9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 04:57 am
Tincan wrote

Quote:
The Israelis have frequently stopped retaliating in response to Palestinians Arab attacks on Israelis. The Israelis would permanently stop retaliating against the Palestinian Arabs if the Palestinian Arabs would permanently stop killing Israelis.


If they've frequently stopped retaliating it means they frequently started retaliating. To permanently stop retaliating if Arabs stopped killing Jews is nonsense, as retaliation means reprisal...a like for like action. If Arabs were not killing Jews there would be nothing to retaliate for and any action by definition would not be retaliation. To permanently stop not doing something is gibberish. I think you've been on this thread too long tinman.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 11:16 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
Tincan wrote

Quote:
The Israelis have frequently stopped retaliating in response to Palestinians Arab attacks on Israelis. The Israelis would permanently stop retaliating against the Palestinian Arabs if the Palestinian Arabs would permanently stop killing Israelis.


If they've frequently stopped retaliating it means they frequently started retaliating. To permanently stop retaliating if Arabs stopped killing Jews is nonsense, as retaliation means reprisal...a like for like action. If Arabs were not killing Jews there would be nothing to retaliate for and any action by definition would not be retaliation. To permanently stop not doing something is gibberish. I think you've been on this thread too long tinman.

Laughing

That whole soliloquy of yours, Steve, is an excellent example of pure gibberish fully in the spirit of Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing and Comedy of Errors. Congratulations! Keep up your good work. You may succeed someday in writing an excellent Broadway comedy.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 11:50 am
What about Iran?

Quote:
Iran's al Qaeda
If the Revolutionary Guards aren't terrorists, who is?
BY BRET STEPHENS
OpinionJournal
Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

On the morning of July 18, 1994, a suicide bomber drove a van into the seven-story Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, murdering 85 people and seriously injuring 151 others. Last November, Argentine Judge Rodolfo Canicoba Corral issued international arrest warrants for eight men--seven Iranians and one Lebanese--wanted in connection to the bombing. Among them are former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, former Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati, and three other men with one important point in common: All were, or are, senior officers in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

That's something both Democratic politicians and Bush administration policy makers might consider in their respective internal debates over whether the IRGC should officially be designated as a foreign terrorist organization. For the administration, which has been mulling the issue since at least August, a terrorist designation for the IRGC is one further way to penalize Iran unilaterally as efforts to obtain a third round of international sanctions stall at the U.N. Security Council. But the Russians, Chinese and some of the Europeans are said to fiercely oppose the move, in part because much of their business in Iran runs through IRGC-controlled enterprises.

As for the Democrats, fully half their Senate conference--including Hillary Clinton--voted last month in favor of a symbolic amendment to designate the IRGC a terrorist group, albeit after the original text had been stripped of its prescription to "combat, contain and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence" of Iran and its proxies in Iraq. Sen. Clinton defended her vote as a way "to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran." But the rest of the Democratic presidential field took exception, with John Edwards insisting that "we cannot give this president an inch, not an inch."

There certainly is plenty to say about what consequences might flow from an adverse finding of fact about the IRGC. But there is also the matter of the facts themselves. Following the '94 bombing--which came just two years after the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires had been bombed, killing 22--the Clinton administration wasted little time fingering what it then believed was the likeliest suspect. "I am very distressed that some of our allies . . . do not recognize the full responsibility of Iran for Hezbollah attacks around the world," said then Secretary of State Warren Christopher.

It also became quickly apparent that the two attacks had been coordinated through Iran's embassy in Argentina. In 1998 an Iranian defector to the U.S. named Ahmad Rezai confirmed that "the attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires was planned in Tehran." He added that the decision to attack had been made by Mr. Rafsanjani and his top deputies (reportedly at an Aug. 14, 2003 meeting in the Iranian city of Mashad), and that the bombers had been trained for the mission in Lebanon by IRGC officers.

Mr. Rezai was uniquely positioned to know the facts: His father, Maj. Gen. Mohsen Rezai, was the commander of the IRGC at the time, and the younger Rezai had accompanied his father to Lebanon to witness the training. Ahmad Rezai has since reportedly returned to Iran, though whether he did so voluntarily or under duress isn't clear. As for Mohsen Rezai, he is among the eight whose arrest is sought by Judge Corral in connection to the 1994 attack.

The second IRGC officer involved in the 1994 attack is Ahmad Reza Asghari (a k a Moshen Randjbaran, and not to be confused with Ali Reza Asghari, a former IRGC commander who either defected or was kidnapped by a foreign intelligence service from Turkey last year). According to the definitive Argentine report on the bombing, Mr. Asghari--officially the third secretary of the Iranian embassy until his abrupt departure from Argentina on July 1--was present at the Aug. 14, 2003 meeting with Mr. Rafsanjani. Mr. Asghari is described in the report on the bombing as the man "responsible for activating the clandestine networks of Iranians in Argentina."

Then there is Ahmad Vahidi, who helped oversee the operation from Tehran. According to Iran analyst Alireza Jafarzadeh, Mr. Vahidi founded the IRGC's "Lebanon Corps" in the 1980s, meaning he is responsible for the attack on the U.S. Marine barracks that left 241 American servicemen dead. He was later appointed the first commander of the IRGC's Qods (Jerusalem) Force, with oversight of "extraterritorial operations," including in Europe and South America. In 2003, the Washington Post reported that "Bin Laden's second-in-command, Ayman Zawahiri, used his decade-old relationship with Mr. Vahidi, then commander of the Jerusalem Force, to negotiate a safe harbor for some of al Qaeda's leaders who were trapped in the mountains of Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in 2001, according to a European intelligence official."

Today, Mr. Vahidi is Iran's deputy defense minister. The elder Mr. Rezai made a run for president in 2005, but dropped out at the last minute to make way for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Until earlier this year he was secretary of Iran's powerful Expediency Council. Mr. Asghari's whereabouts are less clear, though his name surfaced as a delegate to a 2002 U.N. conference in Geneva, where he was listed as the Iranian foreign ministry's first secretary in the department for international economic affairs.

That, then, is how the Islamic Republic treats its terrorist all-stars. As for the Argentines, after nearly a dozen years of botched investigations tainted by allegations of high-level corruption, President Néstor Kirchner bucked Iranian threats and denounced Tehran last month before the U.N. General Assembly. His courage on this front is all the more remarkable given that he's better known as one of Hugo Chávez's more reliable allies in South America.

Which leaves the United States. No doubt the State Department has its reasons to demur at a terrorist designation, just as Mr. Edwards has his reasons to attack the president, and Mrs. Clinton, at every turn. But in the matter of the IRGC, the truth deserves at least an inch, whatever the consequences. It's the sort of point only a politician--or maybe a diplomat--could fail to see.

Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 02:26 pm
Ya, what about Iran?

What do you think we should do ican?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 03:10 pm
xingu wrote:
Ya, what about Iran?

What do you think we should do ican?

If our current economic tactics to control Iran don't work, then initiate tactical strikes against Iranian nuclear bomb works, and against the IRGC and its proxies in Iraq, but do not remove the Iranian government.

Repeat as often as necessary to adequately limit both Iranian activities.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 03:13 pm
ican711nm wrote:
xingu wrote:
Ya, what about Iran?

What do you think we should do ican?

If our current economic tactics to control Iran don't work, then initiate tactical strikes against Iranian nuclear bomb works, and against the IRGC and its proxies in Iraq, but do not remove the Iranian government.

Repeat as often as necessary to adequately limit both Iranian activities.


What do you think the side-effects will be from this action? You think nothing at all bad will occur if we stir up another hornet's nest - or you just don't care? Maybe it will give us an excuse for bigger invasions. Wouldn't that be nice?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 03:18 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Repeat as often as necessary to adequately limit both Iranian activities.


Foreign Policy is as simple as the instructions on a bottle of cough medicine.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 03:22 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
xingu wrote:
Ya, what about Iran?

What do you think we should do ican?

If our current economic tactics to control Iran don't work, then initiate tactical strikes against Iranian nuclear bomb works, and against the IRGC and its proxies in Iraq, but do not remove the Iranian government.

Repeat as often as necessary to adequately limit both Iranian activities.


What do you think the side-effects will be from this action? You think nothing at all bad will occur if we stir up another hornet's nest - or you just don't care? Maybe it will give us an excuse for bigger invasions. Wouldn't that be nice?

Cycloptichorn

The "hornet's nest" in Iran is already stirred up and the bad side-effects of our current tactics with Iran are already happening. What do you recommend we do to avoid their sting?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 04:06 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
xingu wrote:
Ya, what about Iran?

What do you think we should do ican?

If our current economic tactics to control Iran don't work, then initiate tactical strikes against Iranian nuclear bomb works, and against the IRGC and its proxies in Iraq, but do not remove the Iranian government.

Repeat as often as necessary to adequately limit both Iranian activities.


What do you think the side-effects will be from this action? You think nothing at all bad will occur if we stir up another hornet's nest - or you just don't care? Maybe it will give us an excuse for bigger invasions. Wouldn't that be nice?

Cycloptichorn

The "hornet's nest" in Iran is already stirred up and the bad side-effects of our current tactics with Iran are already happening. What do you recommend we do to avoid their sting?


I don't believe that Iran is 'stirred up' in the slightest. They send some support to Iraq much in the same way as other countries do - just not for the side we're supporting. That doesn't make them evil, any more then giving Israel weapons makes the US evil.

Engaging Iran in open warfare would threaten the oil supply to China and Russia, as well as large parts of Europe. I doubt they would just sit by twiddling their thumbs while this happened. Not to mention the fact that the prices of oil would skyrocket; this could cripple our entire economy and way of life.

Maybe you ought to think about the side-effects of actions before you advocate them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 04:51 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
xingu wrote:
Ya, what about Iran?

What do you think we should do ican?

If our current economic tactics to control Iran don't work, then initiate tactical strikes against Iranian nuclear bomb works, and against the IRGC and its proxies in Iraq, but do not remove the Iranian government.

Repeat as often as necessary to adequately limit both Iranian activities.


What do you think the side-effects will be from this action? You think nothing at all bad will occur if we stir up another hornet's nest - or you just don't care? Maybe it will give us an excuse for bigger invasions. Wouldn't that be nice?

Cycloptichorn

The "hornet's nest" in Iran is already stirred up and the bad side-effects of our current tactics with Iran are already happening. What do you recommend we do to avoid their sting?


I don't believe that Iran is 'stirred up' in the slightest. They send some support to Iraq much in the same way as other countries do - just not for the side we're supporting. That doesn't make them evil, any more then giving Israel weapons makes the US evil.

Engaging Iran in open warfare would threaten the oil supply to China and Russia, as well as large parts of Europe. I doubt they would just sit by twiddling their thumbs while this happened. Not to mention the fact that the prices of oil would skyrocket; this could cripple our entire economy and way of life.

Maybe you ought to think about the side-effects of actions before you advocate them.

Cycloptichorn

What do you recommend we do?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 04:57 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
xingu wrote:
Ya, what about Iran?

What do you think we should do ican?

If our current economic tactics to control Iran don't work, then initiate tactical strikes against Iranian nuclear bomb works, and against the IRGC and its proxies in Iraq, but do not remove the Iranian government.

Repeat as often as necessary to adequately limit both Iranian activities.


What do you think the side-effects will be from this action? You think nothing at all bad will occur if we stir up another hornet's nest - or you just don't care? Maybe it will give us an excuse for bigger invasions. Wouldn't that be nice?

Cycloptichorn

The "hornet's nest" in Iran is already stirred up and the bad side-effects of our current tactics with Iran are already happening. What do you recommend we do to avoid their sting?


I don't believe that Iran is 'stirred up' in the slightest. They send some support to Iraq much in the same way as other countries do - just not for the side we're supporting. That doesn't make them evil, any more then giving Israel weapons makes the US evil.

Engaging Iran in open warfare would threaten the oil supply to China and Russia, as well as large parts of Europe. I doubt they would just sit by twiddling their thumbs while this happened. Not to mention the fact that the prices of oil would skyrocket; this could cripple our entire economy and way of life.

Maybe you ought to think about the side-effects of actions before you advocate them.

Cycloptichorn

What do you recommend we do?


About Iran?

Mostly, we ignore them. We marginalize them. We splinter them from their possible allies instead of uniting them; we do this by treating them as they deserve to be treated: a second-world country with a lot of oil and not much else. We lock them out of key deals and technologies until they come around. We broadcast our media to them mercilessly and let our greatest and strongest weapon do its' job.

The situation in Iran isn't a static one; if the people of the country desire change, they will change themselves. If Iran decides it wants to engage in an offensive war against the US or Israel, then we bomb them into the stone age. Until that point, we use lesser means to contain them.

Iran's meddling in Iraq is a natural phenomenon; we'd be doing the same thing if our enemies were in Mexico. Hard to blame them. Things will have to be elevated a little further before we should resort to bombings.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 05:46 pm
ican wrote :

Quote:
Your comments and the article you quoted about al-Qaeda's origination and structure are false! Al-Qaeda ("the foundation' 'or 'the base") was established in May 1988 by bin Laden and the cleric Azzam. Al-Qaeda is a worldwide confederation of terrorist groups.


hbg posted from the report :

Quote:
Al-Qaeda in modern terms evolved specifically from the Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) -- a Mujahidin resistance organisation fighting against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Osama bin Laden was a founding member of the MAK, along with Palestinian militant Abdullah Yusuf Azzam.


not much of a difference imo .

i do think , however , that i see al qaeda as a rather "loose" organization rather than a "worldwide confederation of terrorist groups" .
a confederation a/t the OED is a "permanent union of sovereign states for common external actions" .
i don't see how al qaeda fits that description - perhaps it looks as if i'm just quibbling about a flexible term - i have no interest in that .
hbg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 05:58 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
xingu wrote:
Ya, what about Iran?

What do you think we should do ican?

If our current economic tactics to control Iran don't work, then initiate tactical strikes against Iranian nuclear bomb works, and against the IRGC and its proxies in Iraq, but do not remove the Iranian government.

Repeat as often as necessary to adequately limit both Iranian activities.


What do you think the side-effects will be from this action? You think nothing at all bad will occur if we stir up another hornet's nest - or you just don't care? Maybe it will give us an excuse for bigger invasions. Wouldn't that be nice?

Cycloptichorn

The "hornet's nest" in Iran is already stirred up and the bad side-effects of our current tactics with Iran are already happening. What do you recommend we do to avoid their sting?


I don't believe that Iran is 'stirred up' in the slightest. They send some support to Iraq much in the same way as other countries do - just not for the side we're supporting. That doesn't make them evil, any more then giving Israel weapons makes the US evil.

Engaging Iran in open warfare would threaten the oil supply to China and Russia, as well as large parts of Europe. I doubt they would just sit by twiddling their thumbs while this happened. Not to mention the fact that the prices of oil would skyrocket; this could cripple our entire economy and way of life.

Maybe you ought to think about the side-effects of actions before you advocate them.

Cycloptichorn

What do you recommend we do?


About Iran?

Mostly, we ignore them. We marginalize them. We splinter them from their possible allies instead of uniting them; we do this by treating them as they deserve to be treated: a second-world country with a lot of oil and not much else. We lock them out of key deals and technologies until they come around. We broadcast our media to them mercilessly and let our greatest and strongest weapon do its' job.

The situation in Iran isn't a static one; if the people of the country desire change, they will change themselves. If Iran decides it wants to engage in an offensive war against the US or Israel, then we bomb them into the stone age. Until that point, we use lesser means to contain them.

Iran's meddling in Iraq is a natural phenomenon; we'd be doing the same thing if our enemies were in Mexico. Hard to blame them. Things will have to be elevated a little further before we should resort to bombings.

Cycloptichorn

What do you think are the probable side-effects of our bombing Iran back into the stone age, if Iran were to "engage in an offensive war against the US or Israel?"
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 06:05 pm
Does anyone know what the record is for quotes within quotes within...
We may be getting there.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 06:14 pm
realjohnboy wrote:
Does anyone know what the record is for quotes within quotes within...
We may be getting there.


Sadly, we aren't even close.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 06:16 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
xingu wrote:
Ya, what about Iran?

What do you think we should do ican?

If our current economic tactics to control Iran don't work, then initiate tactical strikes against Iranian nuclear bomb works, and against the IRGC and its proxies in Iraq, but do not remove the Iranian government.

Repeat as often as necessary to adequately limit both Iranian activities.


What do you think the side-effects will be from this action? You think nothing at all bad will occur if we stir up another hornet's nest - or you just don't care? Maybe it will give us an excuse for bigger invasions. Wouldn't that be nice?

Cycloptichorn

The "hornet's nest" in Iran is already stirred up and the bad side-effects of our current tactics with Iran are already happening. What do you recommend we do to avoid their sting?


I don't believe that Iran is 'stirred up' in the slightest. They send some support to Iraq much in the same way as other countries do - just not for the side we're supporting. That doesn't make them evil, any more then giving Israel weapons makes the US evil.

Engaging Iran in open warfare would threaten the oil supply to China and Russia, as well as large parts of Europe. I doubt they would just sit by twiddling their thumbs while this happened. Not to mention the fact that the prices of oil would skyrocket; this could cripple our entire economy and way of life.

Maybe you ought to think about the side-effects of actions before you advocate them.

Cycloptichorn

What do you recommend we do?


About Iran?

Mostly, we ignore them. We marginalize them. We splinter them from their possible allies instead of uniting them; we do this by treating them as they deserve to be treated: a second-world country with a lot of oil and not much else. We lock them out of key deals and technologies until they come around. We broadcast our media to them mercilessly and let our greatest and strongest weapon do its' job.

The situation in Iran isn't a static one; if the people of the country desire change, they will change themselves. If Iran decides it wants to engage in an offensive war against the US or Israel, then we bomb them into the stone age. Until that point, we use lesser means to contain them.

Iran's meddling in Iraq is a natural phenomenon; we'd be doing the same thing if our enemies were in Mexico. Hard to blame them. Things will have to be elevated a little further before we should resort to bombings.

Cycloptichorn

What do you think are the probable side-effects of our bombing Iran back into the stone age, if Iran were to "engage in an offensive war against the US or Israel?"


The situation is the rough equivalent to the Afghanistan situation; you would see world-wide acceptance of the need to eliminate the threat of Iran.

They currently pose no such threat to the US and Israel; which is why you see such resistance to the idea of an offensive attack against them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 06:32 pm
quote :

Quote:
What do you think are the probable side-effects of our bombing Iran back into the stone age, if Iran were to "engage in an offensive war against the US or Israel?"


with just a slight change that sentence could be attributed to a muslim fanatic .
how ANYONE could come up with such statement , i find difficult to understand .
hbg
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 07:25 pm
The Real Iraq We Knew

By 12 former Army captains
Tuesday, October 16, 2007; 12:00 AM

Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles.

As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out.

What does Iraq look like on the ground? It's certainly far from being a modern, self-sustaining country. Many roads, bridges, schools and hospitals are in deplorable condition. Fewer people have access to drinking water or sewage systems than before the war. And Baghdad is averaging less than eight hours of electricity a day.

Iraq's institutional infrastructure, too, is sorely wanting. Even if the Iraqis wanted to work together and accept the national identity foisted upon them in 1920s, the ministries do not have enough trained administrators or technicians to coordinate themselves. At the local level, most communities are still controlled by the same autocratic sheiks that ruled under Saddam. There is no reliable postal system. No effective banking system. No registration system to monitor the population and its needs.

The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption. Transparency International ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And, indeed, many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq's oil industry, which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq's reconstruction. Yet holding people accountable has proved difficult. The first commissioner of a panel charged with preventing and investigating corruption resigned last month, citing pressure from the government and threats on his life.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.

U.S. forces, responsible for too many objectives and too much "battle space," are vulnerable targets. The sad inevitability of a protracted draw-down is further escalation of attacks -- on U.S. troops, civilian leaders and advisory teams. They would also no doubt get caught in the crossfire of the imminent Iraqi civil war.

Iraqi security forces would not be able to salvage the situation. Even if all the Iraqi military and police were properly trained, equipped and truly committed, their 346,000 personnel would be too few. As it is, Iraqi soldiers quit at will. The police are effectively controlled by militias. And, again, corruption is debilitating. U.S. tax dollars enrich self-serving generals and support the very elements that will battle each other after we're gone.

This is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reality we experienced. This is what we tried to communicate up the chain of command. This is either what did not get passed on to our civilian leadership or what our civilian leaders chose to ignore. While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war -- and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.

There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.

America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice.

This column was written by 12 former Army captains: Jason Blindauer served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Elizabeth Bostwick served in Salah Ad Din and An Najaf in 2004. Jeffrey Bouldin served in Al Anbar, Baghdad and Ninevah in 2006. Jason Bugajski served in Diyala in 2004. Anton Kemps served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Kristy (Luken) McCormick served in Ninevah in 2003. Luis Carlos Montalván served in Anbar, Baghdad and Nineveh in 2003 and 2005. William Murphy served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Josh Rizzo served in Baghdad in 2006. William "Jamie" Ruehl served in Nineveh in 2004. Gregg Tharp served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Gary Williams served in Baghdad in 2003.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101500841.html
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 07:40 am
Turkey votes on incursion, Iraq scrambles to head off threat
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 07:57 am


Sounds like Bush is going to have to buy another case of Jack so he can cope with the results of his incompetence and warped ideology.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/29/2025 at 07:09:42