Surge? in Iraq

[blackascoal]

Given the choice, I'd rather have Saddam than the Taliban.

Same here. While I think democracy is a great thing, pretending that the establisment of democracy there as a fall back from the WMD raison d'etre was wrong. There was too much totalitarian baggage to think everyone would accept a democratic solution.

"Democracy" is nothing more than a smoke screen. America doesn't give a damn about democracy in the middle east and elsewhere ... and we naver have.

We have and will overthrow a democracy and install a dictator in a heartbeat if it fits our purposes and couldn't care less what that dictator does to his own people .. Iraq, Iran, Chile, etc.

[Catchme]

Given the choice, I'd rather have Saddam than the Taliban.

Same here. While I think democracy is a great thing, pretending that the establisment of democracy there as a fall back from the WMD raison d'etre was wrong. There was too much totalitarian baggage to think everyone would accept a democratic solution.

"Democracy" is nothing more than a smoke screen. America doesn't give a damn about democracy in the middle east and elsewhere ... and we naver have.

We have and will overthrow a democracy and install a dictator in a heartbeat if it fits our purposes and couldn't care less what that dictator does to his own people .. Iraq, Iran, Chile, etc.

Actually America in the broader sense does give a damn, the corporatists and elitists that control the US government don't give a damn about ANY country not even the one they control. Nor do they care what happens to the US citizens, let alone what their installed dictators do.

Countries come and go, to them, its as simple as that. The only thing they are concerned about is absolute and total control. They cannot afford to lose this and they only have less than 2 years to succeed.

[Fortunata]

Why would a shia theocracy be any worse than a sunni thugocracy?

I think a theocracy would be worse depending on how far it's taken. Look at Afghanistan just for an example of an extreme theocracy. AND if it is a Shia government (which it would be) there will be sectarian unrest for a long while. If the US is to do it right then all regions (Shia, Sunni and Kurd) will be equally represented in government; it may not fit representation by population but it will fill an even greater need of an equal voice between the factions that are now at odds.

One thing I think Bush has right is to create in each district a headquarters where both US and Iraqi personnel will be stationed. This should have been created at first invasion and it may be too late to be effective but if it stops the senseless killing in even one neighbourhood it will be good. I think.

[jdobbin]

But we don't "bring our boys home"...not from Germany, not from Japan, not from Korea, and not from the Gulf. Every day is a day of national celebration. Freedom ain't free.

They were brought home from Vietnam.

[blackascoal]

Does it matter that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government does not want any additonal troops and reject the notion of a surge?

[Black Dog]

JerryS is wrong. The PUSA is C-in-C of the U.S. armed forces, not the fucking country.

Section 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States...

cheneybush2004:

No, the "Conquest of Iraq" was the continuation of UK/US foreign policy for Iraq going back to 1991:

1) Gulf War

2) No-fly zones

3) UN sanctions

4) Iraq Liberation Act (US Congress - October 1998)

5) Operation Desert Fox - December 1998 (Military attacks for "WMD" inspection violations / kill Saddam)

...all before President Bush was ever elected.

Ah, so you see a bad policy and the first thing you think is: "I can top that."

Freedom ain't free.

Freedom costs a buck 'o five

[Guthrie]

But we don't "bring our boys home"...not from Germany, not from Japan, not from Korea, and not from the Gulf. Every day is a day of national celebration. Freedom ain't free.

They were brought home from Vietnam.

They were brought home from Somalia and cetera

but this is just a red herring argument anyway - I agree there is an annoyingly overlived artifact from the great wars, some call it, American presence. It is an issue on it's own but it isn't the issue in Iraq, is it?

There are buschista apologists whose final fingertip grip on the rock face of an argument is, 'We can't win if we leave!' --- but they have to swallow hard and pant mightily to keep down this offensive cupful and still they have to avoid the emerging truth, 'We can't win if we stay in Iraq.'

The fact is, the only way we can do anything positive in Iraq is by handing it off to a broader authority. I mean, yes, the UN or a regional coalition formed into a deliberative body ... I'd want Israel to have a seat of authority on such a group btw

Oh and RE: 'Freedom ain't Free,' from the scroll --- how many of you clowns making that argument are willing to put your lives where your mouths are? It's fine for YOU to say freedom ain't free when you are asking someone else to jump into the meat grinder. Heck, I don't need you to jump all the way in yourself; I just want to see you put some soft dangly parts of yourself in it, I double dog dare yeh!

[jdobbin]

It is Republicans who making the biggest noise against the surge.

Rice had a rough ride in the Senate today.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2787981

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska told Rice the president's plan was "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."

[blackascoal]

Guthrie,

Oh and RE: 'Freedom ain't Free,' from the scroll --- how many of you clowns making that argument are willing to put your lives where your mouths are? It's fine for YOU to say freedom ain't free when you are asking someone else to jump into the meat grinder. Heck, I don't need you to jump all the way in yourself; I just want to see you put some soft dangly parts of yourself in it, I double dog dare yeh!

True .. and we're desperate brother. Well take 'em up to 55.

But none of the pro-war heros are posting from Iraq.

[blackascoal]

It is Republicans who making the biggest noise against the surge.

Rice had a rough ride in the Senate today.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2787981

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska told Rice the president's plan was "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."

This also includes the biggest war hawk on the hill, Republican Senator George Voinovich, who essentially scoffed at Rice. .. I thought she was going to cry.

Does it matter that neither the Iraqi people nor the Iraqi government want more troops in their country?

"Democracy" .. remember that one?

[bush_cheney2004]

True .. and we're desperate brother. Well take 'em up to 55.

But none of the pro-war heros are posting from Iraq.

Not true....here is a better than half-ass answer broken down for prior and non-prior service:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthem...f/faqenlage.htm

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthem...nlstandards.htm

[blackascoal]

True .. and we're desperate brother. Well take 'em up to 55.

But none of the pro-war heros are posting from Iraq.

Not true....here is a better than half-ass answer broken down for prior and non-prior service:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthem...f/faqenlage.htm

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthem...nlstandards.htm

The maximum age of non-prior service enlistment, under federal law used to be age 35. In 2006 the Army convinced Congress to change this to age 44.

Regardless of federal law, the military services are allowed to impose more strict standards -- and they have. The maximum age for non-prior service enlistments for each of the services are:

Active duty Army - 42

Army Reserves - 42

Army Natinal Guard - 42

Active duty Air Force - 27

Air Force Reserve - 34

Air National guard - 34

Active duty Navy - 34

Navy Reserves - 39

Active duty Marines - 28

Marine Corps Reserves - 29

Active duty Coast Guard - 27

Coast Guard Reserves - 27

Age waivers are possible for those with prior military service.

[gc1765]

In a recent poll, 70% of Americans oppose the sending of more troops to Iraq

Link

[blackascoal]

An exerpt ..

Pentagon abandons active-duty time limit

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

1 hour, 5 minutes ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_...itary&printer=1

The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in Iraq.

The day after President Bush announced his plan for a deeper U.S. military commitment in Iraq, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters the change in reserve policy would have been made anyway because active-duty troops already were getting too little time between their combat tours.

The Pentagon also announced it is proposing to Congress that the size of the Army be increased by 65,000, to 547,000 and that the Marine Corps, the smallest of the services, grow by 27,000, to 202,000, over the next five years. No cost estimate was provided, but officials said it would be at least several billion dollars.

Until now, the Pentagon's policy on the Guard or Reserve was that members' cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That cumulative limit is now lifted; the remaining limit is on the length of any single mobilization, which may not exceed 24 consecutive months, Pace said.

In other words, a citizen-soldier could be mobilized for a 24-month stretch in Iraq or Afghanistan, then demobilized and allowed to return to civilian life, only to be mobilized a second time for as much as an additional 24 months. In practice, Pace said, the Pentagon intends to limit all future mobilizations to 12 months.

---------------------------------------------

They are desperate for the prowar armchair warhawks.

Why aren't they joining up?

[Canadian Blue]

When I was looking at joining the US Marine Corps they told me no Canadian's were allowed unless you were a dual citizen or native. However I believe the problem is that they can't find enough CSS to bring the military up to full strength. However I highly doubt we'll see the draft come in, especially since a Democrat or moderate Republican will win the presidency in 2008.

As well Rockefellar has not already decided who is going to win the election for you conspiracy nut's out there.

[jdobbin]

When I was looking at joining the US Marine Corps they told me no Canadian's were allowed unless you were a dual citizen or native. However I believe the problem is that they can't find enough CSS to bring the military up to full strength. However I highly doubt we'll see the draft come in, especially since a Democrat or moderate Republican will win the presidency in 2008.

As well Rockefellar has not already decided who is going to win the election for you conspiracy nut's out there.

I believe Canadians can join the U.S. military. Do you have a link that says they can't?

[bush_cheney2004]

The Americans can recruit soldiers from First Nations because of the Jay Treaty (1794?). US military recruiters were active in Canada during 2003. Thousands of Canadians have served in the US Armed Forces, including service in Iraq.

So called "non-native" Canadians usually need to be US citizens or legal residents (green card) to join the US military, but the recruiters will shave some corners.

[Canadian Blue]

No, I talked to a recruiter and he specifically said that I would need to get either a green card, or be a native.

However, I am now glad that I didn't join.

[Guthrie]

as noted previously, talk is cheap -

and also, as noted previously, none of you guys is posting from Bagdad

[blackascoal]

When I was looking at joining the US Marine Corps they told me no Canadian's were allowed unless you were a dual citizen or native. However I believe the problem is that they can't find enough CSS to bring the military up to full strength. However I highly doubt we'll see the draft come in, especially since a Democrat or moderate Republican will win the presidency in 2008.

As well Rockefellar has not already decided who is going to win the election for you conspiracy nut's out there.

I believe Canadians can join the U.S. military. Do you have a link that says they can't?

At this point, we will take martians into the military. The US military is actively seeking recruits from Mexico and other Latin American countries with the promise of US citizenship as a "prize" for joining up.

I'm fairly certain that any Canadien that wants to join can do so, particularly given that we have no idea where the additional 20,000 IED fodder is going to come from.

[JerrySeinfeld]

JerryS is wrong. The PUSA is C-in-C of the U.S. armed forces, not the fucking country.

Calm your hormones - I asked it as a question not a statement.

Doesn't the commander in chief of the armed forces decide the number of troops in a military action?

[Guthrie]

exactly the point -- this whole Iraq fiasco falls on the shoulders of Dubya

of course, there is still the horrendous failure of oversight by the Republican held Congress

what the Commander in Chief can not do, is appropriate money on his own - in America, we call that, 'checks and balances'

the Congress trusted Bush about going into Iraq - that turns out to have been a failure on the part of Congress as Bush was starting a war based on lies

now, Bush is going to the well once again but this time Congress isn't his personal rubber stamp

[JerrySeinfeld]

exactly the point -- this whole Iraq fiasco falls on the shoulders of Dubya

of course, there is still the horrendous failure of oversight by the Republican held Congress

what the Commander in Chief can not do, is appropriate money on his own - in America, we call that, 'checks and balances'

the Congress trusted Bush about going into Iraq - that turns out to have been a failure on the part of Congress as Bush was starting a war based on lies

now, Bush is going to the well once again but this time Congress isn't his personal rubber stamp

Why is Iraq a fiasco? Because a bunch of Muslims are killing eachother?

[Guthrie]

Why is Iraq a fiasco? Because a bunch of Muslims are killing eachother?

First - I consider this type of comment nothing but the ugliest of bigotry

Second - even Republican strategists are admitting:

...

Rich Galen, a Republican strategist, said that his party has already been tarred by the Iraq fiasco and that the Democrats run the risk of being hurt as well if they cut off money to the troops.

...

Globe and Mail

Third - our soldiers went to an Iraq invasion based on lies of the administration -- over 3000 of these soldiers paid the ultimate price based on Bush's lies --- I consider this murder

[Black Dog]

Why is Iraq a fiasco? Because a bunch of Muslims are killing eachother?

Y'know, your new tack is to pont to the unbridled violence, the total lack of central government and even basic services, the prospect of a regional war etc etc and say "That's our plan", well...

Seriously, I'm dying top know how your plan (destroy as many countries and bring about as many deaths as possible) will result in justice, democracy and ponies.