And who lost Afghanistan?
BUSH
Quote:Taliban 'Mini-State' In Pakistan?
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Dec. 11, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS/AP) Peace deals between Islamic militants and Pakistan's government have created a virtual Taliban mini-state near Afghanistan, giving militants a "free hand" to recruit, train and arm for cross-border attacks, a think tank reported Monday. The ICG report said Pakistan's army had "virtually retreated to the barracks" in North Waziristan, giving pro-Taliban elements "a free hand to recruit train and arm," which also posed a serious threat to Pakistan's own security.
Government policy had allowed militants "to establish a virtual mini-Taliban-style state," it said, citing reports of pro-Taliban militants attacking music, video and CD stores, closing barber shops, imposing taxes and establishing courts to impose summary justice.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/11/terror/main2244835.shtml
99% of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. This 1% finances our two party system. It is a illusoin of diversity and democracy to conceal uniformity insured by that 90% of wealth by the 1%.
Our problems are not complexed, they are as old as.....politics.
The media, the state and the church, etc ,etc cooperating for one purpose. That purpose is not your freedom or liberty. The purpose is to make you a cog in a gear of a machine going where you don't want to go.
Up to 50,000 Troops May Soon Be Sent to Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/121606Y.shtml
Military planners and White House budget analysts have been asked to provide President Bush with options for increasing American forces in Iraq. Officials said that the options being considered included the deployment of upwards of 50,000 additional troops, but that the political, training and recruiting obstacles to an increase larger than 20,000 to 30,000 troops would be prohibitive.
I'm not sure where they think those 50,000 extra troops are coming from. On top of all that, if they manage to to find those 50,000 troops, many should be on rotation to come home for R&R. They're stretched to the brink now, and any temporary fix won't solve anything. Do they seriously think a one year hiatus will stop the violence for the long-term?
Where is Bush getting his advise?
It's a formula for more body bags and little else.
What's even more hilarious is how the Iraq Commission comprised of supposed 'experts' were nothing more than those old political windbags that bleed dust.
If they had actually gotten some real scholars and academics who have studied the region, the recommendations and advice would be different, as opposed to 'damage control'.
Amigo wrote-
Quote:The purpose is to make you a cog in a gear of a machine going where you don't want to go.
Well Amigo-I think we are all cogs in a machine and so are the 1%. And the direction it has gone while I've been here has been pretty good. The purpose is to make it smoother.
I'm sure I couldn't have done it. I would have shared all the wealth out equally like the fair minded man I am but I'm not sure what the consequences would have been. Probable wall to wall shite I should imagine.
Anonymouse wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Anonymouse wrote:What's even more hilarious is how the Iraq Commission comprised of supposed 'experts' were nothing more than those old political windbags that bleed dust.
If they had actually gotten some real scholars and academics who have studied the region, the recommendations and advice would be different, as opposed to 'damage control'.
Quote:Members and Participating Organizations
Leadership of the group will be provided by two distinguished co-chairs: James A. Baker, III, former secretary of state and honorary chairman of the Baker Institute, and Lee H. Hamilton, former congressman and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
The balance of the bipartisan group will be comprised of Americans who have distinguished themselves in service to their nation: Robert M. Gates, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III, Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, and Alan K. Simpson.
The members of the study group will consult with members of Congress and others, including four working groups of experts and a group of retired military officers. The four working groups will be comprised of experts from private industry and leading policy and academic institutions.
United States Institute of Peace - Iraq Study Group
What is your point?
I think Walter is pointing out to you that your complaint has little or no merit. Not only is there substantial foreign policy and scholarship expertise in the membership, but also that the working groups mentioned fulfill your demand for broad scholarship.
Who, in your opinion, was not consulted who should have been? Who, in your opinion, ought to have been on the committee itself who were not on it? Is it also your opinion that the group would have been better served by "ivory tower" types than by the sort of practical expertise of Baker, Gates, Panetta, Robb, Simpson and Hamilton?
But perhaps your opinions here have been "informed" by middle east and foreign policy experts such as Krauthammer (a psychiatrist), or Rush (a talk radio personality) or Ann Coulter (a lawyer) or O'Reilly (a tall and abrasive TV personality who does fun stuff with a loofah).
Brief troop surge OK in Iraq, Reid says By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 33 minutes ago
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday he would support a temporary troop increase in Iraq only if it were part of a broader strategy to bring combat forces home by early 2008.
"If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that," said Reid, D-Nev., citing a time frame such as two months to three months. But a period longer than that, such as 18 months to 24 months, would be unacceptable, he said.
"The American people will not allow this war to go on as it has. It simply is a war that will not be won militarily. It can only be won politically," Reid said. "We have to change course in Iraq."
President Bush is considering several options for a new strategy in Iraq, such as a proposal backed by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., that would send tens of thousands of additional troops for an indefinite period to quickly secure Baghdad. There are about 134,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now.
That plan would run counter to recommendations by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which set a goal of withdrawing combat troops by early 2008 in support of more aggressive regional diplomacy.
Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff who is advising Bush to send an additional 30,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops, said it would take at least 1 1/2 years to secure Iraq.
"It's impossible," Keane said, responding to Reid's suggestion that the troop surge be limited to two months to three months.
"It will take a couple of months just to get forces in," he said.
Bush's former secretary of state, Colin Powell, said he was skeptical that any type of troop surge would be effective, noting that ultimately it is the Iraqis who must stand up and stop their growing sectarian violence.
"It is the D.C. police force that guards Washington, D.C., not the troops that are stationed at Fort Myer. And in Baghdad, you need a police force to do that," Powell said. "So, before I would add any additional troops or recommend it to a commander in chief, I'd want to make sure we have a clear understanding of what it is they're going for, how long they're going for."
Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts, who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said there would be widespread opposition by members of his committee if Bush proposes a troop increase.
"We have to understand that there is absolute chaos that is taking place there. This country is falling apart," Kennedy said.
Regarding a temporary troop surge, Kennedy said, "I respect Harry Reid on it, but that's not where I am."
Reid and Keane spoke on ABC's "This Week," Kennedy appeared on "Fox News Sunday," and Powell spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation."
Powell thinks the idea of more troops sucks.
I agree. We are not going to win the hearts and minds by killing more people. We will just make more terrorist.
Quote:Powell: We Are Losing In Iraq
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) The United States is losing the war in Iraq but sending more troops to Baghdad is not the best way to change course, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Face The Nation.
Powell said he agreed with the assessment of the Iraq Study Group co-chairmen, Lee Hamilton and James Baker, that the situation in Iraq is "grave and deteriorating," and he also agreed with recently-confirmed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the U.S. is not winning the war.
"So if it's grave and deteriorating and we're not winning, we are losing," Powell told Bob Schieffer in an exclusive interview. "We haven't lost. And this is the time, now, to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around."
President George W. Bush is considering several options for a new strategy in Iraq. The most likely choice would be to send tens of thousands of additional troops for an indefinite period to quickly secure Baghdad.
A 3,500-man brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division will be sent to Kuwait soon after the holidays, CBS News correspondent David Martin reported on Friday. The troops would be available immediately should the president order a surge into Iraq.
There are about 134,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now.
Powell, also a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he did not see the military benefit of flooding Baghdad with American troops.
"I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work," he said, adding that the Iraqi government and security forces must take over.
"It is the D.C. police force that guards Washington, D.C., not the troops that are stationed at Fort Myer," Powell said. "And in Baghdad, you need a police force to do that, and in the other cities, you need a police force to do that, and not the American troops."
Powell also doubted that the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are large enough to support such an operation.
"The current active Army is not large enough and the Marine Corps is not large enough for the kinds of missions they're being asked to perform," Powell said. "We need to let both the Army and the Marine Corps grow in size, in my military judgment."
Asked directly what the U.S. should do in Iraq, Powell said:
"I think that what we should do is to work with the Iraqi government, press them on the political peace, do everything we can to provide equipment, advisers, and whatever the Iraqi armed forces need to become more competent, and to train their leaders so that those leaders realize their responsibility to the government."
Powell, who as a member of the Bush Administration pushed the international community to sanction the invasion of Iraq, said that we are not safer now after nearly four years of fighting.
"I think we are a little less safe, in the sense that we don't have the same force structure available for other problems," Powell said. "I think we have been somewhat constrained in our ability to influence events elsewhere."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/17/ftn/main2274583.shtml
C Powell should know by now why we have less influence in the world political scene. Bush has been successful in alienating most of our former allies.
blatham wrote:Anonymouse wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Anonymouse wrote:What's even more hilarious is how the Iraq Commission comprised of supposed 'experts' were nothing more than those old political windbags that bleed dust.
If they had actually gotten some real scholars and academics who have studied the region, the recommendations and advice would be different, as opposed to 'damage control'.
Quote:Members and Participating Organizations
Leadership of the group will be provided by two distinguished co-chairs: James A. Baker, III, former secretary of state and honorary chairman of the Baker Institute, and Lee H. Hamilton, former congressman and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
The balance of the bipartisan group will be comprised of Americans who have distinguished themselves in service to their nation: Robert M. Gates, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III, Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, and Alan K. Simpson.
The members of the study group will consult with members of Congress and others, including four working groups of experts and a group of retired military officers. The four working groups will be comprised of experts from private industry and leading policy and academic institutions.
United States Institute of Peace - Iraq Study Group
What is your point?
I think Walter is pointing out to you that your complaint has little or no merit. Not only is there substantial foreign policy and scholarship expertise in the membership, but also that the working groups mentioned fulfill your demand for broad scholarship.
Who, in your opinion, was not consulted who should have been? Who, in your opinion, ought to have been on the committee itself who were not on it? Is it also your opinion that the group would have been better served by "ivory tower" types than by the sort of practical expertise of Baker, Gates, Panetta, Robb, Simpson and Hamilton?
But perhaps your opinions here have been "informed" by middle east and foreign policy experts such as Krauthammer (a psychiatrist), or Rush (a talk radio personality) or Ann Coulter (a lawyer) or O'Reilly (a tall and abrasive TV personality who does fun stuff with a loofah).
So when someone disagrees, does that then automatically qualify them as somehow proponents of the names you've mentioned?
Regardless of who I want (as that was not the point), hiding the supposed expertise regarding the Middle East in vague and anonymous institutions and personalities such as: "four working groups of experts and a group of retired military officers" who hail from "private industry and leading policy and academic institutions", does not help their cause. Who are these people both academics and military officers? What "policy institutions" are they from? Are they, per chance, the academic experts and military leaders, who, from the get go, disagreed with Bush and his cronies and were ignored? Or are they from elite establishment think tanks and policy institutions such as the Council on Foreign Relations or the American Enterprise Institute?
Before you jump to your shortsighted conclusions and spew the typical bromide (for how dare anyone disagree), I suggest you actually get a working knowledge of the Middle East, something neither the neocons in their arrogance or hubris understood, nor did the supposed Iraq Commission composed of experts understand. The heart of the thing that gives it away are the silly recommendations espoused by the report which will only create more problems and delay the inevitable admission of defeat and departure.
Well, now that's interesting. I thought you were making your assertions from out of the maelstrom of Limbaugh and Krauthammer and company. But it appears you arise from some other compass-point.
You recommend I gain a working knowledge of the middle east. Good advice. Can you elucidate for us here your personal cv in the matter?
And I take it that you have a negative notion regarding the folks who comprised the working groups. Yet it isn't clear from your post whether or not you have any actual idea of what names fill that roster but that you infer a low quality of expertise because of the recommendations? Is that correct? Any particular recommendations which draw your ire?
Right on the money Snood.
blatham wrote:Well, now that's interesting. I thought you were making your assertions from out of the maelstrom of Limbaugh and Krauthammer and company. But it appears you arise from some other compass-point.
You recommend I gain a working knowledge of the middle east. Good advice. Can you elucidate for us here your personal cv in the matter?
And I take it that you have a negative notion regarding the folks who comprised the working groups. Yet it isn't clear from your post whether or not you have any actual idea of what names fill that roster but that you infer a low quality of expertise because of the recommendations? Is that correct? Any particular recommendations which draw your ire?
Pardon the ignorance, but what is "cv"?
But if the Iraq Study Group, the hacks that were masquerading experts had and even the journalists who report about it any working knowledge of the Middle East they would know that Britain was in the same situation in 1917.
The British commander who marched into Baghdad stated, "We come here, not as conquerors, but as liberators to free you from generations of tyranny." Do you notice a striking resemblance to modern times? Telegrams from the British intelligence in Baghdad to the War Department (that's honesty that doesn't exist now, it's the Defense Department or State Department or some variation), that stated terrorists were crossing the border from...Syria. Hmm, I wonder where we have heard this before? And Lloyd George stood up in the House of Commons and said that if British troops left Iraq there would be...a civil war. How uncanny!
You mean to tell me a bunch of experts don't know this? Do they believe that somehow they are above the lessons of history? Prepare for yet another pullout, hundreds of thousands killed, billions wasted and nothing achieved.
Bush warns of more U.S. losses in Iraq
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
1 hour, 11 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Acknowledging deepening frustration over Iraq, President Bush said Wednesday he is considering an increase in American forces and warned that next year will bring more painful U.S. losses. New Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in Baghdad that a troop surge was an obvious option.
Bush was unusually candid at a year-end news conference about U.S. setbacks and dashed hopes in the war, which has claimed the lives of more than 2,950 U.S. military members.
He said "2006 was a difficult year for our troops and the Iraqi people. We began the year with optimism" but that faded as extremists fomented sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites.
