Comments on: So What is the Ground Truth in Iraq?

By: Spencer

Spencer — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:57:24 +0000

computer forensic training…

You have got to be kidding!…

By: free bon jovi desktop

free bon jovi desktop — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:16:10 +0000

free bon jovi desktop…

Found FREE Another Open Source Project Cashes In ” The GARA Systems Blog when i was searching for free bon jovi desktop on Monday…

By: Mr. Natural

Mr. Natural — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:48:20 +0000

One of the more interesting lines in the Post article was this, “Sunni leaders also objected to AQI’s takeover of smuggling routes and black-market enterprises long controlled by local chiefs.”

Follow the money.

By: Vince P

Vince P — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:40:56 +0000

What our leaders aren’t telling us but they should, is that Iraq will never be “won” completely until the Islamic Republic of Iran is no longer controlled by insane shia clerics.

By: Zeke

Zeke — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:19:15 +0000

Its always been a question to me also and this is just a guess but, since there was technically still a war going on with Iraq and I think that smacking somebody was on about everyone’s lips. I think that it was Saddam’s bad luck to be a mass murderer, the father of mass murderers, and the leader of a military who raped its way across Kuwait at just the wrong time.
What I wanted to see was somebody assassinate Saddam, thus allowing us to meet the new boss and explain that he better not be like the old boss. However, Congress decided, in its infinite wisdom to deny our CIA and Military that capability.
That choice to deny our government the means to surgically remove leaders of nations who want to harm us, in effect commit acts of war on us, has cost us dearly.
In Desert Storm, a Special Forces recon team had Saddam in their sights and were ordered not to shoot. What if they’d popped him? His sons wouldn’t have lasted ten minutes and the remaining generals had already figured it out.
I don’t know the answer but do think that the law which handcuffs our operations in this scary world needs to be undone.

By: Zeke

Zeke — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 06:59:28 +0000

This war has turned from just ass kicking to a hearts and minds war. This change in Iraq is fragile but, like the surge, can bring tremendous advantage for the Iraqi’s if they can keep the peace long enough to enjoy it. Once that happens, they’ll want to keep it for themselves. Its not easy and not fast, but it can happen. Northern Ireland is somewhat of an example.

By: churl

churl — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 05:09:35 +0000

Good thread. Thanks to all.

A historical note– the Air Force, Army, and Marines were running operations jointly in 1968-1970 that were very similar to SOF. My son is also in a SOF and many, like him, are Air Force.

By: Joy

Joy — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 03:48:59 +0000

Al Queada has to get the message that if a non-state actor hits us with WMDs, we’ll hit a Muslim state with WMDs
_____________________________________________________

If that were the case then why Iraq? Saddam was into wine, women, and song not prayer five times a day. UBL though Saddam was a bad Muslim.

By: Joy

Joy — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 02:24:44 +0000

Ohio, thank you for your son. I think if I were an average Iraqi I too would have been afraid to know who to trust and the added troops helped them make that decision. But this administration has distorted, lied, and bungled so often that when something works the public is reluctant to believe it.

The next step is to get the Iraqi Government to get with it. I want the Iraqis taking care of their own with little assistance from our men and women. We need them elsewhere.

By: whoframedrudy

whoframedrudy — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 00:04:06 +0000

We haven’t had an honest debate about the war because the real reasons for the war were unspeakable. So Bush made up a lot of stupid reasons, and we poked holes in his stupid reasons. But the whole debate was bullshit on both sides. A bit back, Krugman said this: ‘Remember how the Iraq war was sold. The stuff about aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds was just window dressing. The main political argument was, “They attacked us, and we’re going to strike back” — and anyone who tried to point out that Saddam and Osama weren’t the same person was an effete snob who hated America.” I think Paul is filling in his memory here. That was not the main argument for the war, but it was the unspoken subtext. Not even Rush Limbaugh would just come out and say, ‘I know Saddam and Osama aren’t the same person. But they are the same religion, and we’re going to punish an Islamic country for the actions of an Islamic terror group. Al Queada has to get the message that if a non-state actor hits us with WMDs, we’ll hit a Muslim state with WMDs.” Killing millions for the actions of their government, as we promised in the Cold War, is horrible, but we were upfront about it. But killing millions because they share a religion with Bin Laden — Bush can’t say that is our policy, even though I think it is.

Letterman gets into it with O’Reilly. Letterman supported the war at first because ‘we had to do something.’ Do something? He means do something to somebody, he just can’t be honest that he wanted to punch a Muslim nation in the nose for 9/11. Now he’s pulling these Michael Moore arguments out of his ass. Michael Moore can make those arguments because he never supported the war. Letterman is full of sh*t. We’re not in Iraq because people like O’Reilly and Hannity supported the war. We’re in Iraq because people like Letterman supported the war.

Though I opposed the war from the start, I’m still a little ambivalent because we never openly debated a deterrent strategy for non-state actors. We need one. I don’t know if Iraq is it, but we do need one. We debated M.A.D. Out of that debate, we learned about nuclear winter and exposed the fallacy of ‘limited war.’ On Iraq, we make fun of the bullshit reasons, but we don’t debate the real reasons. Like Strangelove said, “the whole point of a Doomsday machine is lost if nobody knows about it. Why didn’t you tell the world?”

By: McKatmoon

McKatmoon — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:48:08 +0000

Misd, it’s a way to get us off topic, we ignore and continue the discussion, as best we can. I have noticed on various O sites that is the way of most conversations, very little actual thoughtful discourse beyond the need to raise money.

By: McKatmoon

McKatmoon — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:43:48 +0000

What I am trying to say is I ranted and raved in a letter to Senator McCain, and he in turn treated me with kindness, compassion and understanding. Sometimes parents(mother in this case) of soldiers are not reasonable, I was just operating on fear. He could have ignored me, he didn’t; I think having been a soldier, he had that understand of what a family goes through, perhaps his own mother as well. It makes a difference in perception, how that individual is valued, as one human being to another, nothing less.

By: McKatmoon

McKatmoon — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:38:52 +0000

I will never forget McCain’s stand on torture, I have a real letter from the Senator, when I voiced my concern over the very issue, during the first two year’s of the war, my son’s first tour. The horror of the contractors that were murdered. I was insane with a mother’s fear. Senator McCain wrote a decent, heart felt letter to me which is the same words he uses today. He cared, he was able to relay that feeling of compassion and care with a logic and determination. He showed me respect, and understanding.

By: Ms. Misderweiner13

Ms. Misderweiner13 — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:37:47 +0000

I wish someone would delete all the spam posts on this thread, and we could then have a redo and a serious discussion of what Mr. Johnson has written.

I am getting really pissed at all the juvenile bullshit!

By: fluffy bunny

fluffy bunny — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:15:59 +0000

Heh. “Theocracy” must be today’s talking point. I guess it’s because McCain whipped ass at that evangelical megachurch.

By: McKatmoon

McKatmoon — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:15:50 +0000

IT is a valid question and one I believe, needs an answer; not some general feel good bs lines, how about some reality; there are a lot of us who have family there, and a lot who have lost a great deal in this war too. Our country as a whole has lost face, and to walk away is to pretend something isn’t there with magical thinking, much like when a three year old closes their eyes, when they are afraid, and thinks the monster is gone. There isn’t only one monster, some think Iran is a new monster, some think we are the monster, and some think the separate sects are the monsters; there are plenty versions to go around.

But all of the military activity does not fix the political problems of who holds power in Iraq. Our military activities have created an opening. While we can rightly celebrate a decline in violence we should not kid ourselves that the Government of Prime Minister Maliki represents a point of view that is sympathetic to U.S. strategic goals in the Middle East. In fact, Maliki’s Iraq is closely aligned with Iran and will continue to be so for the forseeable future.

I honestly don’t know Obama’s policy regarding this. I have heard McCain talk about political reconciliation as a means to help the Iraq’s become independent in governing and protecting their own country. There is also great financial turmoil as we all know the ones with the big bucks have more pull; I think it would be a good idea to have someone who may actually be able to hear the U.S. again when asking for help in Iraq, we have alienated a lot governments, into not wanting to help with where Iraq is now. We stepped in it, and honestly do own it. Perhaps the next president needs to be just a bit more responsible when voicing the need for support in getting Iraq on it’s feet, as well as keeping the terrorists at bay from outside/yet close-by areas, so as not to have the ability to re-create the initial problem, yet again.

This is where we are, no matter how we got here, there is an active loss of violence, but this could be temporary, the military commanders know it. It is only as strong as the desire of the Iraq’s to want their country back in their hands. It may have to keep being done one portion at a time, to see how it holds and if it holds. It will only hold if it has support, and protection.

By: TeakwoodKite

TeakwoodKite — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:58:05 +0000

Interesting that a “individual” would talk about some of the “items” in this report.

Question; does the reporter writing this Article bear any legal jeopardy or consequences? There is a limit to the shield law and it ends when reporting “stuff” can get people killed. I believe the information can be imparted in such a way as to inform the reader but leave certain details out.

The other item that was not mentioned is that while the Anbar Provence has changed, it required paying people. This model is similar to what Hamas does in So Lebanon. When we leave so will the money. Who’s cow will be the subject of violence then?

Question; what would BO supporters think if they knew this was happening domestically and for all BO’s words he still votes for it?

Thanks for the bringing it up Mr. Johnson.

For all those who serve in these capacities, stay frosty; you have my deepest regard.

By: TeakwoodKite

TeakwoodKite — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:23:42 +0000

you break it, you ~~buy~~ own it”

Bull in a China Shop. In Powelss case it was the Pottery Barn. They were not thrilled by the reference.

By: JoseyJ

JoseyJ — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:15:56 +0000

>>>I’m not voting for theocracy.

Yeah it’s worse! You’re voting for Black Liberation Theology.

Obama/Wright08

By: kgirl1028

kgirl1028 — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:48:31 +0000

I have never heard McCain talk about god. However this brings to man something Benjamin Franklin said. He who will give up his freedom for safety deserves neither.