07-11-2003 06:52									#31
	Put an end to popups!

MTG, Slowwy:

CHANGE YOUR AVATARS DAMMIT!!!! You two are confusing me to no end

	07-11-2003 06:58									#32
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Now would you like to hear something else irresponsible? Rumsfield announced that in the next few months the US is going to cut back it's forces in Iraq by 25%. Why would the US want to decrease the number of soldiers in Iraq so dramatically when by every report lawlessness and insecurity are the rule of the day? Why because the White House is worrying about next year's election and so they are afraid the constant bad news and body bags might dampen Bush Jr's reelection chances. It is totally unexceptable, in my mind, that Bush can talk out of one side of his mouth about staying the course and increasing security while ordering large scale cut backs which directly controdict what he's say.

It's Bushies' "fuzzy math" - less bodies will mean less body bags. Right?

	07-11-2003 07:17									#33
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It would be possible to reduce the overall number of American soldiers in Iraq while still maintaining the same level or increasing it in the main area of resistance (Sunni Triangle), wouldn't it? I don't know if that's what Rummy has in mind, but I can certainly see how troop reductions in the relatively peaceful north and south of Iraq could be considered.

	07-11-2003 07:22									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Drake: Since cross border terrorism is suspected in a fairl number of cases wouldn't it be prudent to ramp up man power so as to seal the border (as well as can be done any way)?

	07-11-2003 07:31									#35
	Inflate your Upload Space

Well, I question whether the borders could be closed off at all, even if we drastically ramped up manpower. Besides, we know the ****ers are all going to the Sunni Triangle anyway, so why don't we just concentrate some more forces in there and hunt the bastards down? I really like MtG's idea about pacifying the area town by town with a large force. It's time to go on the offensive, as well as can be managed.

	07-11-2003 08:35									#36
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Right now they are because with so many soldiers every where they can onlt opporat in areas where the civilian population will protect them. If there aren't soldiers in the other parts of Iraq then what is to stop them from carrying out terror attacks in those parts? I do agree that the borders cannot be 100% sealed but additional man power would make life much harder for those people who want to commit cross border acts of terrorism.

	07-11-2003 11:32									#37
	Remove this text

1) I do not understand Clark's call for interrim elections to elect a new council both to draft a constitution and to begin assuming security responsibilities. The UNSC has already issued a resolution that requires the Iraqi council to submit a draft constitution and a timetable for elections by Dec. 15. I think the ink will hardly be dry on Clark's plan before it is obsolete.

The current council is already recognized as Iraq's government. Why is he so eager to replace it? This does not make sense.

2) Another major problem I see with Clark's plan is that he wants to turn the spending of America's 20 billion of reconstruction aid over to one of the "jilted" allies.

Over my dead body. This is a travesty beyond measure. What in the world does he intend accomplish by such a stunt?

3) As I said before, we need to turn this over to the Iraqi's themselves ASAP. Thus I somewhat support the idea that Clark proposes concerning getting the Iraqi's more involved. Perhaps the council should appoint a CINC for Iraqi forces, to serve at their pleasure. Until we withdraw, of course, that commander would have to coordinate/take orders from US command. However, we should not be able to replace him without the consent of the council.

4) I also support the idea that the council should pay for the new Iraqi security forces out of oil revenues or other taxation. That would give the council additional control over the new army.

5) I oppose making any more concessions to our "allies" in order to get them to send troops. We instead should carry the burden ourselves while replacing our units with newly trained Iraqi units. They seem highly motivated to cut Saddam's throat. The chickenshit allies have proven themselves at Sebrencia as being totally incompetent from a command point-of-view.

	07-11-2003 13:17									#38
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I'm not impressed with Clark's proposals. They rely entirely on a diplomatic position that he has no idea whether he can even begin to pull off, for one thing. This is the sort of "plan" that one puts together in a committee with one's political advisors.

	07-11-2003 14:12									#39
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand You, on the other hand, have said we need to stay until it's cleaned up; but no matter what happens, it's Bush's fault. That's utter craola.

Well, BUSH decided to invade.

BUSH handed us a line of **** about Iraqis being able to launch WMD's 45 minutes from order, and an even more absurd line of **** about Iraqis having the capability to launch UAV's from ships of the US coast, and have those UAV's fly "hundreds of miles into US cities" spraying WMD's.

BUSH ran his mouth about turning Iraq into a "beacon of hope" for the people of the ME, and an "example of democracy or some such self-serving horseshit.

BUSH is in theory in charge of his subordinates. Remember that bit about "the buck stops here" - it's called command responsibility.

So yeah, BUSH has ultimate responsibility, just like chicken-choker Clinton had ultimate responsibility for the ****up in Somalia, etc. etc. If BUSH can't handle ultimate responsibility for his policy choices, then maybe the Lima Delta shouldn't be President of the United States.

quote: I tell you what, any respect I had for the Iraqi people is dying fast.

I'm sure they're both heartbroken at this prospect, and many of them would like to invite you not to **** around with their country.

quote: Sonsof*****es need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and change their soiled panties.

You mean like the ones that are killing our troops to get us out of their country, so they can try to reestablish themselves in power? Yeah, we need lots more of those.

	07-11-2003 14:19									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ned The current council is already recognized as Iraq's government. Why is he so eager to replace it? This does not make sense.

The current counsil was appointed by the CPA, and "recognized" after the fact, in a limited way, by the UN as the "representative" of Iraq, even though it has no sovereign authority whatsoever.

quote: 2) Another major problem I see with Clark's plan is that he wants to turn the spending of America's 20 billion of reconstruction aid over to one of the "jilted" allies. Over my dead body. This is a travesty beyond measure. What in the world does he intend accomplish by such a stunt?

Damn straight, we knocked over that country and set up a puppet council with no more authority than what we grant, and then we deficit spend to have some good corporate pork to give away. Iraq is our territory, we run it, and we intend for our corporate sponsors to get you taxpayer's money worth for your soldier's trouble. If other countries want to give corporate pork to their companies, let them invade their own third world countries full of oil!

	07-11-2003 14:22									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Well, I question whether the borders could be closed off at all, even if we drastically ramped up manpower. Besides, we know the ****ers are all going to the Sunni Triangle anyway, so why don't we just concentrate some more forces in there and hunt the bastards down? I really like MtG's idea about pacifying the area town by town with a large force. It's time to go on the offensive, as well as can be managed.

We can't prevent every tribal goatherder from wandering 500 meters over the border, but we can use UAV's and other technology to drastically reduce the chances of any large scale movements getting through. What's happening now is that large portions of the border, as well as lots of those munitions dumps, are just sitting there unguarded.

	07-11-2003 15:05									#42
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Osama wants Bush to win.

The Iraqi people would rather Clark won.

Bush's plan means more war and destruction. For those advocating "ramping up the offensive", it also means ramping up the oppression. Surely you folks have noticed the harder any nation has tried to clamp dwon on revolt, the more popular the resistance became?

There is no way most NATO troops will do anything for Bush, and the feeling is mutual. If Bush wins, Osama's enemy will continue to remain alone and isolated in Iraq. Have you not figured out why the Red Cross and UN are under attack? Is it because the resistors are evil? Perhaps, but that doesn't make them dumb. When turkey says it will not send troops, Osama is happy, when India and France will not send troops, Osama gets a stiffy. What Osama wants is Bush's go at it alone appraoch, that way he can pitch a battle between the Americans and Jihadists, with no pesky peacekeepers in the way.

It is my firm belief the "officers" of the rising resistance will be jihadists, but it will soon, within a year or so, get popular, if Bush remains in office. Also note, Turkey has announced they will not send troops in, and Bush has consequently announced he plans to rotate troops in. Greens for veterans. This is where Osama starts moaning with pleasure. Now it will be veteran geurilla fighters vs. green Americans. Oh, his glee.... ughhh....oooohhh... ahhh.. ahhh.. allah allah allah!

If Bush is re-elected, it's gonna get real messy. even if a Democrat gets eleted, it will still be incredibly hostile, even if clark gets elected, his plan has a couple of loopholes.

1) Iraqi Army
Their loyalty will hardly be tenacious for the US. Chances of units betraying is small, but not impossible. But chances of them fighting effectively against fellow countrymen? iffy. They would fight as hard for their current employer as their previous employer.

2) sealed borders
New Mexico, California, Arizona
need I say more?

	07-11-2003 18:02									#43
	Put an end to popups!

quote: I tell you what, any respect I had for the Iraqi people is dying fast.

why, because they're acting like stupidly patriotic/nationalistic people for the wrong country?
it's a shame that the rest of the world doesn't think like a red-blooded conservative american, isn't it?

quote: Sonsof*****es need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and change their soiled panties.

hard to do that when you have an occupying army that's become unpopular.
we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps with no occupying army. germany, japan, and korea did so with an american army they liked. iraq? they don't much like us. we still need to win their hearts and minds.

	07-11-2003 20:21									#44
	Remove this text

quote: We can't prevent every tribal goatherder from wandering 500 meters over the border, but we can use UAV's and other technology to drastically reduce the chances of any large scale movements getting through.

Agreed. Don't see how an increase in manpower would help in this mission, though.

quote: What's happening now is that large portions of the border, as well as lots of those munitions dumps, are just sitting there unguarded.

I'm all for destroying those munitions dumps. Should've been done a long time ago.

quote: If BUSH can't handle ultimate responsibility for his policy choices, then maybe the Lima Delta shouldn't be President of the United States.

****. I thought I knew what "Lima Delta" meant...

	07-11-2003 23:29									#45
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: We can't prevent every tribal goatherder from wandering 500 meters over the border, but we can use UAV's and other technology to drastically reduce the chances of any large scale movements getting through. Agreed. Don't see how an increase in manpower would help in this mission, though.

You need to have sufficient manpower available to have rapid reaction air assault capability to nail these people when the UAV's etc. find them. We lack adequate density in the hostile areas, that's why a lot of these issues are being ignored or dragging on forever. Shinseki was right, and the chickenhawks were wrong, but they'll never admit it.

quote: quote: If BUSH can't handle ultimate responsibility for his policy choices, then maybe the Lima Delta shouldn't be President of the United States. ****. I thought I knew what "Lima Delta" meant...

Limp Cheney

	08-11-2003 14:06									#46
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Damn, that's so obvious...

I thought it meant "Liberal Democrat" for the longest time.



I guess I was pretty close to the real meaning after all.

	08-11-2003 15:45									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Wes Clark seems to be well intentioned, however one definite flaw in his plan (that I know of), is any cooperation by other Arab states. Given that these states are totalitarian, there intrusion into an attempt at creating a democratic society would in no way be of any assistance.
As to asking other Western countries for assistance, I think it would be the right thing to do, but it's not going to happen, at least with the present European governments in power: France and Russia want their oil contracts with Saddam honored by the new government that would be in power in the future, while the USA wants its companies to drill oil there instead. Personally, I would prefer Pax Americana to be strengthened then any of the European powers gaining strength from an agreement, as the European powers are relatively ( I said relatively here, people) friendly towards the ME dictatorships, as opposed to the USA. The exceptions of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the mini-countries like UAE do exist, but the USA is pushing away from the former-most mentioned country, at least, which is the worst of the lot.

	09-11-2003 07:55									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Zevico Wes Clark seems to be well intentioned, however one definite flaw in his plan (that I know of), is any cooperation by other Arab states. Given that these states are totalitarian, there intrusion into an attempt at creating a democratic society would in no way be of any assistance. As to asking other Western countries for assistance, I think it would be the right thing to do, but it's not going to happen, at least with the present European governments in power: France and Russia want their oil contracts with Saddam honored by the new government that would be in power in the future, while the USA wants its companies to drill oil there instead. Personally, I would prefer Pax Americana to be strengthened then any of the European powers gaining strength from an agreement, as the European powers are relatively ( I said relatively here, people) friendly towards the ME dictatorships, as opposed to the USA. The exceptions of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the mini-countries like UAE do exist, but the USA is pushing away from the former-most mentioned country, at least, which is the worst of the lot.

It is much more likely we get help if it is anyone but Bush in office.

And relatively, the Eu countries are on par with their friendliness with ME countries. even though to get to brass tack comparisons, one would have to take each individual country's relations into account.

Kuwait is still not a democracy, and it is occupied mostly by American forces, and no other arab nation's forces.

	09-11-2003 11:40									#49
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by NeOmega 1) Iraqi Army Their loyalty will hardly be tenacious for the US. Chances of units betraying is small, but not impossible. But chances of them fighting effectively against fellow countrymen? iffy. They would fight as hard for their current employer as their previous employer.

To be fair to Clark, I think his plan is to give the new Iraqi government real power so that the Iraqi troops will be fighting, not for the US, but for their country. I think such troops will be motivated the most to win against Saddam. I would have no confidence that French or German troops will be motivated more to fight this war harder than the Iraqi's themselves would be motivated to fight if the Iraqi's knew that losing would mean Saddam would be back in power.

	09-11-2003 11:43									#50
	Inflate your Upload Space

MtG, why don't we have a poll to see how many Americans would be in favor of having a Chirac-appointed bureaucrat in charge of spending America's $20 billion reconstruction aid?

	09-11-2003 11:54									#51
	Tired of ads?

We didn't exactly poll the Iraqis to see how they'd like footing the bill for half of that corporate welfare splurge.

	09-11-2003 12:07									#52
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ramo We didn't exactly poll the Iraqis to see how they'd like footing the bill for half of that corporate welfare splurge.

Ramo, what are you talking about. AFAIK, the US is financing most of the reconstruction out of its own pocket. We have not asked the Iraqi's to pay anything back to date.

	09-11-2003 12:08									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

$10 billion of the $20 billion is in the form of a loan to the future Iraqi gov't.

	09-11-2003 12:14									#54
	Tired of ads?

Saturday, November 8, 2003

Talk of a draft grows despite denials by White House

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON -- The United States' uneven record in Iraq has kindled a small but persistent push to reinstitute the military draft, a politically charged idea that hasn't been seriously considered since the end of the Vietnam War.

Yet despite denials from the White House that a draft is under consideration, and despite the obvious political fallout of such a move during an election campaign, talk of a draft has heated up in recent days.

Asked this week if the president is considering reinstituting the draft, press secretary Scott McClellan gave a quick and emphatic answer. "No," he said, moving to the next question.

But military observers and some members of Congress say that the notion of a possible military draft is gaining traction, in part because of questions from Democrats in Congress about the conduct of the Iraqi reconstruction, from retired military officers who are worried that the force is too small to accomplish such a big and difficult job -- and because of the administration itself.

The Defense Department fueled the debate this week when it placed a notice on its Web site asking for "men and women in the community who might be willing to serve as members of a local draft board."

The notice, which appeared on an official Web page for the Selective Service System titled "Defend America," explained: "If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a claim, receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on Federal guidelines. Positions are available in many communities across the Nation."

The Pentagon wouldn't comment on the notice, and by yesterday it had been pulled from the Web site without explanation.

Federal officials, falling in line behind President Bush and his official position, say there are no specific plans to bring back the draft but it's only prudent to have the plans and some of the people in place if it becomes necessary.

Despite those explanations, the public notice by the Pentagon marked the first formal request to re-establish draft boards since the draft was abolished in 1973.


Whether or not a draft is reinstated, debate about troop strength and the commitment to Iraq will continue. The United States has more than 130,000 soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, a deployment that has virtually drained the Army of its troops. One division remains in the United States.

Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officials have consistently said that the military is not stretched too thin and that there are enough soldiers to meet all responsibilities both domestically and overseas.

The Pentagon sought to underscore that point Thursday by announcing that it will send 85,000 new Army and Marine combat troops to Iraq to replace soldiers ending one-year tours. The Pentagon also alerted 43,000 National Guard and Reserve support troops that they may be sent to Iraq as well.

Taken together, those decisions constitute the largest rotation of U.S. troops since World War II.

In an added twist, the Army announced that soldiers in every unit designated for deployment to Iraq next year -- whether active duty or reserve -- will be prohibited from leaving the service during a period beginning 90 days before their departure to 90 days after they return.

Ironically, if the White House and Pentagon decide to reinstitute the draft they will earn support from some senior Democrats. Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina and Rep. Charles Rangel of New York have both said that the country should bring back the draft.

Without a draft, they say, the current force will be overly dependent on National Guard and reserves. That fact, coupled with the yearlong tours required of Reserve forces, has sustained demands that a draft be considered.

Rangel and Hollings each sponsored legislation that would re-institute the draft. The identical bills call for mandatory national service in either the military or some other national service of all men and women between the ages of 18 and 26.

Rangel argues that poor and less-educated Americans suffer a disproportionate number of deaths and injuries in an all-volunteer force.

"In Iraq, minorities represented a disproportionate 32 percent of the deaths among combat-related specialties and 40 percent of those among the non-combat ranks," Rangel said.

"I do deplore the fact that Americans and Americans-to-be of their socioeconomic positions make up the overwhelming majority of our nation's armed forces, and that, by and large, those of wealth and position are absent from the ranks of ground troops," he said.

"The point is that, under a draft, every economic group, every social class, men and women, would be given the opportunity to contribute to the defense of their country," he said.

While some -- even many -- members of Congress privately accept Rangel's logic, no one expects Congress to publicly embrace the draft.

Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., who is one of the authorities on the military in Congress, opposes bringing back the draft, said his chief of staff, George Behan.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/natio...83_draft08.html

	09-11-2003 12:14									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ned MtG, why don't we have a poll to see how many Americans would be in favor of having a Chirac-appointed bureaucrat in charge of spending America's $20 billion reconstruction aid?

We don't poll Americans on other spending matters, why should we on this one?

The facts are that the US action has little foreign credibility and little foreign endorsement precisely because we're treating it like a colonial venture. Bush can talk "freedom" and "human rights" and "WMD" and "terrorism" and his actions are "contracts issued by Americans" "contracts issued to American or American favored companies" "CPA appointed IPC" "CPA subordinate to CentCom" "Americans will determine when and under what conditions Iraqis will be allowed sovereign status" "Americans insist on Iraqi 'exemption' from OPEC production quotas" (i.e. "Americans able to manipulate global supply of light and intermediate crude.")

As long as there's this huge disconnect between Bush's talk and the administrations actions, most of the rest of the world just writes Bush's rhetoric off as so much self-serving bullshit.

	09-11-2003 12:15									#56
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ramo $10 billion of the $20 billion is in the form of a loan to the future Iraqi gov't.

Ramo, that got deleted in the House/Senate conference. The bill as enacted is a pure grant. No loan is involved.

	09-11-2003 12:16									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ramo $10 billion of the $20 billion is in the form of a loan to the future Iraqi gov't.

There are no loans in the spending bill that passed. But in the end all the money ends up back in the hands of the Bechtels and Halliburtons.

Highly qualified Hallibutron has figured out a way to buy gasoline at 2.65 a gallon from kuwait and sell it at 15 cents a gallon to the Iraqis, allthough it is scarce. They most certainly must know what they are doing. I guess the gas is travelling via limosuine.

	09-11-2003 12:17									#58
	Put an end to popups!

So one Senator and one Representative, and some innuendo about "some" would "privately" support such a bill?

	09-11-2003 12:17									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned Ramo, that got deleted in the House/Senate conference. The bill as enacted is a pure grant. No loan is involved.

Yep.

	09-11-2003 12:20									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

dp