next stop Iran?

[Mule]

So when did saddaam become head of the islamic jihadists?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by Mule
So when did saddaam become head of the islamic jihadists?

LOL~~~!!!

What body part did you pull that out of?

[RoninLB]

post WW2 Germany had an insurgent NAZI prob for yrs.

[dtw]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Of course we'll never know what effect this concept has on Al Quaeda since we aren't looking for OBL anymore.

Link to factual support for this?

I thought not.

[tabs]

This reminds me of a Political Science class I had.....it was taught by Proffesor Randy Newman.....

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by dtw
Link to factual support for this?

I thought not.

Dave, here's some factual support:
Here's transcript from bush's press conference in March 2003:
Kelly Wallace of CNN asked why he so rarely mentioned bin Laden, and whether bin Laden was, in fact, dead or alive.

President Bush:
"Well, deep in my heart, I know the man is on the run if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

"Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I've mentioned in my speeches, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death, and he himself tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. . . . I truly am not that concerned about him."


Here is Dick Cheney and Andrew Card on the topic:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/27/bush.binladen/index.html

I pulled some quotes from the text
Some Bush administration officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, have begun saying recently that the war on terrorism can be successful without catching bin Laden.

"Bin Laden by himself isn't that big a threat," Cheney said. "Bin Laden connected to this worldwide organization of terror is a threat. We're going to go after him, but we're also after the network."

More
"But understand that that's not the overall objective," Card said. "Our overall objective is to defeat terrorism, wherever it is around the world. And so, our objective is not to get Osama bin Laden."

this is from a Pentagon Press Conference
‘The goal has never been to get bin Laden’, said General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on 6 April 2002. President George W Bush might have declared on 17 September 2001 that bin Laden was ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive’ – but Myers told CNN that a far more important aim than bin Laden’s head on a platter was the ‘capture, killing and scattering’ of ‘mid-level al-Qaeda operatives’ 1. ‘The goal [in Afghanistan] was never after specific individuals’, he claimed 2.

Here's a Christian Science Monitor article (they are Right BTW)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0301/p01s02-usmi.htm

I could go on, there's a lot of evidence to support my claim.

[dtw]

Spin does not constitute factual support.

How about troop deployment levels as well as deployment locations in Afghanistan and the Pakistan border, to the extent that this is publicly available.

I think you might find the numbers shocking.

[Superman]

Gosh it's fun to talk about international relations as though this were a WWF match. Costume parties are also fun, and plays and movies.

And then there's the real world. Where there are consequences.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Dave, I really had full intentions of leaving OT, and you in fact were part of that. We've exchanged a few PMs RE: our pal Geoff and said nice things about each other's projects.

I've always worried about OT bleeding over into tech and classifieds and your post somehow really magnified that concern.

That said, and really, if I have the strenght, this will be my last political post here in OT, I'd want to know what you mean by political spin. Either Bush, Cheney, et al said those things, and I included full context, or they didn't. the above are 100% bona fide quotes.

This is where I really give up. I am constantly providing full disclosure, contextual facts to support my claims, but they are never good enough.

I love debate, really thrive on it. I've got republican friends with whom I really mix it up, but there's always pizza and beer afterward (the great unifiers) but more than that, people listen to points and concede them, they don't just stack on denial after denial, aren't hypocritical and they don't manipulate facts, speech and context to serve their goal.

In short, they are real debates where ideas are exchanged and MINDS are actually changed. this is just people doing their best to prove their points, usually falling very short, and just ending up in insults.

I've yet to see someone change their position after someone else -- side independent -- provides incontrovertible proof.

Take care and see you on the tech board.

Shaun

[kach22i]

Originally posted by MichiganMat
Yeah, we might invade, but with whose army?

We will just have to annex Canada and Mexico, plus start the draft for both young men and young women. Add to this no more abortion (comming soon), and well have another army of poor joining up in 20 years. You have to have a big plan to fight and win this Crusade.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
This is where I really give up. I am constantly providing full disclosure, contextual facts to support my claims, but they are never good enough.

I've seen this pattern over and over again - must be a conservatives thing.

There's just no changing the toilet paper roll if the stall is locked.

[azasadny]

Randy Newman's "Let's Drop the Big One"

No one likes us - I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
All around even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money - But are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us - so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old [maybe Rumsfeld's a fan, too?]
Africa is far too hot and Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't want to hurt no kangaroos
We'll build an All-American amusement park there
They got surfin too

Boom goes London, boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

[dtw]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Dave, I really had full intentions of leaving OT, and you in fact were part of that. We've exchanged a few PMs RE: our pal Geoff and said nice things about each other's projects.

I've always worried about OT bleeding over into tech and classifieds and your post somehow really magnified that concern.

That said, and really, if I have the strenght, this will be my last political post here in OT, I'd want to know what you mean by political spin. Either Bush, Cheney, et al said those things, and I included full context, or they didn't. the above are 100% bona fide quotes.

This is where I really give up. I am constantly providing full disclosure, contextual facts to support my claims, but they are never good enough.

I love debate, really thrive on it. I've got republican friends with whom I really mix it up, but there's always pizza and beer afterward (the great unifiers) but more than that, people listen to points and concede them, they don't just stack on denial after denial, aren't hypocritical and they don't manipulate facts, speech and context to serve their goal.

In short, they are real debates where ideas are exchanged and MINDS are actually changed. this is just people doing their best to prove their points, usually falling very short, and just ending up in insults.

I've yet to see someone change their position after someone else -- side independent -- provides incontrovertible proof.

Take care and see you on the tech board.

Shaun

Actually Shaun, I was throwing you a bone - I meant the spin of the people you were citing, not any spin you were introducing to prove your point. I'll admit that when squeezed, everyone you cited has indeed downplayed the singular role of OBL with respect to the overall hunt for Al Qaeda and Taliban members in Afghanistan.

Truly sorry - as I was really slammed today at work and for the 30 seconds I logged into PP today, that was all the time I had to draft a response.

The facts as I understand them are is that troop deployment levels in Afghanistan have not decreased since the war in Iraq began - that is, we have not decreased our scope for hunting down OBL and his cronies.

Don't get too frustrated - this OT board drives me nuts too. "My side" has the Strombergs and Mulhollands, and "Your side" has the Red UFOs and on-ramps. I think in between those extremes the rest of us may have passionate views, but a lot of the rational discourse gets sidetracked by the aforementioned weirdos and the inability to accurately express body language and expression in a typed message. Smileys notwithstanding.

Example you cited is indeed perfect - you and I have exchanged plenty of offline and online communication without incident and my previous two posts on this thread were not intended to be incendiary. Our views politically may quite different but I imagine we'd be able to discuss them rationally over several rounds of brew. I also imagine we'd tire of it before long and switch to cars, sleazy parts sellers, and small business ownership.

I LOVE YOU MAN.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by dtw


Our views politically may quite different but I imagine we'd be able to discuss them rationally over several rounds of brew. I also imagine we'd tire of it before long and switch to cars, sleazy parts sellers, and small business ownership.

I LOVE YOU MAN.

Amen to that Brother! Plenty of hot wings, pulled pork and ribs would be good too.

Here's to a fun run on the OT board and the best exit (political postings anyway) I could imagine.

Thanks Man!

[azasadny]

We've got to win the war in Iraq first...

U.S. in danger of losing the war

Analysis finds troubling trends in Iraq: Rising fatalities, attacks

January 22, 2005

BY TOM LASSETER and JONATHAN S. LANDAY
FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Unless something dramatic changes, the United States is heading toward losing the war in Iraq.

A Knight Ridder Newspapers analysis of U.S. government statistics shows the U.S. military steadily losing ground to the predominately Sunni Muslim insurgency in Iraq.

The analysis suggests that, short of a newfound will by Iraqis to reject the insurgency or a large escalation of U.S. troop strength, the United States won't win the war.

Military thinkers say insurgencies are especially hard to defeat because the insurgents' goal isn't to win in a conventional sense but to survive until the will of the occupying power is sapped. Recent polls suggest an erosion of support among Americans for the war.

The unfavorable trends are clear:

Combat deaths: U.S. military fatalities from hostile acts have risen from an average of about 17 per month just after President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003, to an average of 82 per month.

WOUNDED: The average number of U.S. soldiers wounded by hostile acts per month has spiraled from 142 to 808 during the same period. Iraqi civilians have suffered even more deaths and injuries, although reliable statistics aren't available.

INSURGENT ATTACKS: Attacks on the U.S.-led coalition since November 2003, when statistics were first available, rose from 735 a month to 2,400 in October. Air Force Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, deputy operations director of the multinational forces, said Friday that attacks were currently running at 75 a day, about 2,300 a month, well below a spike in November during the assault on Fallujah but nearly as high as October's total.

BOMBINGS: The average number of mass-casualty bombings has grown from zero in the first few months of the U.S.-led occupation to an average of 13 per month.

ELECTRICITY: Electricity production has been below prewar levels since October, largely because of sabotage by insurgents, with just 6.7 hours of power daily in Baghdad in early January, according to the State Department.

OIL: Iraq is pumping about 500,000 barrels of oil a day fewer than its prewar peak of 2.5 million barrels per day as a result of attacks, according to the State Department.

"All the trend lines we can identify are all in the wrong direction," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, a Washington policy research organization. "We are not winning, and the security trend lines could almost lead you to believe that we are losing."

The combat numbers are based mainly on Defense Department releases compiled by O'Hanlon. Since the numbers can fluctuate significantly from month to month, Knight Ridder examined the statistics for fatalities, injuries, and mass-casualty bombings using a technique mathematicians call a moving average -- averaging the number of attacks in one month with the number of attacks in the two months immediately preceding it in order to better reveal the underlying trend.

Lessel said that since the U.S. assault on the former rebel stronghold of Fallujah in November, "we have been making a lot of progress" against the insurgency.

He said the number of attacks, bombings and kidnappings is down from November, experienced insurgent leaders are being arrested or killed and U.S. and Iraqi forces remain on the offensive.

He also pointed to surveys that show 80 percent of Iraqis wanting to vote in the Jan. 30 elections and more than 90 percent opposing violence as a solution to the crisis. In addition, the recruitment and training of Iraqi security forces are being stepped up, Lessel said.

"I don't want to paint too rosy a picture. We still have an insurgency that has a lot of capabilities," he said. "When you ask is the insurgency growing, you have to ask is it growing in terms of popular support, and I don't see that happening."

There are some additional bright spots.

Millions of dollars are pouring into reconstruction efforts in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad and the southern town of Najaf, the scene of intense fighting last year with Shi'ite rebels. Both places are now relatively peaceful, and the danger of a spreading insurgency backed by Iraq's Shi'ite majority has been largely thwarted.

About 14 million Iraqis, mostly Shi'ites, are registered to vote in the elections for an interim 275-seat National Assembly.

About 1,500 U.S.-funded reconstruction projects are employing more than 100,000 Iraqis, and the insurgents' campaign of attacks and threats has failed to deter sign-ups for Iraq's new security forces.

Despite these developments, however, the insurgency is getting larger. Through all the major turning points that raised hopes of peace in Iraq, from the capture of Saddam Hussein to the handover of sovereignty seven months ago, the country's insurgency has become deadlier and more effective.

Insurgency grows larger, smarter

At the close of 2003, U.S. commanders put the number of insurgents at 5,000. Earlier this month, Gen. Mohammed Abdullah Shahwani, the director of the Iraqi intelligence service, said there are 200,000 insurgents, including at least 40,000 hard-core fighters. The rest, he said, are part-time fighters and supporters who provide food, shelter, money and intelligence.

"Many Iraqis respect these gunmen because they are fighting the invaders," said Nabil Mohammed, a Baghdad University political science professor.

The resistance has grown despite suffering huge casualties to overwhelming U.S. firepower. Exact statistics aren't available.

The insurgents "are getting smarter all the time. We've seen a lot of changes in their tactics that say, one, they're getting help from outside, and two, they're learning," said Sgt. 1st Class Glenn Aldrich, 35, of Houston, a 16-year Army veteran, after spending an hour recently greeting Iraqis on a foot patrol through a Baghdad neighborhood.

Insurgent attacks have shifted from small groups of men shooting at tanks with AK47s to powerful car bombs and roadside explosives and well-planned assaults, kidnappings and assassinations.

U.S. soldiers have subdued Sunni hotbeds such as Fallujah and Samarra. Yet these military victories have failed to achieve the broader goal of weakening the resistance.

Hopes come with dire warnings

The Bush administration hopes to replace the 150,000 U.S. troops with well-trained Iraqis. And Bush administration officials say the program to train and equip new Iraqi security forces of more than 272,000 members is making progress.

Yet several independent experts said it would take at least two years before there are any meaningful numbers of Iraqi forces with counterinsurgency skills and as many as five years before the U.S. goal is attained.

"I think you can achieve success, but it will take a while and, unfortunately, there will be a lot more blood," said Peter Khalil, who was a senior security adviser to the U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq.

U.S. military officials have repeatedly and accurately predicted more violence in the approach to the elections, which are likely to bring to power a Shi'ite-dominated government after nearly a century of Sunni rule in Iraq.

Hopes that the elections might lessen the violence recently have given way to more dire warnings, with expectations that Sunni insurgents who feel disenfranchised in the new Iraq will turn their guns on the elected government.

"I think that we will enter a different but still dangerous period in the postelection time frame," Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, said on Jan. 15.

Bush has promised to stay the course.

Contact TOM LASSETER at

tlasseter@krwashington.com and

JONATHAN S. LANDAY at jlanday

@krwashington.com. Ken Dilanian of the Philadelphia Inquirer contributed to this report.

[RoninLB]

Listening to all these commentor talking heads is a joke. They cater to their listeners and they sell more ad time. Politicians are just as bad, although you can't blame them. I haven't figured out why $ deficit states haven't figured an OTB on day to day war events. I bet it could generate bigger $ than the track. If I'm all wrong about the previous then they are all stupid, but I doubt it.

The easy part is being able to predict what Condi will be doing post election in view of the Pres trashing cold war realpolitic last week. This strategic remaping could affect the next 25yrs, at least. The cold war was always dynamitic so it'll probably be just as dynamitic now. The tech $ infusion will be noticable, but not great. I figure a lot of trick innovation. Pinpointing a sniper and feeding the bytes into al 50cal may be happening soon I figure in view of current events..

and about the killed and wounded. it's no secret that a war machine isn't geared to deal with terrorists or insurgents. What works is small teams as in Afag. Some of those contractors go into Africia for some bucks and R&R. There is a demand for poacher and rebel clean out men. Using motars makes for less stress and good bucks.. whatever.