[quote=“fred smith”][quote]“The mere existence of spectacular pictures of explosions should be a warning sign,” Mr. Sanchez said.
A lot of people might take that observation the wrong way.[/quote]
haha. The earth moved. Was it good for you too? haha Every day is like the Fourth of July… Why would that be bad?[/quote]
Are you being mean or just giddy with desperation?
Am I limited to one or the other?
Am I limited to one or the other?[/quote]
It’s your state of mind. You tell me. I’m all ears.
HGC -
The datelined on your posted article is…Posted : Sunday Apr 1, 2007 8:22:25 EDT.
How about posting the results of that Investigation?
Surely that would be a major story in their next issue?
No follow up that I can see anywhere, TC. I agree, all quite strange, but then stranger still is the complete absence of debate about it on the man’s own blogs. By the way, he has several blogs and websites, including a fairly recent ad, which would suggest he was at least just prior to getting in bed with the military in Iraq, willing to bed anyone for a buck. Do the reserves pay well? Seems it may not have been quite enough.
Reading up on Messr. Sanchez I for one would certainly not be championing this snake. Although as I have said from the outset, I’m thrilled his past hasn’t hindered his aspirations to serve his country. Seriously, the whole issue of homosexuality and the military is clearly nonsense in an age when you already admit women into front line roles. What arguments are left to justify banning anyone on the grounds of their sexuality.
HG
Still awaiting a verdict, it seems.
From that website comes:
[quote]USMC’s Reponse to FOIA Request
Col. Charles A. Jones, the Marine Corps investigator looking into the Sanchez case, completed his work in April 2007. He wrote a report, which is currently under consideration by the Marine Corps. If, as I expect, the USMC decides to pursue an administrative remedy (likely a discharge under Other Than Honorable circumstances) against Sanchez, its decision won’t be a matter of public record, on account of federal privacy laws generally prohibiting release of the administrative decisions by anyone other than the target of an investigation.
However, Col. Jones’s report, and its recommendations, are covered by the Freedom of Information Act. In April I requested a copy of the report. The USMC’s response is below, explaining that the recommendations are under consideration and that once a decision is made they’ll release the investigation to me. Note that I blanked out my address from the USMC’s letter to me.
When I receive the report (which could consist of a stack of blank pages, for all I know) I intend to post it here. I think it would be very much in the USMC’s interest to release the results of Col. Jones’s investigation per the Freedom of Information Act. [/quote]
HG
Not when it comes to the love and affection that all of us here on Forumosa FEEL for you HCG! and I do mean LOTS of love and affection. haha and any and all kinds…
Wow! And there it is, the love!
HG
While I don’t necessarily disagree with the findings, I do think the prescription sucks. Like it or lump it we’re all tied to the mast with that odious little American liar. Pull out, what then?
Maybe something to do with that shower of love from Fred, but now I find myself wondering what the game is here. A Clinton free kick? Was it free? How is it possible to just pull out? Does anyone have a plan?
[quote]It’s a lost cause so get out now: top US paper
WASHINGTON: The New York Times has called for US troops to leave Iraq now, saying President George W. Bush’s plan to stabilise the country through military means was a lost cause.
“It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organise an orderly exit,” the influential daily said in a rare single-issue editorial taking up half of an entire news page.
“Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilise the country afterward.”
But it has since emerged, the Times concluded, that Mr Bush had “neither the vision nor the means to do that”. “It is frighteningly clear that Mr Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is President and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost,” the daily said.
"Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces … It is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.
“This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage - with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.”
The editorial comes as a growing number of Mr Bush’s formerly loyal Republican backers on Iraq have defected and begun calling for US troop withdrawal.
The Times conceded that the situation might turn even deadlier after a withdrawal of US forces.
Still, the daily wrote: “Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.”
Prominent British newspaper the Guardian wrote an editorial yesterday touting the Times’s stance as a “notable event, both reflecting and shaping a US debate which is now coming to a political climax”. It called for such a debate in Britain. [/quote]
HG
For those of you support withdrawl from Iraq:
What do you think will happen to Iraq and the region if we leave?
What will happen? Chaos.
Really bad?
Iranian mullahs dancing in the street.
Kurds slaughtered by Turks.
Syria?
Kuwaitis and Saudis pissing themselves.
Just bad?
Iraqis pulling an Indian partition scenario, and retreating to rump states.
And staying?
I don’t think it requires much creative accounting to do these sums:
[quote=“BBC:US Iraq chief warns of long war”]
The head of US forces in Iraq, Lt Gen David Petraeus, has told the BBC that fighting the insurgency is a “long term endeavour” which could take decades.
Speaking to the BBC’s John Simpson in Baquba, Gen Petraeus said there was evidence that the recent troops surge was producing gains on the ground.
But he warned that US forces were engaged in a “tough fight” which will get “harder before it gets easier”.
His comments come as US calls for a rapid troop withdrawal gather strength.
[b]Gen Petraeus was keen to emphasise that the ongoing unrest in Iraq is not something he expects to be resolved overnight:
“Northern Ireland, I think, taught you that very well. My counterparts in your (British) forces really understand this kind of operation… It took a long time, decades,” he said.
“I don’t know whether this will be decades, but the average counter insurgency is somewhere around a nine or a 10 year endeavour.[/b]” [/quote]
[quote=“BBC: Army paper says IRA not defeated”]An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA.
The admission is contained in a discussion document released by the Ministry of Defence after a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
The 100 page document analyses in detail the army’s role over 37 years.
It focuses on specific operations and gives an overview of its performance.
[…]
It describes the IRA as “a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force”, while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as “little more than a collection of gangsters”.
It concedes for the first time that it did not win the battle against the IRA - but claims to have “shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence”.
[…]
In a statement issued on Friday, an Army spokesman said: "This publication considers the high level general issues that might be applicable to any future counter-terrorist campaign that the British Armed Forces might have to undertake.
“It is critically important to consider what was learned by those who served in Northern Ireland.” [/quote]
I wonder if it’d do any good to hand over George and Tony to that court in Baghdad for trial on charges of waging a war of aggression. Probably not: Lady Justice holds a sword and scales; she lacks a shield.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]For those of you support withdrawl from Iraq:
What do you think will happen to Iraq and the region if we leave?[/quote]
The same thing that is happening now except fewer American soldiers will have died.
For those who support staying the course, what has happened to make you think that continuing to stay will improve the situation?
In all honesty, if the US could fix the situation I would say stay and fix what it broke. But I don’t think its leaders are capable of fixing or willing to fix the situation.
Perhaps the next time its leaders decide to invade another country “without sufficient cause” they will reflect more seriously upon both the motivations for and the consequences of their decisions beforehand and either decide not invade or actually formulate a realistic plan to stabilize the country afterwards lest hell break loose again.
[quote=“NeonNoodle”][quote=“gao_bo_han”]For those of you support withdrawl from Iraq:
What do you think will happen to Iraq and the region if we leave?[/quote]
The same thing that is happening now except fewer American soldiers will have died.[/quote]
Really? You don’t think the fighting will be worse? Do you think the regional powers will get involved?
Here’s another question. Is the life of an American soldier worth more than an Iraqi (whether military or civilian)? If staying results in a continuous but small number of American deaths, whereas leaving will result in no American deaths but lots more Iraqis/other Arabs/Kurds/Turks/Persians, should we stay?
Equal value. But here’s a better question: is it worthwhile to an American soldier to risk his life for no discernible purpose beyond a lesser chance of death for those who would rather see his back? Otherwise stated: what are you asking him to risk dying for, other than a mistake that just won’t go away?
The only reason I continue to support the occupation is that I believe more humans will suffer if we leave than if we stay. All of the analyses I’ve seen agree on this point. Saudi Arabia has already said it will support the Sunnis and Iran will surely back the Shi’as. Turkey is amassing armored vehicles and troops at the border to Iraqi Kurdistan, and will probably invade if we pull out, or at least increase the number of cross-border raids.
An all out regional war awaits if we leave. If we stay, there will be a continuous trickle of deaths, but not civil/regional war. Staying is the lesser of two evils.
I hope.
Forget all this talk about leaving. Some of the troops, most of the troops, they may leave but our forces will NEVER leave. The original plan was for 35 k to 50k parked out in the desert or wherever they needed to be to minimize the Policing that we are now finding ourselves forced to do. IF we cannot bring things around and I am convinced that things are moving our direction, then we just pull back to the superbases and leave it at that. But make no mistake, we are not leaving Iraq. I do not care who says what. It ain’t going to happen.
What if the Iraqi govt asks/tells you to leave? What then? Will you pack up everything and go home? Leave the superbases?
I know that the current govt wants you there. I don’t expect them to tell you to leave. But what about after the next elections, if someone like, al-Sadr gains power, what then? If a free election brings to power someone who’s hostile to US interests, do you have the right to stay in the superbases if they ask you to go?
National Intelligence Estimate, Iraq, Jan 2007
(National Intelligence Estimates) are the (Director of National Intelligence’s) most authoritative written judgments concerning national security issues. They contain the coordinated judgments of the Intelligence Community regarding the likely course of future events. The NIC’s goal is to provide policymakers with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information—regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to US policy. . .
"Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.
* If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the ([color=blue]Iraqi Security Force[/color]) would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution; neighboring countries—invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally—might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; AQI would attempt to use parts of the country—particularly al-Anbar province—to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and political disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion. . . .
A number of identifiable internal security and political triggering events, including sustained mass sectarian killings, assassination of major religious and political leaders, and a complete Sunni defection from the government have the potential to convulse severely Iraq’s security environment. Should these events take place, they could spark an abrupt increase in communal and insurgent violence and shift Iraq’s trajectory from gradual decline to rapid deterioration with grave humanitarian, political, and security consequences. Three prospective security paths might then emerge:
*
Chaos Leading to Partition. With a rapid deterioration in the capacity of Iraq’s central government to function, security services and other aspects of sovereignty would collapse. Resulting widespread fighting could produce de facto partition, dividing Iraq into three mutually antagonistic parts. Collapse of this magnitude would generate fierce violence for at least several years, ranging well beyond the time frame of this Estimate, before settling into a partially stable end-state.
*
Emergence of a Shia Strongman. Instead of a disintegrating central government producing partition, a security implosion could lead Iraq’s potentially most powerful group, the Shia, to assert its latent strength.
*
Anarchic Fragmentation of Power. The emergence of a checkered pattern of local control would present the greatest potential for instability, mixing extreme ethno-sectarian violence with debilitating intra-group clashes."
(This one’s for you, Fred.)
“Extremists—most notably the Sunni jihadist group al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI) and Shia oppositionist Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM)—continue to act as very effective accelerators for what has become a self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.”
What if the Iraqi govt asks/tells you to leave? What then? Will you pack up everything and go home? Leave the superbases?
I know that the current govt wants you there. I don’t expect them to tell you to leave. But what about after the next elections, if someone like, al-Sadr gains power, what then? If a free election brings to power someone who’s hostile to US interests, do you have the right to stay in the superbases if they ask you to go?[/quote]
As Fred would say: ‘You mean Iraqi sovereignty? Ha-ha-ha-ha . . . !’
No Iraqi government is going to ask us to leave despite whatever is said in public. The Kurds want us in (20 percent), the Sunnis increasingly want us in (add another 10 percent or half of the 20 percent of the population that they make up) and do you really think that we cannot get at least 20 percent more from the Shias (for 50 percent support in any government?). This is not some ghoulish exultation in the divide and conquer that will allow us to control Iraq boohhohhaohahaa but to point out the facts. We do provide stability. Everyone in Iraq realizes this and while there may be days or weeks or months when one particular group is unhappy with us, they will perhaps want us there again in three months to protect them from one of the other groups or a grouping of the other groups. We are there for the good of Iraq, for the good of the region and for the good of the US and the civilized world. These goals are not incompatible or mutually exclusive but directly complementary. So let’s shut up about what this, that or the other group is saying on any given day to realize that the overarching goal is to achieve peace, prosperity and regional stability. IF Iraq is abandoned, those al Qaeda will just move to somewhere else… Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Aghanistan? Jordan? Egypt? Algeria (again). They are not just going to go home and say… oh good, we defeated the West and they are no longer occupying Arab land so we can live in peace with the West. That is not what they are about and all this foolish discussion of “negotiations” or “understanding root causes” is the same sort of nonsense that has led to worldwide contempt for Europe and its “initiatives.” They may sound good to the bien piensant who spout the usual tripe here on this forum but for any policy-makers, they are a complete and utter joke and a contemptible one at that. Ask someone in Darfur, Bosnia or Kosovo about such “consultations.” Ditto for someone in Rwanda. We all know what works with nasty leaders and it ain’t a meeting for three weeks at a five-star hotel in the Alps.