Thread: What I don't like about Bush.

To Shek, Dale M, and Bluesman:

Gentlemen, for the time being, I am unlikely to agree with you. Firstly, we do come from very different political backgrounds (as far as I can tell). Secondly, I still do not yet repudiate the value of the main stream media. Shek, I did read your post about what the New York Times left out. I have also begun reading the military blogs you set forth.

Despite our political differences, this will not prevent me from seeking the truth of the matter.

There have been too many posts written in reply to my own for me to respond to each one. Right now, my opinions on Iraq are undergoing systematic review. I will attempt to find as much information as possible.

Eventually, I will post a lengthy and cross-referenced analysis of Iraq, probably on Monday. This will attempt to ground some of my beliefs and objections to American policy in Iraq. This post will also describe in detail, both tactically and strategically, some of our failures in Iraq.

I think I owe it to this forum to offer a disciplined and researched post. Therefore, I ask you all to be patient while I collect my thoughts and evidence.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

To Shek, Dale M, and Bluesman:

Gentleman, for the time being, I am unlikely to agree with you. Firstly, we do come from very different political backgrounds (as far as I can tell). Secondly, I still do not yet repudiate the value of the main stream media. Shek, I did read your post about what the New York Times left out. I have also begun reading the military blogs you set forth.

Despite our political differences, this will not prevent me from seeking the truth of the matter.

There have been to many posts written in reply to my own for me to respond to each one. Right now, my opinions on Iraq are undergoing systematic review. I will attempt to find as much information as possible.

Eventually, I will post a lengthy and cross-referenced analysis of Iraq, probably on Monday. This will attempt to ground some of my beliefs and objections to American policy in Iraq. This post will also describe in detail, both tactically and strategically, some of our failures in Iraq.

I think I owe it to this forum to offer a disciplined and researched post. Therefore, I ask you all to be patient while I collect my thoughts and evidence.

I am interested to see what you come up with. Please take these two thoughts into consideration while you are examining your view on Iraq:

1. The decision to go to war is irrelevant to the question of whether we should stay in Iraq. It does offer potential lessons about any future decision to go to war, but it doesn't change the reality of what's going on on the ground in Iraq right now.

2. To understand a situation, you cannot just look at it from your side. So, take some time to look at AQ, it's goals, and it's objectives related to Iraq. Are they acomplishing their goals? What do they want to happen. What do they not want to happen.

Originally Posted by shek

Kevin,
Other than one of the BDE's from 3ID, they weren't any units brought home prior to the 12 month mark that I am aware of. The invasion force stayed in Iraq, being extended from 6 months to 9 months to finally 12 months.

I would ask what decisions you feel are being made about Iraq from the White House? Outside of the decision to stop Fallujah I in its tracks last April, I cannot think of any examples where the White House has involved itself in tactical/operational decisions.

Thanks.

Shek

This is a little tougher question to answer, I'll admit. Pretty much from the outset. Bush has at least given the public appearance of not wanting to hear any opinions that differed from those his advisers had given him. Shinseki was essentially ousted for having a difference of opinion on how many troops the invasion and follow on occupation would require. It seems to me (reading between the lines) that this was the biggest interference from the WH where the war was concerned.

However, viewed from another angle, history may record Bush's actions as having been exactly perfect. I think its true, he did not deploy enough troops to shut down the borders of Iraq and prevent the "insurgency" before it ever started. But, it's entirely possible that may have been the plan. By getting the "freedom fighters" to flock to Iraq, where they can be engaged and destroyed by US forces, he prevented them from flocking to US soil, where their actions could have caused over 2000 US casualties in months, rather than years. So, perhaps I'm reading the situation wrong.

One other issue that I forgot to mention in my previous post where I think Bush may have made a serious error. In the run up to the Iraq war, there was much made of WMD being the justification for the war. It became so loud that the fact that there were plenty of justifications beyond WMD got drowned out. You and I know that whether or not SH had WMD at the time of the war, he had them in the past. We also know he had the balls to use them, because he had done so. But, when the left was able to paint that as the sole justification for the war, we set ourselves up to be embarrassed. I think a better tactic would have been an announcement along the following lines:

"In 1991, we defeated the Iraqi forces of Saddam Hussein in detail on the battlefields of Southern Iraq and Kuwait. In order to avoid loss of power in Iraq, Hussein signed a peace treaty that was strict, but fair. Since signing that treaty, he has managed to violate nearly all the terms of that treaty. He continues to behave as a mafia boss rather than a head of state, going so far as to hatch a plot to kill a former US Chief Executive. He also continues to provide support to terrorists, including financial support to the families of suicide bombers and training camps and support to terrorist organizations. We have shown forebearance in our dealings with Hussein, taking limited actions against his regeime when it failed to follow the stipulations of the treaty, as well as numerous UN resolutions. In short, we have been patient while Mr Hussein committed several overt acts of war.

"On September 11, 2001, we were attacked. Several thousand of our citizens died in this attack. We can no longer afford forebearance. We are forced to make a choice, and we choose to take the fight to our enemies. Mr Hussein, in six weeks, you will no longer be the dictator of Iraq. That leaves you three weeks to make a decision. You can step down, and you will be allowed to quietly go into exile in whatever country will take you. Our forces will follow on with an occupation to ensure peaceful development of a government that reflects the will of the Iraqi people. If, after three weeks, you have not stepped down, the mission of our forces will change from peaceful occupation to invasion. You will be removed from power, and rather than a quiet life of exile, you will be turned over to your own people for trial and punishment. The decision is yours, for now. In three weeks, we will decide for you."

Everything in this announcement is factual. It is more than adequate reason to go to war. Such an announcement would have focused the public on the fact that Iraq was (and still is) central to the war on terror. It also would have taken ammunition away from the left as to the WMD irrelevancies, which is exactly what they were.

Just my 2 cents.

Kevin McHugh

Originally Posted by Bluesman

There is literally an example per day of their sloppiness, shoddiness, lack of standards, and straight-up BIAS in that birdcage liner.

There have been some minor, some major and some REALLY funny lapses of what a real paper would be like. But it is literally an item or more a day; they never disappoint.

Here's the NYT stepping on their crank again. Not about Iraq this time, but the military in general.

www.iraqnow.blogspot.com

Incompetent coverage at the New York Times
America has been at war now for over four years. And yet the New York Times editorial staff cannot be bothered to learn even the most basic things about our armed forces.

Here's Jennifer Mascia, demonstrating her rank ineptitude in a profile about a Harlem recruiter in a piece called "Sergeant Guzman's War."

Unlike the Marines, Army infantry and Special Forces, which send volunteers straight from boot camp to the front lines, the Harlem Knights Army unit signs potential recruits up for more than 200 noncombat jobs, everything from laundry and textile specialist to flute player to dental specialist.

Look, you knuckle-sucking morons: You have to be an E-5 promotable or an 0-2 just to get accepted to the Special Forces Q-course. And even if you make it through that course, the MOSQ for Special Forces is a year long. And the basic airborne course is also a prerequisite.

And that's not even counting language training.

"Straight from boot camp to the front lines" my ass. When is the Times going to get someone on their staff who has a clue?

Furthermore, NOBODY goes straight from "boot camp" to the front lines. Everyone goes from basic training to their MOS specialty schools first before they are even a deployable asset. Sometimes the basic training and advanced individual training happen in the same place (it's called "One Station Unit Training," in the Army). But everyone in the Army attends a follow-on school after basic.

Everyone.

Anyone with a four-year enlistment in their past could have spotted that rubbish, and saved the New York Times a bunch of egg on their faces.

If they don't know even the most basic facts about where Special Forces come from, then what else are they getting wrong?

Splash, out

Jason

[LINK] posted by Jason : 14:38 EST

Let's see who picks up this story and puts it in print:

www.strykernews.com

Shallow Grave unearthed, terrorists using women and children
(TFF Press Release)

WESTERN NINEWA, IRAQ – Acting on information from a citizen in Tall Afar, the Iraqi Police uncovered the bodies of 14 people buried in a shallow grave just east of the city Friday. Twelve of the corpses were bound and appear to have been shot in the head execution style while two others were decapitated.

The bodies appear to have been dead for 1-3 months.

In the past month, Iraqi and US Forces have uncovered other grisly evidence of how terrorists maintained a grip of fear over the population of Tall Afar.

Terrorists used the city to train mortar teams, and then conducted attacks against innocent civilians. In the most recent attack, two girls aged 9 and 11 were injured when two mortar rounds impacted in front of their house as they played outside. Iraqi Forces provided first aid and US Forces evacuated the 11 year old girl to a Mosul hospital for treatment.

Since the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment’s and the Third Iraqi Army Division’s effective security operations, terrorists in Tall Afar have used boys and women to conduct attacks against security forces and the people of Tall Afar.

Recently, a young boy with a learning disability was coerced into throwing hand grenades at local citizens and Iraqi Security Forces. US Soldiers captured the boy who led them to a 60 year old man who instigated the attack. The man was captured and US forces are working with Iraqi officials to find foster care for the boy.

In the past month, four other incidents of boys from age 10-12 conducting attacks have occurred. Three involved hand grenades and one killed an Iraqi civilian who had previously told the children to stop these attacks.

Previously in Tall Afar, terrorists have used children as shields to move between houses during coalition operations.

In a chilling confession, one boy who Iraqi Police captured during the heavy fighting in September admitted to murdering people and even helping hold the feet of others while the older terrorists beheaded them. He had been sodomized and brain-washed by the terrorists.

Despite the cultural and religious taboos, terrorists continue using women to attack security forces.

In late September, a woman believed to be in her early twenties and also mentally impaired, detonated an explosive belt killing herself and seven other innocent Iraqis including one child.

Other instances of women assisting these men either by force or willingly have been documented. Employing female searchers, Iraqi Forces have found women hiding cell phones and weapons in their clothing.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

1) Cheap labor is essential to the American economy. The might of China's economy attests to this fact. That country has been able to out-produce America for several years now because of its hordes of cheap workers.

2) Besides that cynical argument, we should remember that most job employers will still pick a White American for a job over a Mexican. The real reason Mexicans are getting so many jobs is because they work jobs White people don't want. It was the same situations with the Irish, Germans, Italians, and all kind of immigrants around the turn of the century.

3) For all the supposed damage Mexicans are doing to the economy, some major corporations are doing worse. After all, it is the major corporations that are outsourcing jobs to India and China. I think we should look within, not blame the Mexicans, who are generally hard-working people.

In the future, our descendants may look back at Mexican immigration as a beneficial thing.

You need to do some more reading on economics. You're not there yet. You can point to specific industries and state that China is outproducing the US, and be correct. However, at the macro level, China's output is nowhere near the US. It's called efficiency. Furthermore, outsourcing is one of those great myths in the US. It actually creates jobs stateside, but you'll hardly ever hear this due to the politics surrounding this issue.

Finally, while I don't think you are intending to portray your argument in derogatory terms, you should be more careful how you phrase your arguments. It has a tone of racism/sterotyping that can be very easily misconstrued (unless that is how you want it to be taken). For example "jobs White people don't want" is unnecessary. In reality, it's jobs that American citizens, not just Whites, don't want. So, while your point that immigrants, both legal and illegal, are taking jobs that most citizens don't want is correct, you come off as racist and lacking credibility.

I don't have the time to post on this subject. It would be like writing a novel. Could we do a "what I do like about Bush"?

Unfortuntely, I haven't had the time necessary to make up my mind on Iraq yet. So, the big post I promised for tonight will have to wait. At some point I will offer a properly researched post on my views on Iraq.

Shek, I'll also answer your objections to my concerns about the military industrial complex, my economical thoughts, and any other apparent faults in my reasoning or evidence.

Again, sorry for the delay, but I do have other obligations.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Unfortuntely, I haven't had the time necessary to make up my mind on Iraq yet.

That's the one that tops my list.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Again, sorry for the delay, but I do have other obligations.

Don't be sorry. Come by when you can, say what you have time to say, try to have some fun.

Originally Posted by Confed999

That's the one that tops my list.

I recommend you read "New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy" by Ralph Peters, an retired Army intel officer. He's supportive of the mission in Iraq but very critical of the way it's being done. And they're largely legit problems not the same tired leftist BS you hear around here. In fact instead of replying to Broken, I think I'll finish reading the book. It's not one of those monster 6 or 7 hundred page things either just 270ish. So pick it up it's worth it.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Unfortuntely, I haven't had the time necessary to make up my mind on Iraq yet. So, the big post I promised for tonight will have to wait. At some point I will offer a properly researched post on my views on Iraq.

Shek, I'll also answer your objections to my concerns about the military industrial complex, my economical thoughts, and any other apparent faults in my reasoning or evidence.

Again, sorry for the delay, but I do have other obligations.

No sweat. Message boards shouldn't be a top priority in life. However, they do offer a good forum to force you to work through your thoughts and express yourself and your opinions.

BTW, I'd check out the 25 OCT entry on this blog, http://www.rofasix.blogspot.com, entitled "$20 for an Ice Tray?" and ponder that as you look at the defense industry question. It's not an all encompassing post about the defense industry, but it should plant the seed that all is not what it seems when reading MSM articles sometimes. I think non-profit oversight groups have their place, but they do often cry wolf when it's not needed.

Originally Posted by Leader

but very critical of the way it's being done.

Then I would agree with him. But then again, I'm pretty critical about how they all were done. Until there's a way to actually "win" in a war, let alone run a perfect one, there will allways be room to be critical. Hopefully some of the people in charge will read the book. I doubt I'll have time to read anything except building code, accounting, and insurance policies, for a few months though. :(

Edit: To clarify: I do not like Bush for the way it was done, just that it was done. Honestly, I'd have been all for anyone willing to do the job.

Originally Posted by Confed999

Then I would agree with him. But then again, I'm pretty critical about how they all were done. Until there's a way to actually "win" in a war, let alone run a perfect one, there will allways be room to be critical. Hopefully some of the people in charge will read the book. I doubt I'll have time to read anything except building code, accounting, and insurance policies, for a few months though. :(

Edit: To clarify: I do not like Bush for the way it was done, just that it was done. Honestly, I'd have been all for anyone willing to do the job.

Isn't accounting fun? I have to do some of that tonight as well. Anyway pick it up when you get a chance. Unfortunately, I think it'll be just as relevant in a few months.

Here's the WaPo stepping on it's crank. In case you miss the point of this blog entry, you don't shine the seude desert boots which have been worn in Afghanistan since the start. So, the WaPo has managed to put forward another false Koran desecration story thanks to their lack of knowledge about the military. Great job!

www.iraqnow.blogspot.com

You can do anything but lay off of my...

Cori Dauber notes a WaPo piece that says the Guantanamo inmates are not exactly happy campers.

Dossari, 26, said U.S. troops have put out cigarettes on his skin, threatened to kill him and severely beat him. He told his lawyer that he saw U.S. Marines at Kandahar "using pages of the Koran to shine their boots," and was brutalized at Guantanamo Bay by Immediate Response Force guards who videotaped themselves attacking him.

Oh, great. Another Koran desecration story that the media doesn't bother to check out before going with it.

So why does it fall on me to point out that boots in Kandahar are suede?

Splash, out

Jason

[LINK] posted by Jason : 08:36 EST