4,000 dead Americans

[Jingus 0]

I knew an Army guy who said he had better internet service over there than back home.

[EricMM 0]

Snuffy are you quoting that other board over here or did you hear that somewhere else?

 

Because I won't take credit for that one...

[snuffbox 0]

Yes, I learned that from a messageboard known for its marked naivety. I thought it seemed kinda retarded but, hey, its on the internet so it must be true.

[snuffbox 0]

Vice President Cheney says everything will be cool in Iraq by 2009. I, for one, am very glad to hear it.

[theintensifier 0]

The word of a man who shot someone in the face at point blank range. Right.

[snuffbox 0]

Hey, now, he was right about Iraq in the first place. In the 1990s.

[theintensifier 0]

I know a lot of you want the war in Iraq to end, like, immediately, but is that actually possible? Wouldn't withdrawing from the conflict in a hurry make our country look even more pathetic then it already does? We'd have once again started something we couldn't finish.

 

The war on terror has grown old, and I don't really see any real concrete reason/logic in why we're still neck deep in quicksand. We've completely annihilated hundreds of thousands of people, caused billions of dollars of damage, captured Sadam and then watched him die. It was "proven" that there wasn't any weapons of mass destruction, which, by the way, I don't truly believe. What's our real motive here?

 

We've flexed our mighty muscles long enough, time to lay off the juice.

 

Also, considering there are slightly more important issues at hand, instead of worrying about what Abdul is doing to Akmar.

 

Hom

elessness in America

Heart disease

Bad teeth

Prison rape

Depression hurts

Our president

The Axis of Evil

TNA

Discrimination

Rape, non-prison

IQ

What happened to my cookies?

Old people

Casinos

ESPN

Global Warming

 

Obviously, these are some major problems the United States faces on a daily basis. I consider all of these far more important than the crisis in Iraq. Btw, the last one is for you know who.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I like it when you're away.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I knew an Army guy who said he had better internet service over there than back home.

I knew an Army guy who could blow himself. Like it or not he'll always be a bigger hit at parties than I am.

[theintensifier 0]

I like it when you're away.

Oh, come on now. That was funny, and you know it.

[NoCalMike 0]

Nice to see the Democrats are right on top of this entire "Get out of Iraq" strategy that over 70% of the american public supports.....

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071220/ap_on_...o/budget_battle

House approves $70 billion more for war

 

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

42 minutes ago

 

WASHINGTON - Ending dual spending battles with President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed a $555 billion bill Wednesday that funds the Iraq war well into next year and government agencies through September.

 

Bush was expected soon to sign the measure, which includes $70 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, after winning concessions from Democrats on Iraq policy and the budget.

 

The bill, sent to the president after a 272-142 vote, funds 14 Cabinet departments and foreign aid for the budget year that began Oct. 1.

 

Bush and his Senate GOP allies forced the Iraq money upon anti-war Democrats as the price for permitting the year-end budget deal to pass and be signed. Seventy-eight House Democrats voted for the Iraq money, eager to avoid being seen as not supporting troops in harm's way. But 141 Democrats voted against it.

 

"This is a blank check," complained Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."

 

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said this week that the $70 billion for the wars means Democrats will not see a need to revisit the issue until May or June.

 

Democrats tried to use war spending legislation to force a change in Bush's Iraq policy, chiefly by setting a withdrawal goal with dates such as Dec. 15, 2009. But Bush and Republicans held a powerful hand. They knew Democrats would not let money lapse for troops overseas. That allowed a Bush veto in May and GOP stalling tactics to determine the outcome.

 

On the domestic budget, Bush's GOP allies were divided over whether the overall spending bill was a victory for their party in the long fight with Democrats over agency budgets.

 

Conservatives and outside groups such as the Club for Growth, which seeks to elect lawmakers opposed to tax and spending increases, criticized the bill for having about $28 billion in domestic spending that topped Bush's budget and was paid for by a combination of "emergency" spending, transfers from the defense budget and other maneuvers.

 

Republican leaders acknowledged some excesses. But they said the measure could have cost a lot more if the GOP and the White House had not stood firm against more than $20 billion in additional domestic spending included in Democratic spending bills that passed last summer.

 

"The fact is we got the number down to the baseline," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

 

Boehner supported moves that effectively broke Bush's budget cap to provide record budget increases for veterans and to build a fence and provide additional security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

 

But the amount of money at stake was relatively small in the context of an almost $3 trillion federal budget. That was especially true when compared with the more than $50 billion increase Bush sought for the Pentagon's regular budget; his 12 percent requested increase for foreign aid; and his almost $200 billion request for one year's worth of military and diplomatic activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

While disappointed on the Iraq money, Democrats said the spending bill smoothed the rough edges of the president's February budget plan. That proposal had sought below-inflation increases for most domestic programs and contained numerous cuts and program eliminations.

 

For Democrats, just finishing the budget ended up as the driving goal. They wanted to avoid the humiliation of failing to enact the spending bills after criticizing then-majority Republicans for not doing so last year.

 

The spending legislation affects virtually every part of the government other than the Defense Department's core programs. It would pay for food and toy safety inspections, NASA, the FBI, the Coast Guard, education, health research and national park operations, among many programs.

 

It also contains about 9,000 pet projects sought by lawmakers, at a cost of more than $7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based group that fights such projects. Democrats said the cost of earmarks was down more than 40 percent from 2006 levels and they touted disclosure rules that added greater transparency to the much-maligned earmarking process.

 

The bill would raise the pay of federal civilian workers by 3.5 percent, extend farm subsidies the food stamp program until March 15 and eliminated money for a next generation nuclear warhead. It also would keep banks from entering the real estate business.

 

But the White House succeeded in using veto threats to rid the bill of more contentious items such as ending a ban on U.S. aid to overseas family planning groups that perform abortions and easing financing of agricultural and medical sales to Cuba.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The republicans are having no problem at all continuing to run things as the minority party, not to mention without the support of the american people, really they must be laughing at the voters and the democrats simultaneously. Seems the Democrats are still afraid of being called out for "abandoning the troops in the field" even though that theory has been debunked over and over.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Fucking useless, all of them.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Well the surge has managed to reduce violence in Iraq and thus far it looks like Patraeus's other moves towards having troops talk to clerics in the field and engage the Sunnis in a more positive manner are reaping benefits. Granted, when the surge goes away it will be interesting to see if these conditions remain the same or if insurgent groups who have remained dormant start blasting away again but thus far sectarian deaths are down in all of Iraq and so are sectarian deaths in Baghdad. Furthermore, attacks on troops in Iraqi provinces is down as of last month. This isn't to say the situation is peachy but the situation has improved to the point where the war in Iraq is starting to lose some of its appeal as a 2008 election issue. In this environment, I can see why the Dems aren't trying to cut off funds because they don't want to be viewed as styming a surge that is being portrayed for the most part as effective in some respects.

 

Aside from that, though, Democrats really didn't show me much on the war in this first year. If you tell voters that your ending the war and they vote you into office based on that principle then you had better end it and they haven't done that. I watched the debate over the bill on C-SPAN and it was rather pathetic. The Republicans have unity on the issue while the Democrats look weak and fractured on it which serves to undermine their position on national security (because they are so split on the matter that it's hard to find a clear position). I also think Democratic opposition could be due to their part of their majority resting on winning conservative districts in the last election cycle and those politicans are not buying into the "end the war now" strategy Pelosi and other party strategists might want.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You're completely ignoring the fact that the STATED goal behind the troop surge was to create an environment in which political reconciliation could take place.

 

By arming non-state actors like the Sunni tribes (who tend to be among the most backward, antidemocratic forces in Iraq), the "progress" being made is actually moving Iraq further away from the stated goal of political reconciliation.

 

You don't get to move the goalposts, sorry.

 

Furthermore, the primary reason behind the drop in violence seems to be the fact that Baghdad has pretty much been successfully ethnically cleansed.

 

 

And the idea that Iraq isn't going to be a salient issue in '08 is nothing more than wishful thinking.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

*double post*

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

*the rare triple post*

[snuffbox 0]

The Liberal Media has been extra-quiet on Iraq lately but it will still be the biggest issue of the election.

 

Do people just not understand what the actual "goals" were for the surge, or do they just want to be deluded at every turn?

[EricMM 0]

Try posting that over at The Pit to Mike or etc.

 

You never heard so many reasons for the surge, it certainly wasn't "political reconciliation"

 

Mostly the message seems to be, "You asked for more troops, you got more troops, now you're bitching?"

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I think in general people are just sick of talking about Iraq. It's basically the same argument and counter-argument over and over, for the last four years:

 

"We can't cut and run! We're beating the terrorists!"

 

"Bring our troops home! George W. Bush deceived us! Quagmire, etc!"

 

It gets pretty fucking old by now. Do something or don't, Democrats. You're the ones in power now. Either use the power you were given, or admit you aren't going to. Enough of the mealey mouthed, half assed bullshit.

[NoCalMike 0]

I think in general people are just sick of talking about Iraq. It's basically the same argument and counter-argument over and over, for the last four years:

 

"We can't cut and run! We're beating the terrorists!"

 

"Bring our troops home! George W. Bush deceived us! Quagmire, etc!"

 

It gets pretty fucking old by now. Do something or don't, Democrats. You're the ones in power now. Either use the power you were given, or admit you aren't going to. Enough of the mealey mouthed, half assed bullshit.

 

I would agree that the arguments themselves are getting old to listen to, however it is pretty dissapointing that the media is once again asleep at the wheel at pretty much going along with the simplistic notion that "less violence = surge is working" while there is no attempt whatsoever to get to the bottom of why there is a reduction in violence, or the fact that Iraq has been almost ethnically cleansed, or the fact that we are paying warlods and extremist leaders to lay down their weapons, all of which are activities that in the past, when dealing with other countries has always come back to do more harm then the short-term appearance of good. When the administration claims everything is fine because "Iraqis are returning to their homes" it doesn't take much research to see that a lot of countries that were once taking in displaced Iraqis under asylum have now stopped accepting visas and Iraqis have no choice but to return home.

 

It seems as plain as day that the new goal in the war strategy is to get the violence as low as possible through the next election, so that the next President has to either continue this dumb strategy in order to merely keep the status quo of "Look, less violence" or do withdrawl the troops and deal with that entire seperate list of consequences.

 

Mark my words, this war will be sold as a success leading up to the 2008 election. I am just curious how the media will handle it.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

You're completely ignoring the fact that the STATED goal behind the troop surge was to create an environment in which political reconciliation.

 

By arming non-state actors like the Sunni tribes (who tend to be among the most backward, antidemocratic forces in Iraq), the "progress" being made is actually moving Iraq further away from the stated goal of political reconciliation.

 

Wait a second. There were MULTIPLE goals behind the troop surge. Yes, many were political but other goals involved in the stated troop surge when it was announced was to create a peaceful environment that would establish joint security stations in Baghdad (which has been met), establish more trained Iraqi forces for protecting Baghdad (which has been met), and clamp down on all religious militias who are still in violence against Allied forces (which is also being met). This is not a "shifting of the goal posts", this is an evaluation of where we have come since the surge began and nothing more.

 

Now, I agree that without political progress our situation in Iraq is untenable and that is why I am leaning towards saying "screw it" and leaving. The Shiites and Sunnis who are in government do not seem to want to reconcile with each other with Shiites not willing to share power with Sunnis or share oil revenue and the Sunnis simply not believing that they are a minority in the new political calculus in Iraq. Also, it's not as if the Nuri al-Maliki government is doing a damn thing to help us. Part of me just leans towards getting out and just letting these guys duke it out on their own turf but the problem is that leaves us in a major PR disaster that will allow terrorists to claim yet another victory over U.S. forces. Either way, we're going to lose in some respect unless the people elected to Iraqi's government are willing to take the reigns of their country and make the necessary compromises.

[snuffbox 0]

Never mind that people actually have to continue to die for the continuation of this vagina rhetoric.

[snuffbox 0]

I was going to put an essay here but it came out messy so nevermind.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Never mind that people actually have to continue to die for the continuation of this vagina rhetoric.

 

"Our troops want to stay until the mission is finished!"

[EricMM 0]

Look, that map posted earlier doesn't lie.

 

Of course the ethnic cleansing has gone down, now that most of the city has been ethnically cleansed.

 

I wouldn't call that a success as much as a failure...

[NoCalMike 0]

You're completely ignoring the fact that the STATED goal behind the troop surge was to create an environment in which political reconciliation.

 

By arming non-state actors like the Sunni tribes (who tend to be among the most backward, antidemocratic forces in Iraq), the "progress" being made is actually moving Iraq further away from the stated goal of political reconciliation.

 

Also, it's not as if the Nuri al-Maliki government is doing a damn thing to help us. Part of me just leans towards getting out and just letting these guys duke it out on their own turf but the problem is that leaves us in a major PR disaster that will allow terrorists to claim yet another victory over U.S. forces. Either way, we're going to lose in some respect unless the people elected to Iraqi's government are willing to take the reigns of their country and make the necessary compromises.

 

Well really it is for the Iraqis themselves to figure out. Also, the terrorists have nothing to do with Iraqi insurgents, they are two completely seperate entitities. Just because U.S. forces leave Iraq doesn't mean that all of the sudden Al Qaeda wins. Al Qaeda hasn't won anything in the first place. They are a tiny percentage of what is going on in Iraq, most respected organizations quote Al Qaeda at it's peak in Iraq causing about a little under 5% of the casualties. The war in Iraq is not for America to win or lose, it is a false premise. The War in Iraq is for the Iraqis to come to a conclusion to. U.S. forces are there trying to police the situation and act as a buffer.(Not to mention give cover and protection to the building of permanent bases and other projects, but that discussion is for another time) Al Qaeda is there just to kill everybody that doesn't like what they have to say, so in essence the U.S. Military is taking fire from three sides. However make no mistake, the small number of Al Qaeda is not going to take out the Iraqi forces who thus far have been willing to defend their homeland under dire circumstances.

[snuffbox 0]

2007 being the worst year for American casualties doesn't seem to fit into the Liberal Media's schedule.

[NoCalMike 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/pl_af...intelligence512

 

Report reveals Vietnam War hoaxes, faked attacks Tue Jan 8, 9:45 AM ET

 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - North Vietnamese made hoax calls to get the US military to bomb its own units during the Vietnam War, according to declassified information that also confirmed US officials faked an incident to escalate the war.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

The report was released by the National Security Agency, responsible for much of the United States' codebreaking and eavesdropping work, in response to a "mandatory declassification" request, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) said Monday.

 

From the first intercepted cable -- a 1945 message from Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh to his Russian counterpart Joseph Stalin -- to the final evacuation of US spies from Saigon, the 500-page report retold Vietnam War history from the perspective of "signals intelligence," the group said in a statement.

 

During the war, North Vietnamese intelligence units sometimes succeeded in penetrating US communications systems, and they could monitor American message traffic from within, according to the report "Spartans in Darkness."

 

On several occasions "the communists were able, by communicating on Allied radio nets, to call in Allied artillery or air strikes on American units," it said.

 

"That's something I have never heard before," Steven Aftergood, director of the FAS project on government secrecy, told AFP.

 

But he said that probably the "most historically significant feature" of the declassified report was the retelling of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.

 

That was a reported North Vietnamese attack on American destroyers that helped lead to president Lyndon Johnson's sharp escalation of American forces in Vietnam.

 

The author of the report "demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was 'unimpeachable,' but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that 'no attack happened that night,'" FAS said in a statement.

 

"What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It's a dramatic reversal of the historical record," Aftergood said.

 

"There were previous indications of this but this is the first time we have seen the complete study," he said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Well this doesn't bode well for what will be uncovered about the Iraq/Afganistan wars in the next 30 years, especially considering a lot of the same cronies were involved in the strategy and planning......

 

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Didn't see this discussed earlier, but basically some Iranian patrol boats made threatening movements towards some US ships a couple days ago:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7175325.stm

 

"I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," the Iranians said in a radio transmission, according to US officials.

 

Don't know why the US Navy didn't just shoot the hell out of them after that, but, whatever.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

"I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," the Iranians said in a radio transmission, according to US officials.

 

Don't know why the US Navy didn't just shoot the hell out of them after that, but, whatever.

 

The list of those who are less than fully confident in the Pentagon’s video/audio mashup of aggressive maneuvers by Iranian boats near American warships in the Strait of Hormuz now includes the Pentagon itself.

 

Unnamed Pentagon officials said on Wednesday that the threatening voice heard in the audio clip, which was released on Monday night with a disclaimer that it was recorded separately from the video images and merged with them later, is not directly traceable to the Iranian military.

 

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/1...naval-incident/

 

Pentagon officials said they could not rule out that the broadcast might have come from shore, or from another ship nearby, although it might have come from one of the five fast boats with a high-quality radio system.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/mi...nyt&emc=rss

 

All ships at sea use a common UHF frequency, Channel 16, also known as “bridge-to bridge” radio. Over here, near the U.S., and throughout the Mediterranean, Ch. 16 is used pretty professionally, i.e., chatter is limited to shiphandling issues, identifying yourself, telling other ships what your intentions are to avoid mishaps, etc.

 

But over in the Gulf, Ch. 16 is like a bad CB radio. Everybody and their brother is on it; chattering away; hurling racial slurs, usually involving Filipinos (lots of Filipinos work in the area); curses involving your mother; 1970’s music broadcast in the wee hours (nothing odder than hearing The Carpenters 50 miles off the coast of Iran at 4 a.m.)

 

On Ch. 16, esp. in that section of the Gulf, slurs/threats/chatter/etc. is commonplace. So my first thought was that the “explode” comment might not have even come from one of the Iranian craft, but some loser monitoring the events at a shore facility.

 

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/0...#comment-281887