Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • littlebit: Makes sense.
    July 16, 2017, 04:40:28 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Boards will stay open for a place people can find history information longer. I am not allowing anyone to sign up for now because of so many foreginers just wanting to promote their business..
    December 10, 2016, 05:10:27 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Not sure why didn't look, I may be shutting down these message boards..
    November 17, 2016, 12:42:43 AM
  • ~kathy~: rick why is the timestamp showing up a day in advance?
    September 13, 2016, 12:27:46 AM
  • Valor7: What I tried to say is that the actual money would not be there that quick. But a loan against that would work if they are willing to do that.
    August 08, 2016, 01:51:51 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Why so long before it comes online? 911 took out a loan or bond with the known guarantee payment and began building..
    August 08, 2016, 07:46:34 AM
  • Valor7: Actually no it is not, a dependable Revenue stream will not come on line until the 4th quarter of 2017 so 2018 budget will be up in the air, not quite sure what they will have. By 2019 budget all will be well.
    August 04, 2016, 09:27:17 PM
  • Valor7: You mean that tax that the Commissioners would not put on the ballot for so many years? Strange things happened when the citizens got a chance to vote on that issue.
    August 03, 2016, 06:43:06 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Back up is now available withe the new tax..
    August 03, 2016, 05:01:35 PM
  • Valor7: Thanks a lot Ladies!!
    July 29, 2016, 01:16:13 PM
  • littlebit: ((*(*&
    July 27, 2016, 03:47:52 PM
  • ~kathy~: lol
    July 15, 2016, 09:34:56 AM
  • Valor7: A guy could get killed around here while waiting for backup!
    July 13, 2016, 07:31:58 PM
  • Lepard LLC: You are not alone..
    July 13, 2016, 07:28:53 PM
  • Valor7: I just hate it when I talk to myself!!!!
    July 08, 2016, 12:54:09 PM
  • Valor7: I could have worded that better, we talked details, options, the pros and cons of each, in  order to arrive at the best ballot language to present to the voters. Hope that makes this clearer.
    April 15, 2016, 06:36:14 PM
  • Valor7: sorry about the typos still working with just one arm in action
    April 13, 2016, 01:10:42 PM
  • Valor7: Yes and no. We talked details and options until we were blue in the face but I never heardbring it over, it was always the time was not right for the issue to pass. Glad to see the time in now right and I for one shall vote yes on the ballot. I would urge all others to do the sameour county is busting at the seams crimewise and no matter how many bad guys we send off there always seems to someone to replace them. The Sheriff's Office needs the help.
    April 13, 2016, 01:08:35 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Is that true Valor? Did he ask you what you wanted?
    March 01, 2016, 04:55:37 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Gene Newkirk Rick I have waited for a Sheriff to bring it to me on what he wanted. I have pushed Mr long for a while to get it to me. He told me he was close to having or done. Now hopefully the people will get to decide on it. I spoke with Steve about this a few times.
    March 01, 2016, 04:54:54 AM
  • Kimberly: Wow- I have a new name..........
    February 23, 2016, 10:25:15 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Works on mine, improvements are being done here. I may kick back into her a lot and post but working on different technologies right now. Seeing how things interact.
    January 18, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
  • Valor7: Yes it is working. If you need a laugh the wife showed me how to correctly use the silly thing.
    January 04, 2016, 05:32:59 PM
  • Valor7: Think so, mine is trying to work but it is now user and password protected and I dont know mine
    December 17, 2015, 01:32:16 PM
  • "DJ": Is there still a working android app for the PCSD
    December 14, 2015, 08:14:53 PM

Author Topic: for the anti iraq crowd  (Read 969 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
for the anti iraq crowd
« on: March 23, 2008, 03:32:38 PM »

Share/Bookmark

Fort Wood Hotel

Boards

Devils Elbow

Attractions

Sports

St. Robert

Waynesville

PC Daily

Dixon

Menu Guide

Fun Links

Homework

Crocker

Fort Wood

Swedeborg

Big Piney

Laquey

Classifieds

Restaurants

Richland

Fort  Hotels

March 23, 2008 Woulda-coulda-shouldas on IraqBy James LewisThe woulda-coulda-shouldas sprang forth on the five-year anniversary of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein last week.  It was Monday morning quarterbacking, mostly. Pundits confuse their personal brainstorms with history, and pretend they could have carried that football better than George W. Bush did in 2003; or even more bizarrely, they imagine there was no game at all that day. Saddam was obviously harmless, as the media think they know after the fact. 9/11 was a one-time accident. On Monday morning everything is clear.

[/color]Rational wars are waged for strategic goals, and yes, Iraq is a rational war. But to understand geopolitical strategy you have to look at a map, understand our life-and-death dependence on oil, face the spread of mass-killing weapons, watch the rise of deeply irrational regimes, and then cleanse your mind of all the cheap sentimental cliches and political spins that are constantly gushed by the media. You have to look at reality.
Fact 1. We were attacked on 9/11/01, and it was not a one-time threat. Both major branches of Islam are fielding their own terror groups. Iran keeps saying it will conquer the world and make the West "bow down" to its greatness. The Sunni Arabs have a similar ideology in the Muslim Brotherhood, which put Hamas on the front line. [/size]
Fact 2. Nuclear weapons are spreading. We can argue about the specifics. The general fact is unarguable, and has to be dealt with. Current most dangerous candidates: Iran and North Korea. [/size]
Five years ago, given our miserable intelligence, it was rational to suppose that Saddam was close to nukes. (In fact, he kept the capacity and expertise intact). And surprise: It now turns out that Libya was much closer to nukes than we ever imagined. So today we've knocked out two of those plausible threats, with two left to go.
Fact 3. Europe, the United States, China, India, Japan are utterly dependent on a free flow of Middle Eastern oil at market prices. If there is a real interruption in the oil supply, food will be priced out of the range of the poor, hospitals will close, naval battles will take place, people will die. Oil is blood. [/size]
Fact 4. In the real world --- not the wishful world of pundits --- you don't know the future. You make your best estimates. You know the CIA has been wrong on every threatening nuclear bomb project since 1949. Sane policy makers don't expect the CIA to penetrate terror states like Saddam's Iraq. So you make your best estimate, and either freeze in place (which is a policy choice) or move. The United States chose to move. Not to act vigorously in the face of 9/11 would have endangered us more.
Question: Why not just stay and fix Afghanistan? [/size]
The Democrats think that's a brilliant strategy, which should make all of us very suspicious.
Well, here are three reasons why Afghanistan was not enough:
a. Afghanistan has never been a modern state, with real control over its countryside. It's a coalition of tribes and warlords. Nobody controls more than a province or city. So all you can do is bring enough warlords and tribes to your side to knock out Al Qaida's safe haven, provided by the Taliban. That was done brilliantly by a tiny number of CIA-Special Ops forces on the ground, about 300, combined with precision bombing. It was amazing; it overthrew the Taliban and expelled Al Qaida from that sanctuary, but after that everything is long-term nation building.
b. Al Qaida is a quicksilver enemy, flowing from place to place. Depived of its safe haven in Afghanistan, it simply crossed the border into Pakistan. The Pashtoon tribes who have controlled that area for centuries, in spite of the Brits, the Pakistanis and the Russians, have never recognized that border anyway.
Pakistan is a teetering state with nukes and a huge population. The government is constantly trying to balance between Islamist and modernist forces, like all other governments in the Islamic world. A US invasion makes no sense at all --- contrary to Obama's flight of fancy some time ago.
c. How do you catch Al Qaida and its ilk, given that they were (and are) constantly threatening to pull another 9/11? This is not Imperial Japan, with a homeland that can be bombed. You need to set a trap that will attract all the indoctrinated zealots, so they can be defeated.
d. Iraq was that trap. That is why Afghanistan was not enough. Iraq was already targeted by 16 UN Security Council resolutions, the international stage was set, and the Bush Administration seized that opportunity. Was it opportunistic? Where there any other alternatives? Yes on the first, No on the second.
e. Icing-on-the-cake strategic side-effect. [/size]
Next door to Iraq is the most dangerous country in the world, the mad mullahcracy of Ahmadi-Nejad. It's huge, it has a martyrdom military ideology, it's mountainous and easily defended. Iran is building nukes, no matter what message the politicized intelligence community peddles today. Israel thinks Iran will have a nuke in 2009, enabled by the fecklessness of the last NIE estimate.
The strategic icing on the cake of the Iraq War is that Iran is now nearly surrounded by American-dominated countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gulf (where the US Navy rules the waves), Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, and for a possible tip of the spear, Israel. We may not be able to stop Iran's nukes, but we now have sophisticated anti-missile defenses in every country in the Gulf, on the seas, in likely target countries like Israel, and even on the missile trajectory to Europe. Result: The oil supply remains safe, guarded by the US Navy and other US assets.
That is one hell of a strategic accomplishment in the last five years. In the coming years we will see if it is enough to make the Iranians act rationally.
The final woulda coulda shoulda.
Professional army leaders wish it could have been otherwise. Ralph Peters is their spokesman, and he constantly argues we should have gone in with massive force, occupied the country like Germany at the end of WWII, maybe kept the Baath Party in place to control the country.
Just before the war, General Shinseki estimated it would take 400,000 troops to control Iraq completely after Saddam. That's the Powell Doctrine, which says you don't go to war except with overwhelming force. The kicker in the Powell Doctrine is that we didn't have anywhere near 400,000 troops, and the Administration knew damned well there was no appetite for a draft.
So the Powell Doctrine, which leaves army generals looking good, was impossible to execute. We did not have the capacity. Blame Bill Clinton, blame the "peace dividend" after the Soviet Union crumbled, blame the nature of politics. Whatever. It wasn't there.
The Powellites still believe that a massed armed occupation was the way to go. Somehow they never address the fact that it didn't exist. It's a fantasy. Donald Rumsfeld was right on target when he said that "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had."
Bush's Folly. 
So the liberal story is that the Iraq War was all a big blooper, Bush's Folly.
Well, look at the consequences of believing that.
1. Saddam would still be in power, and we would still not know if he had nukes.
2. Al Qaida would not have been trapped in a killing field, after 9/11.
3. Lybia would have had nukes, or very close to it, and be ready to spread it around.
4. Iran would not be surrounded by American-dominated countries.
5. In terms of human rights, 50 million victims of Saddam and the Taliban would still be oppressed.
6. The oil supply would be at risk from both Saddam, Iran, and Al Qaeda (which has threatened terror bombings against it).
7. The United States would look like a gutless paper tiger, afraid of risking lives, just as Bin Laden said. UBL is right about Europe, and he is right about the American Left. They really are paper tigers, like Jimmy Carter.  The world is a very rough neighborhood. We can't act like Jimmy Carter and survive for long. Let the Europeans and other crybabies pretend, as long as they know they are protected by us.
The Bottom Line: The Bush Administration took a rational geostrategic action. It was as painful as any war. Wonderful young people were lost. It was terrible. [/size]
The alternative would have led to more warfare, as countries like China began to actively defend their oil supplies. It would have made us more vulnerable to Al Qaida and all its hundreds of would-be Al Qaida imitators across the Muslim world. It would have put A'jad's sword at our throats --- more even than it is now.
Were mistakes made?  Are human beings flawed and imperfect? Could we have run it better if we'd only known what we think we know today? Yes, and yes, and yes.
Did the United States act as a rational, civilized, responsible, geostrategic power?
Yes. That's the test of Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Truman. It's the test of Churchill. It's what history understands, and it is how history will judge the Bush-Cheney team. They have made the tough choices.
Or do you want to try Jimmy Carter again? http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/wouldacouldashouldas_on_iraq.html

Offline ATSME

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +11/-2
    • View Profile
Re: for the anti iraq crowd
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2008, 05:04:33 AM »
 Indictment: Hussein fed money to spy for U.S. officials' trip
  • Story Highlights Indictment: Saddam Hussein's spy agency paid for lawmakers' 2002 Iraq visitMuthanna al-Hanooti indicted Wednesday, charged with spying for IraqIndictment: Services included funding trip by U.S. lawmakers in run-up to warOfficials: No member of Congress was aware of al-Hanooti's alleged activitiesNext Article in Politics
  • \\\\ Read
  • \\\\ VIDEO
var clickExpire = "-1";From Terry Frieden CNN Decrease Decrease Enlarge Enlarge WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein's intelligence agency footed the bill for a U.S. congressional delegation's trip during a buildup to the Iraq war, according to a federal indictment unsealed Wednesday in the case of an Iraqi-born U.S. citizen charged with spying for the Iraqi government.art.lawmakers.in.iraq.gi.jpg From left, Reps. Mike Thompson, Jim McDermott, David Bonior in Baghdad in a September 27, 2002, photo.Click1 of 2Click    var CNN_ArticleChanger = new CNN_imageChanger('cnnImgChngr','/2008/POLITICS/03/26/iraq.trip/imgChng/p1-0.init.exclude.html',1,1);//CNN.imageChanger.load('cnnImgChngr','imgChng/p1-0.exclude.html');Muthanna al-Hanooti, a former official with an Islamic charity in Detroit, Michigan, was taken into custody Tuesday night. Hussein's spy agency secretly paid al-Hanooti 2 million barrels of oil, during the time the U.N. Oil for Food program was in place, for services rendered, the indictment states.Those services included providing the Iraqi government with the names of U.S. members of Congress believed to favor the lifting of sanctions against Iraq, arranging for delegations of those members to visit Iraq and traveling with those delegations,theindictmentstates.Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said no member of Congress was aware of al-Hanooti's alleged activities. "None of the congressional representatives are accused of any wrongdoing, and we have no information whatsoever that any of them were aware of the involvement of the Iraqi Intelligence Service," he said. According to the indictment, the Iraqi Intelligence Service paid $34,000 through an intermediary to Life for Relief and Development, the charity that employed al-Hanooti, to pay the delegation's travel expenses.Don't Miss
  • Read the indictment (pdf) Read The Detroit News story
In September 2002, al-Hanooti traveled to Iraq with three members of Congress whom he believed to be sympathetic to lifting the economic sanctions against Iraq. The U.S. led an invasion into Iraq, starting the war, in March 2003.The indictment did not name the lawmakers, but Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California made a trip to Iraq at that time. Video [color=#ca0002 size]Watch report about Hussein believing the lawmakers would be sympathetic to lifting sanctions against Iraq [/color]McDermott spokesman Mike DeCesare said the congressman knew nothing about al-Hanooti. McDermott was asked to make the trip to discuss children's health issues because he is a physician, DeCesare said.Thompson said in a written statement that he made the trip "to learn as much as I could before voting on whether or not to commit U.S. troops to war." "The trip was approved by the U.S. State Department," he said. "The organization sponsoring the trip was licensed by the Office of Foreign Assets of the Department of Treasury and the United Nations. Obviously, had there been any question at all regarding the sponsor of the trip or the funding, I would not have participated." In his statement, Thompson did not say his trip was connected with the charity. News reports at the time, including CNN's, said McDermott, Thompson and Bonior traveled to Iraq together, however.The three came under strong criticism from the Bush administration for arguing the White House was "laying the pretext or the path for war" before U.N. weapons inspectors had begun their work.Members of Congress are required to file disclosures for any trips they take that are paid for by the government or by private organizations.McDermott filed a disclosure reporting a trip he took from September 25 to October 1, 2002, paid for by the charity named in the indictment. The disclosure said the trip included stops in Baghdad and Basra in Iraq and in Amman, Jordan, and that its purpose was "fact-finding."The cost of McDermott's portion of the trip, according to the records, was $5,510: $5,040 for travel; $320 for lodging; $100 for meals; $50 for "other."Neither Bonior nor Thompson are mentioned in McDermott's filing.advertisement
Al-Hanooti appeared in court in Detroit Wednesday. He was charged with one count of being an unregistered agent for Hussein's government, one count of violating economic sanctions on Iraq and three counts of lying to U.S. investigators.He was released on $100,000 bond and his passport was confiscated. [color=#ca0002 size]E-mail to a friend[/color] E-mailAll About Iraq War

Offline ATSME

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +11/-2
    • View Profile
Re: for the anti iraq crowd
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2008, 05:07:00 AM »
It just seems that people would realize what these terrorists are really doing.  They have spys right here in the U.S., as the one federally charged in this article.  I don't get it, do some Americans just not get the concept of 'terrorism'?