THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

The real funny joke is that many are still volunteering. I guess they never heard of masochism.

Not so oh wise one ........

Iraq duty deters re-enlistment

Fri Apr 16, 7:19 AM ET

By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY

The number of soldiers staying in the Army is falling just as the demand is increasing in Iraq (news - web sites).

Through March 17, nearly halfway through the fiscal year, the Army fell about 1,000 short of meeting its goal of keeping 25,786 soldiers whose enlistments were ending or who were eligible to retire. That works out to a 96% retention rate.

Last year, the retention figure was 106% because more soldiers stayed than the Army had planned. The retention goal assumes that not all eligible to stay will remain.

Military personnel experts have warned that full-time soldiers and members of the Guard and Reserve could begin leaving this year because of the strains of service, including longer and more frequent overseas missions. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged Thursday that the Defense Department will extend duty in Iraq beyond one year for 20,000 soldiers. Their time in Iraq will grow as much as 90 days.

"We regret having to extend those individuals," Rumsfeld said. "The country is at war, and we need to do what is necessary to succeed." (Related video: Pakistan considers U.S. troops request)

Helen Powell's husband, Sgt. 1st Class Arnold Powell, 47, was scheduled to come home at the end of the month. "I have something from every holiday he's missed," said Powell, 44, of Fort Polk, La. "I've got stale Easter candy in this basket. I know it sounds stupid. That's just something I do for me to cope."

The extension comes after two weeks of violence in Iraq, including the kidnappings of 40 people and a series of deadly attacks on convoys and U.S. troops.

There are 137,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Plans called for the military to reduce its troop levels to about 105,000 this summer, but Rumsfeld said Thursday he could make no guarantees about future troop levels. (Related story: Thursday in Iraq)

David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland, says dangers in Iraq will continue to cause problems for the Army, which is supplying most of the U.S. troops there. "The recent events will have an effect on parents and spouses of soldiers," he said. "Parents are going to increasingly question whether their kids should be in the military."

I know what you mean Dys ..... like, when are they going to give us someone to vote for instead of against?

I suppose it just depends on when Democrats are willing to support a more moderate candidate that better represents the interests of most Americans--not the interests Democrats think most Americans should have, but the actual interests of actual Americans.

But I can't remember the last time the Democrats had any other rallying cry than "Republicans Suck", and it is my belief that until that changes, Democrats are going to continue to slowly erode any credibility they have with informed voters.

It's not that simple my buck toothed friend. THEY give us one more choice than the Iraqi's had. We are a nation of sheep living under the illusion of freedom.

Truth or fiction .....it don't freakin matter

LET'S DISCUSS SOLUTIONS

I.
We first announce a simple plebiscite to be run by private security forces.

First, make it clear as we can to the Iraqi people what a republic is.

In the plebiscite, give the Iraqi people one yes or no question:

Do you want Coalition forces to help you establish a republic?

Make it as clear as possible that if a majority vote NO, the US will leave as rapidly as it can.

Make it clear as possible that if a majority vote YES, then Iraqies will be drafted and trained by coalition forces into an Iraqi army whose purpose will be to protect Iraq against terrorist attacks, including but not limited to counterattacking with coalition forces and "full" coalition ordinance, to the degree necessary, those of their neighbors who are sources of terrorists.

In short, tell the Iraqi people to "s__t or get off the pot."

With all due respect and sincerity, I have no idea what your response means. None.

Pay attention doggy ...... it is the Iraqi's turn to be in charge. They spread us out like butter ...... why/
Why did our troops stop so short after a year of kickin ass? Why is a single rogue cleric allowed to negotiate. Think back to 1920 .....


OnWar.com
Armed Conflict
Events Data

The Great Iraqi Revolution 1920

[also called Arab Revolt]
State Entry Exit Combat Forces Population Losses
Britain 1920 1920 50000 45000000 3000
Iraq 1920 1920 75000 3750000 10000

Local outbreaks against British rule had occurred even before the news reached Iraq that the country had been given only mandate status. Upon the death of an important Shia mujtahid (religious scholar) in early May 1920, Sunni and Shia ulama temporarily put aside their differences as the memorial services metamorphosed into political rallies. Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting, began later in that month; once again, through nationalistic poetry and oratory, religious leaders exhorted the people to throw off the bonds of imperialism. Violent demonstrations and strikes followed the British arrest of several leaders.

When the news of the mandate reached Iraq in late May, a group of Iraqi delegates met with Wilson and demanded independence. Wilson dismissed them as a "handful of ungrateful politicians." Nationalist political activity was stepped up, and the grand mujtahid of Karbala, Imam Shirazi, and his son, Mirza Muhammad Riza, began to organize the effort in earnest. Arab flags were made and distributed, and pamphlets were handed out urging the tribes to prepare for revolt. Muhammad Riza acted as liaison among insurgents in An Najaf and in Karbala, and the tribal confederations. Shirazi then issued a fatwa (religious ruling), pointing out that it was against Islamic law for Muslims to countenance being ruled by non-Muslims, and he called for a jihad against the British. By July 1920, Mosul was in rebellion against British rule, and the insurrection moved south down the Euphrates River valley. The southern tribes, who cherished their long-held political autonomy, needed little inducement to join in the fray. They did not cooperate in an organized effort against the British, however, which limited the effect of the revolt. The country was in a state of anarchy for three months; the British restored order only with great difficulty and with the assistance of Royal Air Force bombers. British forces were obliged to send for reinforcements from India and from Iran.

Ath Thawra al Iraqiyya al Kubra, or The Great Iraqi Revolution (as the 1920 rebellion is called), was a watershed event in contemporary Iraqi history. For the first time, Sunnis and Shias, tribes and cities, were brought together in a common effort. In the opinion of Hanna Batatu, author of a seminal work on Iraq, the building of a nation-state in Iraq depended upon two major factors: the integration of Shias and Sunnis into the new body politic and the successful resolution of the age-old conflicts between the tribes and the riverine cities and among the tribes themselves over the food-producing flatlands of the Tigris and the Euphrates. The 1920 rebellion brought these groups together, if only briefly; this constituted an important first step in the long and arduous process of forging a nation-state out of Iraq's conflict-ridden social structure.

The 1920 revolt had been very costly to the British in both manpower and money. Whitehall was under domestic pressure to devise a formula that would provide the maximum control over Iraq at the least cost to the British taxpayer. The British replaced the military regime with a provisional Arab government, assisted by British advisers and answerable to the supreme authority of the high commissioner for Iraq, Cox. The new administration provided a channel of communication between the British and the restive population, and it gave Iraqi leaders an opportunity to prepare for eventual self-government. The provisional government was aided by the large number of trained Iraqi administrators who returned home when the French ejected Faisal from Syria. Like earlier Iraqi governments, however, the provisional government was composed chiefly of Sunni Arabs; once again the Shias were underrepresented.

At the Cairo Conference of 1921, the British set the parameters for Iraqi political life that were to continue until the 1958 revolution...
Last Update: December 16, 2000
www.onwar.com [email protected]



We are not in charge anymore.

Gotta watch matthews .. brb

Bow Wow, Zoom!

I think we were never actually in charge. Holding this plebiscite makes it official that they are in charge. A simple NO by the Iraqi people is all it takes to kick us outa there. A simple YES by the Iraqi people is all it takes to keep us there and put us in charge. They decide; We report.

In the plebiscite, give the Iraqi people one yes or no question:

Do you want Coalition forces to help you establish a republic?

Do you, geli, have a better idea?

ican, What will be the "cost" of this ballot initiative? Can we ensure that the voters will not have their brains blown to smitherenes?

And in that question lies the answer to why we need to be there.

This will require at least 60 days to acquaint the Iraqi people via temporary TV and radio stations with what they are being asked and the consequences of a YES or a NO. Simultaneously we will have to set up and secure voting facilities throughout the country. The cost to make those facilities 100% secure and hold the plebiscite is probably over a trillion dollars. I guess that 75% security will cost about a billion dollars. The TV and radio stations will cost less than another billion. With 75% security a lot of potential voters, actual terrorists, coalition forces, and private security forces will "have their brains blown to smitherenes."

Perhaps enough Iraqi people themselves will become passionate securers of the voting facilities to decrease the number who will "have their brains blown to smitherenes" and thereby increase security to 85%.

Do you have a better idea?

Yes! We must be their until we get a majority NO, or be there long after we get a majority YES--until the Iraqies secure their republic.

To quote the late Senator Dirksen: " a billion here, a billion there, before you know it, we're talking real money."

of course I do, all my ideas are perfect.
July one all US troops and support leave, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld keep their collective mouths shut, Congress presents Iraq situation to the UN Security Council, Congress accepts whatever is voted in by the UN, the US pays costs appropriate for rebuilding.

Sometimes good sounding ideas may turn out to be worse than the problem it's trying to correct. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate to minimize what this administration has been guilty of; no idea of the consequences of their actions. They still can't tell us how much this war is going to cost us - in human life and tax dollars.

I'd turn the whole thing over to the MAFIA (including keeping their collective mouths shut") before I'd turn it over to the UN.

The UN is corrupt and incompetent. The MAFIA is merely corrupt.