Comments on: Learnin’ From the Muj?

By: j house

j house — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:28:19 +0000

ok, last one…
Per ‘EastCoaster’,can we all agree on this blog not to attack someone because they ‘haven’t been there’, and then imply they are either ignorant of the ‘real’ situation or a coward? Everyone has a right to a reasoned opinion and the facts.
If I lost a relative would my opinion matter more? This is the kind of rationale that has ruined reasoned debate about anything these days.
Or, per ‘Veteran’ re Halabja–
“Signed,
A Veteran who has BEEN to the city you speak of“
Even though I’ve been to the Alamo, I’m not sure I know any more about it than you do.
Stick to the facts, not DIA and CIA reports.
In film and still photos as well as first-hand testimony, it is clear blistering agents were used on Kurds by Saddam…you deny that?
Read the Duelfer report my friend and go read the tape transcripts..they has no taboos about using them, it is clear.

By: j house

j house — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:44:17 +0000

Also,
I meant no disrespect for my bad attempt to try and put into perspective the combat losses suffered in this war relative to others or peacetime.One loss is horrible, but we’re in a war, and we we put our troops next to the enemy, we’ll suffer losses…and we have guys not in combat risking their lives worldwide every day just making it work.My point was that the Congress and the public’s threshold for combat losses seems to be at an all-time low, even though our losses are significantly lower than past major conflicts.
BT has excellent points,but if you want to define ‘defeat’ 50 different ways and ‘winning’ only one, we’ll always be defeated by terrorist violence.
What were our original goals in Iraq? Go back and read the resolutions, please.
Saddam and his sons out of power…check.
(hell, on the eve of the war, Bush claimed the US would be satisfied if the family just bailed the country, if you recall).
Unfettered UN inspections for evidence of WMD…check
Baath party taken down…bonus check.
Democratic elections, including Sunni participation…check.
Stable, democratic Iraqi govt that can fend for itself without US military and financial assistance…not checked.
Don’t get so down.
Look, I wasn’t for the war.I thought Bush had way too much hubris after 9/11 and early success in Afghanistan and had no idea what he was getting us into.
That said, we’re in it.
After 9/11 lowered the bar for hitting us directly, could we have taken Saddam’s fangs away for less that 3,100 plus brave Americans and a half trillion dollars to date?
As BT says, we need better, smarter leaders who tell it straight.

By: j house

j house — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:07:13 +0000

To be entirely accurate, yes, we were also giving Iraq ‘credits’ that allowed Iraq to channel funds towards arms purchases and yes, US manufactured weapons showed up in Iraq.Show me one arms deal we inked with Iraq in the 80’s and make me a believer (Hughes helicopters don’t count)
The devil at the time was Iran and the USG feared a Shiite takeover in Iraq (my how times change)
My general point was, the bar was never set for defining a ‘win’.
BTW,
Number of embassies destroyed before 9/11? 2
After…none.
Number of US warships nearly sunk before 9/11? 1
After…none.
Number of US cities attacked on 9/11? 2
After…none.
Numbe of AQ attacks on US homeland after 9/11?
none.
We’re winning.

By: j house

j house — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:56:11 +0000

To a ‘Veteran’, what proof do you have the US armed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war?
The only arms ever shipped to any of the 2 parties from the U.S. was Hawk SAMs and TOW missiles to Iran, by way of Israel.
PROVE that the U.S. ARMED Iraq, instead of just mouthing it..that has been a lie the media has told for years (and no, I don’t watch FOX. Go read the transcript between Saddam and Ambass. April Glaspie..that will demonstrate clearly the US wasn’t arming Saddam. Sure, we were giving him intel to stave off an Iranian invasion, but that falls way short of an arms deal.
Second, the notion that Iraq should be excused for the use of chemical weapons because they were fighting a war with Iran is nonsense. Yes, there was a debate in the US IC about who was responsible for Halabja, but I think the recordings of Ali Hassan majid should clear that up a bit. It was obvious Saddam had no scruples about using CW when he saw fit.
I’d enlist right now, but I’m 45. If you can help get me embedded, I’ll take leave and give you a report on the ground in Iraq.I have no problem with that, or you insinuating because I’m not there I don’t know what is going on.
If you can do this, I’ll send you my contact details

By: Buck

Buck — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:19:20 +0000

For this to be truely effective, on an aircraft, you have to have many thin skins to protect the critical parts. or to tub them like the A-10. Both call for massive increases in the weight of the aircraft, which are massively underpowered to start with. The weight ratios are calculated with the best “bang for the buck”. Which is where it all stops. You do the right things to stop the aerial attacks, or you let a few drop. Our wise leaders said to let a few drop. Our tax dollars which are hoisted to ever higher depths, says now a few more can drop. Do you get what I’m gettin at folks. You don’t do like Tsu said, you lose.

By: Patriot Scholar

Patriot Scholar — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:36:44 +0000

It would be stupidly naive to think that you could overfly Iraq (or any country, for that matter) for 4 years and not expect a populace that hates us to come up with something to attack them. We should have expected this.

By: A Veteran

A Veteran — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:40:08 +0000

I think we could all go and decimate Jhouse’s “Fox News talking Points” but since it has already been done, I’d like to simply focus on ONE of them…
—->“Iraq’s govt won’t be using chemical weapons on any of it’s civilians any time soon..remember Halabja?”–j house
I think you need to step away from a talking point, and derive your TRUTH’S from…REALITY.
Hopefully, this will help you, but I doubt it.
The incident concerning Halabja (In the EIGHTIES for Christ’s sakes.…), was during a battle, during a WAR between Iraq and Iran.
That says all that needs to be said concerning warfare in the Middle East where they hardly had any MACHINERY to begin with, but further to my point is that after this battle in Halabja between Iraq and Iran, it was stated then (1988), that the one’s that had used the particular gas that had killed the civilians was.…..
IRAN. (that’s with an N, btw…)
The condition of the dead Kurds’ bodies indicated they had been killed with a blood agent– that is, a cyanide-based gas– which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
The U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, instructed its diplomats to say that IRAN was partly to blame.
A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time concluded, apparently by determining the chemicals used by looking at images of the victims, that it was in fact IRAN that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990’s.
So, what do we have here? We have the “blaming” of IRAN concerning Halabja after it happened by Our CIA, State Dept, the DIA etc., since we were arming IRAQ and were helping them fight Iran at the time and NOW, it’s very convenient to totally divert from REALITY to “blame” it on IRAQ.….
My My…how “convenient” it is to use a “friend” one day, as a “enemy” the next.
Ahhh, the ability to use “revisionist history”, without even KNOWING history.
When you can do something tangible with your “talking points” j house, please, step up.….
Signed,
A Veteran who has BEEN to the city you speak of.

By: tiredofthestupidity

tiredofthestupidity — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:16:52 +0000

Sanctions against Iraq have ended, Iraq’s economy is on the mend from decades of abuse and war brought on by Saddam (ask human rights groups how many Iraqi children HAVEN’T died from ending sanctions..had they had their way, Saddam would still be there)
You really need to do some fact checking. The food situation in Iraq is considered dire. Iraq used to be one of the top exporters of food in the Arab region now it has to depend on food imports for survival. Even then most Iraqis cannot get more then basic rations.
More children are dying in Iraq each die due to lack of medical supplies. You should read several reports done by health agencies that show tens of thousands of doctors have had to flee or be killed. The medical system is in shambles due to US contractor incompetancy. Children are dying from easily prevantable diseases. Medical personeal have to go to the black market to get supplies that prior to the invasion would have only costed pennies. Now they pay through the roof if they can actually find said supplies at the black market.
More then a million people are refugees in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands have fled to neighboring countries. Recent reports have shown that the country which had most people living at a middle class level now has most of them at the brink of poverty. Unemployment is incredibly high. Why do you think insurgents get so many willing people to plant bombs for ten bucks? Because there is no other way to make money to buy food if there is any food to be bought.
A large percentage of Iraqis admit that life under Saddam was better. The years since post invasion have killed more people then decades of Saddam rule.
That million dead figure poopooed by the US media and goverment agencies guess what other agencies have verified the reporting that went into it. So yes more then a million likely have died since the invasion.
Guess you forget the US military saying that to kill one insurgent they had to kill 30–40 civilians. Guess what those familes of those 30–40 civilians do they hate the US and become insurgents or support the insurgents.

By: East Coaster

East Coaster — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:43:52 +0000

“All of this talk about ‘defeat’ is nonsense.
–Iraq’s govt. is no longer a threat to it’s neighbors“
Iraq now has a majority Shiite government. That is a potential threat to the neighboring Sunni-dominated countries, namely Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Why do you think Saudi wants Iran neutered? Because they’re great friends? Are our Arab allies Sunni or Shia? Look at a map and think about it.
”-Iraq’s govt is not hosting AQ terrorists and not funding anti-U.S. sub-national groups, as was Saddam (ok…maybe Sadr, but we’ll deal with him).“
Iraq the geographical entity, however, is hosting AQ terrorists, as are Pakistan and Afghanistan. In addition, Sadr is the main internal support of the Shiite government of Iraq that we support.
”-Iraq’s WMD capacity for the far distant future is neutered“
As it was since the mid nineties. Good continuity there.
”-Iraq’s govt won’t be using chemical weapons on any of it’s civilians any time soon..remember Halabja?“
What guarantee do you have of that? This is pure speculation.
”-Saddam and his boys are in boxes and the Iraqi Baath party is a shadow of it’s former self and completely powerless“
They were replaced with a Shiite government allied with Iran. There is now a “Shiite crescent” running from Iran to Lebanon.
”-25 million Iraqis are now free to choose their fate and voter turnout ws higher than most western democracies , after having lived through a bloodthirsty dictatorship for 30 years..who said the transition to democracy isn’t a bitch?“
Nobody.
”-Sanctions against Iraq have ended, Iraq’s economy is on the mend from decades of abuse and war brought on by Saddam (ask human rights groups how many Iraqi children HAVEN’T died from ending sanctions..had they had their way, Saddam would still be there)“
Ask human rights groups how many Iraqi children now have no parents.
”-We’ve brought the Jihadis to Iraq and are killing them day in and day out, by the hundreds“
They’ll make more. How hard is this to understand?
”-We’re losing on average 2 American GI’s per day, less than a thousand men and women a year (God bless and honor every one of them for their exemplary service and supreme sacrfice for the liberty of others). Compare that to peacetime accident losses in the 60’s,70’s and 80’s or any other major conflict in the last 50 years“
You make it sound easy for these GIs to die. Please enlist, and write your next comment from Iraq.
“What defeat? You listen to our politicians and the media and believe it. Look at the big picture– How many US embassies have been leveled since 9/11?“
How many before then?
How many US warships have been nearly sunk?
How many before then?
“How many US cities have had devastating attacks happen since then?“
How many before then?
How many terrorists have been free to train, plan and carry out attacks compared to the 90’s?
See U.S. and Iraqi casualties in Iraq.
Stop watching Fox News, and you will be better informed.

By: jtw

jtw — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 01:44:32 +0000

The sad thing is the Military will allocate even more money that the 400 trillion dollars in the past didnt cover in trying to come up with a solution.
It will only goto Raytheon or Northrup Grumman and some genius sitting in his basement with nothing to do and all the technical know how in the world will get 0$ because he was unproven and too risky.
Gotta love capitalism and the defense industry. It will be five years until they will even prove feasability on the very idea that these SAM’s can be defeated, and another 10 trillion dollars and 10 years until we get something that “sort of” works to the soldiers in the battlefield at 100000X more then it should of cost.