From all the accounts of rapid success in Fallujah, this is striking evidence that things aren't quite going as well as planned over there.
While numbers of the military dead are reaching the mainstream news, there hasn't been anything mentioned about our soldiers who have been seriously wounded in the operation (see link). Our temporary victory is a costly one. And as Fallujah continues to rage, other battles are being fought across Iraq, including bold new clashes throughout the city streets Baghdad, Mosul and elsewhere.
So while the small Shiite city may succumb to US pressure for the time being, it will certainly revert back to lawlessness, time and time again.
In a very real sense, we are the insurgents.
Showing posts with label Iraq War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq War. Show all posts
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Saturday, November 06, 2004
American Coalition: Hungary Withdraws Troops
Our coalition continues to weaken as foreign casualties rise and the concept of security is only a meager state of mind.
We are certainly going to be in a sad state of affairs if the only troops that will replace ours are Iraqi citizens. I'd bet that there is a sizable majority of rebels that used to serve in the real Iraqi army that was conveniently disbanded with the fall of Bahgdad.
Flipping through the cable channels the other day, I was shocked to hear one Republican commentator when he said that if everything got really bad we could just protect the oil wells. We would certainly have enough troops for that he reasoned. Now that really is blood for oil isn't it?
May be Chevron and company could foot all the medical bills for the wounded?
We are certainly going to be in a sad state of affairs if the only troops that will replace ours are Iraqi citizens. I'd bet that there is a sizable majority of rebels that used to serve in the real Iraqi army that was conveniently disbanded with the fall of Bahgdad.
Flipping through the cable channels the other day, I was shocked to hear one Republican commentator when he said that if everything got really bad we could just protect the oil wells. We would certainly have enough troops for that he reasoned. Now that really is blood for oil isn't it?
May be Chevron and company could foot all the medical bills for the wounded?
Saturday, October 30, 2004
More on Missing Munitions
If you were following the Iraq War at all, you might remember the vast amount of looting that took place immediately following Saddam's defeat, so the fact that there was also thievery in al Qaqaa should be of no surprise to anyone. It's just a few hundred tones of high energy explosives, really nothing to get all that alarmed about.
You know , come to think of it, we shouldn't even be all that concerned if some of their nuclear facilities we're also raided either, right? Make no mistake, this unnecessary war in Iraq, sold to us as a way to defeat terrorism, has plunged us, and the world, even deeper into chaos.
As Brett Wagner, a professor at the Naval War College, put it a year ago in USA Today ...
"In the weeks before the invasion, the U.S. military repeatedly warned the White House that its war plans did not include sufficient ground forces, air and naval operations and logistical support to guarantee a successful mission. Those warnings were discounted — even mocked — by administration officials who professed to know more about war fighting than the war fighters themselves.
But the war fighters were right. Military commanders weren't given enough manpower and logistical support to secure all of the known nuclear sites, let alone all of the suspected ones.
It wasn't until seven of Iraq's main nuclear facilities were extensively looted that the true magnitude of the administration's strategic blunder came into focus."
Wars are military things, and wars are lost when commanded by politicians. Today, as this election looms nearer, it is these very politicians who have eagerly decided to place the lives of good American men and women into dancing a daily life-and-death struggle. Telling them, and the rest of us, it's their mistake for "messing it up" by allowing the vast looting to take place at all. This from an administration that is still unwilling to admit even the most basic of mistakes.
You know , come to think of it, we shouldn't even be all that concerned if some of their nuclear facilities we're also raided either, right? Make no mistake, this unnecessary war in Iraq, sold to us as a way to defeat terrorism, has plunged us, and the world, even deeper into chaos.
As Brett Wagner, a professor at the Naval War College, put it a year ago in USA Today ...
"In the weeks before the invasion, the U.S. military repeatedly warned the White House that its war plans did not include sufficient ground forces, air and naval operations and logistical support to guarantee a successful mission. Those warnings were discounted — even mocked — by administration officials who professed to know more about war fighting than the war fighters themselves.
But the war fighters were right. Military commanders weren't given enough manpower and logistical support to secure all of the known nuclear sites, let alone all of the suspected ones.
It wasn't until seven of Iraq's main nuclear facilities were extensively looted that the true magnitude of the administration's strategic blunder came into focus."
Wars are military things, and wars are lost when commanded by politicians. Today, as this election looms nearer, it is these very politicians who have eagerly decided to place the lives of good American men and women into dancing a daily life-and-death struggle. Telling them, and the rest of us, it's their mistake for "messing it up" by allowing the vast looting to take place at all. This from an administration that is still unwilling to admit even the most basic of mistakes.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Missing Munitions In Iraq
It's simply amazing to think that there is no error large enough for this administration to admit to, especially when it comes to the Iraq War, but blaming our troops for the missed opportunity to capture a large quantity of Saddams arsenal at al Qaqaa is just pathetic.
Wasn't it the current administration that balked at sending more than 100,000 or so troops to the Gulf in the first place? And wasn't it George W. himself that told his pastor, Jerry Falwell not to worry because there wouldn't be any casualties?
Now it seems that the terrorists we're fighting today may be using the very same explosives we should have captured immediately after the fall of Bagdad. After all, our troops knew its location, opened the doors and broke open the seals left by the IAEA just before the invasion took place ... and then simply walked away from it.
How could we leave over 300 tones of high explosives completely unguarded just waiting for someone with the right motivation to come along and take it?
That, I am sure, would be more than enough to use against our troops for the next decade at least. The Iraqi's might just run out of people before they run out of munitions to kill our troops with. And there is just one person we can thank for that.
Wasn't it the current administration that balked at sending more than 100,000 or so troops to the Gulf in the first place? And wasn't it George W. himself that told his pastor, Jerry Falwell not to worry because there wouldn't be any casualties?
Now it seems that the terrorists we're fighting today may be using the very same explosives we should have captured immediately after the fall of Bagdad. After all, our troops knew its location, opened the doors and broke open the seals left by the IAEA just before the invasion took place ... and then simply walked away from it.
How could we leave over 300 tones of high explosives completely unguarded just waiting for someone with the right motivation to come along and take it?
That, I am sure, would be more than enough to use against our troops for the next decade at least. The Iraqi's might just run out of people before they run out of munitions to kill our troops with. And there is just one person we can thank for that.
Friday, October 22, 2004
9/11: A Reason To Invade Iraq
Among the most compelling reasons to invade Iraq, and about the only reasonable argument left standing as to why we really did invade, was the characterization of Saddam's link to terrorism and al-Qaida. We would prevent future acts of terrorism by adopting a pre-emptive strategy and invade Iraq.
I still remember the Bush & Co. media quips concerning terrorists before 9/11 as not having the time to "swat at flies". Alluding to the Clinton administration's policy of using precision strikes against known sites in response for acts of terrorism.
Then, conveniently, when the call to war came, they presented this information to the UN as a reason to invade. Claiming that Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, was known to have a terrorist complex in northern Iraq.
New information shows that the Pentagon had, in 2002, presented plans to attack this camp three separate times, but all requests were turned down by the White House. The camp, funded by al-Qaida was known to be producing ricin and cyanide
Zarqawi is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq, and ranks second on our most wanted list under Bin Laden.
I still remember the Bush & Co. media quips concerning terrorists before 9/11 as not having the time to "swat at flies". Alluding to the Clinton administration's policy of using precision strikes against known sites in response for acts of terrorism.
Then, conveniently, when the call to war came, they presented this information to the UN as a reason to invade. Claiming that Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, was known to have a terrorist complex in northern Iraq.
New information shows that the Pentagon had, in 2002, presented plans to attack this camp three separate times, but all requests were turned down by the White House. The camp, funded by al-Qaida was known to be producing ricin and cyanide
Zarqawi is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq, and ranks second on our most wanted list under Bin Laden.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
4 More Years Anyone?
OK, I know this may sound a little funny, but there actually are millions of people who are planning on voting for George W. Bush, again. Of all the people I know and associate with, I could probably count every Republican on my left hand. But, the colored states on the map show a different picture though, and I'm getting sleepy just thinking about it.
C'mon boy, snap to.
Again? Now, I'm doing my very best to be objective about this, but I'm sorry, I just can't. I mean, is he not about the worst President this country has ever had?
You could take the fact that he has presided over the worst economy since the Great Depression being the first President to have actually lost jobs since he took office. I guess you could argue that since we really exported most of those, they technically aren't "lost".
He also presided over the worst attack on American soil in our nation's history, which could have been avoided had he just read the PDBs. Then, for the first time in our nation's history, we invaded another country without any provocation, or just cause. That is, unless you actually do believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. At least, we actually claimed that the North Vietnamese shot at us before attacking them. That, by the way, wasn't even declared a war, and neither was Korea.
What additional accomplishments can we expect if George W. Bush gets another four years?
First, we could start off with the draft, but before that let's extend our troops tour of duty even more. Continuing erosion in our efforts to restrain North Korea and Iran. A complete lack of any policy regarding Israel and Palestine. A slow parting in our alliance with the British and Australians. More tax cuts for the rich. Excuses from the military. More vets coming back and not getting the medical attention they deserve. A lack of credibility in the eyes of the world. Increased opium production in Afghanistan. A larger budget deficit than we already have. A continued reliance upon oil. No-bid contracts. Smear campaigns. Lies and defamation. The growing threat of terrorism. Tapes from the Talilban. Hostages. Hostility. Medican't. Social Insecurity. John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, and Tom Delay.
Someone please tell me how you could sleep at night knowing you've already voted for this man?
Pretty soundly I'd have to say, for a nation of sheep.
C'mon boy, snap to.
Again? Now, I'm doing my very best to be objective about this, but I'm sorry, I just can't. I mean, is he not about the worst President this country has ever had?
You could take the fact that he has presided over the worst economy since the Great Depression being the first President to have actually lost jobs since he took office. I guess you could argue that since we really exported most of those, they technically aren't "lost".
He also presided over the worst attack on American soil in our nation's history, which could have been avoided had he just read the PDBs. Then, for the first time in our nation's history, we invaded another country without any provocation, or just cause. That is, unless you actually do believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. At least, we actually claimed that the North Vietnamese shot at us before attacking them. That, by the way, wasn't even declared a war, and neither was Korea.
What additional accomplishments can we expect if George W. Bush gets another four years?
First, we could start off with the draft, but before that let's extend our troops tour of duty even more. Continuing erosion in our efforts to restrain North Korea and Iran. A complete lack of any policy regarding Israel and Palestine. A slow parting in our alliance with the British and Australians. More tax cuts for the rich. Excuses from the military. More vets coming back and not getting the medical attention they deserve. A lack of credibility in the eyes of the world. Increased opium production in Afghanistan. A larger budget deficit than we already have. A continued reliance upon oil. No-bid contracts. Smear campaigns. Lies and defamation. The growing threat of terrorism. Tapes from the Talilban. Hostages. Hostility. Medican't. Social Insecurity. John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, and Tom Delay.
Someone please tell me how you could sleep at night knowing you've already voted for this man?
Pretty soundly I'd have to say, for a nation of sheep.
Friday, October 01, 2004
What Progress In Iraq?
What will happen if we lose the War in Iraq? Stay tuned because we might just find out.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Bush Review on UN Speech
President Bush addressed world leaders September 23, 2004 during the annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly. Here is a sample of responses to his speech from other Member Nations.
Italy
"It was enough to observe the applause given Annan while he condemned the American war and the violation of the rule of law and compare it to the deadly silence that accompanied Bush's 30-minute speech to understand the incredible damage that this short-sighted and ideological presidency has inflicted on America's image."
-Vittorio Zucconi, La Republica, September 22, 2004
Germany
"Again, the U.S. president spoke at the United Nations, again he defended the Iraq war... but his speech and reality are separated by a deep trench. Chaos dominates in Iraq... and we cannot see a convincing strategy how to crush the revolt. George W. Bush and Iraq: the balance sheet is devastating. Those who doubt it should talk to intelligence experts, study intelligence dossiers or follow the news on a regular basis. The facts are available."
-Malte Lehming, Der Tagesspiegel, September 22, 2004
United Kingdom
"Mr. Bush's willful blindness to the mayhem his war has wrought may be most charitably dismissed as electioneering, especially as his Democrat opponent had finally come out fighting only the day before. But the UN General Assembly is not a forum for electioneering. It is, as the Secretary General showed in his exemplary address about the rule of law, a platform to the world. It offered Mr. Bush the chance to banish his image as a go-it-alone gun-slinger and admit in all humility that the U.S. needed help. Regrettably, it was an opportunity he chose not to grasp."
-The Independent, September 22, 2004
France
"By calling for respect of the right of law in his remarks, Annan proved to what extent the war in Iraq has poisoned international diplomatic relations.... As for President Bush's address, it elicited much skepticism on the part of the diplomats listening to him. The bitterness that dominated last year at the UN over the inability of multilateralism to prevail in Iraq has been replaced with concern over the chaos which is growing there.
-Luc de Barochez, Le Figaro, September 22, 2004
Denmark
"President Bush's motives for adopting a more conciliatory tone toward the United Nations are clear. He knows that the United Nations must become a real player in Iraq if the circle of violence is to have any chance of being replaced by the peaceful and democratic developments that are crucial to the history books' judgment on the Iraq war. And Bush is able to note that there is still not a single country that has offered troops for the special UN force that is a precondition if UN personnel are going to be able to return to Iraq in earnest and prepare the election which, it is planned, will be held in only four months."
-Ole Damkjaer, Berlingske Tidende, September 22, 2004
Sounds to me like someone isn't paying much attention to world opinion these days.
Italy
"It was enough to observe the applause given Annan while he condemned the American war and the violation of the rule of law and compare it to the deadly silence that accompanied Bush's 30-minute speech to understand the incredible damage that this short-sighted and ideological presidency has inflicted on America's image."
-Vittorio Zucconi, La Republica, September 22, 2004
Germany
"Again, the U.S. president spoke at the United Nations, again he defended the Iraq war... but his speech and reality are separated by a deep trench. Chaos dominates in Iraq... and we cannot see a convincing strategy how to crush the revolt. George W. Bush and Iraq: the balance sheet is devastating. Those who doubt it should talk to intelligence experts, study intelligence dossiers or follow the news on a regular basis. The facts are available."
-Malte Lehming, Der Tagesspiegel, September 22, 2004
United Kingdom
"Mr. Bush's willful blindness to the mayhem his war has wrought may be most charitably dismissed as electioneering, especially as his Democrat opponent had finally come out fighting only the day before. But the UN General Assembly is not a forum for electioneering. It is, as the Secretary General showed in his exemplary address about the rule of law, a platform to the world. It offered Mr. Bush the chance to banish his image as a go-it-alone gun-slinger and admit in all humility that the U.S. needed help. Regrettably, it was an opportunity he chose not to grasp."
-The Independent, September 22, 2004
France
"By calling for respect of the right of law in his remarks, Annan proved to what extent the war in Iraq has poisoned international diplomatic relations.... As for President Bush's address, it elicited much skepticism on the part of the diplomats listening to him. The bitterness that dominated last year at the UN over the inability of multilateralism to prevail in Iraq has been replaced with concern over the chaos which is growing there.
-Luc de Barochez, Le Figaro, September 22, 2004
Denmark
"President Bush's motives for adopting a more conciliatory tone toward the United Nations are clear. He knows that the United Nations must become a real player in Iraq if the circle of violence is to have any chance of being replaced by the peaceful and democratic developments that are crucial to the history books' judgment on the Iraq war. And Bush is able to note that there is still not a single country that has offered troops for the special UN force that is a precondition if UN personnel are going to be able to return to Iraq in earnest and prepare the election which, it is planned, will be held in only four months."
-Ole Damkjaer, Berlingske Tidende, September 22, 2004
Sounds to me like someone isn't paying much attention to world opinion these days.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Being Held Accountable
If, as our current administration states, this war in Iraq, aptly named "Operation Iraqi Freedom", has so much support from the international community, then why has the UN declared it illegal? I have to admit at being a little surprised by this coming from UN President, Kofi Annan, because I had suspected for so long that he was just another White House crony.
The "Fair and Balanced" buzz has missed this story as well, but I gather the English are in a bit of hot water at the moment, (click on link above). Who knows if or when international outrage will rise to the point where it will make any difference here.
The "Fair and Balanced" buzz has missed this story as well, but I gather the English are in a bit of hot water at the moment, (click on link above). Who knows if or when international outrage will rise to the point where it will make any difference here.
Homeland In-Security II
Now I haven't seen much information about this story in the mainstream media (Click on link above). It's possible that I'm missing it somewhere between watching endless updates on Michael Jackson's courtroom drama, and brave reporters standing outside in some Hurricane down south. But I think I'd remember hearing that while we're fighting the "war on terrorism" in Iraq, progress slows in protecting this country from another serious terrorist attack here at home.
Is it true we live in the cold, hard reality of a corporate war? Unfortunately, As global oil supply reaches a plateau, demand increases making continued government funding for a long-term occupation in Iraq seem certain. Justified behind the veil of international terrorism, our commercial interests in controlling oil production continue unabated in that country. While more countries, like China, modernize making the control of this diminishing natural resource critical, the noose around Iraq's neck tightens. In a sense, the gas from the cars we drive just might be paid for with American blood.
Meanwhile, money that is spent for the war in Iraq is diverted from Homeland Security coffers, and the needed work to protect this nation from real terrorist threats. Is there really a link between the two? I'd say yes. Between the number of defeated bills designed to protect Americans at home, and the quantity of no-bid private contracts being awarded by the military, it's clear that, "Conservatives in the Senate are failing to protect Americans here at home."
Is it true we live in the cold, hard reality of a corporate war? Unfortunately, As global oil supply reaches a plateau, demand increases making continued government funding for a long-term occupation in Iraq seem certain. Justified behind the veil of international terrorism, our commercial interests in controlling oil production continue unabated in that country. While more countries, like China, modernize making the control of this diminishing natural resource critical, the noose around Iraq's neck tightens. In a sense, the gas from the cars we drive just might be paid for with American blood.
Meanwhile, money that is spent for the war in Iraq is diverted from Homeland Security coffers, and the needed work to protect this nation from real terrorist threats. Is there really a link between the two? I'd say yes. Between the number of defeated bills designed to protect Americans at home, and the quantity of no-bid private contracts being awarded by the military, it's clear that, "Conservatives in the Senate are failing to protect Americans here at home."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)