Open Post

American Incompetence in Iraq, Chapter 879

http://w3t.org/u/rhh

Excerpt:

The story of Basra's descent traces the arc of the war itself. People here, mostly Shiites whom Saddam Hussein oppressed, embraced the invasion. But for the next three years, Baghdad put its resources into fighting insurgents in central and western Iraq, leaving the quiet Shiite south to find its own way.

But the rules have fallen away along with the end of Mr. Hussein's rule, leaving a broken landscape of empty state institutions.

"So much of the state melted after Saddam fell," an American official said. A primordial soup of political parties, their militias and tribes filled the void. They formed morals patrols at the university, commanded entire units of the flimsy police force, and moved into positions of power in the company that controls the vast oil-processing and transportation network.

Now, with provincial elections still many months away, a bloody power grab has ensued. It is a battle being waged from inside Basra's institutions and will be particularly difficult for the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to stop. Indeed, three days after he vowed to crack down with an "iron fist" and imposed a state of emergency, a bomb killed 27 in a market here.

Maybe the Liar-in-Chief and the bumbling fools who surround His Idiocy should have planned for how to govern Iraq after the invasion? Nah. Planning's for limp-wristed sissies. We do things on gut feel.

Ex-Detainees Detail Gitmo Suffering

http://w3t.org/u/rhi

Excerpt:

There are no scenes of attempted suicides in the movie, but the British friends said they saw several at the camp.

''A Saudi detainee in the cell in front of us had had enough,'' said Ahmed. ''We could hear him rip up his sheets and tie it to the wire mesh roof of the cell. He jumped off his sink and tried to hang himself. We shouted to the military police and they came and saved him.''

The men said they suffered beatings, saw guards throw Qurans in the toilet, were forced to watch videotapes of prisoners who had allegedly been ordered to sodomize each other and were chained to a hook in the floor while strobe lights flashed and heavy metal music blared.

In "milblogland," they are lying. In "milblogland," anyone who accuses the U.S. of anything is lying. And even if they weren't lying, they deserved it. Or as Greyhawk might put it, they provoked it. The Liar-in-Chief is god, and no torture is too much for these animals.

82d Airborne Personnel Detail U.S. Torture

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0905/

They must hate America.

U.S. Torture Reported By Faux News

(It must be true, right, children?)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147957,00.html

The death of the prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi (search), became known last year when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. The U.S. military said back then that it had been ruled a homicide. But the exact circumstances of the death were not disclosed at the time.

The prisoner died in a position known as "Palestinian hanging," the documents reviewed by The AP show. It is unclear whether that position — which human rights groups condemn as torture — was approved by the Bush administration for use in CIA interrogations. ...

Navy prosecutors in San Diego have charged nine SEALs and one sailor with abusing al-Jamadi and others. All but two lieutenants have received nonjudicial punishment; one lieutenant is scheduled for court-martial in March, the other is awaiting a hearing before the Navy's top SEAL.

Isn't it just great that the U.S. military imposes "non-judicial punishment" for torture and murder? But I'm sure the "milbloggers" just love it. After all, you think all Arabs should be tortured and murdered!

WW
Did you end up getting bedbugs at the Koz convention or what?

You know WW, I tried reasoning with you. The response I got was a personal attack, when you have no idea what my politics are.

All that's left is calling a spade a spade.
You brainwashed idiot. Get some mental help, to learn how to play nice with others.

Besides, if every one here is so f'ed up. There's no saving us. Just go away...

Stupid asshole.

OOOOOOOOHHHHH. Willy's gonna edumacate us. School's open. Let's all learn what the moonbats have in their heads. This ought to be more fun than slinging cowchips at the stupid kids.

Of course, that's what Willy thinks he's doing.

Can't wait for PE.

Subsunk

Greyhawk, somehow I f'd up and a chunk of my post got deleted before I published it--including the linkage to this post. Sorry about the initial trackback ping; if it comes through again (if!), the post has been fixed.

I wouldn't care about the t/b normally, but this one's kind of important to me.

http://bamapachyderm.com/archives/2006/06/13/army-ssg-david-bellavia-medal-of-honor-nominee/

You know WW, I tried reasoning with you. The response I got was a personal attack, when you have no idea what my politics are.

You've tried nothing. You're just one more deluded wingnut who can't stand it when someone doesn't sign onto his propaganda. You couldn't care less about the troops you claim to support. You hate this country and every single thing it ever stood for. You and your lying president have ruined the American standing in the world, and are taking us down to defeat in Iraq.

Congrats.

"You know WW, I tried reasoning with you. The response I got was a personal attack, when you have no idea what my politics are.

You've tried nothing. You're just one more deluded wingnut who can't stand it when someone doesn't sign onto his propaganda. You couldn't care less about the troops you claim to support. You hate this country and every single thing it ever stood for. You and your lying president have ruined the American standing in the world, and are taking us down to defeat in Iraq."

"Congrats."

Posted by WW at June 13, 2006 04:41 PM

WOW, great lesson, Willy. We're deluded. We hate our troops and our country. We made, even forced, mind you, everyone else in the world to hate us, AND we are headed to certain defeat in Iraq. Did I miss anything? The test will say Zarqawi Dead, Saddam on Trial for War Crimes, America Doomed, right?

Can't wait for the next history lesson! But bring on PE now.

Subsunk

Maybe it would be worthwhile to chip in for a fund for WW so he could have his own website, and post all he wants, rather than munching from the Greyhawks.

Well, Sherry, the so-called "milblogs" are the mirror image of the lefty blogs in that each side is dominated by Kool-Aid drinkers who can't brook opposition and can never, ever acknowledge error.

The result, really, is that the political Internet has quickly become the equivalent of talk radio. It's a manipulated fake forum that offers 99 parts heat to one part light.

During most of Mudville's existence, my postings have been banned here. From time to time, Greyhawk lifts his ban for reasons known only to him. He may well see it as comic relief, i.e., an opportunity to admit a critic for the purpose of reviving his readership and boosting his amen chorus's sense of espirit.

But there is no real debate here, just as there's none on FreeRepublic or Blackfive or Daily Kos or Democratic Underground. It's all about the megaphone, truth and fact be damned. Some are entertained, or at least their time is occupied, but no one is served.

I'll get tired of it and go away, and you'll have your fact-free forum back, undisturbed by realities. American military personnel will keep dying and suffering grave injury for nothing; Iraq will continue to sink into further chaos; your Liar-in-Chief may well make war on Iran next.

I've got no idea what the future will bring. I think it's obvious for all to see that the U.S. is getting ready to beat a face-saving retreat of some sort. If were lucky, the military will be able to retreat to the big new embassy in the Green Zone and the Halliburton bases being built throughout Iraq. If not, the U.S. will be chased out of the country altogether.

My view is that this is a 50/50 matter. We'll see. But one way or the other, the so-called "milblogs" will cling to their illusions, and the lefty blogs will cling to theirs. That we can count on.

U.S. Prepares Massacre for Ramadi

The only question is whether the U.S. will use white phosphorous munitions, banned by chemical weapons treaties that, like those outlawing torture, the Liar-in-Chief ignores at will.

http://w3t.org/u/rk6

Excerpt:

.S. and Iraqi forces had cordoned off the city by Saturday, residents and Iraqi officials said. Airstrikes on several residential areas picked up, and troops took to the streets with loudspeakers to warn civilians of a fierce impending attack, Ramadi police Capt. Tahseen Dulaimi said.

U.S. military officials refused to confirm or deny reports that a Ramadi offensive was underway.

Thousands of families remain trapped in the city, those who have fled say. Many can't afford to leave or lack transportation, whereas other families have decided to wait for their children to finish final examinations at school before escaping.

"The situation is catastrophic. No services, no electricity, no water," said Sheik Fassal Gaood, the former governor of Al Anbar province, whose capital is Ramadi. ...

The Iraqi Ministry of Displacement and Migration has tried repeatedly to send medical and food aid into Ramadi, but it has been thwarted by insurgent attacks, an official there said. In recent weeks, the government has managed to get only one shipment of aid into the city.

"If things continue, we will have a humanitarian crisis," Lahaibi said. "People are getting killed or wounded, and the rest are just migrating aimlessly."

[b]World Image of U.S. Continues to Collapse[/b]

http://w3t.org/u/rk7

Excerpt:

Favorable views of the United States dropped sharply over the past year in Spain, where only 23 percent now say they have a positive opinion, down from 41 percent in 2005, according to the survey, which was carried out in 15 nations this spring by the Pew Research Center.

In Britain, Washington's closest ally in the Iraq war, positive views of America fell to 56 percent this year, from 75 percent in 2002, before the war began.

Other countries where positive views dropped significantly include India (56 percent, down from 71 percent since 2005); Russia (43 percent, down from 52 percent); and Indonesia (30 percent, down from 38 percent). In Turkey, a NATO ally of the United States, only 12 percent said they held a favorable opinion, down from 23 percent last year. ...

Despite the toll taken by the Iraq war, Americans appeared to be paying less attention than others around the world to the controversies that the war has caused.

While 3 in 4 Americans said they had heard reports of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at the United States naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, substantially more West Europeans and Japanese — 9 in 10 — had heard about them. ...

In a phenomenon troubling to Mr. Bush and his Republican supporters, war worries and high gasoline prices appear to be weighing on Americans' satisfaction ratings, even as many economic indicators have risen. While half of Americans expressed satisfaction with conditions at home in 2003, only 29 percent did so this year.

Mission Accomplished: Chapter 4,718

http://w3t.org/u/rk8

Excerpt:

All of the attacks happened in a space of just over one hour as people headed for work, the local authorities said. By the time they were over the bombers had killed at least 25 people and wounded 46 more, said Dr. Mohammed Abdullah, a physician at the Kirkuk hospital. Dozens of people lined up at the hospital to donate blood to help those injured.

The first bomb missed its target, an Iraqi police patrol, shortly after 8 a.m. In the second attack, at 8:30 a.m., a suicide bomber tried to force his way into the home of a police colonel. The bomber killed one policeman and wounded 10 others, including the colonel, said Brig. Burhan Tayeb Taha, a Kirkuk commander.

The brigadier said the deadliest blast killed 18 Iraqi civilians in a crowded public market in Tiseen, a district of Kirkuk that is heavily populated by Turkmen Shiites. The attack in Tiseen - a car bombing at 8:45 had also targeted a police patrol, although only two of 19 injured in that attack were police officers, the brigadier said.

Ten minutes later, the fourth bombing killed four people, including two policemen. Then, two more bombs aimed at Iraqi police detonated at about 9:20 a.m., killing two civilians and wounding 10 others. Police also said they had killed another would-be bomber as he tried to detonate his car bomb.

Gee Willy, Sherry is right. Why don't you get your own blog? You just want to use someone else's money and high traffic to let everyone else see how stupid you are. That's not very polite.

Pay your own way, deadbeat. Post the articles on your own website.

Subsunk

Impolite, yes. A brain-dead drunk, no.

Willy,

Based on your writing we wouldn't be able to tell that, now would we?

Subsunk

I'm surprised none of you have said anything about the controversy all over the conservative blogosphere about "Hadji Girl".

Hot Air has it. Charles Johnson has two posts on it. The latest is here: "Mainstream Media Disgrace of the Month: Hadji Girl

Well, it's only a song and it's the sort of gallows humor that you can expect out of a war. I'm sure the other side has theirs, too. I wonder what Americans would think if they heard it. But hey, we're all way past the hearts 'n minds point by now. Screw that.

The singer looks like a marine, but hell anyone can get a goofy haircut and buy camos and a green t-shirt at the barber shop, so whether it was actually a marine remains to be seen. I'm sure the USMC will investigate this one over, oh, the next four months or so.

And in any case the lyrics must be a joke, because God knows a marine wouldn't so cowardly as to use an infant as a human shield. Nor would a marine ever slaughter one in cold blood. Nope, couldn't happen. So let's all have a laugh as the utter absurdity of the idea.

Oh, and like the Liar-in-Chief says, it's not a war against Islam or anything.

Hadji Girl

I was out in the sands of Iraq
And we were under attack
And I well I didn’t know where to go

Then the first thing that I could see
Was everybody’s favorite Burger King
So I threw open the door and I hit the floor

Then suddenly to my surprise
I looked up and I saw her eyes
And I knew it was love at first sight

And she said
Dirka dirka mohammed jihad
sherpa sherpa balagan

Hadji girl I can’t understand what you’re sayin
And she said
Dirka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Balagan

Hadji girl I love you anyway

Then she said she wanted me to see
She wanted me to go meet her family
But I, well I couldn’t figure out how to say no
‘Cause I don’t speak Arabic

So she took me down an old dirt trail
And she pulled up to a side shanty
She threw open the door and I hit the floor

‘Cause her brother and her father shouted
Dirka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Balagan

They pulled out their AK’s so I could see
And they said
Dirka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Balagan

So I grabbed her little sister and pulled her in front of me
As the bullets began to fly
Blood sprayed from between her eyes
And then I laughed maniacally

Then I hid behind the TV
And I locked and loaded my M-16
And I blew those little f****** to eternity

And I said
Dirka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Balagan
They should’ve known they were f***** with a marine

Yes, If we don't agree with WWs selfserving, politically motivated hyperbole we are all mindless idealogues. Or Drunks. I can't keep all his accusations straight anymore, I'm must have had too much Kool-Aide!

WW, I think it was Goebbles who said if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. How long will yours take?

Whoa, Willy! What America hating, GW loving Rovian plant are you to Ignore the obvious proof of another massacre immortalized in that song. Clearly you will forgive any transgression by the Military. Why do you hate America and everything she stands for!?!

/Sarcasm

WW-

You seem to be a fan of research.

Break out the Funk & Wagnalls and look up the word "satire".

Simply WW, nobody takes you seriously because you long ago discarded any attempt at rational discourse. You A Priori believe anything that advances your political opposition to Iraq, GWOT, and Pres. Bush, and discard everything else as a right-wing plot. You have dispensed even with the basic decorum of giving our soldiers the presumtion of inncocents if that spilt human blood gives you yet another chance to spout your defeatist catchphrases The War is Lost. Liar in Chief. Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. Wounded Veterans are thown to the Wolves...Etc.

Have you ever seen the movie Back Hawk Down? There is an excellent scene near the end of that movie where US soldiers have been inadvertantly left behind by the extraction convoy, and resort to running after the convoy, under fire, back to the soccer stadium under US control. As they run and shoot to cover their escape, a Somali tries to take position to shoot at the Soldiers. A US soldier has a shot, takes it, and kills the Somali. A woman, looking distraught, races toward the dead Somali, and the US soldier watches, saying "Don't pick it up" over and over. A moment later, we understand what the Soldier is talking about as the woman pulls up, not with her wounded loved one in her arms, but picks up the AK and takes aim at the US soldiers. The American shoots and kills her.

If we look at the aftermath of that moment in a vaccum: A Somali Woman shot by US forces, dead over the body of a Somlai Man, shot by US forces. There is only one weapon between the two. If no other information is provided, You seem inclined to believe the worst. That US forces killed a woman grieveing over her dead husband. What if another poor Somali picks us the AK in the aftermath? Surely its valuable in such a poor part of the world. Will you believe that American forces killed an unarmed Husband and Wife in the heat of battle? What if the man and the weapon are taken away? Will you then believe that US forces killed an unarmed women? How many more permutations are there that can be used to shame America from the same evidence?

I was once watching a documentary based around a movie, I think it was The Longest Day. As American forces breach the seawall at Utah beach and come up behind the German defenses, one man is wounded. Another soldier drags his wounded friend against a pillbox and tries to stop the bleeding. At that moment, a German soldier, hands in the air, runs out of the pillbox behind the two Americans crying "Bitte, Bitte" "Please, Please!" I think, in English. The unwounded American, turns around in shock and sprays the German with his Thompson, killing him. His wounded buddy asks what Bitte means, and the unwounded soldier replies that he has no idea. During the commentary after that scene, one Veteran from Utah said that scene was irresponsible. He never saw anyone shoot a surrendering German.

Afterwards, I realized that was the point. The soldier in that scene didn't know if the man behind him was surrendering or about to kill him and his wounded comrade. He had a moment to react, with hell all about him. Only in the omniscients of a safe theater-seat could we know for sure.

Was killing that surrendering soldier a war crime? In the strictist sense, absolutely. I, however, cannot damn a man for reacting in that way. I honestly don't know how any reasonable person could. And I honestly don't know how you might answer that question.

You seem to be overcome by your hatred of Bush and his policies. You seem to have made up your mind on the wisdom of the War in Iraq, a War you seem to believe is so immoral in its undertaking that it must be stopped. I can understand that, even if I don't agree with it. I don't know what action I would take if I believed my government was conducting so henious a crime.

But you seem to believe that it must be stopped at any cost, and any means to damn the War must be persued. Here is where you go astray, and let your oposition to Bush overcome your good sense. Even if you are right and the underatking of this war is immoral, it does not follow that the war is being prosecuted by immoral men and immoral means.

If you believe that, and it appears to me that you do, then we are left at an end where no rational discourse can occur. If you are not a part of the solution you are part of the problem.

The only olive branch I can extend to you is not to believe that the worst is upon us because it is politically expeident. Milblogs, for all your malignment, have story after story of Americans helping Iraqis, and Iraqis greatful for that help. Nor have any site I have see claim it impossible for Americans to have committed the work crimes they are accused of. As always, War is Hell and the worst things happen in hell. Remember only that we must exercise restraint when reviewing the evidence, becuase War is Hell, and the perfect choice is sometimes the enemy of the good.

Deamon, I don't know whether to laugh or cry when you quote movies at me. I think I'll laugh. You're not worth crying over.

subby, I understand it's a satire. Like I say, it's just a song. I wonder what you'll think of, oh, I don't know, that insurgent hit tune, Holy IAD when one of them puts it on-line sometime. But you know what I will say: It's just a song. Move on.

Oops, I mean SFC D. Yup, just a satire. Let's hope you keep your sense of humor when the worm turns. Oh, and when future American POWs are Gitmo-ized in some foreign hell-hole, I'll expect you to trot out the same list of excuses you and your wingnut whackjobs have invented for torture, American style.

WW, Your inablity to respond to genuine criticisms is final proof of your Intellectual Bankruptcy. You cannot persue a simple thought execrise, you prove yourself beyond reasoning, and unworthy of further attention.

yes, yes, I know that no one is taking Dub-Dub seriously but... not seeing the elephant gets so... Dub-Dub, darling... the worm turns? You mean like how our enemy follows the rules of war *now*? Send me to Gitmo, darling, because it's still better than treatment that can be expected anywhere else. The only thing worse than Gitmo in the anti-American mind is sending the poor fellows to any other country. The only thing louder than a human rights activists yowl at what goes on at Gitmo is the banshee scream they emit when we suggest sending any of our guests elsewhere. Because even *they* know that if you want to be a prisoner you're best off with being *our* prisoner.

The song, BTW, is awesome. And if the enemy has one like it (I sort of doubt they'd make as much fun of themselves as this one does of the clueless Marine... what did you think everyone was laughing at for the first three-quarters?) I wouldn't be offended. Being offended is for pussies.

Stop imagining that everyone is like you, Dub-Dub. It's not useful.

Deamon - Good to see you finally come around. I figured that out days ago about WW, when he assured me his only purpose here was not to engage in debate, but to "crack skulls".

By the way, I remember that scene in Blackhawk Down as well. Good analogy. That is exactly how the Enemy Media uses a situation and takes it completely out of context to smear the military.

The anti-military fools are doing the same thing with this song. A Muslim girl leads a Marine into an ambush by her father and brother, the father and brother kill the girl then her younger sister in cold blood while trying to kill the US Marine (who is in their country to liberate them from a dictator who sent Iraqi Army soldiers to houses to take people from their houses and put them in jail for dissenting from the Iraqi government). The Marine then kills the father and brother in self defense.

However the anti-military liberals would make this out to be the US Marine deliberately went into that house on a premeditated massacre of innocent civilians in cold blood.

The more they open their mouths the more they discredit themselves and expose themselves as anti-military. CAIR really did us all a favor by exposing this video so we could in turn expose the anti-military types.

I have yet to see a retraction from CAIR about the Palestinians killing their own innocent civilians on the beach and then blaming it on Israel. I have yet to hear CAIR condemn the Iraqi insurgent terrorists who took those children off the bus and murdered them in cold blood. No, what matters to CAIR is a song.

Tells me all I need to know about the agenda of CAIR. Not to mention, this song came out in March. Interesting they wait 3 months to be all up in arms about it, coinciding with the Haditha smear. Similar to the Cartoon Jihad.

Michael, can you link that this song has been knows for several months? I hadn't heard that before.

As for WW, I was a gracious as I could be, even after he attacked me personally. He really is just a simpleminded jackass, in every sense of the word.

Deamon - Matt at Blackfive mentioned to me, after I e-mailed him the lyrics, that he had been a fan of the video since March. I have seen it mentioned on Michelle Malkin as well. AllahPundit says that it was shot on March 2nd or 3rd. Maybe it had not been posted to YouTube until recently, I will have to track down that info.

I am pretty sure that the video was put up and then taken down and then put up again by another person. I don't think the video on YouTube now is the one that was posted originally, which would have had the date on which it was posted.

WW, you have exactly proven my point. Thanks.

1.) You have no idea if I am a 'wingnut' or anything else. All I've called you on is your childish tactics.

2.) I am one of the 'Troops I support. You're wrong again.

3.) If our standing in the world has been lowered, it is because of your defeatist propaganda.

4.) As the tin-foil hat wearing nutjob you make yourself out to be, your touchy-feely values ought to tell you that not every one here is of the same mind. We have formed our own opinions. Just as many of your fellow nutjobs probably don't support the tactics you use here.

Why not start your own blog? Oh yeah, you have to rely on stealing traffic from somebody else's site.

Report: $1.4 Billion Went to Fraudulent Aid for Katrina Victims

I KNEW THIS WAS GOING ON

You have to come to my site and see a post about a Flag Officers Conf on Iraq @ Ft. Carson, CO.

It's an amazing analysis about the situation in Iraq.

Regards

LJD, as for your politics I call 'em like I see 'em. I regard you as just one more wingnut, thumping the tub for the Liar-in-Chief every chance you get. You've given not a shred of evidence to the contrary.

As for your deployment status, anyone can make any claim they want to. But if you are in fact deployed, my stance toward you wouldn't change a whole hell of a lot given that, a) You're just another wingnut, and b) Three-quarters of the troops and their families voted for Bush.

Obviously, the "military community" is overwhlemingly in support of this imperial adventure. I think that's a real paradox, but life is full of paradoxes. In any case, it's one of the factors that attenuates my sympathy for them.

Unlike, say, the draftees of the Vietnam War who were shanghaied into it, you are volunteers. The longer this goes on and the more the force is comprised of people who have enlisted or reupped since '03 the less inclined I am to get all that teary-eyed about their fate.

I note the veterans issues, therefore, not so much because my heart bleeds for the wounded but because I genuinely find it surprising that your crew pays them so little notice or attention. Don't any of you ever, in mid-bleat about the 19 troops killed in Somalia at the beginning of Clinton's term, stop to think about the 2,500 so casually tossed away between '03 and now?

Look, the general public is more 'n happy to have them hidden away in the middle of the night like a bad family secret. I debate all this stuff here for all kinds of reasons, but most Americans really don't care very much. That's what happens when, a) you fight with volunteers, and b) the military culture tells civilians not to look under the hood.

It's amusing to see myself described as a "bleeding heart." I'm anything but that. I'm against torture and wanton slaughter, i.e., massacres like Haditha and Fallujah and what's on the drawing board for Ramadi, but no one needs to be a bleeding heart to oppose that sort of thing.

Frankly, to support torture and massacres you've got to be some sort of psycho. Or be swept up in vengeance. Or be a religious fanatic who thinks he's going to Christianize the world. Or be so afraid of the bad news that you must deny it.

But me, a bleeding heart? Oh please. The biggest reasons I'm against the U.S. doing all things are, a) It's against our principles, and when nations throw away their principles they generally decline, and b) Everything being done there now will come back and bite us in the ass.

Oh, and it all costs too many resources that could, and should, be directed elsewhere. That doesn't make me a pacifist, it makes me a pragmatist. War should be the last option. Bush was itching for it, and now we're going down to a costly defeat. At best, if there is a U.S. "victory" here, it'll be Pyrric, as in a victory in which the winner is hard to distinguish from the loser.

One of your guys said the following. See if you can guess who:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

Incidentally, the word "hero" is incredibly overused. They're not all heroes, children. Don't dilute the currency.

Once You Break The Big Rule ...

The U.S. military has broken the big rule, i.e., the one against torture. So who can expect them to care about freedom of the press?

The press has been kicked out of Guantanamo Bay because the military commander there didn't like this report:

http://w3t.org/u/rsr

Of course, the military denies that retaliation had anything to do with it. But, since the U.S. military routinely lies about war-related subjects including the policy of torture and the military's implementation of it, we can give their latest statements all the credibility they deserve.

http://w3t.org/u/rss

So there you have it, Wee Willy doesn't like the troops because of who they voted for and the fact that they have enlisted and re-enlisted to fight in an illegal war of aggression.

Just like most of the left the only time the wee one has use for us is either to make us out to be victims or criminals. As much as I enjoy having a cut-and-paste master, wack-job, loonie, moonbat around for everyone to use as a punching bag his tiring use of the same old previously debunked arguments is getting boring. Try being original willy, or at least rational because no one here is drinking your kool-aid.

Once again SSG K, you misrepresent me. You wingnuts just can't resist the temptation to lie, can you? I wrote that the tendency of the troops to overwhelmingly support the war and to re-enlist is "one of the factors that attenuates me support for them."

[b]at·ten·u·ate[/b]

1 : to make thin or slender
2 : to make thin in consistency : RAREFY
3 : to lessen the amount, force, magnitude, or value of : WEAKEN
4 : to reduce the severity, virulence, or vitality of

I used third meaning of the word. I haven't abandoned my support for American troops. After all, they are Americans. They have volunteered to place themselves in harm's way. One can't help but be impressed by that, and to feel for the people who do it.

At the same time, however, a part of me looks at this a bit like I look at someone who rides his motorcycle without a helmet. If he falls off and cracks his skull I will still feel sympathy for him as a human being, but I'll also say (or think) something like: What was the idiot doing without a helmet?

"LJD, as for your politics I call 'em like I see 'em. I regard you as just one more wingnut, thumping the tub for the Liar-in-Chief every chance you get. You've given not a shred of evidence to the contrary." (Willy has gleefully ignored any reasonable evidence to the contrary because he's made up his mind, ya know. Us Milbloggers are 1) liars, 2) drunks, 3) murderers, 4) shills for the Rethuglican party, 5) anti-heroes, 6) wingnuts, 7) koolaid drinkers, 8) Bush supporters without brains, 9) repeat Bush supporters who stupidly voted for a "C- student" who is the worst President in history (history being so full of great Presidents that this absolutely make him the worst human being on the face of the Earth, even worse than Jimmy Carter, Calvin Coolidge, Herberty Hoover, and William McKinley), and 10) dickless wimps.

As for your deployment status, anyone can make any claim they want to. (Willy doesn't believe we actually deploy or serve, and removes any respect or authority we might have gained by being deployed) But if you are in fact deployed, my stance toward you wouldn't change a whole hell of a lot given that, a) You're just another wingnut, and b) Three-quarters of the troops and their families voted for Bush. (Willy hates us whether we serve our country or not, solely because we support Chimpy McBushitlerHalliburton presently, but we used to be good people when we supported Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton)

Obviously, the "military community" is overwhlemingly in support of this imperial adventure. I think that's a real paradox, but life is full of paradoxes. In any case, it's one of the factors that attenuates my sympathy for them. (Willy thinks soldiers choose the wars they fight and should be able to mutiny en masse when they don't agree with the political correctness of it. This causes him to lose respect for us, and grow indifferent to any suffering or moral quandaries over who he should support. Of course Willy wouldn't recognize an altruisitic reason for national service because it is not important to him, and neither are the benefits he uses daily, --- until some "fascist" takes them away from him.)

Unlike, say, the draftees of the Vietnam War who were shanghaied into it, you are volunteers. The longer this goes on and the more the force is comprised of people who have enlisted or reupped since '03 the less inclined I am to get all that teary-eyed about their fate. (Ahh, since you volunteered, then you were stupid and should be punished. Who knew that when you enlisted in 1998 you'd be caught up in a "bad" war and should have deserted based on your principles. After all, anyone who continues to reenlist now either deserves to be punished, killed, tortured, maimed, or else he must know something about the War on Terror that I, Willy, don't know. [Wonder what that could be?] Besides by 2008 I will hate everyone in the military because you all had the chance to leave the military honestly by then. I wonder why the Hell you won't just do that, dammit?)

I note the veterans issues, therefore, not so much because my heart bleeds for the wounded but because I genuinely find it surprising that your crew pays them so little notice or attention. Don't any of you ever, in mid-bleat about the 19 troops killed in Somalia at the beginning of Clinton's term, stop to think about the 2,500 so casually tossed away between '03 and now? (See I really don't care about the soldiers, maimed, injured, or mentally impaired because they brought it on themselves. I just like to point out how stupid they are for following the President and do my best to irritate the milbloggers because I hate them. And think of the poor saps who just threw away, threw away, I say, their lives for nothing in this war, because their sacrifice and their service in defense or their country, against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, because there certainly isn't any serious defense of the country issue involved in fighting Islamic terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head that I can see.)

Look, the general public is more 'n happy to have them hidden away in the middle of the night like a bad family secret. (I despise you military guys because you are killers and you get all the cute chicks). I debate all this stuff here for all kinds of reasons, but most Americans really don't care very much. That's what happens when, a) you fight with volunteers, and b) the military culture tells civilians not to look under the hood. (Americans really don't care about the troops. I don't really care about them. It is because you guys volunteered so regular unpatriotic Americans wouldn't have to feel guilty, and you really don't want us to care about you anyway because you think regular unpatriotic Americans don't understand what you do anyway. So you are happy we are ignorant about what you do. [By the way, what do you do?])

It's amusing to see myself described as a "bleeding heart." I'm anything but that. (I'm an intellectual, you see, and I'm much smarter than you lowlifes.) I'm against torture and wanton slaughter, i.e., massacres like Haditha (unproven) and Fallujah (proven not to be a massacre, including no use of "chemical weapons" in Fallujah) and what's on the drawing board for Ramadi (but I'd never prejudge anyone, now would I?), but no one needs to be a bleeding heart to oppose that sort of thing. (Of course, I'd never say anything about when terrorists do those things because a) our guys deserve it, b) innocent Iraqis, I just don't care about, and c) I don't care about anyone at all until it is my own personal rice bowl that is being affected, like when Abu Mussayib al Mujaher shows up on my doorstep with a butcher knife)

Frankly, to support torture and massacres you've got to be some sort of psycho. (You milbloggers and our Marines are psychos.) Or be swept up in vengeance. (And vindictive bastards.) Or be a religious fanatic who thinks he's going to Christianize the world. (As opposed to Muslim fanatics who want to "Muslimize" the world. Go ahead, "Islamicize me", baby.) Or be so afraid of the bad news that you must deny it. (I'd rather stick my head in the sand and ignore the bad news until Abu what's-his-name sticks that long knife up my dumb ass and starts cutting my balls off from the back side. Then I'll be wide awake and asking for your help.)

But me, a bleeding heart? Oh please. The biggest reasons I'm against the U.S. doing all things are, a) It's against our principles, and when nations throw away their principles they generally decline, (I really want us to remain a great country, respected in the free world and be rich as possible, but I just don't want us to have to do anything to get there or earn that reputation. I just expect folks to like us because we are cute and cuddly) and b) Everything being done there now will come back and bite us in the ass. (As opposed to the stuff we didn't do which came back to bite us in the ass on 11 September 2001 and in dozens of incidents before that.)

Oh, and it all costs too many resources that could, and should, be directed elsewhere. (Not a penny for defense. My medical insurance is too high. I want my Mommy state!) That doesn't make me a pacifist, it makes me a pragmatist. (Or, what's the other word, ---- a coward). War should be the last option. Bush was itching for it, and now we're going down to a costly defeat. (At least that is what I'm praying for). At best, if there is a U.S. "victory" here, it'll be Pyrric (That's Pyrrhic), as in a victory in which the winner is hard to distinguish from the loser. (Well, at least I'll still be alive, so that makes me the big winner, because all you promilitary saps will be dead or maimed and I can have my way with the cute chicks in the burqas).

One of your guys said the following. See if you can guess who:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. (Don't know, but I'm sure he was big in the annals of free healthcare and welfare receipts. Guess I'm stupid. I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.)

Posted by WW at June 14, 2006 04:20 PM

"Incidentally, the word "hero" is incredibly overused. They're not all heroes, children. Don't dilute the currency." (I haven't seen anyone I"D call a hero because they all support Bushy).

Posted by WW at June 14, 2006 05:36 PM

Once You Break The Big Rule ...

The U.S. military has broken the big rule, i.e., the one against torture. (Of course, I don't have any proof, and I ignore reports to the contrary, but I'm just positive there must be someone who has broken the rules on torture. Was Zarqawi a Marine in disguise?) So who can expect them to care about freedom of the press?(I'm sure the Marine Corps, nay the entire military, is full of liars, and there is nothing they can possibly say which would make me believe them).

The press has been kicked out of Guantanamo Bay because the military commander there didn't like this report:

http://w3t.org/u/rsr (Actually, the press was right there outside the door allowed to listen in, but not allowed to see the classified material on the screen. But I'm a liar anyway, so I can say what I want and no one who can read English would be able to say differently.)

Of course, the military denies that retaliation had anything to do with it. But, since the U.S. military routinely lies about war-related subjects including the policy of torture and the military's implementation of it, we can give their latest statements all the credibility they deserve. (I am a firm believer that the military ALWAYS lies about anything that looks bad, so I ALWAYS attribute the worst of intentions to them, whether there is any basis for it or not)

http://w3t.org/u/rss

(See in this article, the Pentagon kicked out the reporters because other news organizations were threatening to sue them if they weren't allowed in to be part of the media circus surrounding the suicides at Gitmo. So the Truth here is that reporters and their bosses will stab each other in the back to get access to any story. So the Pentagon sent them all packing. Threaten to sue because one gets special treatment, then none of you will get special treatment. It works that way with detainees too [Hmmmm, there's a thought. Treat the reporters like detainees -- they want the story, let 'em live it firsthand.] That way, they can make sure they all hinder progress in the treatment of hardcore detainees, and I, Willy, can keep painting the entire US military as liars and murderers and torturers because there is no press there and I can make any claims of torture I want. Because if they really reported the Truth about Gitmo, the American people would want Gitmo closed ---- and all the detainees killed for the evil SOBs they truly are before they ever left that place. But then, I wouldn't have anything to complain about anymore. I might have to make something up.)

Posted by WW at June 14, 2006 05:55 PM

Once again SSG K, you misrepresent me. You wingnuts just can't resist the temptation to lie, can you? (See any additional slurs I want to submit in 1-10 above) I wrote that the tendency of the troops to overwhelmingly support the war and to re-enlist is "one of the factors that attenuates me support for them." (I really mean it turns me off on them because those bastards support Chimpy McBushitlerHalliburton. But I still love them while I hate them.)

[b]at·ten·u·ate[/b]

1 : to make thin or slender
2 : to make thin in consistency : RAREFY
3 : to lessen the amount, force, magnitude, or value of : WEAKEN
4 : to reduce the severity, virulence, or vitality of

(I own a Funk & Wagnalls, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah)

I used third meaning of the word. I haven't abandoned my support for American troops. (I'm just undercutting it every day because they are so stupid. But I really do love them. Really, I do.) After all, they are Americans. (And murderers, torturers, and stupid, too). They have volunteered to place themselves in harm's way. One can't help but be impressed by that, and to feel for the people who do it. (Some of me and my friends are less impressed than others).

At the same time, however, a part of me looks at this a bit like I look at someone who rides his motorcycle without a helmet. If he falls off and cracks his skull I will still feel sympathy for him as a human being, but I'll also say (or think) something like: What was the idiot doing without a helmet? (See you stupid prick. I told you not to support Bush. Got what you deserved.)

Posted by WW at June 14, 2006 07:12 PM

[Willy has proven with his responses here, and on other threads that he really isn't interested in changing minds. Isn't really interested in facts, Truth, or honesty. And isn't interested in the safety and security of Americans or innocents among our allies. He does not care that America's military is the only thing between the throatcutters of the world, and his neck.]

[He'd rather make fun of them, berate them, call them liars, and make sure as many people in the world support hostilities towards Americans everywhere on the Earth. He just doesn't think there is any danger to America from anyone outside the country and certainly not from the Islamic world.]

[He is a fan of Neville Chamberlain, and is certain, certain mind you, that we are the source of what is wrong with the world. He has NEVER had a bad thing to say about terrorists, bad actors outside America, or the far left principles of his sympathizers. Willy is a disease that rots from the inside, saps the will of the free to fight tyranny, and plants the seeds of doubt and destruction amongst us. In World War II, they were called seditionists and traitors. They were enemy sympathizers and were jailed or run off to other countries, or they learned to keep their mouths shut to preserve their lives in America. Today, they face no threats, no chastisement, and no penalty for their undermining the support for Victory in the War on Terror.]

[Unless we label them for who they truly are, they will continue to undermine and hinder every step in our defense. Unless we answer them, they will make the already difficult defense of America impossible. We who know better must stand up to them, and make ourselves heard.]

[Don't let them define what America is or is not. We must define it, and make sure everyone who comes in contact with us, knows by our example who the Defenders of Freedom and Justice are, and who the terrorists and oppressors of the weak are, and who are their handmaidens in their evil plans.]

Press on. To Victory.

Subsunk

And I'm sure Eisenhower knew all about Radical Islam when he made those statements. He was pratically clairvoyant. Because he Knew, KNEW mind you, that we'd never need the M-1 tank, the Patriot missile, the F-18 Hornet, the F-16 Falcon, the CVNs, the nuclear submarine fleets, the ballistic missile forces which deterred Communism, or the dogface US soldier who has defeated every single enemy he has ever faced, except the American media. Because his heart is noble and honest, and the MSMs hearts are empty and timid.

I know what you are Willy. And you are Dead Wrong.

Subsunk

Damn Subsunk, very well said.

Has your ass pegged Willy.

And WW (hey, is that double take-off of our beloved name for our President, as in Dubya?), it would be really considerate of you, if you would scroll up to the Greyhawk's tip jar, and deposit, hummmm..... maybe about $50 for the bandwidth for this and other threads of your postings, that is mostly generated by you or at you. Least you could do.... and a "Thank You" to them for offering you space and time for your comments. But, well, I'm guessin', you aren't "an officer and a gentleman," and won't go and do the right thing.

Replying to Mudville's leading sloppy right wingnut drunk ...

Willy doesn't believe we actually deploy or serve, and removes any respect or authority we might have gained by being deployed
Another falsehood. There are roughly 140,000 military personnel in Iraq, not counting the U.S.-financed mercenaries who are subject to no law. Obviously, someone is deployed. But someone's mere assertion on a website that he's deployed is hardly gospel.

Willy thinks soldiers choose the wars they fight and should be able to mutiny en masse when they don't agree with the political correctness of it.
Another lie. In fact, part of my sympathy for the deployed troops prior to about 2005 was rooted in their not being able to choose their deployments. My comment about the attenuation of my sympathy since then was related to those who actually chose to go to Iraq, either directly or in practical terms.

You see, unlike your average wingnut Republican, I DO believe in "personal responsibility" and "accountability." People make their choices, and then they must live with them. If someone votes for the guy who lied our way into war, and/or enlists or re-ups after the evidence is plain, then the place he should look for who dug his hole is no farther than the closest mirror.

Not a penny for defense. My medical insurance is too high. I want my Mommy state!
No, but I'd rather that the military not suck the country dry. If they do, then it might at least be a good idea if they'd at least win. The U.S. effort in Iraq is the most pathetic spectacle since Mussolini failed to defeat the Ethiopians.

Really, stand back and think about it. The world's best trained, best led, best equipped, most heroic army, blah blah blah, can't even keep minimal order in a small country full of battle-shocked civilians with a rag-tag insurgency with no major outside supplier.

Let's face it, the way things are turning out the U.S. military couldn't manage a bumper car pavillion. I think this is a VERY dangerous message to be sending, because the outcome could easily be the outbreak of mischief all over the place.

You know, like the barbarian tribes at the Roman frontiers? Oops, that's history again. Only sissies read history.

See you stupid prick. I told you not to support Bush. Got what you deserved.
Sometimes life teaches some pretty hard lessons, doesn't it though? Isn't that what the Republicans have been telling the poor for so many years?

Isn't really interested in facts, Truth, or honesty.
Hey, I'm not the one who, like Greyhawk, looks at an American massacre of civilians and asks what the victims did to provoke it.

And isn't interested in the safety and security of Americans or innocents among our allies. He does not care that America's military is the only thing between the throatcutters of the world, and his neck.
The adventure in Iraq has diminished my safety and security, not enhanced it. Our "allies." Oh, you must mean the 51st State, Israel, suddenly the Christian darling due to those wingnuts who think the End Times are nigh and the Jews are part of the plot.

Well, my answer is three-fold. First, the Book of Revelations is a commentary on First Century politics in the Roman empire. Second, people have been (incorrectly) predicting the end of the world for a long time. Third, Israel has nukes and can therefore take care of itself.

They were enemy sympathizers and were jailed or run off to other countries, or they learned to keep their mouths shut to preserve their lives in America. Today, they face no threats, no chastisement, and no penalty for their undermining the support for Victory in the War on Terror.
Get a wingnut mad enough and he'll eventually revert to his fascist instincts and start in with the threats.

Least you could do.... and a "Thank You" to them for offering you space and time for your comments. But, well, I'm guessin', you aren't "an officer and a gentleman," and won't go and do the right thing.
Are you kidding? I'm going Greyhawk a favor by attracting traffic to his otherwise moribund site.

"They were enemy sympathizers and were jailed or run off to other countries, or they learned to keep their mouths shut to preserve their lives in America. Today, they face no threats, no chastisement, and no penalty for their undermining the support for Victory in the War on Terror.
Get a wingnut mad enough and he'll eventually revert to his fascist instincts and start in with the threats."

Posted by WW at June 15, 2006 02:25 AM

You know how to tell when a moonbat is lying? His lips are moving and his keyboard is typing.

What's the matter? Too cowardly to address the rest of the thread?

Here it is, just so you can't make it seem like threats were made, boy:

Unless we label them for who they truly are, they will continue to undermine and hinder every step in our defense. Unless we answer them, they will make the already difficult defense of America impossible. We who know better must stand up to them, and make ourselves heard.

Don't let them define what America is or is not. We must define it, and make sure everyone who comes in contact with us, knows by our example who the Defenders of Freedom and Justice are, and who the terrorists and oppressors of the weak are, and who are their handmaidens in their evil plans.

If the handmaiden's glove fits, Willy, then wear it.

Subsunk

"And isn't interested in the safety and security of Americans or innocents among our allies. He does not care that America's military is the only thing between the throatcutters of the world, and his neck."

"The adventure in Iraq has diminished my safety and security, not enhanced it. Our "allies." Oh, you must mean the 51st State, Israel, suddenly the Christian darling due to those wingnuts who think the End Times are nigh and the Jews are part of the plot."

Somehow, Willy, I knew you'd get around to blaming the Jews for it all. Who is the fascist and who is the national socialist now? What now, Willy? Cattle cars, ovens, and bullets to the brain for Rethuglicans once the Dhimmicrats take power?

Subsunk

Wow! That Didn't Take Too Long!

Gee, when the Marine Corps is threatened by the evil enemy of bad publicity, it sure doesn't take them long to set the wheels in motion. And here I thought that if it would take them four months to commence a criminal investigation of a massacre, it would take them at least that long to track down some dweeb who wrote a stupid little song that made light of using an Iragi infant as a human shield.

Nope! The Marine Corps nipped this one in the mid, I'll tell ya.

http://tinyurl.com/zyqos

Excerpt:

Cpl. Joshua Belile, 23, apologized and said the song was not tied in any way to allegations that Marines killed 24 unarmed civilians in Haditha last year.

"It's a song that I made up and it was nothing more than something supposed to be funny, based off a catchy line of a movie," he said in Wednesday's Daily News of Jacksonville.

Poor schmuck, get with the program. Do it all you want, but don't sing, don't tell.

"Not a penny for defense. My medical insurance is too high. I want my Mommy state!"

"No, but I'd rather that the military not suck the country dry. (Man, that 3.25% of GDP is just draining the cfountry dry, ain't it? Too bad it isn't as bad as the 8% from Vietnam, or the 40% from WWII, but we all know how they ruined the country, didn't they?) If they do, then it might at least be a good idea if they'd at least win. The U.S. effort in Iraq is the most pathetic spectacle since Mussolini failed to defeat the Ethiopians." (Right. Let's see your comparisons, military genius. How about some facts to back up your assertions, child?)

"Really, stand back and think about it. The world's best trained, best led, best equipped, most heroic army, blah blah blah, can't even keep minimal order in a small country full of battle-shocked civilians with a rag-tag insurgency with no major outside supplier." (I think 150,000 Americans have done a pretty good job of keeping 26 million Iraqis in line. Over 3+ years, 2500 deaths, 9000 serious injuries (the rest are back on duty in 72 hrs), and less money than the VietNam War in 3 yrs, I'd say they were doing quite well, actually. Not perfect, but better prosecuted than anything you or John F. Kerry or Al Gore would have come up with. See politicians, Bush included, ain't Generals. The same gents who ran this war would have run it the same way under a Dhimmicrat, if he'd had the balls to fight it. But you would never agree with that because you are just too damned smart for us. You have some secret powers that you'll only share with another Dhimmicrat because that is who you are, Willy. A child who would pick up their marbles and run away when they don't get their way. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo, I won't support you. You wouldn't support your country unless a Dhimmicrat runs it -- your way, I might add. Power only to the Dhimmicrats.)

"Let's face it, the way things are turning out the U.S. military couldn't manage a bumper car pavillion. I think this is a VERY dangerous message to be sending, because the outcome could easily be the outbreak of mischief all over the place."

(As if you and your lefty buddies have lifted a finger to help keep the rest of the world in line. When you work against the leadership of the country, the military, and the American people, what do you expect the rest of the world to do? They see your kind dragging the American military back and keeping it from being a threat to their aims. But you and they are mistaken. There's plenty of death and destruction left to deal, if it comes to that. So you are the ones who have made the country less safe. By undercutting your own country's credibility. If reputation is what deters our enemies, then you long ago became an instrument of their will. And that makes you a terrorist sympathizer, a seditious traitor, and an evil backstabber of your own countrymen.

Are you proud of yourself?

Subsunk

By the way, let's examine this more closely:

"Really, stand back and think about it. The world's best trained, best led, best equipped, most heroic army, blah blah blah, can't even keep minimal order in a small country full of battle-shocked civilians with a rag-tag insurgency with no major outside supplier."

What omniscience do you possess oh most clairvoyant of moonbats, to suggest there is no major outside supplier? What military genius told you this, or was it an MSM reporter, pray tell?

Pretty stupid comment if you ask me.

Subsunk

I think Dub-Dub is enjoying the attention.

Hell, I am enjoying reading Subsunk tear WW a new a-hole with his responses to WW's seditious jibberish! Keep up the good work, Subsunk!

I think we should compile all these "debates" between WW and Subsunk into a mini-book and entitle it (with apologies to Ann Coulter) "How to Talk to an Ignorant Moonbat, If You Must"

Where's the Ho Chi Minh trail? And I'm not talking about the one you see in the morning when you have the DTs.

Wow, I admire the patience and willingness y'all have shown willy. Considering he only parrots one-sided lib talking points from MSM opinion pieces (even if couched in the form of "news"), you really have gone above and beyond the call of duty--something I gather many of y'all are not unfamiliar with. Thanks for your service, to those readers to whom it applies.

But why bother with willy? You'll sooner get the stink off an ape before you can change the mind of a willy moonbat.

Every discussion that I bother to have with liberals these days ends with them saying: "Well, the facts don't matter! Bush is still as bad as Hitler..." or some other reidiculous (sic, really sick) innanity.

God bles America!

D. Ox

Where's the Ho Chi Minh trail? And I'm not talking about the one you see in the morning when you have the DTs.
Posted by WW at June 15, 2006 04:15 AM

It's called Iran! Care to post some more stupid stuff???

I can't see Ted Turner supporting troups like this. Thanks Rupert Murdoch!

http://army.laser.net/article.asp?section=104&article=37936

SpectreCode, what evidence is there that Iran is supplying the insurgents of Iraq? Don't cite U.S. military propaganda, cite an independent source.

Oh, and what sense what it make anyway? The Iraq insurgency is a Sunni insurgency. The Iranians are Shiites. Or, like your Liar-in-Chief, are you so stupid that you don't know that? Wait, better not answer.

Here's what actually happened. When the U.S. invaded, as a result of Rumsfeld having not given the military the number of troops it originally requested there weren't enough people to guard a huge ammo dump near Baghdad. Insurgents looted that dump quite literally by the truck load.

One of the things held at that dump was very large quantities of C-4 plastic explosive. C-4 is now showing up in many of the IEDs that are killing Americans. The so-called "milblogs" say nothing about this because, rather than giving a damn about American troops, they exist as nothing but Bush propaganda vehicles and therefore nothing that embarrasses your Fuhrer can ever be discussed.

It has been well reported, even by the defeatist media, that IEDs have become increasingly more sophisticated, beyond the level of any technology available in Iraq.

If you choose to believe that these devices, which have been captured along the Iranian border, are nothing more than a 'propaganda stunt', perhaps you should also consider the forensics. Devices acquired by U.S. forces show 'signatures' linking them to factoiries in Iran.

Is ABC news good enough for you, or are they paid off by the administration as well?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1692347&page=1

LJD, the first paragraph of that ABC News story says it all. Datelined March 6th, which was right around the time the Liar-in-Chief was thumping the tub for an attack on Iran. Sourced from U.S. "military and intelligence," which means a propaganda plant.

I don't trust that report any farther than I can throw the Washington Monument. I seem to recall the U.S. media feeding us plenty of the Liar-in-Chief's lies on WMD and Saddam-al Qaeda links, too. Once burned, twice shy.

You'll have to do better.

From the ABC News report:

What the United States says links them to Iran are tell-tale manufacturing signatures — certain types of machine-shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory.

Yup, like like those aluminum tubes, huh? You know, the ones that the Liar-in-Chief's people said were for centrifuges but actually were for short-range rockets? But, hey, let's just let bygones be bygones and trust what they tell us -- NOT!

Beyond the 'propaganda', let's not forget that:

*Iran has nothing to gain from an unstable Iraq.
*Iran HATES to see U.S. casualties.
*The Iraqis MUST have learned to build sophisticated IEDs from the U.S. either when they were our 'buddy', or in support of the 'Liar-In-Chief's War for Oil'.

(Sarcasm off)

There once was a Moonbat who lived in a shoe,
repeating sound bites was all he could do
He had some wacky ideas,
and persistent verbal diarrhea,
that kept him from seeing the truth.

So ... Iran is going to ship arms to the same Sunni militias that are regularly executing their Shia brethren. Let's just say that I remain to be convinced.

In the world of identity politics it all makes sense. Shia must act a certain way and be loyal to each other. Sunnis as well. Oops! Kurds are Sunni and Saddam was Sunni... what the heck is up with that? I betcha those reports about genocide and chemical weapons were fabrications since Sunnis are natural allies, huh?

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, particularly when paired with a simplistic view of human behavior.

This is why no one listens to you, Dub-Dub. You think you are so intelligent and informed and if others don't agree with you it's because they don't understand the facts... Iran is primarily shia, you say, and would never help someone else kill shia.

The world and human motivation is far more complicated than that. Human behavior is less rational and usually inconsistant.

There are some indications resulting from the intelligence haul resulting from Zarqawi's death that AlQaida targeted Sunnis in order to frame the Shia and cause internal strife.

Some time ago on Iraq the Model one of the brothers relayed a conversation at a barber shop where the men talked about Zarqawi as an American tool. (I think that the speakers were Sunni but I'm not sure.) If Sunni are loyal to Sunni why would the local conspiracy theorists have cause to believe Zarqawi was working for the US?

Could it be that identity politics *never* works?

Understanding that you *don't* understand is the first step, Dub-Dub. Try it.

You're truly an idiot. The Shia and the Sunni have been playing "identity politics" for roughly 1,300 years. Yes, they've been known to suspend it from time to time, as in the 1920s when they united for a while to toss the British out.

Are the Shia of Iran giving IADs to the Sunni of Iraq? Like I wrote, "I remain to be convinced." I'm sure as hell not convinced by ABC News quoting U.S. military and intelligence officials at a time when your Liar-in-Chief was getting ready to attack Iran.

That move was held at bay for a while, anyway, when several retired generals came forward to denounce the Iraq War execution. This made it impossible for the Liar-in-Chief to launch an attack on Iran, and lo and behold, no more accusations from ABC News.

The U.S. military and the "intelligence community" have a track record of lying about these things. Their word, spoon-fed to ABC News, isn't enough. Come up with something better. Like this:

http://w3t.org/u/rwn

"SpectreCode, what evidence is there that Iran is supplying the insurgents of Iraq? Don't cite U.S. military propaganda, cite an independent source."

"Oh, and what sense what it make anyway? The Iraq insurgency is a Sunni insurgency. The Iranians are Shiites. Or, like your Liar-in-Chief, are you so stupid that you don't know that? Wait, better not answer."

"Here's what actually happened. When the U.S. invaded, as a result of Rumsfeld having not given the military the number of troops it originally requested there weren't enough people to guard a huge ammo dump near Baghdad. Insurgents looted that dump quite literally by the truck load."

"One of the things held at that dump was very large quantities of C-4 plastic explosive. C-4 is now showing up in many of the IEDs that are killing Americans. The so-called "milblogs" say nothing about this because, rather than giving a damn about American troops, they exist as nothing but Bush propaganda vehicles and therefore nothing that embarrasses your Fuhrer can ever be discussed."

Posted by WW at June 15, 2006 03:11 PM

Now who is ignoring the facts? You are either the stupidest strategist or the blindest ideologue I've ever seen. Thank God you don't plan our wars. You wouldn't recognize the Ho Chi Minh trail if it paved over your sorry ass and rolled a 5 ton truck or an HEMTT through it.

How about the Guardian?: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1546838,00.html

Excerpts: Iranian arms intercepted at Iraqi border

Britain warns Tehran about weapons smuggling

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Thursday August 11, 2005
The Guardian

Britain yesterday described as "unacceptable" the smuggling of weapons from Iran into Iraq after revealing that a consignment was intercepted at the border between the two countries.
While complaints have been made in the past, it is relatively rare to have concrete evidence of such smuggling.
The British embassy in Tehran raised the issue at a meeting with the Iranian foreign ministry. Officials relayed the government's concern and pressed Iran to acknowledge that there was a problem that should be dealt with.

Article continues

Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defence, warned Iran this week about the extent of smuggling. The US has been protesting for the past two years over alleged Iranian meddling in Iraq. Mr Rumsfeld told a Pentagon briefing that the smuggling was "a problem" for the Iraqi government. "It's a problem for the coalition forces. It's a problem for the international community, and ultimately, it's a problem for Iran," he said.
.........
A senior British official disclosed yesterday details of the incident two weeks ago when a group crossing from Iran was intercepted near Maysan, which is in the British controlled sector of Iraq. Iraqi security forces opened fire and the smugglers fled back to Iran leaving their cache of timers, detonators and other bomb-making equipment.
The British official said he did not know the identity of the group or those behind it but said it had the "fingerprints" of either Iran's Revolutionary Guard, controlled by the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or the Lebanese based Hizbullah which Tehran backs. The incident came against a backdrop of tension between Iran and the west over allegations that Tehran is intent on securing a nuclear-weapons capability.

Or maybe the Christian Science Monitor, a Well Known Wingnut Bush mouthpiece, eh? --- NOT!: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0706/p01s02-woiq.html

Excerpts:

from the July 06, 2004 edition

Iraq battles its leaking borders
Iraq's prime minister called on Syria and Iran Sunday to help check flow of weapons, fighters.
By Ann Scott Tyson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
TALL AFAR, IRAQ – One recent moonless night, a company of US infantrymen rolled out of an austere camp and deep into uncharted terrain in the Iraqi desert. Their mission: a 160-mile assault on a suspected terrorist training camp near Iraq's border with Syria.
Surveillance had spotted some 20 men in black tunics at the small encampment. Among them was a "high value target," sought for smuggling arms and foreign fighters from Syria. Yet the mission, which detained 12 people, missed its top man, who apparently disappeared among the nomadic tribes here that are as shifting as the desert sands. "They have a very sophisticated tribal communications network throughout Iraq," says Capt. Eric Beaty, whose company led the assault in the early hours of June 27.

The incident underscores the challenges facing US and Iraqi forces as they labor to curb the influx since last year of 1,000 to 3,000 foreign militants tied to a growing string of terrorist strikes.
Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is appealing to Syria and Iran to help check the illegal trafficking of weapons, money, and fighters into Iraq. Iraq intends to enter negotiations soon with both countries on the border problem, Mr. Allawi told reporters Sunday.
Senior Iraqi and American officials are quick to blame Syria and Iran for tacitly supporting car bombings and other attacks that have killed and wounded hundreds of people in the past month, including scores of Iraqi security forces and civilians. On Monday, Iraqi officials said they arrested two Iranians attempting to detonate a car bomb in eastern Baghdad.
"Now Iraq is open for all terrorists," admits Osama Kashmoula, governor of Iraq's northern Nineveh Province, which shares a 155-mile boundary with Syria. "We've arrested Iranians, Jordanians, Palestinians, Algerians - I don't know the number," he said.
US commanders agree. "I don't think there's any difficulty pushing weapons or fighters across the border," says Army Col. Michael Rounds, who commands the main US ground unit in northern Iraq, a 5,000-strong Stryker brigade task force......

As for whether weapons are coming only from Iran, you are the worst of intelligence analysts and military planners if you don't think weapons, men and money are also coming from Syria, and even, Jordan and Turkey. In those cases, it is possible they may be coming in without the permission or assistance of the governments of those countries, but since sheep, gasoline, and money seem to be able to pass freely across those borders despite the best efforts of Jordan, Turkey or Syria, it would be ludicrous to say no outside country is smuggling in weapons to the insurgency. (I can cite articles discussing smuggling in general there too.)

And as for C-4 from Iraq's old arms dumps, it is entirely possible that the majority of explosives in Iraq came from those dumps. After all it was surmised it would take over 2 full years of nonstop EOD operations to eliminate all of Iraq's excess arms in over 60 dumps in the country, approximately 1/3rd of them in the Northern half of the country where no US forces were until the insurgency had already commenced on 15 April 03. (By the way, it was RDX which was stolen there, not C-4. C-4 is made from RDX, but is not RDX)

But C-4 pretty much grows on trees in this world, coming from Czech, Iranian, Syrian, Jordanian, Russian, US, British, French, German sources, and any other country that has an explosives mill and it can be smuggled as easily as sheep, guns, liquor, freon, or people.

There is nothing magic or WMD infrastructure intensive about it. If you can make gunpowder or TNT, you can pretty much make C-4. So your supposition that all the C-4 in Iraq came from one Iraqi Saddamite weapons depot is pretty idiotic. If the 10% of the insurgents who supposedly came from outside Iraq got into the country, and if Hamas can smuggle $20M in 5 suitcases into Gaza, then a lot of Semtex, PBX, or C-4 can be smuggled across the Syrian and Iranian borders.

As for the insurgency being a strictly Sunni insurgency, what is Mookie al Sadr doing? His airhead Mehdis are fighting all the time in Sadr City and Basra and Samarra, even. It ain't because they are pro-Sunni. It is because they are Muslim jihadis who want to fight any infidel they can find. Try listening to their press releases sometime and take them at face value. Is the majority of the insurgency Sunni? Probably yes. Is it solely Sunni? No. It is Islamic in nature. It is sometimes what makes a typical young Muslim Man Muslim. He feels he must participate in any jihad available which is "defending" Islam. I think you are dumb to believe this doesn't qualify.

Just like there are many reasons young Americans join the Army, there are many reasons young Muslims join the jihadis. Not all of them have to do with whether their mother is a Shiite and their father is a Sunni.

Any other tripe and rash generalizations you want to lay on us, lamebrain?

Subsunk

Well subby I have to hand it to you. A stopped clock, even a drunken one, is right twice a day. You bring persuasive evidence that the Iranian shia are supplying the Iraqi shia. Maybe if the incompetent Rumsfeld, serving the Liar-in-Chief, hadn't vetoed the military's original war plan, the U.S. could have sealed the borders.

That said, it's ain't exactly a Ho Chi Minh Trail. Oh, and where is the NVA? This is still a case of the U.S. military being defeated by a bunch of irregulars whose supply lines and organization don't begin to approach that of the adversary in Vietnam.

Not only that, but the terrain in Iraq isn't even in the same universe of difficulty. I still say this is the biggest flop since the Italians failed to beat the Ethiopians.

So WW hates torture, Robert Mapplethorpe must really blow his pious mind to kingdom come.

The loftiness is staggering.

Subsunk cites reports that most of us have been aware of since milblogs have linked them or similar reports in the past.

Dub-Dub admits Subsunk is right without ever even intimating that he was wrong or that there is anything lacking in his world view... the one where he claims to understand the motivation and sectarian behavior of middle eastern peoples and anyone who doesn't sign on to his simplistic logic is a complete idiot.

What else do you know that isn't so, Dub-Dub?

"Well subby I have to hand it to you. A stopped clock, even a drunken one, is right twice a day. You bring persuasive evidence that the Iranian shia are supplying the Iraqi shia. Maybe if the incompetent Rumsfeld, serving the Liar-in-Chief, hadn't vetoed the military's original war plan, the U.S. could have sealed the borders."

(Yeah! Right! Just like the US Southwest border is sealed today. Just like the Gaza border is sealed today. Proof that a double positive can still be a negative.)

"That said, it's ain't exactly a Ho Chi Minh Trail. Oh, and where is the NVA? This is still a case of the U.S. military being defeated by a bunch of irregulars whose supply lines and organization don't begin to approach that of the adversary in Vietnam."

(Some defeat. OIF has lasted 1184 days to date VietNam lasted 3987 days from the first advisors to the last combat troops withdrawal in 1973. In OIF the United States has suffered 2500 dead, 1979 in combat and 521 in non hostile deaths. In VietNam the United States suffered 58,179 deaths, 47,369 hostile, 10,799 non hostile.)

(In OIF there are 8501 serious [not returned to duty within 72 hrs] wounded, with a total of 18,490 wounded including the "minor" wounded. In Vietnam, a total of 153,303 men were wounded, breakout unavailable. In VietNam we suffered an average of 53 casualties (killed and wounded) per day. In OIF we have suffered 9.3 casualties per day. The statistics show 526.3 men killed per month in VietNam, and 52.1 men killed per month in OIF.)

(To put some perspective on this, from WWII, 6639 men were killed every month on average, 407,315 men died turning back Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, and over 670,000 were wounded. In Algeria, 760,000 French troops were required to continuously combat 65,000 insurgents. Over 8 years they had practically quelled the rebellion with only 7,000 insurgents remaining alive, when they quit because of bad press. The British took 11 years to quell the Malaysian insurgency through the use of native police and military surrogates. The British Empire was held with a few thousand British soldiers and several more thousand native troops for over 100 years in India, Pakistan, Australia, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Iran, Malaya, Singapore, and Africa against odds of 10 to 1 against the British troops themselves. Discipline, toughness, and standing your ground, in conjunction with giving the civilized local populace their own say in their country is what wins insurgencies. Running away has never one a damn thing but contempt and a reputation for cowardice. The Arab respects power. He will risk everything to get his way, and admires the same in his adversaries. He kills those who run away with glee and disgust at their weakness. He would find an easy adversary in you.)

(The American Army can go wherever it wishes in Iraq, and stay there if it wishes to do so. Only one unit has ever been defeated [a 6 man sniper team in Ramadi overwhelmed by over 40 insurgents at once]. The kill ratio of dead insurgents to American casualties is over 20 to 1 and that is DEAD Jihadis to wounded or killed Americans. America has complete air supremacy. America can apply its logistics at will. Americans can eat steak and lobster whenever and wherever they wish. Americans have a surplus of ammunition and continually overpower their enemies to the extent that jihadis now avoid fighting the American Army with anything other than an IED.)

(The cost per capita for this war is approximately $61/ person, the same as Desert Storm and compares to VietNam at $111/person, WWII at $288/person. According to the official Congressional budget, the cost of OIF has been approximately$174 billion to date, compared to $2.5 trillion in FY07 dollars in VietNam, $23.7 trillion in FY07 dollars spent on WWII, and the equivalent of over $4 trillion in FY07 dollars spent by both sides during the American Civil War, or "the Late Unpleasantness", as my Great Aunt Maude used to say.)

(Defeated? I think you need a new Funk and Wagnalls child.)

"Not only that, but the terrain in Iraq isn't even in the same universe of difficulty. I still say this is the biggest flop since the Italians failed to beat the Ethiopians."

(Since when does terrain matter in a modern insurgent war? With the advent of the helicopter, terrain has ceased to matter except for mobile land warfare engagements involving massed armies. No matter what the terrain physically, an insurgent war is defined by the invisibility of the rebels amongst the local population, and I'm sure you will agree the terrorists can blend in just as well as the VC could in VietNam.)

(When you are accredited to teach at any US War College, or provide your thesis on the case for defeat of the Coalition Forces after peer review, we will listen to you. Until then, go back to school, study hard, and maybe someday you will grow up to be a historian. Or better yet, a journalist. They obviously know more than Men paid to examine these things for a living.)

Posted by WW at June 15, 2006 08:32 PM

Willy,

You can cry and whine all you want about how this endeavor is just fraught with peril. Real Men are taking care of it for you. Because you wouldn't have a clue about foreign policy or warfighting if it hit you over the head --- with an M-1 cluebat or a B-2 blackjack.

Subsunk

Sorry it took so long folks. I've been studying to get my facts down right. Source is the FY07 Defense budget (the greenbook), the National Archives database and US Army's websites for casualties in American Wars, and the Iraq Coalition Casualties website http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx and is current as of today 15 June 2006.

Finally, In 1940, Sir Winston Churchill gave a speech to the House of Commons in which he said the German Chancellor (Adolph Hitler) and his divided cabinet said, that in 3 weeks England would have its neck wrung like a chicken. England had just staved off invasion by defeating the German Air Force in the Battle of Britain. Winston's response to this notion was "Some chicken, some neck". I could use those words to describe the Iraqi nation today, and certainly to characterize the performance of the American Army and Marine Corps.

If modern day Iraq is what our defeat looks like, then tell me how it resembles Imperial Japan in 1946, divided Germany in 1946, the non existent Soviet Union today, Carthage, Babylon, Masada, or even Darfur today? Where is the rubble in the streets? Where are the mass graves from the current executions? Where are the starving masses of Iraqis, dying because of famine and pestilence? Explain how Modern Iraq still has electricity, water, fuel, and vehicles AT ALL. Show me the thousands of refugees moving their possessions on carts because there is no fuel and all their homes are bombed out. Show me where old men have blown their brains out because they have no way to live on. And show me the concentration camps full of emaciated and beaten Iraqis waiting for the Angel of Death.

Some quagmire. Sounds more like Saturday night at my local dnacehall (shoot your way in and cut your way out) or Detroit during the playoffs or DC downtown nightly news.

Willy, I don't think you know what real war looks like. But I'll bet your Father or Grandfather knew. Why don't you ask them? If they could survive the Great Depression, I'll bet they could have survived Iraq quite well.

Subsunk

So WW hates torture, Robert Mapplethorpe must really blow his pious mind to kingdom come.
If Mapplethorpe had imprisoned them, it would have been a different issue. By the way, did you ever actually see the pics? I was in D.C. when the horrible exhibition was exhibited, so I went to see it.

I laughed like crazy, especially at the guy with bullwhip up his butt and hanging out like a devil's tail. The funniest thing of all was that one side considered it art and the other side took it seriously.

I think of Mapplethorpe as sort of the homosexual version of Ann Coulter.

In 1940, Sir Winston Churchill gave a speech to the House of Commons in which he said the German Chancellor blah blah blah
You know a wingnut is scraping the bottom o'the barrel when he drags out the obligatory Churchill stories. subby, the Iraqis never attacked us. The Saudis did. And if WMD was an issue, why no histrionics about the nukes owned by Pakistan, India, North Korea or Israel?

Subsunk,

Now look what you did!; by (royally) fisking his comments you went and made me read dubdub's blatherings again. My poor eyes....;-)

Okay, if you can bear it I guess I can, too; I never could resist good research! Please do take all the time you require, info assemblage like this is well worth the wait.

Don't the rest of you find it gratifying that Subsunk, even 'falling-over drunk and suffering from the DT's', is more than a match for the inanity's posted by this talking, typing echo chamber? (incredibly, hoist by your own spiteful, yet poorly-aimed petard, dubdub - Ain't it grand when kharma plays itself out where we can actually view the results!)

Beth, at least subby only guzzles the vodka. You seem to have found the absinthe.

Identity politics never works.

Identity politics is nothing more than judging individuals by the color of their skin or the religion of their parents or the orientation of their desires and claiming to know what they want and what they will do simply because they belong to that group.

It's only in your fevered mind that this truth equates to arguing that groups *can't* be on opposite sides. The idiocy is in making the claim that they *must* be on opposite sides and *logically* can never cooperate.

Both Al Qaida and Iran are fully able to form an alliance with someone they despise and we have documents from Al Qaida that say so, even if the plan was to play the right hand off the left hand and destroy that ally in the end.

Sorry if that has too much nuance and complexity for you, I realize that some people have a great deal invested in the notion that the right are babes in the international woods and that the "right" doesn't understand other cultures the way they do.

It must be quite a burden, to be so superior all the time.

... the Iraqis never attacked us. The Saudis did. And if WMD was an issue, why no histrionics about the nukes owned by Pakistan, India, North Korea or Israel?

Dub-dub, did any of those other nations ...

... use chemical weapons on their own people?
... start two wars within twelve years?
... pay $25,000 each to the families of suicide bombers?
... have no effective checks-and-balances within their government to preclude capricious actions on the part of their chief executive?
... have no next-door neighbors or close allies to slap them back into line if they deviate from civilized behavior?
... put 300K-plus into mass graves since 1979?

Face it, dub-dub, Saddam was the loosest cannon on the deck. The ONLY effective deterrent upon his whims was our presence in the region ... a presence we would have been under pressure to end eventually, when the corruption of the UN and the inadequacy of the weapons-inspection process combined to give Saddam a "pass".

Then, he would have brought out those mothballed WMD programs, and we wouldn't be able to touch him until he (or one of his terrorist clients) used them -- and create a death toll that would make what we have lost in Iraq, bad as that is, pale in comparison.

Iraq has been attacking the civilized world since Saddam took power ... by cooperating with, aiding, and supporting terrorism. Therefore ...

... they were attacking us, since we are inextricably interconnected to the civilized world.

... they were a terrorist nation, and therefore a legitimate target for the War on Terror ... which is not just a war of retribution against Al Quada ... unless you are someone who didn't learn a thing from 911 about the threat terrorism FROM ANY SOURCE poses to civilization, and persists in seeing righs-respecting superpowers as the biggest threat to peace.

And as for the Saudis attacking us ... as I have said before, Saudi Arabia is not a monolith; while he had support from some, and some in high places supported the Wahabbi cesspool from whence he came, OBL was and is an ENEMY of the legitimate government.

YOU are still the Liar-in-Chief, dub-dub.

Oh, BTW:

PROVE that torture was American POLICY, Willy ... PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Wee Willy's Winky,

Perhaps addressing the source of your consciousness might get through better than simply talking to Willy.

"In 1940, Sir Winston Churchill gave a speech to the House of Commons in which he said the German Chancellor blah blah blah"

"You know a wingnut is scraping the bottom o'the barrel when he drags out the obligatory Churchill stories. subby, the Iraqis never attacked us. The Saudis did. And if WMD was an issue, why no histrionics about the nukes owned by Pakistan, India, North Korea or Israel?"

Posted by WW at June 16, 2006 03:19 AM

Well, Mr. Winky, since some of those you've listed have never threatened their use against their neighbors except in retaliation for first strikes, I don't think they pose ANY threat. Pakistan and India threaten only each other, and while Pakistan talks out of both sides of their mouth, there is little else to be done to stop them since they already have the bomb and are friendly (currently) to the US. What part of "they got it on their own and they didn't play by the book, but they've had the bomb since the 80s and haven't used it against anyone", don't you understand? India and Israel are most friendly to the US and therefore, no histrionics is required or desired. The Israelis have owned their nukes for many years and the Indians exploded theirs without our detecting their preparations in the 90s. It isn't the fact that they have nukes that bothers us so much.

It is the fact that the regimes that have them threaten indiscriminate use of their nuclear weapons against their neighbors and us. North Korea has threatened to turn the West Coast of the US into a "lake of fire" since 1995. Allowing them to acquire nuclear weapons in violation of the treaty they signed (and have since given notice that they are leaving) without any assurances they don't mean exactly what they say in their official newspapers would be pretty dumb, don't you think? The Iranians have specifically threatened to use their nukes against Israel, as soon as they get them. They insist on saying that Israel must be wiped off the face of the map, and that they will bring about the ascendance of the Islamic Revolution by force if necessary. The letter they delivered to the US recently was an ultimatum to us to convert to Islam or suffer the consequences of our actions. It was a submit or die wanring. Don't believe me, go wade through all 26 pages of it and come back when your homework is finished.

Saudi Arabians attacked us on 9-11, this is true. Those evil men even got assistance from their government. But when the US President said you are with us or against us, the Saudi government saw the handwriting on the wall and began assisting us in the War on Terror. They were embarassed by their own citizens and responded with support for our goals. Maybe not wholeheartedly, but they responded in the affirmative with action and with intelligence and real results.

Now maybe you think we should have immediately bombed Saudi Arabia in response to 9-11 without any further diplomatic initiatives, but then what would be your excuse for standing in the way of Saddam's overthrow? He had 12 years and 17 separate warnings to change his ways. The evidence of collaboration with terrorists, including alQaeda, may be weak, but it IS there. He supported them with training and safe haven. He routinely sent his military personnel to meetings with global terrorist movements to coordinate support with them. I don't need any other proof that he was against us.

Saudi Arabia got told once to shape up or get hammered like the rest of alQaeda and they started shaping up. I don't know about you, but when my kids get told to do something and they do it, I don't usually go around beating them for doing what I said. Maybe that's just me. I believe in cause and effect. What is your position on beating your kids and bombing Saudi Arabia after they do what we say?

As for whether the Iraqis ever attacked us, after 1991 they did so over 400 times in the no fly zones, and one attempt on the life of a former US President. They refused to return Kuwaiti prisoners from Gulf War I, they refused to follow the rules of the cease fire, they hid the status of their WMD programs from the UN and kept prohibited items in their inventory. They had WMD programs, if not stockpiles. (By the way, I have seen enough to be convinced the WMD are in Syria along with Saddam's money, but until Assad is gone, we'll never know will we?) All they had to do was admit they had no WMD and show the inspectors the truth, and the sanctions would have been lifted, and Saddam would be free to do whatever he wanted today. He didn't. Why?

Saying Iraq never attacked us is a LIE, Mr. Winky. And your little head knows what he thinks of Liars. Or perhaps you are just mistaken. (See how that works, Willy. When you are wrong, it isn't always a lie, is it? Of course the rest of us would like you to cut off any part which lies to you, so feel free to saw away, boy.)

Finally, Willy. If you must insult people here, I wish you'd restrict your insults to me. The ladies on this site deserve to be treated with respect. I don't think you've shown any of them respect. And that just proves you are no gentleman, and therefore unworthy of respect yourself. So dish it out all you want. But realize you hurt no one but yourself with your insults. I on the other hand, am total evil incarnate and you may feel free to blast away all you want. It is so much fun to see you spit all over the windshield of the truck which is about to run over you.

Have a nice day, troll.

Subsunk

Thanks Subsunk -- truely, WW is no officer and a gentleman.

WW,

You show your ignorance some more with you comments about Iraqi and Iranian Shia populations.

Let's get one thing straight: Shiaism (or Twelvers)is a way of practicing Islam. Not neccessary a type of people. What you should remember is that Iranian's are predominantly Persian. Iraqi Shia tend to be of the Arabic variety. So just because they both are Shia doesn't neccessarily mean they like each other. That would be like calling all Christians sects in America the same and that they all get along. Which we all know is not neccessarily true. Things are much more than skin deep with regards to Iraqi and Iranian Shias and Iraqi Sunnis. Hence Synova's comments about identity politics.

I mean really think about it. If you were Iran and the most powerful military was in your neighbors yard, who BTW you don't really like and have fought with before, and America is pissed at you because you are building nukes, and the only thing keeping them off your back is an insurgency in your neighbors yard, what would you do?? I know what I would do: I would give my neighbor arms, money and technology to tie that military up fighting a long drawn out battle. Because if they pull out b/c that country becomes stable, I "could" be next (now don't go misqouting me as saying we should go into Iran. That is another discussion.) It is smart politics by Iran and makes a whole lotta sense, you can't really deny that. But that's right, the military and the government lies, and the press is only correct when it supports your view.

WW,

Just one more hole to punch in your "genius armor".
You brought up a comment about terrain and how Nam was catagorically worse.
Do you really think that this war is being fought in the wide open desert? Do picture the enemy lining up in formation and charging?

This war is being fought in an urban environment. This is the worst possible terrain for war. Period.

Seriously bro, some of your comments are so retarded that I have to believe that you are joking.
Either way, your ignorance of the military, politics, the situation in Iraq, and at this point I believe life and people in general, is fu#$ing staggering.

Waiting for obscure unrelated link in response...

Wee Willy's Wanker,

Do you think you could actually get your boss, Willy, to respond to some of the questions he has been asked? I know you are supposed to control Men's minds, but you don't seem to be getting through to him. Perhaps you need to cough up a little persuasion to the big head, instead of just laying around down here.

Anyway, tell Willy that we'd appreciate it if he actually quoted some bits or linked to some of the documents supposedly in this book he recommends before we go shell out our hard earned money for it. (PS, Willy, the link doesn't work all the time, go fix it) What, does he have royalties coming in from it? 'Cause you just know that tidbit would make all of us go out and buy the book right away -- to burn it.

Because trying to use a book review as proof of American policy doesn't actually help your case. So what does the book actually say is in the documents, Willy? It would be helpful to know EXACTLY what the worst ones say, assuming they direct actual torture and not one of the 12 items previously approved for interrogation (sleep deprivation, loud music, extremes of hot and cold, etc.....)

Anyway, some real facts on torture as an approved and documented policy and not just some lefty lawyers liberal interpretation of the loopholes extant in the policy would be nice if you intend to answer the mail. Now go commune with your Master. Baiter.

Subsunk

"The items approved ARE torture. They are derived from what the Gestapo and Stalin's NKVD did, which in turn derived them from medieval tortures. It is their approval and use that constitutes the official U.S. torture policy."

"Just to take one such item: Enforced standing is one of the severest tortures known. It was S.O.P. in Stalin's prisons, as were sexual humiliation, enforced nakedness and refrigerated cells. You're in good company, subby. You hate this country and everything it ever stood for. Just like your commie buddies."

Posted by WW at June 16, 2006 08:25 PM

Really? Enforced standing as torture, eh? One of the most severe forms of torture? Medieval, eh? Guess OSHA ought to be called and put on notice to look out better for the waitresses and mechanics of the world. Call out the International Red Cross! They're using thumbscrews and the Iron Maiden on me!

Refrigerated cells? In Guantanamo? Refrigeration systems by design always make the temperature below 50 degrees no matter how they are running. It is a matter of the refrigerant used which determines how cold a system gets the room. Refrigerator systems always make the room less than 40 degrees if they are running correctly, and they will never get any heat into the room to return the room to normal once the punishment is over.

Air Conditioning systems are designed (laws of physics again) to make rooms control between 50-90 degrees based on outside air temperature. Since the laws of physics make it near impossible for any commercial air conditioning systems installed in occupied spaces (and that is the system installed in any occupied building -- there are no experimental air conditioning systems in the military, and that room includes the spaces occupied by the interrogators and guards) to be much more than 20 degrees colder than the outside air, and the outside air at Gitmo is 70-100 degrees throughout the year, I guess this means the coldest it could get in the cells would be about 50 degrees and most of the time only to 65 or 70 degrees. And I'd like to know how long the detainees were exposed to that temperature by the documentation. What were the limits? Even in the worst case, the human body can handle 50 degrees air temperature for quite some time (several hours at least). Some of us even go coatless in such weather. Most likely you can force the human body to suffer when you just make the air temperature 65. Go ahead, try it at home. 65 will make you feel cold all right, especially if you don't put on a sweater all night. But walking around and wearing any clothing at all will keep you just fine, thank you.

Now is a temperature of 65 degrees torture to a detainee? He might think so, but my wife makes me sleep in 65 degrees in Houston, TX at night because she is going through "the Change" and has hot flashes. Am I being tortured? (A story for a different time, folks. I'm only tortured in my mind, says she. She is quite comfortable, thank you. Call the UN Human Rights Council! Mrs. Subsunk is torturing her husband? The radio room on my last 4 ships was colder than that and my radiomen did 6 hours watches twice a day in there.) More to the point, is there any danger of serious harm from extreme cold to a detainee in 50 degree weather without a jacket and without wind factors? The answer is no unless he is allowed to dehydrate or starve. I think we can leave out freezing as a valid torture in Gitmo.

As for forced nakedness being torture, I'm sure that falls under degrading treatment somewhere. So we'd better sic the Human Rights Watch on all the college fraternities in the country, and eliminate girls and boys locker rooms throughout the country for such inhumane oppression. And certainly all the strip bars in America. Help, help I'm being repressed! If she puts those things in my face anymore I might explode --- uh-oh, too late!

Now sexual humiliation is a funny thing. There are lots of things which go hand in hand with sexual humiliation, almost all of them bonafide torture. Muslim men are so ashamed of nakedness that they kill other men for just wearing shorts to soccer matches. Or even practice. I know, difficult to believe, but it HAS happened.

So I perfectly understand when they scream bloody murder if they are actually forced to get naked and wrestle like the Greeks and Romans of old. Or sit in front of other guys who laugh at them when their Winky is a little smaller than their neighbors. Truly that is degrading treatment. And it probably is torture. Certainly it is for those of us with that mental picture.

I guess the question is whether it happened and to what extent it happened. I have heard that there are cases where detainees were forced to live in their cells naked for a time. I want to know what they did to their guards, interrogators and visitors to draw such punishment. Perhaps spitting on and throwing feces and urine on their guards' clothes requiring washing of those clothes and changing of the guards so they could wash off was met with removal of the detainees clothing privileges for the same reasons the guards had to wash their clothes. Or maybe it was just the detainees wanted new underwear they saw in the Sears Roebuck or Victoria's Secret catalogs.

Either way, I'm thinking the devil is in the details on this one. I'm sure many of these methods, carried to extremes WOULD constitute torture. The question I want to know is what restrictions were placed on the guards and interrogators when using these things. Because, as we've all seen now, even pleasant old Canada is guilty of torture according to Islamic terrorists. But you can bet, if told they were going to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for interrogation, they squeal like the pigs they are in fright. I just wonder about those torture charges, now, don't the rest of you?

I'd like to see what the documents say verbatim, Willy. How about you reach down, do some research and post a couple of verbatim transcripts here so we'll all know how honest and truthful you are? Until you find the time to present your case, we'll all be waiting. Patiently.

Just because you say torture, don't mean it's so.

Subsunk

By the way, here is a good link to determine the effects of cold on the human body.

Read on.

http://www.survival.com/bookch4.htm

Subsunk

None of these things ever had anything to do with the United States.

Oh yes they did ... for they were reliable indicators of what to expect from Saddam with regards to peace in the Middle East and around the world ... and peace in both regions is definitely something that we have a deep interest in, being that we are now highly interconnected (and not just with wires and radio waves) to the well-being of the rest of the world.

What you, and those like you, should have learned from 911 is that it doesn't take that much anymore for a thug to reach out and kill thousands ...

... and that such thugs, before they reach that level of lethality, send out clear and reliably-discerned signals (like those listed above) that they are ready and willing to reach that level, and therefore pose a threat to world civilization that is derived from evil intent ...

... justifying prudent action before-the-fact to decisively eliminate such threats on the part of rights-respecting, free people ...

... however, the rules of "diplomacy" as of 10 September 2001, mired in moral relativism, proscribe taking prudent action to eliminate such a threat before reaching that level of lethality.

Problem is, people like you, dub-dub, have your judgment capacity so far up your ideological rectum that you fear a rights-respecting nation more than you do a proven thugoracy, simply because the former is larger ... or the former is led by someone who won't endorse your pet vice.

I'll deal with your other points later.

I hereby surrender myself for arrest. I admit guilt in torturing my stepson. I made him stand in the corner as punishment on several occasions. I deeply regret my error and I would like to state in my defense that my acts are in no way a reflection of U.S. Military policy or doctrine. I take full responsibility for my actions and throw myself on the mercy of the court and the MSM, whichever is the presiding authority.

Well, well. Now this little gem: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060617/D8I9L6904.html

No illegal activity has taken place.

Pentagon Details Abuse of Iraq Detainees
Jun 16, 8:55 PM (ET)

By LOLITA C. BALDOR

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. special operations forces fed some Iraqi detainees only bread and water for up to 17 days, used unapproved interrogation practices such as sleep deprivation and loud music and stripped at least one prisoner, according to a Pentagon report on incidents dating to 2003 and 2004.

The report concludes that the detainees' treatment was wrong but not illegal and reflected inadequate resources and lack of oversight and proper guidance rather than deliberate abuse. No military personnel were punished as a result of the investigation.
The findings were included in more than 1,000 pages of documents the Pentagon released to the American Civil Liberties Union on Friday under a Freedom of Information request. They included two major reports - one by Army Brig. Gen. Richard Formica on specials operations forces in Iraq and one by Brig. Gen. Charles Jacoby on Afghanistan detainees.

While some of the incidents have been reported previously and reviewed by members of Congress, this was the first time the documents were made public. Many portions of the report were blacked out, including specific names and locations such as the identities of the military units involved.

The report comes as the military is grappling with new allegations of war crimes in an increasingly unpopular conflict in Iraq. It could hamper the Bush administration's election-year effort to turn public opinion around with upbeat reports about the progress of the new government in Baghdad.

"Both the Formica and the Jacoby report demonstrate that the government is really not taking the investigation of detainee abuse seriously," said Amrit Singh, an ACLU attorney.
Singh called the reports "a whitewash" and questioned why they only focused on a limited number of incidents. In particular, she said there have been numerous documents showing that special operations forces abused detainees, and yet Formica only reviewed a few cases.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros said, "We've undertaken significant steps to investigate, hold people accountable and change our operations as appropriate. This is all part of our effort to be transparent and show that we investigate all allegations thoroughly, and we take them seriously."

Less than a week ago, three detainees committed suicide at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, highlighting anew accusations of abuse. A little more than two years ago, the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq came to light, with its graphic photographs of detainees being sexually humiliated and threatened with dogs.

The Bush administration has been criticized [my note here -- unfairly --- Subsunk] internationally, including by U.S. allies, for [my note here -- unproven --- Subsunk] abusive treatment of terror war detainees. Late last year, Congress forced Bush to accept a ban [my note here -- which was already in place and had always been in place --- Subsunk] on the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners by U.S. troops.

Administration officials have said the U.S. does not use torture but rather legal interrogation techniques to gain information that could head off terror attacks.

Ordered more than two years ago, the Formica review recommended changes including better training, new standards for detention centers and updated policies for detainee operations. His final report is dated November 2004 but was just released to the ACLU in its unclassified, censored form on Friday.

According to a senior defense official, all eight of Formica's recommendations for changes and improvements in detention policies were implemented shortly after he completed the report. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about it.

Formica reviewed three allegations of abuse by special operations forces who held detainees in temporary facilities, often hastily set up near where they were captured [my note here -- out in the field and without barbed wire or guards for prison facilities, before they were turned over to prison MPs --- Subsunk].

Formica found that overall conditions "did not comport with the spirit of the principles set forth in the Geneva Conventions," which require humane treatment of prisoners.

Formica said, for example, that the forces used five interrogation techniques that were allowed at one point but had been rescinded by then: sleep or food deprivation, yelling and loud music, forcing detainees to remain in stressful physical positions and changing environmental conditions - which could include making their locations too hot or too cold [my note here -- but which we, the MSM, have no idea whether they actually included extreme heat or cold, because we say "could have". Also, if the dog hadn't stopped to crap he would have caught the rabbit. But we state the obvious. --- Subsunk].

Formica also found that the nakedness "was unnecessary and inconsistent with the principles of dignity and respect" in the Geneva Conventions. And he said that while one of the prisoners fed just bread and water appeared to be in good condition, 17 days of that diet "is too long."

In his recommendations he said detainees should receive adequate bedding, food, water and holding areas, get systematic medical screenings and a clear record of their detention at every level.

He dismissed other specific allegations of more serious abuse in several earlier cases. He said that the allegations of rape, sodomy and beatings were not substantiated by medical examinations and that the accusers' stories changed over time and were not credible. [my note here -- in other words, lying is the national pasttime of jihadi Muslims --- Subsunk]

Jacoby was dispatched in May 2004 to examine the treatment of detainees at facilities in Afghanistan.

His report found "no systematic or widespread mistreatment of detainees," but concluded that the opportunities for mistreatment and the ever-changing battlefield there demanded changes in procedures.

He said that there was "a consistent lack of knowledge" regarding the capture, processing, detention and interrogation of detainees and that policies varied at facilities across the country. Jacoby also concluded that the lack of clear standards created opportunities for abuse and impeded efforts to gain timely intelligence and that interrogation standards were "inconsistent and unevenly applied."

To date, there have been about 600 investigations into detainee-related incidents of all kinds, including natural deaths and detainee assaults on other detainees, according to Army spokesman Paul Boyce. As a result, he said, 267 soldiers have received some type of punishment, including 85 courts-martial and 95 nonjudicial actions. [my note here -- Oh look, when WE find proof, we convict people. When we don't they aren't prosecuted. Isn't 267 prosecutions sufficient cross checking and investigation to prove we've looked at every credible charge??? What morons would believe anything in a newspaper after 267 soldiers have been investigated and the newspapers can only find 10 or 12 instances of abuse and half of those appear unsubstantiated? Who has the better record? The MSM or the US Army and Marine Corps??? --- Subsunk]
---
On the Net:
Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

The Defense rests.

Subsunk

"at least subby only guzzles the vodka. You seem to have found the absinthe."

- For reasons you could never understand, dubdub, you really made my day by writing this; so thank you! Really! Although, that's not to say the absinthe I'm said to have 'found' could ever have it's purported 'makes the heart grow fonder' effect on the rest of what you spew forth.

If the reasoned counterpoints on this site coming from Subsunk were truly the result of swilling vodka by the CASE, all I would say is: "I'll have what he's having!"
Since they're not, and since He is too much the gentleman (Thanks for that, Subsunk; although 'evil incarnate' is good, too! ;-)) not to get distracted by insults directed towards ladies - even when this 'lady' for one is more than happy to also rise to the defense of others, regardless of a peskily lacking x chromosome ;-) - then I humbly bow to the articulate voices of wisdom like his, Rich Casebolt’s and Synova/Julie‘s, etc., and bow out of a dissection of your every fake premise from which I'll instead listen and learn. And take notes.

Keep louching (absinthe-speak, dubdub -feel free to look it up) the discussions by continuing the personal accusations and you might yet precipitate the return of one you deem best buds with ‘la Fée Verte'.

I don't drink btw; I do research. (easier on the budget, and better recovery time ;-))
You should research too, dubdub. Should but...can't. No matter how hard you’ve tried in the past. Because the facts that you find must seldom smush into your own little picture puzzle of the issues discussed here, and therefore either get mangled by you, or left out completely. Which is too bad. Because you are being called on it.

Gee, as a regular reader of this ‘so-called Milblog', you’d think you would have picked up on this tendency by now!

Case in point: the one above my last. (and lol, SFC D!)

Beth*A,

High Fives all around

Subsunk

"WW" should fear not. I sent this comments section around to all my friends and coworkers as an example of how the informed and educated can beat down the ignorant, anti-military, anti-America leftists of the world. So fear not, this thread is still being read and enjoyed by many. To Subsunk and all the rest, keep up the brilliant work. You are an inspiration to the rest of us to keep up the fight against leftist lies, distortions, ignorance and disinformation.

[Scratches left nut, snorts, spits, takes a drink from his hip flask, pick's his nose, yawns, then goes back to sleep, satisfied in a good day's work]

Subsunk out --- like a light.