- "We haven't turned any corners, we haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator. And the progress, while real, is fragile and is reversible."-Petraeus
- “massive strategic blunder” and “I’m not suggesting that we yank all our troops out all the way, I’m trying to get to an endpoint,” -Obama
- "the height of irresponsibility" (to withdraw US troops prematurely, as his Democratic rivals propose.) -McCain
- "It is time to begin an orderly withdrawal of our troops," -Hillary
it's Iran stupid...ReplyDelete
notice Hezbollah was directly mentioned
summer is coming as is war...
get your pig fat ready...
get the ammo oiled and ready to send the jihadists to hell
Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.ReplyDelete
We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.
Wikileaks opens leaked documents up to stronger scrutiny than any media organization or intelligence agency can provide. Wikileaks provides a forum for the entire global community to relentlessly examine any document for its credibility, plausibility, veracity and validity. Communities can interpret leaked documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document comes from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community and diaspora can freely scrutinize and discuss it; if a document arrives from Iran, the entire Farsi community can analyze it and put it in context. Sample analyses are available here.
In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.
We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep their government honest, but also the people of other countries who are watching that government. That is why the time has come for an anonymous global avenue for disseminating documents the public should see.
Once again the Iranian boogieman is presented once again ...ReplyDelete
Summer is coming, again ...
The Iranian Army will not be driving into Iraq. No, Iraqi may rise up against a US occupation and its' proxy Iraqi government, but no Iranian tanks or aircraft will be involved.
Iranian proxies could cause a dustup for Israel, but that is of little concern to the US. If the US was concerned about threats to Israel, the Syrian Army's offensive capacity would have been destroyed, in 2003 & 2004.
That is was not, speaks volumes.
HB can fight a defensive battle. in :ebanon, but cannot defeat the Israeli, in Israel.
There won't be a war.
Could be a battle, though.
Bernard Goldberg on one of the talk shows made an interesting observation this morning. He asked if Bill Clinton had started the Iraq war and did it for the purpose of nation building, how many Republicans would support it?ReplyDelete
Desert Rat: If the US was concerned about threats to Israel, the Syrian Army's offensive capacity would have been destroyed, in 2003 & 2004.ReplyDelete
And the US will be much less concerned about threats to Israel after this election. Obama said, ""Israel government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart". That's code for speaking softly and dropping the big stick.
Very, very few.ReplyDelete
If as habu posted in the last tread, that the threatening WMD were transfered from Iraq to other terrorist sponsoring States, in 2002 & 2003, then GWBush is guilty of dereliction of duty.
Falling short of his self-described responsibilities.
Indicating that "Nation Building" on a scale never before attempted, on an undefeated society, was always the "rea; plan".
That Team43 failed so grandly, not worthy of discussion inside the MSM approved "conservative" lines.
2164th: He asked if Bill Clinton had started the Iraq war and did it for the purpose of nation building, how many Republicans would support it?ReplyDelete
We know that answer already. Milosumbitch was just as nasty as Saddam.
Cruel Democrat-run city to kick homeless man out of tree house.ReplyDelete
"So while War was authorized, for a variety of reasons the US stopped before the war was over."ReplyDelete
The war was over, in a manner of speaking, as soon as the admin switched terminology, from "terrorist" to "insurgent." This took place first in Iraq, then migrated to Afghanistan - where the old terminology had persisted and where use of the latter term was met with scorn.
But this was a change within existing theaters; they were never going to be expanded in the way many, fearfully or hopefully, anticipated.
OEF/OIF was a one-off, just like the man said. Ancillary challenges were going to met by other means.
Seems to have been the case, trish. The rhetoric was one one of a finality to the battle. The terrorist sponsors would be dealt with, the terrorist organizations were posted on Government lists.ReplyDelete
Actions to be taken in both a reactive and preemptive defense posture.
So when it became evident that the US was not going to pursue the State sponsors of terrorist organizations, but attempt to redesign Irai society, without using any propaganda tools. The uproar over paying Iraqi newspapers for placement of US stories, a historicly common practice in many markets.
As the "battle plan" became more clear, my oppossiton to the current course escalated.
A defined learning curve was evident in the positions I advocated, once it became evident that Victory, in the War on Terror, was not on Mr Bush's list of options.
DR: A defined learning curve was evident in the positions I advocated, once it became evident that Victory, in the War on Terror, was not on Mr Bush's list of options.ReplyDelete
That's why the Observanda Blog has been calling this a RINO blog for weeks and munts.
"As the "battle plan" became more clear, my oppossiton to the current course escalated."ReplyDelete
You and doubtless millions of others.
Looking at it from another direction: After the Good War, the US public was never keen on reconstruction and nation-building in Germany; the soldiers who undertook it even less so. (I have a 1948 copy of The Army Wife - thanks, Dad - that makes this very clear.) Stability and security operations, occupation, civil reconstruction - we don't get jazzed about these activities. They are inherently, enduringly unpopular. That they've never been undertaken successfully in the absence of the cooperation of neighboring states, never
mind in the midst of spontaneous, self-sustaining rebellion...well, we bought the worst of all worlds, didn't we?
It'll be awhile before we endeavor again to take like ownership of another people and place. And problem. But probably ONLY awhile. Give it six years, at least.
"The problem I have is if the definition of success is so high - no traces of al-Qaeda and no possibility of reconstitution, a highly effective Iraqi government, a Democratic multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian functioning democracy, no Iranian influence, at least not of the kind that we don't like - then that portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years.ReplyDelete
If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence... that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe."
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Cutler: If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence... that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe."ReplyDelete
That's too warmongerish for me. I don't have any criteria for the state of Iraq at all. It can go to hell for all I care. No democracy? Who cares. Islamoid theocracy? Good. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. If Israel wants to live in that neighborhood they better learn to fight their own scraps. Let's pay for our oil just like China and Europe does, without multi-trillion dollar surges and bodybags.
I take it, aenea, that you do not hold any particular point of view. On anything.ReplyDelete
Nice avatar, though.
Hillary Make Comeback In Pennslyvania PollsReplyDelete
Daughter put me on Mozilla Foxfire and it's all screwed up. Took me an hour to do this. My Favorites are gone:(
aenea wants to bring back the Taliban.
Click on Bookmarks, Organize bookmarks, Then File, Import then check Microsoft Internet Explorer.
"That's too warmongerish for me. I don't have any criteria for the state of Iraq at all. It can go to hell for all I care. No democracy? Who cares. Islamoid theocracy? Good. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. If Israel wants to live in that neighborhood they better learn to fight their own scraps. Let's pay for our oil just like China and Europe does, without multi-trillion dollar surges and bodybags."ReplyDelete
I posted it less for the content than the origin of it.
Impishly hoping somebody would be curious enough to look.ReplyDelete
Bobal: aenea wants to bring back the Taliban.ReplyDelete
No, I want to bring back the Army. It's supposed the be the Department of Defense, not the Department of Occupation, or the Department of Nationbuilding.