Re: Religious Extremists
pistoff wrote:Could it be that Amerika is run by a few of those, hoping to dominate the world?
Is Amerika on a Crusade with God on Our Side? Allah is a false idol, right?
I was under the impression that Allah was or is God ....
I believe our friend Pistoff is referring to the general appointed by Rummy who has been quoted as telling an audience that Allah is a false idol.
Some thoughts on the Shrub's war: The ability of the U.S. military to find and take out guerillas in Iraq is very poor. Our human intelligence resources there are almost non-existent, and largely consist of walk-ins who tip off the military. The political climate in a particular region of that country seems to be significant-the raid which killed Saddam's sons was the result of such a walk-in tip off. Due both to the Kurds and the high quality of the 101st Airborn's occupation doctrine (thanks to General Patreus), this is a part of Iraq with more stability, more "normalcy." This is not so in the rest of the country. Given the number of attacks with remotely detonated roadside bombs, it seems very likely that the "resistance" (probably Baatist in origin, and reinforced by foreign loonies eager to get a good seat in paradise) has much better intelligence than do we. I suspect that this was not foreseen, and that we lack the intelligence resources in terms of soldiers with the necessary language skills and cultural knowledge to develop human intelligence. The stepped-up attacks on Iraqi police point to this in my mind, since they have the necessary language skills-and crucially, the ability to spot a foreign accent, and therefore a suspicious character. Saddam and the Baatist may have been low-rent thugs, but they displayed good political instincts. I haven't any doubt that they understand that anything which interferes with reconstruction is a successful blow against American efforts to win public support in Iraq. They are winning that battle-and they're winning it because the U.S. military did not come in prepared for this aspect of the war. Blame Rummy if you will, I'm sure Republican policy makers do-he is a liability, and even if Bush is reelected, it doubt that Rummy will survive. Whether or not, this all seems to me further evidence that the Shrub and Company went into this thing clueless, and haven't learned anything useful since the war started.
I agree with you up to, "haven't learned anything useful since the war started", could you expound, please?
Well, i feel that they have wasted a lot of time and resources looking for the ellusive WoMD's, when they ought to have been concentrating on ending the war, which is far from over. I also think that all real progress which has been made there has been made by intelligent commanders on the ground, but that the Pentagon leadership has not taken the lessons, because i would suggest that if it were otherwise, they'd be taking lessons from officers such as Patraeus, and would be concentrating their efforts in two areas: anti-insurgency and "normalization" of the common economic situations. If once the Iraqis believe we can keep the lights on, guarantee clean water and waste removal, keep the schools open, and give them a reasonable shot at a living wage, i believe we will soon have millions of allies in the anti-insurgency. Screw the WoMD's, we all know they fudged and lied; we have a huge problem, and they're swatting flies in the middle of an elephant stampede.
Welly well well my droogies .... what have we here ........
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an
occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing
objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the
circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating
another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously
trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War
world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United
Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international
response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the
invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying
power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically
different ?- and perhaps barren ?- outcome."
-President George H. W. Bush
I don't think all these events are happening as independently as you portray them, I think there is a balance in all the operations going on there. They are disadvantaged by communications as you say, but are figuring that out daily. Much is being learned here in that regard, and will be helpful for future dealings with the region whether they be military or political.
Well, it seems that you and i agree in all things except one. I think the military learns, our armed forces have demonstrated that they can learn lessons in combat and apply them. I have less reason to believe that those in power in the administration learn--i believe they are too busy looking for the proper spin, and looking to the next election. This isn't a partisan condemnation, it could be applied to anyone's administration. I consider it a good thing that the officers and men and women on the ground are learning--they will be our resource if we are to improve our standing in the region. It would helpful, though, if the administration were learning the lessons the officers on the ground are learning, and were making a concerted effort to profit from those lessons. I would be sceptical of a contention that that is currently the case.
I think the administration put the contraption together without a manual and screwed it up. People like that never learn -- they'll avoid the manual when the next contraption offers itself.
Tartar, What I've been observing about this administration is that anybody that doesn't play along with their agenda is soon removed from their office or rank. When they move like a tyrant, talk like a tyrant, and acts like a tyrant, it must be a tyrant.
The hospital unit at Fort Stewart? The mess that was found there -- military waiting for treatment? Now the same situation has cropped up in Fort Knox.
Again, think national healthcare.
Sure looks as though The Current Administration still has plenty to do to reverse the depredations visited on the national security infrastructure, military and intelligence alike, visited upon them by The Immediate Preceeding Administration.
the canadian broadcsting corporation (CBC) last night aired a one hour program re. september 11. if you do not have time to read the whole script, i suggest you read the interview with eleanor hill (i'm sure you know who she is!). her interview is included in THE COGRESSIONAL REPORT. i don't think i should print the whole story here; it would take up much space. enjoy ! hbg
From a different view .......
Quote:Thursday/Friday, October 30/31, 2003
THE AMERICAN INFORMATION MINISTER
Last March, the American public had a laugh while watching the spokesperson for the Baath regime in Iraq tell the world of the progress of the war. Once, when he denied the presence of American troops in Baghdad, a TV camera picked up a view of a U.S. tank only a few hundred yards from where the Iraqi Information Minister was standing.
Web sites sprung up mocking the Minister. His words were repeated all over the world. When the Baghdad regime fell, he experienced a humiliating end to his career as spokesperson for the regime. Word spread that the U.S. was looking for members of the Baath regime ?- some were considered high priority, while others were only asked to turn themselves in to answer a few questions. The Iraqi Information Minister turned himself in, only to be laughed at and told that he was not "wanted" by the Americans. In other words, they told him he was inconsequential, a non-entity. Shortly after, the Information Minister moved to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where he now lives as a private citizen.
The cult-like status of the Information Minister has been all but forgotten. Since his time in the spotlight, many things have occurred that no one could have predicted.
If you think the Iraqi Information Minister's messages were outrageous and denied the truth, you are in store for another deluge of similar tactics, only this time from the American side. Recently, George Bush has made so many preposterous statements about conditions in Iraq that he has left the Information Minister in the dust when it comes to denial. For the past few days, we have heard that the insurgents are a dying vestige of the old regime. Bush has told us that they are diminishing in numbers. Finally, he called them desperate people.
Let's look at Bush's statements and compare them to the facts. A couple of months ago, the average amount of daily attacks on U.S. troops stood at about 12. Last month, the figure was elevated to about 24. Now, the daily average, depending on the source, is from 32-38. One does not have to have a degree in mathematics to see that 32-38 is quite a bit numerically larger than 12.
A couple of weeks ago, a letter surfaced that was supposedly signed by over 500 soldiers stating that things were okay in Iraq. It accused the media of stretching the truth. When it was analyzed, the letter was shown to be a false document. Many of those named as signers had never seen the letter.
In the past three days, many people have been killed in attacks in Iraq, despite what Bush says. The attacks are not only growing in frequency, but in sophistication. According to Francis Tusa, publisher of Defence Analysis, a monthly journal, "This is pretty serious stuff going on. This isn't random attacks
not of this size. This is the start of a campaign ?- it's a simple as that. The Americans are saying, ?'it's just bandits.' No, they're better than that. They have got an organization. They have got targets, they have plans. This is a classic guerilla campaign." He added that the Bush administration is deliberately trying to play down the seriousness of the attacks and the organizers.
According to Toby Dodge, a terrorism expert at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, "The attack on the Rashid was a coup for the guys who did it. Politically, it shows people that they can deploy at will
By attacking the most famous landmark in the compound, they are saying, ?'We rule the streets. You don't.'"
Nameer Nuiammy is an Iraqi citizen who knows members of the resistance and sympathizes with them. He said, "There is a symbolic touch to it. Because the Americans are living there and the Deputy Secretary of Defense was there, and even if he was only shocked and panicked, this will be registered as a victory for the attackers." He added, "At the beginning, the operations were simple ?- just to test the American position. Now, day after day, it's getting stronger and more sophisticated. Every operation is now organized; nothing is left to chance. We can launch these attacks from anywhere, from rooftops, from the other side of the (Tigris) river."
Ian Bruce of the British newspaper The Herald, is covering the insurgency. He stated, "For what the Pentagon still refers to as ?'small-cell local insurgency,' Iraq's resistance is remarkably persistent and increasingly effective in the Ba'ath Party heartland north and west of Baghdad. The hand of foreign ?'jihadi' volunteers with experience of manufacturing improvised roadside bombs, rocket-launchers with electronic timers and providing candidates for Islamic martyrdom in explosive-packed vehicles is also evident.
"The increasing lethal use of mortars, highly accurate and capable of being fired from a distance of more than two miles, is another sign of increasing professionalism. When it began, 112 dead U.S. soldiers ago in the immediate aftermath of Saddam's fall from power, the resistance was sporadic and haphazard
It has evolved into something much bigger and more lethal
"
When we read the words of those who write about the situation in Iraq, it is more evident that Bush is not talking about the same Iraq as the experts. His nose is growing longer every day as he spouts his propaganda to the U.S. people. He has exceeded the words of the former Iraqi Information Minister in stretching facts.
There is one point, however, that should be brought up. When the Iraqi Information Minister was confronted with the facts that American soldiers were in Baghdad, he quickly stated, "That's okay. We've got them right where we want them." Hindsight shows us that he was telling the truth on that one.
Source
UN, US and IRAQ
on rereading my earlier entry i notice that i forgot to supply the website for the cbc. here it is :
www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html
Quote:Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an
occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing
objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the
circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating
another of our principles. ....
Gelisgesti...link please....
Hi B. There was just the quote ... 'All hat and no cattle'.
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/
set
The general (Boykin) is also Undersecretary of Defence for Intelligence.
I couldn't remember what sinecure they'd given him . . . the old joke about military intelligent being an oxymoron is more than beggared by that ugly reality . . .
