9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 05:36 pm
007 movie maybe?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 05:40 pm
This is funny

Ecuador wants military base in Miami
Mon Oct 22, 2007

NAPLES (Reuters) - Ecuador's leftist President Rafael Correa said Washington must let him open a military base in Miami if the United States wants to keep using an air base on Ecuador's Pacific coast.

Correa has refused to renew Washington's lease on the Manta air base, set to expire in 2009. U.S. officials say it is vital for counter-narcotics surveillance operations on Pacific drug-running routes.

"We'll renew the base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami -- an Ecuadorean base," Correa said in an interview during a trip to Italy.

"If there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States."

The U.S. embassy to Ecuador says on its Web site that anti-narcotics flights from Manta gathered information behind more than 60 percent of illegal drug seizures on the high seas of the Eastern Pacific last year.

It offers a fact-sheet on the base at: http://ecuador.usembassy.gov/topics_of_interest/manta-fol.html

Correa, a popular leftist economist, had promised to cut off his arm before extending the lease that ends in 2009 and has called U.S. President George W. Bush a "dimwit".

But Correa, an ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, told Reuters he believed relations with the United States were "excellent" despite the base closing.

He rejected the idea that the episode reflected on U.S. ties at all.

"This is the only North American military base in South America," he said.

"So, then the other South American countries don't have good relations with the United States because they don't have military bases? That doesn't make any sense."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUKADD25267520071022?sp=true
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 05:43 pm
Now I remember where I know DynCorp from: they were the company who fired the whistleblowers, who revealed that they were running a sex-slave ring within the company.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/08/06/dyncorp/

Ideal Bush contractors.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 10:01 am
A Tough Tour of the Home Front
New Joint Chiefs Head Hears of Wars' Strains

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 24, 2007; Page A01

FORT SILL, Okla., Oct. 23 -- After returning in September from a 16-month tour with the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan, Capt. Michael Vieira was hoping to settle down here, where his fiancee has a good job.

"All I want to do is start a family, buy a house, have stability," Vieira, 25, explained Tuesday to Adm. Michael Mullen, in an unusually blunt encounter between the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and about 70 young artillery captains. But the Army told him that "family considerations" would have no bearing on his next posting, Vieira said.

As a result, Vieira said to Mullen, he is quitting the service. "I'm done," he said.

On his first domestic trip as the nation's top military officer, Mullen set out on a two-day tour of Army bases to "get a baseline" assessment of the strains that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are imposing on U.S. armed forces. In a sometimes emotional 90-minute meeting Tuesday with dozens of young officers, Mullen received an earful over many of the challenges that will define his chairmanship: lengthy war-zone rotations, worn-out equipment, growing discipline problems, and shortages of medical care for returning veterans. But most impassioned were pleas from several captains -- a combat-tested swath of officers the Army is seeking to retain through unprecedented cash bonuses -- for a bit of normalcy.

"The most important thing in my life is my wife's wish to go back to college," said a dark-haired captain, speaking to Mullen from the back row of a meeting room decorated by unit banners dating to World War I. But the captain was told that was not a priority for the Army, he said, and as a result he is going to have to tell his wife, "Honey, yeah, I just got back, but we're moving."

"When it becomes a burden to my family, sir, that's repulsive," said the captain, who, like his fellow officers, could not be quoted by name without granting permission.

Mullen asked the captain for his name and e-mail address. "I'm happy to take it on," he said, but he added: "I'm not promising relief."

And the chairman assured Vieira, of St. Johnsbury, Vt., that the apparent disregard for families he described was "not well received by the Army leadership" -- eliciting chuckles from some of the assembled officers, many with one or more combat tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The Army officers Mullen met with are among the most experienced in the force and the ones in greatest demand, but the high pace of war-zone rotations is the main reason they are leaving the service. The Army faces a shortage of more than 6,000 captains and majors needed to boost the force by 65,000 soldiers by 2010, and it recently began offering unprecedented bonuses of up to $35,000 and other incentives.

One of the most pressing problems the captains raised with Mullen is the lack of time at home. "We have soldiers that have spent more time in combat than World War II," said a captain in the front row, who proposed capping combat time at 30 months. "Is there a point where you can say, 'You've served enough'?"

Addressing the captains here, at the home of the Army's artillery school, Mullen, 61, said that he expects the military to remain heavily deployed around the world, and does not anticipate returning to a peacetime schedule of one year abroad and two years at home for perhaps another decade.

Mullen, who encouraged the frank talk, made it clear that his chief goal is to retain combat veterans. "This is the most combat-hardened force we've had in our history. . . . How do I hang on to all of that combat experience?" he said to the captains. "I don't want to lose that."

A Vietnam veteran, Mullen vowed to do everything in his power to keep the all-volunteer force from breaking. "I watched the military break in the 1970s," he said. "I'm never going to let that happen again."

Mullen acknowledged that troops in Iraq are tired and "ready to come home." He said his goal is to shift "as rapidly as possible" from the current Army standard -- 15 months in combat, followed by 12 months back home -- to equal time deployed and at home.

Some officers were not satisfied. "That's not good enough," one captain said, saying he'd like to be home three years for every year away.

"I've got it that it's not good enough," Mullen replied. Still, he said, even lengthening home stays to 15 months would take time. "We can't wave a wand and get there overnight," he said.

One captain voiced concern over the Army's growing practice of granting waivers to recruits for legal and health problems, saying that he spent 80 percent of his time dealing with the 13 "problem children" in his 100-person unit, some of whom went AWOL or had been methamphetamine dealers.

Later, Mullen also stressed the military must prepare for "significant change" as the country elects a new president. "That kind of change at the senior level of government is very challenging, no matter which party takes over," he said. "My goal is to be . . . sort of a rock during that change" and give advice on serious decisions to come.

He added that it is critical that the military remain apolitical and under civilian control. If unable to carry out orders, officers should "vote with our feet and leave," he said.

Also Tuesday, Mullen visited students at the Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and met with Army recruiters in Denver. Wednesday, he is to speak with U.S. military teams at Fort Riley, Kan., preparing to train Iraqi and Afghan forces.

Hardship on spouses and children emerged as a major complaint for the young captains, most of them in their 20s or early 30s. One related the frustration his pregnant wife faced obtaining obstetric care for herself and medical treatment for their 8-month-old son's ear infection. With many Army doctors deployed, he said, she has often been told she can't get an appointment.

"I am currently on track to exit the military in one year," he said, "not because I'm done serving . . . but because my wife has a bad taste in her mouth." Mullen again promised to take his name and e-mail address. "I'll get back to you," he said.

Commenting later on the captains' frank comments, Mullen said that he was not surprised, and that they validated his own views. "They weren't shy," he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302588.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 10:07 am
The retention problem facing the army officers will explode into real problems
on the front lines of the wars. Good leadership means having experience in what they do; new officers will lack them, and expose the troops to more casualties.

Good luck!
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 10:11 am
You can already see what's happening now by the Army lowering its recruiting standards. Bring in guys with criminal records and you get more crime in the Army.

Quote:
One captain voiced concern over the Army's growing practice of granting waivers to recruits for legal and health problems, saying that he spent 80 percent of his time dealing with the 13 "problem children" in his 100-person unit, some of whom went AWOL or had been methamphetamine dealers.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 10:18 am
They're recruiting them with a bonus of $20 thousand dollars, because only the destitute and uneducated will "volunteer." It's going downhill fast while the Bush apologists continue to echo "we're making progress." There's no cure for stupid.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 01:15 pm
A Month by Month, Daily Average of IBC's Count of Violent Deaths in Iraq, After April 2007:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

May = 3,755 / 31 = ………………... 121 per day

…………….. Surge fully operational in June ……………..

June = 2,386 / 30 = …………......… 80 per day.
July = 2,077 / 31 = …………......... 67 per day.
August = 2,084 / 31 = ……...…..... 67 per day.
September = 1,333 / 30 = ……….. 44 per day.
October = 243 / 5 = ……………….... 49 per day.*

November = ----? / 30 = ----? per day.**
December = ----? / 31 = ----? per day.**


… *Data currently available for only first 5 days of this month.
… **Data not yet available.


Daily Average Violent Deaths in Iraq--PRE AND POST JANUARY 1, 2003:
PRE = 1/1/1979 - 12/31/2002 = 1,229,210/ 8,766 days = 140 per day;
POST = 1/1/2003 - 10/05/2007 = 82,369/1,738 days = …..…. 47 per day;
PRE / POST = 140/47 = 2.96.

We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 01:44 pm
Keep those counts going, ican. It's already at a point most Americans want our troops out of Iraq. What is it about this war you do understand?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 02:04 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Keep those counts going, ican. It's already at a point most Americans want our troops out of Iraq. What is it about this war you do understand?

YES!! I'm one of those "most Americans" who want our troops out of Iraq. What I and a majority also want is for us to win and succeed in Iraq. They understand that we must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq. We want us to quickly win and succeed in Iraq so our troops can quickly come home.

We will have won and succeeded when the Month by Month, Daily Average of IBC's Count of Violent Deaths in Iraq decreases to less than 30, and remains less than 30 for at least a year after our troops have left Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 02:12 pm
Quote:
What I and a majority also want is for us to win and succeed in Iraq.


Incorrect. Large majorities want US troops out whether or not your definition of success is achieved; and there's plenty of data to support this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 02:27 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
What I and a majority also want is for us to win and succeed in Iraq.


Incorrect. Large majorities want US troops out whether or not your definition of success is achieved; and there's plenty of data to support this.

Cycloptichorn

You have not provided any evidence that substantiates this claim of yours. I have heard numerous poll results that support my claim. So first you supply your evidence that substantiates your claim. Then and only then will I supply my evidence that substatiates my claim.

I'll be back later! So you have plenty of time to assemble your evidence.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 02:33 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
What I and a majority also want is for us to win and succeed in Iraq.


Incorrect. Large majorities want US troops out whether or not your definition of success is achieved; and there's plenty of data to support this.

Cycloptichorn

You have not provided any evidence that substantiates this claim of yours. I have heard numerous poll results that support my claim. So first you supply your evidence that substantiates your claim. Then and only then will I supply my evidence that substatiates my claim.

I'll be back later! So you have plenty of time to assemble your evidence.


Don't even need time.. Here:

http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

A quick perusal will show you that there are no majorities which wish for US troops to remain in Iraq until peace has been achieved. There are no majorities which are willing to keep troops there for longer then 2 more years no matter what.

Most support a phased withdrawal but not one which is dependent on nebulous goals.

Present your evidence.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 02:47 pm
ican has never presented any "evidence" for his position - except his imagination of fear.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 03:00 pm
ican keeps repeating :

Quote:
We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.


i wonder what words of wisdom ican can offer the iraq veterans who spoke to admiral mullen ?

as one of them said :
Quote:
"When it becomes a burden to my family, sir, that's repulsive," said the captain, who, like his fellow officers, could not be quoted by name without granting permission.


another one said that his wife often can't find a doctor when their child gets sick .

it seems to me that if those soldiers "... must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq ..." as ican says , they should expect the full and unstinting support of america .
a/t to those soldiers that kind of support is missing . surely , those defending the country should not have to worry about the small things in the lifes of their families , should they ?

if "We must win and succeed in Iraq" is of paramount importance , should it not be just as important to say : "we must support our troops and their families fully " ?
from what i keep reading , something seems to be missing .
hbg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 03:23 pm
That something missing happens to be support of our troops and their families - by Bush. Bush has said "each life is precious," but not our active soldiers and veterans. They're paying $20 thousand to each new recruit - and most of them are criminals and without a high school education. Can you imagine them handling nuclear weapons?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 03:26 pm
ican711nm wrote:
realjohnboy wrote:
ican711nm wrote:


Should we significantly increase the number of our troops in Iraq to help do a better job of protecting the Iraqi people? I say YES!

Should we demand that Democrats as well as Republicans support a significant increase in the number of our troops in Iraq? I say YES!


And where would these troops come from? Would you have any problem, given the severity of the situation, with reviving the draft so that all of those kids in college could do their part? Is the situation that serious that we would want to put them at risk?


We already have way more than enough troops in our volunteer military to at least double the current number in Iraq by reassigning to Iraq some of those currently based in America, Korea, Europe, Japan, Kuwait ...

However, if more than the million or so total troops we currently have are actually needed, all we need do is intensify current enlistment benefits.


Don't Mullen and those young officers realize how wise Ican is? What do they know, bunch of wimps.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 03:52 pm
realjohnboy wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
realjohnboy wrote:
ican711nm wrote:


Should we significantly increase the number of our troops in Iraq to help do a better job of protecting the Iraqi people? I say YES!

Should we demand that Democrats as well as Republicans support a significant increase in the number of our troops in Iraq? I say YES!


And where would these troops come from? Would you have any problem, given the severity of the situation, with reviving the draft so that all of those kids in college could do their part? Is the situation that serious that we would want to put them at risk?


We already have way more than enough troops in our volunteer military to at least double the current number in Iraq by reassigning to Iraq some of those currently based in America, Korea, Europe, Japan, Kuwait ...

However, if more than the million or so total troops we currently have are actually needed, all we need do is intensify current enlistment benefits.


Don't Mullen and those young officers realize how wise Ican is? What do they know, bunch of wimps.


ican is more wise than our soldiers in the field and the majority of the American People. "Sometimes he does look and speak like a dumb-shet, but that's to be expected."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 03:55 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Most support a phased withdrawal but not one which is dependent on nebulous goals.

Present your evidence.

Cycloptichorn

Alot depends upon how the questions are asked, cyclops. I noticed this in particular from your link:

"From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"

Increase Same Number Decrease Remove All Unsure
% % % % %
9/14-16/07
6 21 39 29 5

That indicates that only 29% want troops withdrawn right now, so I deduce that most people want to see some form of success there, either by increasing troops, keeping the status quo, or doing it with less troops. Alot of the questions in the polls in your link relate to how Bush is conducting the war, or whether we are successful now, or whatever, not the question Ican has posed, do people want to win there and be successful.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 03:56 pm
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 0.05 seconds on 07/27/2025 at 12:03:29