearly silent. Then Dubya went and made this mess of it. "It's deja vu all over again." Now for decades, every time there is some need to act, we will be paralyzed by the "it's gonna be another Iraq" mantra.

As for political outcome...different animal. I don't believe any of the stated goals will be achieved, other than ousting Saddam. Security will be worse, and Iraq will end up fractured. I expect low level warfare and anarchy to prevail for a decade or so.

[Leet Eriksson]

Maybe the dollar value doesn't go as far?

Over reliance on technology? Maybe.

Actual amount of people in patrols?

Ratio of support to frontline?

I thought it was more about the current adminstration being incompetent, becuase i honestly think they can do it and more.

[Red Harvest]

Well I'm on the Left of some and I reckon they should triple or quadruple the amount of soldiers. Including bodyarmour and equipment. Get them on foot patrols in the streets. Have full backup from wheeled troop transports to tanks to overhead patrols. Curfews, stronger border patrols, focus on building vital infrastructure (electricity and water to the people).

Need a large visible presence on the streets. Constant patrols and awareness of changes in the local environment. Disarming of gangs and militia.

Yes, this was done "on the cheap" by an Administration that can't add, subtract, multiply or divide. Moderates and liberals had pointed out that the occupation "plan" appeared insufficient.

One of the angry fathers whose son had been killed was venting about the fact his son was killed during the FIFTH time they had gone into retake an area. He referred to that as being the definition of insanity. He also said it illustrated the basic failure to put enough boots on the ground. I agree, and had come to the same conclusion after hearing the same old story over and over again. If you can't secure a place, then playing "whack a mole" is a fruitless excercise.

The big problem though came early on. If the perception had been established that security would be maintained, I believe it would have given the average Iraqi some confidence. That didn't happen. Way too many mistakes were made and set the wrong tone. You only get one shot at a first impression.

[Reverend Joe]

The numbers of dead every week is now equalling Vietnam. We are fighting wild, ideal-driven partisans in a land they think we have occupied to prop up a false/illegitimate government. What more do you want? It is Vietnam, and to believe otherwise is hiding in a world of idealistic stupidity. Just accept it so that we know how to deal with this situation.

Saturation and fire bombing. Big time. Starting with Fallujah. Blow the mother ****ers to hell.

[Redleg]

Maybe the dollar value doesn't go as far?

Over reliance on technology? Maybe.

Actual amount of people in patrols?

Ratio of support to frontline?

I suspect you are correct. The technology of the United States Military costs a lot of money. I don't think we are over reliant on the technology because you still have to have soldiers to operate the equipment. The cost of training soldiers to use their equipment is also very expensive. A five day field exercise (training for an Artillery Battalion) often costs over $250,000 dollars when they train on the post they are assigned - its gets even more expensive when they go somewhere else. And this was just for the supplies to do the exercise. Factoring in maintenance and wear and tear of equipment.


Combat troop ratio is about 1 combat soldier to over 6 support soldiers. Can't remembe the actual number - but I am sure its worse then 1 to 6.

Patrols by soldiers is a high intensity training issue - because in the situation they find themselves in they are soldiers first and policemen at almost the same time. Not an easy task to do.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I don't believe 60% of the population is liberal, but 60% of us (the general population) do not feel that this has been worth it.

Going by those biased polls I suppose. More propaganda by the mainstream press. I saw the base for those polls.

[ichi]

Just because Liberals would like this to be another 'nam doesn't mean it isn't.

Well said, and quite true

ichi

[Red Harvest]

Going by those biased polls I suppose. More propaganda by the mainstream press. I saw the base for those polls.

R-I-G-H-T.... Gawain's World! Gawain's World!

Edit: Sorry, Gawain, but the idea of those smilies and the Wayne's World theme just came together. Pretty entertaining little effect I think. In fairness, we probably need a dancing donkey too.

[Ironside]

The numbers of dead every week is now equalling Vietnam. We are fighting wild, ideal-driven partisans in a land they think we have occupied to prop up a false/illegitimate government. What more do you want? It is Vietnam, and to believe otherwise is hiding in a world of idealistic stupidity. Just accept it so that we know how to deal with this situation.

Saturation and fire bombing. Big time. Starting with Fallujah. Blow the mother ****ers to hell.

You do that and you'll end up with a goverment that are so friendly with the US that Iran will look like they're currently licking USA:s boots. And that's if you're successfulv with installing democracy. Otherwise you'll install a new dictorship, that considering what usually happen, will be ousted by president Jenna Bush in about 2025, whose words about Iraq will be "third time the charm". Well that US friendly dictorship could be exposed to a coup d'êtat before that, but the third war will still happen.

And I'm still wondering why they haven't sent in more troops, when it's obvious that the current amounts of troops is too few, even now.

[ichi]

R-I-G-H-T.... Gawain's World! Gawain's World!

Good one RH, LMAO

ichi

[Xiahou]

Well I'm on the Left of some and I reckon they should triple or quadruple the amount of soldiers. Including bodyarmour and equipment. Get them on foot patrols in the streets. Have full backup from wheeled troop transports to tanks to overhead patrols. Curfews, stronger border patrols, focus on building vital infrastructure (electricity and water to the people).

Need a large visible presence on the streets. Constant patrols and awareness of changes in the local environment. Disarming of gangs and militia.

IMO, that would be the exact wrong thing to do. Putting hundreds of thousands more American soldiers out on foot patrols would increase casualties and increase resentment. Definitely not what we need to be doing now- we should continue to move to a support role for Iraqi troops and only use large scale deployments for the coming elections. The plan should be, and I think now is to put less American faces in the streets and to let Iraqis who speak the language and know the neighborhoods and their people take the lead.