(continuing on the Iraq riff started in that other thread)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20071219/wl_mcclatchy/2789226


Despite drop in violence, Pentagon finds little long-term progress in Iraq

WASHINGTON — Despite significant security gains in much of Iraq , nothing has changed within Iraq's political leadership to guarantee sustainable peace, a Pentagon report released Tuesday found.

The congressionally mandated quarterly report suggests that the drop in violence won't hold unless Iraq's central government passes key legislation, improves the way it manages its security forces and finds a way to reconcile the country's competing sects. It said none of those steps has been taken.

"Although security gains, local accommodation and progress against the flow of foreign fighters and lethal aid into Iraq have had a substantial effect, more needs to be done to foster national, 'top-down' reconciliation to sustain the gains," the report said.

The Pentagon report is the latest assessment circulating in Washington as officials ponder whether the strategy of increasing U.S. troop strength this year by 30,000 can be called a victory or whether the drop in violence is a lull that will break once the United States returns to last year's troop levels.

Another report this week, by retired Lt. Gen. Barry McCaffrey , said that mid-ranking U.S. military officers have become "the de-facto low-level government of the Iraq state."

"The Iraqis tend to defer to U.S. company and battalion commanders based on their respect for their counterparts' energy, integrity and the assurance of some level of security," McCaffrey wrote after a three-week visit to Iraq .

The Pentagon report documents the steep decline in violence. It said that 600 civilians were killed in November, compared with 3,000 in December 2006 . The report also said that al Qaida in Iraq is now on the defensive, weakened by a Sunni Muslim populace that no longer backs it.

But the report also said that the Iraqi government has failed to improve basic services such as water and electricity and hasn't passed legislation outlining how it would distribute oil revenues or hold provincial elections. Most sessions, the parliament struggles to reach a quorum.

Corruption remains a major problem throughout the government. The report cited both the Ministry of Interior , which runs the police force, and the oil industry, Iraq's largest generator of revenue. "Corruption and sectarian behavior continue to be evident in the MoI," the report said. "Corruption at all levels of the oil industry remains a significant problem."

The report also said that despite four years of intense U.S. effort, the Iraqi security forces remain unprepared to operate independently. It said that the ministries of interior and defense are plagued by "deficiencies in logistics, combat support functions and . . . by shortages of officers at all operational and tactical levels."

The report also raises questions about the future of so-called concerned local citizens organizations, which U.S. military leaders have credited with helping to quiet many of Iraq's contentious areas. The U.S. pays the organizations' estimated 70,000 members to patrol Iraq's streets, giving them jobs and, U.S. officials believe, less incentive to join the insurgency.

The report said the groups were "crucial to the counterinsurgency effort." But it also warned that they could evolve into a militia that's opposed to Iraq's central government, a fear shared by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki . The vast majority of the concerned local citizens are Sunni Muslims. The government is dominated by Shiites.

"The slow pace of integrating CLC members in (government) institutions, lack of alternative employment and fears by the Maliki government that these forces may return to violence or form new militias are of concern," the report said.

The report also included polling data that indicate that Iraqis are skeptical about how widespread the drop in violence is. Sixty-one percent of Iraqis nationwide said that their neighborhoods were calm. But only 19 percent said that violence had declined elsewhere in Iraq.

This is certainly "news".......

The current generation of Iraqis are useless.

I have posted articles that have a more positive spin.

The douche bag that wrote this article prolly hasn't even been to Iraq. The douche bags of some of the articles I've posted and read prolly haven't been to Iraq but have a more positive spin.

The truth is peeps are coming back to bagdad and the violence is way less than before. US military deaths are less than in some peace time years. What perplexes me is why detractors of the war (the narrative of defeat folks) can't say so.

They can't say "Hey, we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but peace is good for all over there. Good for the Iraqi families" Hopefully it can all get stabilized.

Instead its, "we're just paying peeps" and its not going to last and on and on.

Emotionally and politicall invested in the narrative of defeat.

Ha! Yes, the writer has indeed been to Iraq:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/158

And that narrative is largely quoting:

1) the Pentagon's report to Congress:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/FINAL-SecDef%20Signed-20071214.pdf

where the only positive uses of the phrase "long-term" applies to "long-term fixes for the oil pipeline" and a peace pipe smoked that was named "Principles for a Long-Term Relations of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America". Every other use was grim.

and

2) Retired General Barry McCaffrey's report to the military:

http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/documents/iraqaardec2007.pdf

which ends with: "We are clearly no longer on a downward spiral. However, the ultimate outcome is still quite seriously in doubt."

Read the reports yourself. What do you think they say as far as long-term prospects?

Have I said "Mission Accomplished" I said things are getting better.

I wasn't just talking about this article's writer, I was making a general comment about these weenies writing articles and inserting their speculation in. Some insert speculation of doom and gloom and others say things are getting way better. I could give a shit what some writer in LA working for the LA times, sitting in LA thinks about Iraq. Opinions are like assholes, everyones got one and they all stink.

I'll go with my articles and I'm thinking you'll go with yours. Patreus gave a pretty realistic picture in Iraq. He said some good things and some bad. The one that stuck out with me is the violence has lessened considerably, but we need a political solution too. The military can't win this thing alone.

I've posted that, I and believe that.

The truth is peeps are coming back to bagdad and the violence is way less than before. US military deaths are less than in some peace time years. What perplexes me is why detractors of the war (the narrative of defeat folks) can't say so.

They can't say "Hey, we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but peace is good for all over there. Good for the Iraqi families" Hopefully it can all get stabilized.


Define defeat. Admitting that we can't salvage that broken country isn't defeat it's reality.

The war's supporters are like the Matt Millen of politics. So emotionally and invested in the mistakes that they just prolong the fiasco. The sooner we stop pouring lives and money down that pit, the better.

Luckily liberals are coming around to nuclear energy instead of you liberal hippies out there smoking the pot and protesting it.

Now that you've started changing your tune on that, we might be able to start weaning ourselves from oil. joking meter...mostly kind of sort of

Luckily liberals are coming around to nuclear energy instead of you liberal hippies out there smoking the pot and protesting it.

Now that you've started changing your tune on that, we might be able to start weaning ourselves from oil. joking meter...mostly kind of sort of

I guess that after getting run out of wmd valley and routed from democracy hill, the war supporters' last stand is on war for oil ridge. Good luck with that. Seriously.

There have been no gains in that regard either. The US had plenty enough presence in the region before invading iraq to answer any regional oil shenanigans. Not to mention a lot more credibility, money and potential allies.

All we accomplished was to jack up the price of oil, filling the coffers in places like russia, venezuela and assorted other exporters of dubious character. Not to mention the damage done to our own economy by high energy prices and as a bonus... we shriveled up the supply coming out of iraq to a trickle. Nice job. Go US.

Oil prices went up mainly cuz of China and India having huge growth.

If we had been greeted with candy in the streets, and found nukes under saddams bed this war would have been a miserable failure for our nation. The rest of this shit has just been icing.

Tahoe:

Been to Iraq lately?

Tahoe:

Been to Iraq lately?

No. But what these libs are doing is writing editorial pieces and disguising it as news. Then you guys goble it up.

Well, I don't see how you can counterdict what they're saying, unless you buy into the Concservative line that we should all be spending our Christmas Holliday in Baghdad!

For the record, I'm not sure that "counterdict" is even a word!

Tahoe:

You lose this one BIG TIME.

My LIBERAL President Bill Clinton lied about having sex with an intern.
Your conservative President lied about WMD's in Iraq.

No one died as a result of Bill Clinton's lie. In fact, we applauded him about getting a blow job.

Thousands upon thousands of innocent people have died, and millions more are refugees because of your guy's lie. And no one is applauding him about blowing Iraq up.

Bush didn't lie. To lie, he would have had to scour every inch of Iraq to know that there WAS NOT WMDs.

He had bad intel, as did the world, but he did not lie. To lie you have to KNOW what you are saying is false. Good try. I'd be with ya, if true.

This kind of stuff cracks me up. Politicizing the war at its best. Al bashes 41 for 'blatant disregard' of Sadam, and now bashes 43 ... whatever his latest bullshit line is about the war.

iVFYcxLiRGk

Yup. Good one. The President of the United States of America, the greatest, wealthiest nation on Earth, had "bad intel".

Bullshit. He is a fucking liar.

As did the Russians, Brits, France and apparently even Sadam was lied to by that one guy...forgot his name right now. He said Sadam believed that he STILL had WMDS. They used a ton of them up on the Kurds...and never replenished, I guess.

So were no smarter than the Russians, who are a mess; the British, who have fucked up teeth and drink tea instead of coffee, and the French, a nation of fags who can't say the letter "R" without sounding like they need the Heimlich Maneuver, and also a nation of women who don't shave their legs or armpits.
Justify this worhtless piece of shit president, whose administration has proven to be the most corrupt and inept we've ever had, all you want. And then salute the American Flag draped coffins as they come home for no reason; send money to the foundations that will be popping up in the next decade to help Iraqi refugees; and pay your taxes proudly to help reduce the deficit that this war mongering, torture endorsing, lying, in-over-his-head, in bed with the military-industrial-oil complex puppet will saddle future generations of Americans with.

So were no smarter than the Russians, who are a mess; the British, who have fucked up teeth and drink tea instead of coffee, and the French, a nation of fags who can't say the letter "R" without sounding like they need the Heimlich Maneuver, and also a nation of women who don't shave their legs or armpits.
Justify this worhtless piece of shit president, whose administration has proven to be the most corrupt and inept we've ever had, all you want. And then salute the American Flag draped coffins as they come home for no reason; send money to the foundations that will be popping up in the next decade to help Iraqi refugees; and pay your taxes proudly to help reduce the deficit that this war mongering, torture endorsing, lying, in-over-his-head, in bed with the military-industrial-oil complex puppet will saddle future generations of Americans with.

Can't disagree with the bolded part.

What about the British and their fucked up teeth?

I'm not saying nothing about the Brits cuz them hooligans will kick their own Grandmothers ass if she steps between them and a soccer game.

What makes you think that?

http://www.stlallsports.com/pics/soccerflaresaustralia.jpg

So were no smarter than the Russians, who are a mess; the British, who have fucked up teeth and drink tea instead of coffee, and the French, a nation of fags who can't say the letter "R" without sounding like they need the Heimlich Maneuver, and also a nation of women who don't shave their legs or armpits.
Justify this worhtless piece of shit president, whose administration has proven to be the most corrupt and inept we've ever had, all you want. And then salute the American Flag draped coffins as they come home for no reason; send money to the foundations that will be popping up in the next decade to help Iraqi refugees; and pay your taxes proudly to help reduce the deficit that this war mongering, torture endorsing, lying, in-over-his-head, in bed with the military-industrial-oil complex puppet will saddle future generations of Americans with.
If a picture existed of Keith Langlois with glowing red eyes, standing in front of Ground Zero, holding up an American Flag, with a golden eagle perched upon his shoulder, and a single tear flowing down his cheek, I would post it in your honor, Zip. You make me proud to be an American.

Bush didn't lie. To lie, he would have had to scour every inch of Iraq to know that there WAS NOT WMDs.

He had bad intel, as did the world, but he did not lie. To lie you have to KNOW what you are saying is false. Good try. I'd be with ya, if true.
Bush wanted to believe so badly that he disregarded and buried the wealth of contradictory information. He fostered the bad intel, threw the proverbial nuclear dart at Iraq and pummeled everyone to paint a fucking bullseye around it. Where the real "lie" comes in is how he tied this to Al-Qaeda even when Al-Qaeda wasn't a real part of anything going on in Iraq. Meanwhile, he ignored the real danger of a nuclear North Korea in his quest to stick it to Iraq.

If a picture existed of Keith Langlois with glowing red eyes, standing in front of Ground Zero, holding up an American Flag, with a golden eagle perched upon his shoulder, and a single tear flowing down his cheek, I would post it in your honor, Zip. You make me proud to be an American.

Thanks Swami.
Back at ya!

You both make me proud. :emo kid:

I'll go with my articles and I'm thinking you'll go with yours.
Again, the article I posted largely summarizes military reports. Violence is down, long-term prospects are grim. In other news, it's Thursday. I don't think they're going overboard in the doom+gloom category from a long-term perspective.


Patreus gave a pretty realistic picture in Iraq. He said some good things and some bad. The one that stuck out with me is the violence has lessened considerably, but we need a political solution too. The military can't win this thing alone.

I've posted that, I and believe that.
And I agree with that.

The real question is -- will we get that? What are our prospects? Thus far, things don't look especially hopeful in the long-term. There aren't many signs that the Maliki government is getting their act together, and I don't think what we are asking them to do is even really do-able, as noted before.

Tahoe:

Been to Iraq lately?Have you?

I read the news today, oh boy...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/world/middleeast/23awakening.html?ei=5090&en=93b15c431c7f9bbe&ex=1356066000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7173407,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122002553.html?nav=rss_print/asection

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071224/ts_nm/iraq_turkey_raids_dc

As did the Russians, Brits, France and apparently even Sadam was lied to by that one guy...forgot his name right now. He said Sadam believed that he STILL had WMDS. They used a ton of them up on the Kurds...and never replenished, I guess.


I heard an interview with the guy who was the lead interrogator for Saddam. He's writing a book, or has already, but he said that Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs. He refused to say otherwise because as long as we thought it, so did Iran, which was his big goal.

I heard an interview with the guy who was the lead interrogator for Saddam. He's writing a book, or has already, but he said that Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs. He refused to say otherwise because as long as we thought it, so did Iran, which was his big goal.

Impossible! <---sarcasm

Today Al Qaeda used 2 mentally retarded women with bomb vests on, then remotely detonated the vests.

Come on Dems, Red Cross, UN whatever...instead of bitching about GITMO being torture, get on this.

what exactly are we trying to "win" anyway? uhhhhh...

as soon as i figure out the energy crisis, we'll be out of iraq lickity split, and there wont be even the slightest argument from righty. a few die hard liberals who were hardcore anti-war from the start will probably say something like "we are not really going to leave them this high and dry, are we?". and righty will say some bs about accomplishing all our goals (read: use iraqi oil as a crutch til we figure out plan b".

so yea, this is a false argument in the highest degree. believe me, we'll be more than cool with these guys chopping eachother up over empty sand in the very near future (read 10 -15 years). but dont count on lefty or righty getting us out of there beforehand.

I'm going back again.

With the Marines this time.

I'll be wearing MARPAT and training with them within 2 weeks.

Props to you Comrade. Thanks for your service and keep your head down.

It sounds like things are getting better but that doesn't make it an easy assignment. Good luck.

Props to you Comrade. Thanks for your service and keep your head down.

It sounds like things are getting better but that doesn't make it an easy assignment. Good luck.You ever deploy with our sister services during your time in the World's Greatest Air Force? I've never actually deployed with the AF myself. I spent my last trip to the shit being Army Strong.

Good luck and thanks, Comrade.

Much Props, Comrade.
tkkjSKfUC4o

Like many of us have said... the military is doing its job. The surge worked, but the diplomats.... Fox News obtained an article ripping diplomatic efforts.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330117,00.html

Part of the problem is that there isn't really that much effort being expended on intelligence on the ground in Iraq, certainly not by comparison with other wars. The thing that constantly cripples the efforts of the military is a lack of information that allows for a stream of constant political errors.

One of the surprising things I think everyone's learned from the Iraq war is that the "new war" strategy of relying on sophisticated communications technology and advanced weaponry only works long enough to get you into the country. As soon as you're there, it might as well be WW2. You gotta go back to firepower, manpower, strategy, and good old-fashioned intelligence in order to make progress in the long-term.

And it does indeed look like we are talking about the long-term.

One of the surprising things I think everyone's learned from the Iraq war is that the "new war" strategy of relying on sophisticated communications technology and advanced weaponry only works long enough to get you into the country. As soon as you're there, it might as well be WW2. You gotta go back to firepower, manpower, strategy, and good old-fashioned intelligence in order to make progress in the long-term.
Daddy Bush knew that. It's not THAT surprising. We haven't had that much technology change in the past couple decades to change that equation too terribly much on the ground.

I really think Cheney, Wolfie and Rummy need to be added to this fuck up. Bush was too dumb to really see wtf he was getting into.

But if this war was handled/managed better the result would have/could have been much much better and is aproval rating would have been much better.

Bush didn't have the brain power to make his own decision(assuming he would have done anything different). All he could do was follow the pack.

I think you're right, Tahoe - the PNAC neocons were the guys who managed this thing so badly at the beginning. But the thing is, they were also the guys who fought hard to get us in there to begin with. It's awfully hard to barge into something for the wrong reasons and then pull it off like a champ. The people who will get us out of this thing successfully are the people who are doing it with the right motivations, trying to do it with a spirit of care and minimizing harm.

Its the 'minimizing harm' process that is the tough one. To some that means don't leave for quite a while.

To me its kind of like Marriage. lol. I've had peeps tell me that if they had it to do over, they wouldn't have married their wife, but now that their married they have to stick it out.

After I got married, I realized that while my wife and I may be pretty much perfect together, the institution of marriage is total bullshit. I couldn't really see myself ever being without her, but at the same time I recognize that marriage is just a way of holding a legal sword of Damocles over someone's head to threaten them if they think about leaving.

Plus, the process of having a wedding was fucking painful. The wedding was nice and all, but my mother-in-law pretty much called all the shots as it pertains to the wedding, and she made our lives miserable. I was seriously the last person to leave my own wedding, and I was carrying floral arrangements out to her car.

To me its kind of like Marriage. lol. I've had peeps tell me that if they had it to do over, they wouldn't have married their wife, but now that their married they have to stick it out.
If you add children to the mix, and assume you got married to some ugly chick because you got drunk and flew off to Vegas, your analogy works even better.

LOL Swam. My buddies wife (and mom)HATED us, his freinds. She was nice to us at first then just did everything she could to seperate him from us.

We were his groomsmen and she fucking kicked all of us off. She let him out of the house to tell us that we were kicked off. Then she put her 2 brothers on and we think an ex bf of hers. It was the craziest shit ever. She would'nt let him come to our bachelor party cuz we wouldn't invite her dad. We got her back though.

Good point Mxy. I see where you are coming from.

add children to the mix

ugly chick
Does not compute.

Started training with the Corp today. 122 pounds of gear to carry. 6 mile march. Dig a hole. Here's hoping my next deployment is with the Chairforce.

Oh and apparently that British dude, Prince Harry or whatever, does roughly the same job as me in roughly the same region. Except I do it better.

And how about this (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=4387128) shithead? He's just another sick fuck, there all over the place. But because he's wearing that uniform he's held to a higher standard. God knows I give a fuckall for the civilian world's opinion of my military, but I know everytime something like that is reported - it brings us all down a little bit more.

Thanks again for your service Comrade.

Take no prisoners Comrade.

I've been checking out the other news outlets to see what they cover, etc. I do that once in a while.

Today Richard Engel MSNBC actually said 'the surge' made a huge difference or something like that. For Engel to do that, you know the surge must be working.

BTW... MSNBC used to have the hottest hotties when I watched them.

Al Maliki has HIS troops attacking Al Sadr militia. This is what will get us out of Iraq, or at least out of harms way. It looks like the Iraqi military is finally getting their shit together. This is GREAT news.

If fuggin Rumsfeld wouldn't have disbanded the army in the first place, we wouldn't be in this boat...I don't think anyway. Hindsight.

Al Maliki has HIS troops attacking Al Sadr militia. This is what will get us out of Iraq, or at least out of harms way. It looks like the Iraqi military is finally getting their shit together. This is GREAT news.

If fuggin Rumsfeld wouldn't have disbanded the army in the first place, we wouldn't be in this boat...I don't think anyway. Hindsight.
I don't know man. It looks like our troops are being dragged into this shit, and that would be the worst news possible.

Al Maliki has HIS troops attacking Al Sadr militia. This is what will get us out of Iraq, or at least out of harms way. It looks like the Iraqi military is finally getting their shit together. This is GREAT news.
Al Sadr got what he wanted, with the Iranians as the key power brokers. Somehow, I doubt Maliki and Bush are smiling.

Maliki's forces were unable to marginalize Sadr. But the Iranians told Sadr to call for a cease fire anyway, but asked for lots of stuff too.

Looks like that whole thing turned into a giant goat fuck.

and you are right swam the US did help a lil bit. Not much, but they did support the effort.

I just watched that on the tube than did a quik search on it all. lol

OT from Iraq but didn't think it was worthy of a new thread. new threads are like $14.95 or something.

NATO endorses US missile defense shield. Despite Russias objections. Good job Georgie.

Also, France announces a troop increase in Afghanistan. Sarkozy said, "if we are going to pull our troops out tomorrow, we need to win today"

Can Ukraine and Georgia join?


Are you out of your mind?

OT from Iraq
...
Also, France announces a troop increase in Afghanistan. Sarkozy said, "if we are going to pull our troops out tomorrow, we need to win today"
This is actually on-topic here, somewhat.

Europe's resistance to Afghanistan centers around Iraq. They think that Iraq is drawing away from Afghanistan, and generally want us increase our Afghanistan troop commitments before they increase theirs.

On a more direct note:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/world/middleeast/04iraq.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


BAGHDAD — More than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen either refused to fight or simply abandoned their posts during the inconclusive assault against Shiite militias in Basra last week, a senior Iraqi government official said Thursday. Iraqi military officials said the group included dozens of officers, including at least two senior field commanders in the battle.

The desertions in the heat of a major battle cast fresh doubt on the effectiveness of the American-trained Iraqi security forces. The White House has conditioned further withdrawals of American troops on the readiness of the Iraqi military and police.

The crisis created by the desertions and other problems with the Basra operation was serious enough that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki hastily began funneling some 10,000 recruits from local Shiite tribes into his armed forces. That move has already generated anger among Sunni tribesmen whom Mr. Maliki has been much less eager to recruit despite their cooperation with the government in its fight against Sunni insurgents and criminal gangs.

A British military official said that Mr. Maliki had brought 6,600 reinforcements to Basra to join the 30,000 security personnel already stationed there, and a senior American military official said that he understood that 1,000 to 1,500 Iraqi forces had deserted or underperformed. That would represent a little over 4 percent of the total.
...

This is actually on-topic here, somewhat.

Europe's resistance to Afghanistan centers around Iraq. They think that Iraq is drawing away from Afghanistan, and generally want us increase our Afghanistan troop commitments before they increase theirs.

On a more direct note:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/world/middleeast/04iraq.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Thats what they used to think.

nyt;dcl dra

dra, Didn't Read After?

article

nyt;dcl dra
tahowned

I guess that after getting run out of wmd valley and routed from democracy hill, the war supporters' last stand is on war for oil ridge. Good luck with that. Seriously.

There have been no gains in that regard either. The US had plenty enough presence in the region before invading iraq to answer any regional oil shenanigans. Not to mention a lot more credibility, money and potential allies.

All we accomplished was to jack up the price of oil, filling the coffers in places like russia, venezuela and assorted other exporters of dubious character. Not to mention the damage done to our own economy by high energy prices and as a bonus... we shriveled up the supply coming out of iraq to a trickle. Nice job. Go US.
Bingo. This guy gets it.

One of the words that was noticeably absent from the Dems in todays questioning was 'benchmarks".

Never heard it once.

Hmmm... Levin spoke "benchmarks", or so the local radio news said.
A quick Google check confirms:

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080408/METRO/804080423

I haven't been paying too much attention to the Iraq theater (I do many other things besides punditry for a Pistons board ;) ). I did hear that McCain oopsed again in public:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/08/869803.aspx

Well for as much as we heard about Benchmarks for progress in Iraq 6 or 7 months ago when Gen Pat was here, they didn't mention them much today. Presumably cuz we've reached 12-18.

Seriously, i just think the Dems read way to much into those polls about getting out of Iraq. Peeps want out at the right time. Those polls have such vague meanings to me.

Do you want to get out of Iraq? You can't say everything you need to say in that poll. Then to set your foreign policy on it for chrissakes.

Anyway the Dems (and the Reps who wanted these benchmarks) prolly did a helluva lot of good for the Bush Admin. The admin knew it was going to be held to it, so they couldn't afford anymore fuck ups, like Rummy.

Iraq has been turned around.

So my point...I keep getting off track, is that if the Dems would have said, yes, we want out but we can't cuz the region will be more fucked and we want to get some things accomplished first, and we set these benchmarks for the Iraqi Gov and our Gov to meet.

They really had the chance to look like they opposed the war, but could still manag the war better from the Hill than Bush could in the Oval office.

Oh well, instead they followed the left wing liberal nut-jobs.

just my jimmerins and jammerins

Last week here, and probably my last time on the boards until at least Christmas. Heres hoping that at least Afghanistan has some scenery to look at. And if anybody is truly interested in what I do, you can check it out here (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4487).

Good luck Com. Hope its a safe trip for ya.

Last week here, and probably my last time on the boards until at least Christmas. Heres hoping that at least Afghanistan has some scenery to look at. And if anybody is truly interested in what I do, you can check it out here (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4487).

Good luck... best wishes are with you.

Last week here, and probably my last time on the boards until at least Christmas. Heres hoping that at least Afghanistan has some scenery to look at. And if anybody is truly interested in what I do, you can check it out here (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4487).

Keep safe.

I certainly don't want to bring anybody down here, but in fact this story really amped me up and inspired me. This guy was fucking HARD. CORE.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/08/seal.medal/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- When a grenade bounced off his chest and fell to the floor near his fellow troops, Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor acted out of instinct.

His actions didn't stem from a lack of training. His instant reaction was to protect his comrades.

The Navy says he committed a selfless act: jumping on the grenade and taking the full force of the blast.

President Bush presented Monsoor's parents with a posthumous Medal of Honor for their son at an emotional White House ceremony on Tuesday. VideoWatch Monsoor's sister share her memories »

Bush quoted one of the SEALS saved by Monsoor as saying, "Mikey looked death in the face that day and said, 'You cannot take my brothers. I will go in their stead.'" VideoWatch the president bestow the award »

Monsoor was one of the U.S. military's most highly trained combatants, a Navy SEAL. He's the first SEAL to receive the Medal of Honor for actions in Iraq.

On September 29, 2006, Monsoor was part of a major clearing and isolating operation to root out enemy fighters holding parts of Ramadi, the Sunni insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad.

Monsoor was in a sniper position on a rooftop along with two other SEALs when a grenade flew into his location from out of nowhere. It bounced off his chest and landed in an area where it probably would have killed or seriously wounded all three of them.

Monsoor was in a position to escape before the explosion but instead leapt on the grenade.

"He recognized immediately the threat, yelled 'grenade' and due to the fact that two other SEAL snipers, our brothers, could not possibly escape the blast, he chose to smother it with his body, absorbed the impact and lost his life in the process," said Lt. Cmdr. Seth Stone, Mansoor's platoon commander.

The blast did not kill him right away; he hung on for 30 minutes. His two comrades were wounded but survived the shrapnel that ripped through their bodies.

Stone said: "He essentially saved [the] Navy SEALS on the rooftop and three Iraqi soldiers who were there."

Until this month, when the White House announced that Monsoor would receive the Medal of Honor posthumously, few people knew of his story.

Born in 1981 in Long Beach, California, Monsoor excelled as a high school athlete. He joined the Navy before the September 11 attacks.

In 2004, Monsoor graduated from the basic SEAL training course as one of the top members of his class. By March 2005, he had completed his training and was assigned to SEAL Team 3, Delta Platoon.

In April 2006, that unit deployed to Iraq's troubled and violent western provincial capital of Ramadi. Monsoor would not return home alive.

His five-month stay in Ramadi was marked by constant attacks. As a heavy machine gunner, Monsoor had to stay behind the point man on foot patrols and protect the unit from attacks.

Delta Platoon was involved in attacks on 75 percent of its missions in a highly contested part of Ramadi called the Ma'laab district, according to the Navy.

On a patrol less than a month after arriving in Iraq, Monsoor showed some of his selfless instinct when gunfire hit a fellow SEAL in the leg.

Monsoor "ran out into the street with another SEAL, shot cover fire and dragged his comrade to safety while enemy bullets kicked up the concrete at their feet," according to Navy documents.

He received the Silver Star, the third highest award for valor in combat.

His unit continued to endure the constant barrage of attacks and some 35 firefights with insurgent forces over the scorching Iraqi summer.

Monsoor also was saddled with carrying heavy radio equipment on his back as the "SEAL communicator" who called in tank and other support during firefights.

He received the Bronze Star for his work as an adviser for Iraqi troops.

"His leadership, guidance and decisive actions during 11 different combat operations saved the lives of his teammates, other [U.S.-led] coalition forces and Iraqi army soldiers," according to Navy documents.

But it was his instinct on his last operation on that Ramadi roof that solidified Monsoor's standing as a hero.

THAT is a hero. Fuck all these sports icons making their millions. That man knew he was going to die and didn't care. It was all about saving others, and that's the kind of person we should all look up to.

Good luck, Comrade. I've got a friend in Afghanistan right now and every once in a while he'll send us a message just to let us know he's ok. I know we'd all love to hear from you on WTFDetroit if you got a chance.

Stay safe and kick ass Comrade.

Saw that story on the tube Swam. Good post.

That story was like reading about a firefighter dying in an insurance fire. Heroic... and someone needs to be held accountable for putting him there.

Apparently Malaki and the Iraqi army has taken complete control of Basra. It was shaky for a while but Sadr has been marginalized. The story I heard said that the Iraqi troops are energized cuz of the success and the peeps in Basra have confidence in the troops.

This is GREAT news. Get our troops out of harms way and the majority of them home.

Thanks to removing Rummy, stopped listening to Cheney, removing Wolfie and started to listening to his Generals (mainly Patreus) Bush might still pull this thing out.

Apparently Malaki and the Iraqi army has taken complete control of Basra. It was shaky for a while but Sadr has been marginalized. The story I heard said that the Iraqi troops are energized cuz of the success and the peeps in Basra have confidence in the troops.

This is GREAT news. Get our troops out of harms way and the majority of them home.

They've been lying to you Tahoe.


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1732617,00.html?xid=rss-world

Seriously guy, why are you believing any of this propaganda anymore? Did Pat Tillman participate? Jessica Lynch? It's all lies man. I think we're all emotionally tied to this stuff, and we want to think we're better off than one, three, or 5 years ago, but we just aren't. It's just more of my money.

You can keep posting updates in this thread, but if we wait 6 months they're gonna be shown to be untrue. I don't mean to be a dick, but it may be time for even you hardcore guys to give up.

Well I guess it depends on who you believe.

Most all of the news outlets said that the Maliki surge in Basra was not successful (even Fox). I posted that it was NOT going well, so I try to post both sides. I know its a cluster fuck and have said that many times. I don't believe the best thing to do is run though.

Maliki gave a speech about that time and he said 'this is NOT over'. So he kept fighting with IRAQI troops. The US did provide Air support though and I'm sure some other shit, but this was an Iraqi deal. Remember cuz the US commanders were pissed Maliki did when he did, they wanted him to wait another couple of days.

Anyway, it was reported today that the Iraqi troops have taken control of Basra while the tough guy Sadr is still hiding in Iran and his Sadrists have splintered and many given up.

Look there has been plenty of bad news in Iraq, but when there is good news, don't deny it.

The good news will be bad news soon enough. It's like nam, or the war on poverty. Just digging the hole.

Just get the Iraqi army up and running. Then they'll be in control of their future when we run.

You have to realize that, even if Iraq is made relatively secure when we leave, the new iraq will actually still be more dangerous to US interests than Saddam's Iraq. The new iraq govt. will be undoubtedly closer to Iran in relations, ideology and ruling style than anything resembling western democracy. Sharia law will almost definitely be more extreme than under Saddam. Terrorist groups would have much greater operability in the new iraq than the Saddam Iraq, which cracked down on all political opposition. In short, the iraq war, which was obstensibly about national security, has made us less safe in virtually every way even if we discount the war's effecting greater levels of animosity toward the US in other Arab countries. The only benefit of the war was to allow Iraqis to choose which sectarian leader will rule them. Of course, Palestinians are allowed to elect Hamas as well. In fact, Iran is more of a democracy that our good friend Saudi Arabia. We've already lost the war. It is only a question of how bad we will lose it in terms of American lives and dollars, Iraqi lives, and Iranian influence. I am not saying that we should leave immediately, but we need to be honest that iraq will never be korea, japan, or west germany. Meanwhile, the real terrorists are running free in afghanistan and pakistan. Looking ahead, we need to realize that this war has been and will always be an unmitigated disaster. There will never be a bush-mccain utopian vision of victory.

You have to realize that, even if Iraq is made relatively secure when we leave, the new iraq will actually still be more dangerous to US interests than Saddam's Iraq. The new iraq govt. will be undoubtedly closer to Iran in relations, ideology and ruling style than anything resembling western democracy. Sharia law will almost definitely be more extreme than under Saddam. Terrorist groups would have much greater operability in the new iraq than the Saddam Iraq, which cracked down on all political opposition. In short, the iraq war, which was obstensibly about national security, has made us less safe in virtually every way even if we discount the war's effecting greater levels of animosity toward the US in other Arab countries. The only benefit of the war was to allow Iraqis to choose which sectarian leader will rule them. Of course, Palestinians are allowed to elect Hamas as well. In fact, Iran is more of a democracy that our good friend Saudi Arabia. We've already lost the war. It is only a question of how bad we will lose it in terms of American lives and dollars, Iraqi lives, and Iranian influence. I am not saying that we should leave immediately, but we need to be honest that iraq will never be korea, japan, or west germany. Meanwhile, the real terrorists are running free in afghanistan and pakistan. Looking ahead, we need to realize that this war has been and will always be an unmitigated disaster. There will never be a bush-mccain utopian vision of victory.

1st bolded text.

I don't need to realize that. I dont agree that is going to be the case. It might be but its kind of amazing for you to think you know that.

And I don't see someone talking to Iran as being a dangerous thing. It could help the situation too. Who knows.

Overall your statement shows you are emotionally invested in the narrative of defeat in Iraq.

Given the facts that 1) iraq had no wmd and 2) iraq had no involvement with al qaeda, what exactly was the threat to the United States? It is hard to be less than the Saddam' Iraq threat, because saddam was almost zero threat to begin with. I never said that Iraq should not talk to Iran; however, the current ruling party is very closely tied to Iran and many were refugees there. The Iranian leaders that visit Iraqi govt. are received as close friends. How does this endeavor end with US being more safe? It is hard for me to see how this war will ever end with the US standing in the Middle East better than pre-2003 and the Iranian standing worse than pre-2003.

At what point do you stop believing those who said that Iraq had WMD, ties to al qaeda, and that the invasion would be a cake walk after which we would be greeted as liberators and the whole country would sing kumbayah? How many times have we "turned the corner"? I'll admit that Patreaus knows far more about stabilizing iraq than good ole rummy, but that doesn't mean that the idea to go to war in the first place has been validated.

During Vietnam conservatives and military leaders constantly trumpeted the "domino theory" about how all of SE Asia would become communist if we left Vietnam and it never happened.

Iraq did have WMD. They used them on the Kurds. Did they have them at the time of the invasion? Apparently not. Maybe they were taken to Syria. You don't know and neither do I. But we can say that they weren't found by US troops. Could they make them again? Yes.

Look because I want us to stabilize a Gov't in Iraq, doesn't mean that I still think going in was a good idea. You really need to stop with sterotyping or prejudgements. I feel it will take 10 years before we know what damage or good the war caused. To think we know the future is foolish.

But now that we are there we can't cut and run.

And the news over the last 6 months has been the best news ever. Actually, one could say the ONLY good news.

I just saw a report from Basra. It said that Sadr's militia is split between hard-liners and more moderates. Basra looked like a fuckin mess.

The hard-liners said if Sadr doesn't come back from Iran, that his younger brother will take over. His younger brother is the violent type.

The report said the peeps in Basra are getting sick of the unrest. duh.

Iraq did have WMD. Did they have them at the time of the invasion? Apparently not. Maybe they were taken to Syria. You don't know and neither do I. But we can say that they weren't found by US troops. Could they make them again? Yes.


1. Syria, unlike Iraq, already had WMD.
2. If Saddam had WMD, why didn't he use them against our troops? What could he possibly have been saving them for?
3. If Iraq's WMD were the primary objective, why didn't we attempt to control his weapon stockpiles when we gained control.



Look because I want us to stabilize a Gov't in Iraq, doesn't mean that I still think going in was a good idea. You really need to stop with sterotyping or prejudgements. I feel it will take 10 years before we know what damage or good the war caused. To think we know the future is foolish.


My "bias" leads me to question what is the ultimate resolution that we are seeking in Iran. To this day, I hear people like bush and mccain discuss the utopian transformation of the Middle East, but I don't see how supporting Maliki leads to this utopian transformation. The Maliki govt. is closely alligned with the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. So our utopian vision starts by legitimizing the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. I agree with the need to put someone in charge of iraq, but I seriously doubt this would ever result in the mccain-bush utopian vision and I think it is incredibly misleading for them to paint that picture. Our best-case scenario is a more stable country with politics that are much closer to those of Saudi Arabia than the United States. This is far different than the Korea/Japan examples presented by right-wingers. The governments that we supported in Korea and Japan shared our vision of democracy and human rights. The Maliki govt. does not and it is very difficult to envision any scenario in which they would. They are highly sectarian and have little respect for sunnis kurds or even for other shia with different beliefs. Our best case scenario involves solidifying people like this in order to reduce the widespread chaos caused by our invasion.



But now that we are there we can't cut and run.


How many years do we have to stay before we can cut and run. We've been there for 5+ years and Obama's controversial proposals would have us leave in 2+ years. At this point it is not about cutting and running. It is about acknowledging our mistake and minimizing the damage.

So you are saying Iraq never had WMD? Incredible.

And why did you bold 'still think'?

How many years? Aren't we still in the Bosnian region where Clinton took us? Aren't we still in Korea? Europe? Let Iraq get their Army going.

Oh how the Dems like to rewrite history

iVFYcxLiRGk&feature

Oh how the Dems like to rewrite history



I said Iraq never had WMD, when I meant to say saddam didn't have WMD when we invaded. I said never, because it seems like a lot of righty's (and even you said he might have sent them to Syria) continue to assert that Saddam had WMD when we invaded. There is no evidence to support that, and the govt. issued a report that stated that saddam did not have functional weapons when we invaded. So "never" comes from frustration about the need to continue arguing about something that was proven false.

I bolded still think because it shows that you were wrong about the war to begin with, which should have bearing on discussions moving forward. I get tired of hearing the same people that predicted Iraq would be a 6-month max operation with limited financial costs tell me that they know exactly what will happen if we leave in 2 years, and why we need to stay indefinitely. Your side has lost your credibility in my book.

We do not have 150,000 soldiers in any of the countries that you mentioned. When Clinton took us to Bosnia we had UN and NATO support, which Bush went out of his way to exclude from Iraq. If you propose keeping the same number of troops in Iraq as we have in Bosnia, I would not have a problem with that. Staying in those countries has not depleted our military or our finances, which makes the comparison redicuolous IMO. Also, none of the governments that we supported in those countries are backed by entities with ideologies like Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq. Comparisons between those countries and Iraq is apples to oranges.

I said Iraq never had WMD, when I meant to say saddam didn't have WMD when we invaded. I said never, because it seems like a lot of righty's (and even you said he might have sent them to Syria) continue to assert that Saddam had WMD when we invaded. There is no evidence to support that, and the govt. issued a report that stated that saddam did not have functional weapons when we invaded. So "never" comes from frustration about the need to continue arguing about something that was proven false.

I bolded still think because it shows that you were wrong about the war to begin with, which should have bearing on discussions moving forward. I get tired of hearing the same people that predicted Iraq would be a 6-month max operation with limited financial costs tell me that they know exactly what will happen if we leave in 2 years, and why we need to stay indefinitely. Your side has lost your credibility in my book.

We do not have 150,000 soldiers in any of the countries that you mentioned. When Clinton took us to Bosnia we had UN and NATO support, which Bush went out of his way to exclude from Iraq. If you propose keeping the same number of troops in Iraq as we have in Bosnia, I would not have a problem with that. Staying in those countries has not depleted our military or our finances, which makes the comparison redicuolous IMO. Also, none of the governments that we supported in those countries are backed by entities with ideologies like Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq. Comparisons between those countries and Iraq is apples to oranges.

Its as incredible to me to hear you say 'there weren't' as it is for me to hear them say 'there were'. Enjoy yourself debating something that neither of you know for sure.

No, I'm not wrong. I simply admit that I supported a war that will take years to figure out if it was worth it. But at least I have the balls to admit it. There wasn't the opposition to the war that there is now. You hindsighters that jump ship and now act all righteous amaze me.

The numbers will reduce as the Iraqi forces take over. Thats why the Basra takeover is such good news to me. I can say things go bad when they go bad, but you can't say anything positive when something good happens. For me, its the emotional investment in the narrative of defeat that blinds you from being able to see anything objectively.

This must be tough to watch for Dems.

fd7qlGXt6vg

The Iraq Study Group report went to great length to find WMD and didn't. Are you saying that this report is somehow inconclusive? If you want to set a bar that we must invade any country that might attempt WMD at any point in the future, our wars will never end.

How the fuck would you know whether if I supported the war or not. I never supported this war and I'm not Harry Reid or any democrat so why would I care if other democrats. Their wrongness doesn't make you right.

It is easy to prove whether this war will ever be considered a success. Because the original rationale for the war was completely false, we can judge the war as a failure. Containment of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan would have been a much better policy course. Now we have two fucked up wars when we could have had 1 successful war.

This must be tough to watch for Dems.

fd7qlGXt6vg

I am not trying defend democrats for being wrong. As far as I remember, most democrats supported continuing forced inspections rather than outright invasion. Thus, they were still "more correct" than republicans in their policy position.

I am done with this debate. I think we should set a time table and leave. As we leave, we will need to engage Iraq's neighbors, the UN, and NATO to help support the new govt. and help keep the peace. We put much more pressure on these entities to participate as we withdraw than if we promise to stay indefinitely. I also think it is foolish to present the possibility of some transformed middle east. Radical societal transformations have been rightly criticized by the old school of conservative thought. I don't understand why we would expect Iraq to get exponentially better if we stay longer especially considering the ruling party in place.

I think that Patraeus has been a quantum leap over bremer and other predecessors, but there is a limit to what we can achieve, and to hardsell a vision of a mid-east utopia is propaganda IMO.

Looking forward, sunni-shia reconcilliation is probably the number one issue in iraq, even bigger then al-sadr. There is a great article in the LA Times about the potential for reconciliation and reluctance of the shia national govt.

We'll find out how successful we have been during our initial drawdown this summer.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-usiraq14jan14,1,352127.story?page=1&coll=la-headlines-frontpage

No, I'm not wrong. I simply admit that I supported a war that will take years to figure out if it was worth it. But at least I have the balls to admit it. There wasn't the opposition to the war that there is now. You hindsighters that jump ship and now act all righteous amaze me.


What amazes me is that people can take the sportsfan attitude to real life and death matters. The right is your team. Bush is your star player. You support them through thick and thin no matter what. You're a fan in the truest sense as derived from the word fanatic.

I was one of those bandwagon jumping cats (tm)Sheed that supported the war at the outset and I don't mind admitting it. I supported it then based on what the administration was saying. The steady drumbeat from Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rice.

There was just no way they could be wrong on everything. There had to be a legitimate clear and present danger. Naturally I didn't expect them to just drop every bit of classified info they had to support their position into my email inbox so I gave them the benefit of the doubt and put a little faith in this white house.

Stupid me.

Based on what's come to light so far, there can be no question that the premises upon which this war was launched were fraudulent. Whether you attribute that to incompetence or something more malevolent is immaterial... it was an epic waste of american blood and treasure.

2004 was the chance for the fan(atic)s to step up and fire the guy who led us down that path. In the real world, people who screw up that badly get shown the door. Sometimes with a golden parachute but still, it's time for new management... unless your primary motivation is loyalty to the team. Bushie for life. Go republicans. I'm surprised they didn't show up with elephant facepaint and big foam fingers at the polls. Every last koolaid-drinker that voted for Bush in 04 should be required to wear a scarlet J for jonestown on their forehead.

So now, yeah, I've jumped ship and have less than zero confidence in the current management team. They have demonstrated a consistent lack of competence to govern and they're way overdue to get fired.

^ You actually took the time to write that?

Sorry about this Tahoe, but I'm in a cranky mood.

I want to know: for us people who got it right from the very beginning - who didn't vote for Bush - who saw that he was asleep at the wheel when the WTC got hit - who knew there was no way Bush could be trusted to make war in Iraq without letting his buddies into the cookie jar - who knew there couldn't possibly be any functional WMDs - who knew that there was no way to get out of Iraq once we got in - when do you ungrateful dogdicks finally say "gee, you were on the money, we should have listened to you"? When do we finally get some appreciation from the rest of you numbskulls?

Bah.

Sorry about this Tahoe, but I'm in a cranky mood.

I want to know: for us people who got it right from the very beginning - who didn't vote for Bush - who saw that he was asleep at the wheel when the WTC got hit - who knew there was no way Bush could be trusted to make war in Iraq without letting his buddies into the cookie jar - who knew there couldn't possibly be any functional WMDs - who knew that there was no way to get out of Iraq once we got in - when do you ungrateful dogdicks finally say "gee, you were on the money, we should have listened to you"? When do we finally get some appreciation from the rest of you numbskulls?

Bah.

And its odd how many of 'you who knew' are out there now.

And its odd how many of 'you who knew' are out there now.


I was always there. I would like my cookie now please.

It's just a shame Bush was able to fool as many of us as he did.

Bush was fooled as well. Along with the Russians, the British, the Israelis and every other intelligence agency in the world.

Who's more the fool... the fool or the damn fool who leads an invasion based on cherry-picked and counterfeit intelligence.

I was always there. I would like my cookie now please.

How bout a beer?

Sorry everyone. It feels good to vent. Hope no offense was taken.

^ It feels even better when you use RED text...for me anyway.

I lived in Queens during the WTC attacks. When I got off the train in Manhattan I saw the smoking embers of the WTC and all of the flyers with Have you seen _____ and the pictures of people that were murdered in the attacks. I can tell you that we all wanted bin Laden dead. Then, we lived through the anthrax mailings. When riding the subways, we saw the national guards with their machine guns. We also had to deal with train stoppages for 20-30 minutes at a time while they investigated threats. It really caused a lot of tension for us. All of a sudden, there is all of this talk about how important it was to invade Iraq, before we finsihed the job in Afghanistan. I always thought the threat from Iraq was secondary compared to relentless pursuit of the people that caused so much damage in New York. I did not know with certainty or not whether Iraq had WMD, but I was angry that we were diverting our attention away from Afghanistan. Why couldn't we focus on bringing democracy to Afghanistan and transforming that country. I also thought that an invasion of Iraq would be a great recruiting tool for future terrorists. I also believed that the talk of being greeted as liberators was total bullshit, and that we would be bogged down in Iraq while the people that inflicted so much damage and pain would get away.

The Iraq was made me angry then and it makes me angry to this day because most of what I thought would happen has happened. I am not claiming that I knew WMD were not in Iraq; however the fact that WMD were not found in Iraq makes me even angrier. I am not invested in any desire for the current mission in Iraq to fail. I just think that this utopian vision of a transformed middle east as a result of the invasion is bullshit and that there will never be any justification for that war. I also get angry when I hear mccain try to score political points by chiding obama because he said he would pursue terrorists in Pakistan even without permission from the Pakistani leadership. What is wrong with that? I get tired of haring these republicans talk about their strength on national security, when I feel they have been demonstrably wrong on national security. Whether you believe it or not, I can tell you that most people who lived in new york were against the iraq war from the start, and it was not because we were liberal hippies. We believed that bush was taking us on his own excursion from the real fight against the bastards that hurt us.

More good news in Iraq but doubt it makes the news.

Of what good news do you speak? news.google.com doesn't show anything that's particularly noteworthy in Iraq proper at the moment, or are you talking in more overall terms. Here's a quickie search with Goosh as of now;

1) Arming our own enemies in Iraq
David Petraeus charged that Iran has supplied powerful rocket-propelled grenade launchers to Shiite militias in Iraq. But according to the US government's ...
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/06/grenade_launchers/

2) US 'plans permanent bases in Iraq'
Details have emerged of a deal between Washington and Baghdad that would allow the US forces to occupy permanent bases in Iraq, carry out military ...
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E7746317-B6C6-4D42-B2DD-03BCDBC89D02.htm

3) Bush glossed over intel differences on Iraq WMD: probe
But the investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee found that separate claims by Bush and others that there was a nexus between Al-Qaeda, Iraq and ...
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gXMVVLEC1PG0z--41tyBlrwTA5nQ

4) UAE first Arab state to reopen Iraq mission
By Waleed Ibrahim BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United Arab Emirates said on Thursday it would name an ambassador to Baghdad within days, a step that eases Iraq's ...
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-33927420080605

guest@goosh.org:/web> more
5) Rudd rolls over Iraq
AN odd - yet good - thing happened when Kevin Rudd announced in Parliament this week our combat troops in Iraq were on their way home. ...
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23816840-5000117,00.html

6) How we remember Haditha
Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal ...
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/06/how-we-remember.html

7) Former weapons inspector predicts US shift in foreign policy
CALGARY - A former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq believes the upcoming American presidential election will bring a change in US foreign policy. ...
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=fde36e00-d689-46c7-bc07-1f0b3d03b4dc

8) Truck explosion kills 18, wounds 75 in Iraq
Wednesday's carnage was a grim reminder of the bombs and killings that rocked the capital before President Bush rushed about 30000 reinforcements to Iraq ...
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD913FK5O2

Number 4 and there are 2 other smaller countries (yes, smaller than UAE) that have named ambassadors to Iraq. I just can't remember who they were right now.

Death toll in Iraq at the lowest level since the war started.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-issues-threat-to-iraqs-50bn-foreign-reserves-in-military-deal-841407.html

Just a remarkable turnaround in Iraq continues. These Iraqi troops are taking over more and more every day. Basra, Sadr city. I'm so glad we didn't do the cut and run that BO wanted. The place would be a complete mess. Now we have political progress and a Iragi military. Every day that goes by where we make progress, we are one day closer to getting our trooops home.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-issues-threat-to-iraqs-50bn-foreign-reserves-in-military-deal-841407.html

What's a little extortion between friends.

Just a remarkable turnaround in Iraq continues. These Iraqi troops are taking over more and more every day. Basra, Sadr city. I'm so glad we didn't do the cut and run that BO wanted. The place would be a complete mess. Now we have political progress and a Iragi military. Every day that goes by where we make progress, we are one day closer to getting our trooops home.
But getting our troops home isn't important. McCain said so. :)

Getting the majority of them home is important. But if the Iraqi's want us to have bases there and its in our interest, we should have bases there.

And this reason we'll be able to get the majority of them home is JM.

I can't even imagine how fucked up that region would be if BO had his way. He's green.

Getting the majority of them home is important. But if the Iraqi's want us to have bases there and its in our interest, we should have bases there.
Iraqis are not Americans, and don't get to vote. Sorry Iraq, but you are a science project, and have been from the very beginning of your existence. When the house is on fire, you don't go rushing back in there to save your science project.

Security will be and always has been brought about by only one thing: the refusal of people of good conscience, even at risk to their lives, to cooperate with thugs. Nothing America can do will "make" Iraq secure. Only when Iraqis, Iranians, Malaysians, Indonesians, Saudis, Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians, Egyptians, Sudanese, Yemenis, Bahrainis, Pakistanis, Afghans, Tadjiks, Khazakhs, and Detroiters for that matter, refuse to cooperate with the thugs, will they actually live in a safe environment.

If Iraq and the US gov't wants US bases there, there will be US bases there.

We live in a somewhat safe environment and peeps wish us harm. Iraqis are finally getting hold of the situation over there. Great news.

BTW...didn't seem like there was much debate about the war funding bill that passed yesterday. At least I didn't hear much about it.

Looks like an issue the Dems are running from, imo.

Jesus, still can't even say those benchmarks set years ago are "satisfactory". Not completed, or even improving, just satisfactory. And some still aren't there.

but hey, here's a blank check. No, don't spend that money here, we're doing great.

The Dems up in Congress don't seem to want to have a debate on the war. Wonder why?

Why would they want to debate if the war is a success right now? The point is not that it's finally working, it's that it happened for all the wrong reasons and should have never went on the way it did. Don't act like it's such a huge victory because it's still been a massive fuckup up until quite recently. That includes Afghanistan, which we more or less abandoned in the blind Iraqi battering.

I don't mean to say don't think it's a huge victory, because it is if we succeed, but I meant to say don't act as if the war has had a great plan all along.

The Dems up in Congress don't seem to want to have a debate on the war. Wonder why?


Much like the debate on evolution and global warming that debate is over, victory liberals. Licks lost, the clock stopped years ago. Go home.

We would have lost if BO and the Libs had their way. But they didn't. We stayed and got a handle on things for the Iraqi ppl.

If tomorrow the sunis and shia had a huge Polaski Days party for the next 5 years, we got all their oil, and we found 100 atom bombs with "Property of Saddam" stickers pasted on them, our politicians have failed our nation.

This is now the kind of humanitarian nightmare Bush chided against and promised never to make us a part of in the Gore debates. Anyone with a hint of a conservative bone in his body would want us out tomorrow.

15 of 18 Benchmarks make progress but no one seems to cover the story. Why? cuz they'd have to talk about progress in Iraq. Can't do that can we CBS, NBC, CNN etc.

If tomorrow the sunis and shia had a huge Polaski Days party for the next 5 years, we got all their oil, and we found 100 atom bombs with "Property of Saddam" stickers pasted on them, our politicians have failed our nation.

This is now the kind of humanitarian nightmare Bush chided against and promised never to make us a part of in the Gore debates. Anyone with a hint of a conservative bone in his body would want us out tomorrow.

Is that what you call peeps back out in the streets buying and selling goods?

Is that what you call peeps back out in the streets buying and selling goods?

No, I call that a perfect reason to return American troops immediately. No need for us to regulate commerce.

15 of 18 Benchmarks make progress but no one seems to cover the story. Why? cuz they'd have to talk about progress in Iraq. Can't do that can we CBS, NBC, CNN etc.


Failed benchmarks are old news.

With all due respect, the benchmarks are not failing. IMO, you need to update your news.

With all due respect, the benchmarks are not failing. You're right, it's the people who can't or don't care to meet any of them. Progress is for fools. Get it right and get us out.

So you are saying the benchmarks are failing?

Seriously, check it out on other websites then Daily Kos, etc, the political process is moving along, their military is progressing, etc.

But if you don't believe it, thats ok too.

Emotionally invested in the narrative of defeat in Iraq.

So you are saying the benchmarks are failing?

Seriously, check it out on other websites then Daily Kos, etc, the political process is moving along, their military is progressing, etc.

But if you don't believe it, thats ok too.

Emotionally invested in the narrative of defeat in Iraq.

Progressing is not acceptable. Get it done now. This spending is not going to go on for 20 more years. America will not allow it.

No kidding. We have seen progress, but this is the first actual surge of progress we've seen since the war began, which was long long ago. Like I said, this has still been an epic fuckup, and if things turn the other way again even once, America may be too pissed to accept it.

It's ironic to hear people who don't even have a coherent notion of what victory means in Iraq talk about a narrative of defeat. It's time to just walk away from that fiasco and call it lesson learned.

For some reason you guys are seriously cracking me up tonight. I'm not sure why I find what you say so funny.

Sorry. I'll take y'all more serious tomorrow. <--I mean that seriously.

Any chance someone gets called up soon??

Progressing is not acceptable. Get it done now. This spending is not going to go on for 20 more years. America will not allow it.

Its a fucking war.

The "war" was over in 2003 when the statue fell and the regime was toppled. It's not a war now, it's an occupation. Now it's just a question of how long we want to keep doing it. Victory means whatever we decide we want it to and we can write our own ticket out of there whenever we please.

Our Civil War took less time. If it's a war, drop a bomb, come home.

Occupation? However you want to describe it, but we need to stay till the Iraqi Gov't can take FULL control of the country.

Occupation? However you want to describe it, but we need to stay till the Iraqi Gov't can take FULL control of the country.

What does FULL control even mean and what are we gaining from it that makes it worth trillions in debt and the steady drip drip drip of dead and maimed americans?

The costs are clear... if you can't articulate the benefits and defend them as worth the costs then you don't have much of a leg to stand on in defending further occupation of Iraq.

What does FULL control even mean and what are we gaining from it that makes it worth trillions in debt and the steady drip drip drip of dead and maimed americans?

The costs are clear... if you can't articulate the benefits and defend them as worth the costs then you don't have much of a leg to stand on in defending further occupation of Iraq.

Very well said.

Is this the vaunted "narrative of defeat"? lol

The very epitome of the zero-sum game... Of which we must always come out on top.

Jesus Christ.

*sigh*


U.S. soldiers say they executed Iraqis on riverbank: report

46 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Three U.S. soldiers killed four handcuffed and blindfolded Iraqi prisoners with pistol shots on the bank of a Baghdad canal last year, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Sergeant First Class Joseph P. Mayo, the platoon sergeant, and Sergeant Michael P. Leahy Jr., Company D's senior medic and an acting squad leader, made sworn statements in January to Army investigators in Schweinfurt, Germany probing the incident, the newspaper reported on its website.

The men each described killing one of the Iraqi detainees, as directed by First Sergeant John E. Hatley, according to the statements. Hatley shot two other detainees with a pistol in the back of the head, Mayo and Leahy told investigators, according to the NYT.

U.S. soldiers cannot harm enemy combatants once they are disarmed and in custody, the NYT said.

A spokesman for the U.S. Army in Europe declined to comment, saying he could not speculate on any future legal action.

David Court, the lawyer in Germany named by the NYT as representing Hatley, was not immediately reachable.

According to Leahy's statement, cited by the NYT, Army officials directed Hatley's convoy to release the men because there was insufficient evidence to detain them.

"First Sergeant Hatley then made the call to take the detainees to a canal and kill them," as retribution for the deaths of two soldiers from the unit, Leahy said in his statement.

"So the patrol went to the canal, and First Sergeant, Sgt. First Class Mayo and I took the detainees out of the back of the Bradley (fighting vehicle), lined them up and shot them," he added, according to The Times. "Then we pushed the bodies into the canal and left."

After the men were killed, Hatley told Leahy and Mayo to remove the Iraqis' bloody blindfolds and plastic handcuffs, according to the newspaper. The three soldiers then shoved the bodies into the canal and drove back to their combat outpost, the paper said.

No charges have been filed against Hatley, Mayo or Leahy -- all from Company D, First Battalion, Second Infantry, 172nd Infantry Brigade.

However, four other soldiers have been charged with conspiracy to commit premeditated murder relating to an incident that occurred last year in Baghdad, the U.S. Army in Europe said in a statement last month.

A hearing in that case opened on Tuesday and is still going on in the southern German town of Vilseck, the U.S. Army spokesman said on Wednesday.

Unreal.

Jesus Christ.

I don't think they were trying to baptize them.

If true, they need to go to jail.

Agree.

I don't want to give the "that's what separates us from them speech" but that's exactly it. Executing people that are already apprehended is no better than the "masked" terrorists doing the same thing. I don't care what they did previously.

We do have the death penalty.

For the soldiers or the Iraqis?

I'm saying, as a county we execute people who are already apprehended.

Yes but after a trial, not as vigilantes.

And not against orders.

Petraeus says there will be no victory in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7610405.stm


He said he did not know that he would ever use the word "victory": "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan."

I'm sure with some, it still won't sink in.

^Narrative of defeat.

Petraeus says there will be no victory in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7610405.stm

That paragraph is perfect and what a lot of peeps have been saying for a long time. He nailed it.

I don't see a lot of peeps using the word 'victory' in the sense of a parade. I haven't heard anything to that effect in years.

On September 10th or so, John McCain on victory in Iraq:


McCain responded by saying Obama's comments "demonstrate again his commitment to retreating from Iraq no matter what the cost."

"His focus is on withdrawal -- not on victory," McCain said.
...
McCain, a Vietnam war hero whose early campaign for the Republican nomination was nearly scuttled by his support for the surge when it did not appear to be working last summer, has repeatedly vowed to bring troops home with "victory and with honor."
...
I want to win in Iraq

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5guOowMTiq2pmynGMyLuc2wo2hExQ

All of the conservative talk show hosts (Limbaugh, Hannity, et al.) have insisted that McCain will stop at nothing short of victory in Iraq.

On September 10th or so, John McCain on victory in Iraq:


http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5guOowMTiq2pmynGMyLuc2wo2hExQ

Victory not in the sense of a parade. Did JM say coming home to a parade?

you guys should seriously find something worthwhile talking about, this is NOT it.

You seem to be parsing this as largely about victory parades.
Petraeus clearly spoke of just the word and notion of "victory":
Enpc6_lqw7Y

Q: Do you think you will ever use the word "victory"?

Petraeus: I don't know that I will. I think that all of us at different times have recognized the need for real restraint in our assessments, in our pronouncements, if you will. And we have tried to be very brutally honest and forthright in what we have provided to Congress, to the press, and to ourselves.

I'm parsing it as that I don't think anyone feels its going to be a WW2 type victory these days. Success is prolly a better way to put it. Success is getting the Iraqi gov't up and running.

That's not the language McCain-Palin is using, though. They're using "victory". Palin just spoke of "victory in this war" (yes, somewhat ambiguous, but you get the idea) last night on ABC.

Many Vietnam vets want the parade they never had and felt they should've had.

Viet Nam Vets wanted to be welcomed home, a welcome home parade maybe, but more then that, they didn't want to be spit on by the left.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/54757.html

i am very glad that this is happening with bush in office (like the economic meltdown). Otherwise, if obama wins, we'd all hear how the iraqi govt. was taking advantage of him: blah blah blah. I think that there will be some public disagreements between obama and petraeus early in the next presidency, which will set the stage for petraeus to run for pres as a repub in 2012.

Viet Nam Vets wanted to be welcomed home, a welcome home parade maybe, but more then that, they didn't want to be spit on by the left.
Didn't happen. (http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=215)

I'm a lil perplexed by the left with the war in Iraq and I'm sure y'all are dumbfounded by the right too, but it used to be about deaths and now the deaths have decreased dramatically so its something else these days.

I realize the reasons for the war shifted too. I mean, it started out with WMDs and ended up being something about a humanaitarian effort to rid the country of a murderous dictator.

Didn't happen. (http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=215)

You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you want.

Also, the term 'spit on' did get used too much and I'm sure was an exageration of other things happening to vets at times. But it did happen.

That's because stupid people (and I mean stupid) didn't (and still don't) understand the difference between supporting troops and supporting wars.

I'm a lil perplexed by the left with the war in Iraq and I'm sure y'all are dumbfounded by the right too, but it used to be about deaths and now the deaths have decreased dramatically so its something else these days.

I realize the reasons for the war shifted too. I mean, it started out with WMDs and ended up being something about a humanaitarian effort to rid the country of a murderous dictator.
It's about the whole package. Being misled into it with--to be polite and avoid saying lies--cherry-picked intelligence. Seeing the negligence with which the war was mismanged for years from the start until the surge.

The surge, an approach that while it yielded some progress (along with other factors like paying off enemies and the good graces of al sadr) still has yet to make rain in terms of the political reconciliation that could make the country stable.

The price in dollars--billions per month. We could do a lot with that much coin here at home. Starting with not borrowing it to begin with.

The price in blood. Nuff said on that one.

The bitter irony--we invaded Afghanistan because it was a base where wannabe jihadis from around the world flocked for terrorist boot camp then returned from whence they came more dangerous. Then we invaded iraq and turned it into... a base where wannabe jihadis from around the world flocked for real-world terrorist training against the best army in the world and returned from whence they came more dangerous than any pre-9/11 afghan terror camp grad. Total fail. We suck at war.

The loss in american political capital and prestige. On 9/12/2001, the world was our bitch. We had the money, the power, the prestige to lead the world any place we wanted and do anything we could imagine. We did Iraq. What a waste. That's a opportunity cost we're still paying as the rest of the world looks at us like we're a lion stuck in a tar pit. No respect.

I'm still dumbfounded that people didn't fire the administration responsible for this debacle in 2004. Really. The magnitude of the error was apparent by then and this administration was rewarded with four more years. What is that about?

At this point, I'm just dead tired weary of an administration that is just inept at governance. It's not even about agree or disagree with their policies--this crew is simply incompetent. Judging by the way both candidates consider Bush to be politically toxic, the rest of the country has finally clued into this--four years too late.

I rambled a lot but that's my beef with Iraq.

I'm a lil perplexed by the left with the war in Iraq and I'm sure y'all are dumbfounded by the right too, but it used to be about deaths and now the deaths have decreased dramatically so its something else these days.

I realize the reasons for the war shifted too. I mean, it started out with WMDs and ended up being something about a humanaitarian effort to rid the country of a murderous dictator.

1. We lost 4,000 + American lives and 100,000+ Iraqis. Millions have been forced from their homes.

2. Many thousands more have been injured and/or disabled.

3. Our military is exhausted and a huge psychological toll has been placed on our military and their families.

4. Cost estimates run $1-3 trillion including long term disability payments, while the country faces a huge econ. downturn.

5. At best, we'll leave the country under slightly better leadership, which is closely tied to Iran.

6. It is at best an open question as to whether the iraqi people will be sufficiently better off with the new leaders relative to saddam to justify the horrors of the war and 2003-2007 occupation. I seriously doubt it.

In summary, we killed or displaced huge numbers of people to achieve a modestly improved govt. that could very possibly descend into civil war at any moment after we leave. This analysis omits the shitty reasoning for the war in the first place and the absolute incompetence, corruption, idiocy, etc. etc. of the bushco prosecution of the war, which would take weeks of non-stop writing to document. My only hope is that this war proves to forever discredit neoconservative bullshit, but recent rhetoric about georgia leaves me very doubtful. Just because people have stopped dying is no reason to stop being pissed about the war. If I'd been alive, I wouldn't stop hating Hitler after WWII ended.

Purely from a financial beancounter perspective, the surge is a failure. Our spending and long-term liabilities have gone up. We're not reclaiming current costs from anywhere. Any unclear long-term financial benefit to our presence their doesn't appear to outweigh the clear long-term costs which are starting to be accumulated now.

Here's a Republican way to think about it: We need to stimulate our own hurting economy, and we're giving $13 million to a museum in Iraq to help restore their museum.

It's about the whole package. Being misled into it with--to be polite and avoid saying lies--cherry-picked intelligence. Seeing the negligence with which the war was mismanged for years from the start until the surge.

The surge, an approach that while it yielded some progress (along with other factors like paying off enemies and the good graces of al sadr) still has yet to make rain in terms of the political reconciliation that could make the country stable.

The price in dollars--billions per month. We could do a lot with that much coin here at home. Starting with not borrowing it to begin with.

The price in blood. Nuff said on that one.

The bitter irony--we invaded Afghanistan because it was a base where wannabe jihadis from around the world flocked for terrorist boot camp then returned from whence they came more dangerous. Then we invaded iraq and turned it into... a base where wannabe jihadis from around the world flocked for real-world terrorist training against the best army in the world and returned from whence they came more dangerous than any pre-9/11 afghan terror camp grad. Total fail. We suck at war.

The loss in american political capital and prestige. On 9/12/2001, the world was our bitch. We had the money, the power, the prestige to lead the world any place we wanted and do anything we could imagine. We did Iraq. What a waste. That's a opportunity cost we're still paying as the rest of the world looks at us like we're a lion stuck in a tar pit. No respect.

I'm still dumbfounded that people didn't fire the administration responsible for this debacle in 2004. Really. The magnitude of the error was apparent by then and this administration was rewarded with four more years. What is that about?

At this point, I'm just dead tired weary of an administration that is just inept at governance. It's not even about agree or disagree with their policies--this crew is simply incompetent. Judging by the way both candidates consider Bush to be politically toxic, the rest of the country has finally clued into this--four years too late.

I rambled a lot but that's my beef with Iraq.

don't agree with all of it, but thats a pretty god damn good post

don't agree with all of it, but thats a pretty god damn good post

So what parts do you not agree with?

Come on Tahoe. You've never been afraid to drop knowledge on these fucking Libs.

So what parts do you not agree with?

Come on Tahoe. You've never been afraid to drop knowledge on these fucking Libs.

Knowledge? I tell them to fuck off when all else fails.

Is that knowledge?

BTW... this Geerusel is smart. Dray is a good poster... and Zanny is good too. I fucked up with some of my words to them.

BTW... this Geerusel is smart. Dray is a good poster... and Zanny is good too. I fucked up with some of my words to them.

Are you dying or something?

Not the last time I checked.

G, D have posted some good stuff. <--not robots

I feel so... so robotic. <sniff>

Army reports alarming rise in suicides last month

By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer
1 min ago

WASHINGTON — The Army is investigating a stunning number of suicides in January — a count that could surpass all combat deaths on America's two warfronts last month.

According to figures obtained by The Associated Press, there were 24 suspected suicides in January, compared to only four in January of 2008, six in January of 2007 and 10 in January of 2006.

Yearly suicides have been rising steadily since 2004 amid increasing stress on the force from long and repeated tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The service has rarely, if ever, released a month-by-month update on suicides, but officials said Thursday that they wanted to re-emphasize "the urgency and seriousness necessary for preventive action at all levels" of the force.

An alarmed Army leadership also took the unusual step of briefing congressional leaders on the information Thursday morning.

The big monthly count follows an annual report last week showing that soldiers killed themselves at the highest rate on record in 2008. The toll for all of last year — 128 confirmed and 15 pending investigation — was an increase for the fourth straight year and even surpassed the suicide rate among civilians.

"The trend and trajectory seen in January further heightens the seriousness and urgency that all of us must have in preventing suicides," Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Army vice chief of staff, said of the new monthly number Thursday.

The 24 suspected January suicides include seven confirmed and 17 still being investigated. Usually the vast majority of suspected suicides are eventually confirmed, and if that holds true it would mean that self-inflicted deaths surpassed the 16 combat deaths reported in all branches of the armed forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations considered part of the global war on terror last month.

In announcing the 2008 figures last week, the Army said it would hold special training from Feb. 15 to March 15 to help troops recognize suicidal behaviors and to intervene if they see such behavior in a buddy. After that, the Army also plans a suicide prevention program for all soldiers from the top of the chain of command down.

Yearly increases in suicides have been recorded since 2004, when there were 64 all year. Officials said they found that the most common factors were soldiers suffering problems with their personal relationships, legal or financial issues and problems on the job.

But Army Secretary Pete Geren acknowledged last week that officials have been stumped by the spiraling cases.

"Why do the numbers keep going up? We cannot tell you," Geren said at a Pentagon press conference last week. "We can tell you that across the Army we're committed to doing everything we can to address the problem."

The relentless rise in suicides has frustrated the service, coming despite numerous attempts to stem the tide through additional suicide prevention training, the hiring of more psychiatrists and other mental health staff, and other programs both at home and at the battlefront for troops and their families.

In addition to suicide prevention programs, the Defense Department also has been working to encourage troops to seek mental health care by reducing the stigma associated with getting help. Officials believe many who need help don't get it because they fear it will hurt their careers.

In October, the Army and the National Institute of Mental Health signed an agreement to do a five-year study to identify factors affecting the mental and behavioral health of soldiers and come up with intervention strategies at intervals along the way.

Obama's fault

I blame Obama.

I blame Obama.

lol, check my white text

I expect better from you.

Edited cuz it isn't cool to banter about stuff in this situation.

Obama in Baghdad, tells troops Iraq must take over

Associated Press

BAGHDAD – Cheered wildly by U.S. troops, President Barack Obama flew unannounced into Iraq on Tuesday and promptly declared it was time for Iraqis to "take responsibility for their country" after America's commitment of six years and thousands of lives.

"You have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country," the president said as he made a brief inspection of a war he opposed as candidate and now vows to end as commander in chief. "That is an extraordinary achievement."

A total of 4,266 U.S. troops have lost their lives in Iraq since March 2003, and Obama said American forces had "performed brilliantly ... under enormous strain."

"It is time for us to transition to the Iraqis," he said as an estimated 600 troops cheered. "They need to take responsibility for their country."



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_obama_iraq


http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090407/capt.b61858201d4040a1998c816e79d537fd.obama_us_ira q_irqd104.jpg?x=400&y=253&q=85&sig=8vfGU8Z9xjk3JtKAMVbOmg--

-- U.S. soldier in Baghdad kills four fellow troops before killing himself, senior defense official tells CNN.

Badass.

Man, this sucks.

U.S. soldier charged with murder for shooting 5 comrades in Iraq (http://www.yahoo.com/s/1070669)

I personally can't wait for the Taliban to get nukes so they can burn this whole spinning shitball down.

It does seem entirely too easy to convince otherwise rational people that if others don't agree with your views, they are better off dead. Everyone is susceptible - Christians, Muslims, Communists, Nationalists ...

Someone should submit a bug report.

A true test for the Iraqi guv'mint:

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090805/ap_on_hi_te/ml_iraq_internet_control