Go Back   HawaiiThreads.com > Ka Honua > The American Asylum
FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Search Latest Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 17th, 2006, 01:59 PM
Pua'i Mana'o's Avatar
Pua'i Mana'o Pua'i Mana'o is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,562
Default The Iraq War - Chapter 5

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

Lie by Lie: Chronicle of a War Foretold: August 1990 to March 2003

The first drafts of history are fragmentary. Important revelations arrive late, and out of order. In this timeline, we’ve assembled the history of the Iraq War to create a resource we hope will help resolve open questions of the Bush era. What did our leaders know and when did they know it? And, perhaps just as important, what red flags did we miss, and how could we have missed them? This is the first installment in our Iraq War timeline project.

========================
this website is mindblowing.
__________________

pax
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old September 21st, 2006, 07:47 PM
Leo Lakio Leo Lakio is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,558
Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

Beyond FDR, on the topic of how "we" treat "the enemy":

"The only legitimate war on terror must also be a war on fear itself. Terror is defeated when the fear it has induced is dispelled. Dispelling fear is much more than merely neutralizing a threat. To dispel fear, the threat also has to be rendered irrelevant by precisely a moral fortitude unshaken by terror, by an unwavering dedication to higher principles."

~ Alexandre Trudeau, published in Maclean's, 9/11/06 ~
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old September 27th, 2006, 08:55 AM
Mahi Waina's Avatar
Mahi Waina Mahi Waina is offline
Luna
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 190
Default To answer Timkona's question

Who thinks terror will decrease if we ignore the problem?? - Timkona

A legitimate question that never got discussed before the thread degenerated into racist, infantile blathering. I say no, we should not ignore the problem. But doing what we are doing in Iraq is worse than ignoring the problem, it is counterproductive by exacerbating a civil war and alienating us from moderate Muslims whose support we will need if can achieve stability in the Middle East.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old September 27th, 2006, 05:00 PM
Miulang Miulang is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,759
Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

No we shouldn't ignore the problem, but since the current Administration has done its best to alienate us from the rest of the world through some of its policies, I think the best way we have to fight terror is to beef up our own defenses within this country: i.e., strengthen the National Guard (bring 'em home so they can be our NATIONAL defense again, and not our INTERNATIONAL defense!), allocate more funds to beef up port security so that no WMDs and illegal aliens can get through, spend more time and money on healing this country by solving some of our internal problems (e.g., access to healthcare, creating meaningful jobs, protecting current jobs and pensions, encouraging development of alternative fuels) rather than starting wars pre-emptively all over the world.

The next White House administration is going to have to do a lot of fence mending by the time it's inaugurated in 2009. Around the world, leaders are changing too (no more Blair, no more Koizumi) so the next Administration will definitely have to restore good relations with some of our former "friends".

Miulang
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old September 27th, 2006, 05:44 PM
Miulang Miulang is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,759
Default They want us to leave!

According to a recent State Dept. poll of Iraqis, the overwhelming majority (almost 75%) of people polled said they would feel safer if the US and its allies left Iraq (they also believe that our occupation has increased the violence in that country), and 65% said they wanted us out immediately.

Sounds like we've overstayed our welcome, and the longer we insist we need to stay there to maintain the peace, the more civilians and our troops (we've lost at least 3 Kaneohe Marines and Schofield soldiers in the last week) get killed.

Maybe we should bring the troops home, and give the people of Iraq the $1.2 billion we're spending every week on keeping our troops in Iraq to help them rebuild their country.

Miulang

Last edited by Miulang; September 27th, 2006 at 06:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old September 28th, 2006, 02:57 PM
Mahi Waina's Avatar
Mahi Waina Mahi Waina is offline
Luna
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 190
Default 60% of Iraqis approve of attacks on U.S.

Anybody still think we should be over there making the Mideast "safe for democracy?"

http://www.charter.net/news/read.php...ARSDCCLM_UNEWS
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old September 28th, 2006, 03:12 PM
Leo Lakio Leo Lakio is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,558
Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

Let's see...

The crazy president of Iran - democratically elected; the crazy president of Venezuela - democratically elected; the crazy president of America - democratically elected.

Not the best arguments one could make in favor of "democracy."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old September 28th, 2006, 03:40 PM
Miulang Miulang is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,759
Default $2 billion a week in Iraq

A newly released Congressional analysis indicates that the taxpayers are now sending about $2 billion a week to support our efforts in Iraq. This is 20% more than a year ago. If Congress votes to accept the new interim funding requests submitted by the Pentagon, we will spend more than $509 billion on both Iraq and Afghanistan since Sept. 11, 2001.

How many more teachers and nurses could be hired for that money? How much closer to being rebuilt would New Orleans be?

We're spending $370 million a week in Afghanistan. FOR WHAT????? The Taliban is gaining traction again in parts of Afghanistan, while the President wines and dines Afghan President Karzai in Washington, DC.

Miulang
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old September 29th, 2006, 09:46 PM
Miulang Miulang is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,759
Default $70 billion emergency funding approved

As expected, Congress approved an additional $70 billion to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. That money will probably only last through the Spring of 2007, when the Pentagon will go before Congress again for more emergency funding. Of that amount, $24 billion will be given to the Army and Marines to replenish and repair equipment rendered inoperable over the last 3 years through continous use.

More ominously, the approved bill will allow for an additional 30,000 soldiers and 5,000 Marines to be called up next year. The next question is: given the unpopularity of the occupations, where will those additional troops come from? The IRR? Calling up more National Guard?

With passage of this appropriation, we, the taxpayers, and our children and their children are half a trillion dollars in debt with no end in sight.

Miulang

P.S. One of the saddest stories from the front is this one, about Merideth Howard, a 52-year old Reservist from Alameda, CA who, on Sept. 8, became the oldest woman soldier to die fighting for the United States during this conflict. She went because she was told to go. Here's an "official" obituary that chronicles her life up until the day she died. An incredible woman who didn't run away from her obligations.

And Reservist families are ordering cardboard likenesses of family members ("Flat Daddies") serving in Afghanistan and Iraq so kids have a way to remember their family members' faces.

Last edited by Miulang; September 29th, 2006 at 11:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old October 5th, 2006, 11:08 PM
Miulang Miulang is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,759
Default $20 million for a "pre-emptive" victory party?

Somebody sneaked in a little $20 million line item into the last emergency funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. The purpose? To celebrate our "victory" in Iraq and Iran.

There's finger pointing on both sides of the aisle now about who allowed this allocation to be included. It appears that it was also in the last emergency funding bill passed in the spring but obviously the money was never spent because we haven't declared victory yet.

The fact that BOTH Republicans and Democrats UNANIMOUSLY approved the funding bill tells me 1) either Congress really is rubberstamping every bill without taking the time to read all the fine print, or 2) the leaders of Congress are forcing the body to vote on bills for which they don't allow adequate time to study the bill and/or be allowed to ask questions.

I'm not so worried about the $20 million right now (mainly because it's doubtful we'll ever be able to pronounce that we've won the occupation). What concerns me more is that all this was unanimously voted upon and only after the dust has settled that questions are starting to be asked.

I want my elected representatives to pay careful attention to any bills or resolutions which require a vote and to ask questions before casting their vote...not afterward when it's too late.

Miulang
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old October 12th, 2006, 05:28 PM
Miulang Miulang is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,759
Default 655,000 Iraqi dead...and counting

A scientifically credible report published by the Johns Hopkins University reveals that at least 655,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US occupation of Iraq began. This is on top of the more than 2,700 US troops killed, and 20,000+ wounded. When the President was asked to comment on the number during a press conference, he refused to do so, which either means he knows the truth but doesn't want to confirm it, or Karl Rove told him not to say anything if asked about it.

The occupation is costing taxpayers money (at the rate of $2 billion a week)...and more importantly, LIVES on both sides of the conflict. Our troops didn't kill all 655,000 of those people, but our being in country also didn't prevent their blood from being shed, either.

The Army published new estimates for how long they expect to be in Iraq...the date is now 2010. Another 4 years of death? At the rate things are going, by 2010, more than 1 million Iraqis will have been sacrificed...FOR WHAT??????

Many prominent Republicans (most notably Sen. John Warner and ex-Sec. of State James A. Baker, who has been a close adviser to the White House) have gone on record stating that unless the Iraqi government steps up and starts to manage the violence, it may be time to start drawing up a timetable for our redeployment. The problem is, no one has yet defined how much longer we will have to wait before we can change our course. In the meantime, the violence continues, and lives are lost.

Miulang

Last edited by Miulang; October 12th, 2006 at 06:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old October 12th, 2006, 06:44 PM
Miulang Miulang is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,759
Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

I stumbled across a fascinating little blog site called "The Sandbox" (hosted by Gary Trudeau of Doonesbury fame) which gathers together the thoughts of many of our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It all is a very poignant reminder that those men and women are PEOPLE too, not just pawns doing our country's bidding.

Miulang
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old October 20th, 2006, 01:20 PM
Miulang Miulang is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,759
Default Sending PTSD troops back to the field

If the military is so hard up for troops that they have to send men and women who have already been in combat but who have been diagnosed as psychologically handicapped by post traumatic stress disease, then there is something very very wrong.

Sending them back "to face their fears" is like pulling the pin on a live grenade. There's no guarantee how the psychologically affected troop member will react when faced with enemy fire, which would put his/her team members in mortal danger from friendly fire.

This is a very bad policy for the Pentagon to implement, and it just underscores the desperation of the DoD at not being able to sustain the number of troops in the field.

Quote:
One study estimates that about 16 percent of soldiers returning from Iraq have PTSD. But military officials say they don't keep tabs on how many troops still fighting have been diagnosed. Most soldiers are never screened, a GAO report finds.

Wilson says the danger of having someone with PTSD at the front lines is that they are at risk themselves and put their units at risk and could break down under the stresses of combat.
"Hey Yossarian!"

Miulang

P.S. So we're sending emotionally fragile troops back into the field on the one hand, while holding back others who are not psychologically damaged because they have serious financial troubles and are considered "security threats" (they could be bribed or bought off by the enemy)??? What's wrong with this picture?

Last edited by Miulang; October 20th, 2006 at 01:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old October 22nd, 2006, 07:37 PM
Miulang Miulang is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,759
Default The aftermath of the disaster at Camp Falcon

On Oct. 10, FOB Falcon, the largest US military base in Iraq, which is the home to 3 battalions and the major supply depot for tanks, trucks and supplies, blew up in what the US press described as a fire of unknown origin. The press also reported that there were no deaths or injuries, and everyone was safely evacuated, although an estimated $1 billion in munitions and equipment was destroyed. With the large number of personnel stationed at this camp, many people were incredulous that there were not more casualties, or at least injuries, reported in the aftermath.

In the last few days, there are been leaks (including names of those who were killed) swirling around the internet about the true proportions of the disaster. According to some reports, at least 300 US troops and 1 CIA officer were killed during the explosions and fire or died shortly afterward. The fires and explosion were caused by mortar fire and rockets presumably fired by Iraqi insurgents.

Could this be the reason why the White House decided to have the 2 meetings with the military leaders of the Iraq occupation on Friday and yesterday, and that it's now time to "stay the course" by coming up with a timeline for the Iraqi government to take over security duties? What else is our government not telling us about what's going on in Iraq?

Miulang

Last edited by Miulang; October 22nd, 2006 at 07:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old October 23rd, 2006, 03:06 AM
Mike_Lowery's Avatar
Mike_Lowery Mike_Lowery is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lihue
Posts: 2,117
Send a message via AIM to Mike_Lowery
Default State Dept. official "misspoke" on Al-Jazeera about US presence in Iraq

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/23/fer...ent/index.html

Looks like someone made him retract his statement. Too bad. He was just spittin' some truth, IMHO.
__________________
Twitter: LookMaICanWrite


flickr
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old October 23rd, 2006, 03:39 PM
HelpStopTheWarDotOrg's Avatar
HelpStopTheWarDotOrg HelpStopTheWarDotOrg is offline
Keiki
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1
Default Help Stop the War in Iraq

What does it take, America? What will it take before we demand our troops come home? Not only have the US military death tolls in Iraq risen astronomically since Bush declared “Mission Accomplished”, but on an almost daily basis military heavyweights and Middle East scholars alike tell us what a huge mess we are creating the longer we stay. Retired generals have come forward calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation for bungling the Iraq war. A US National Intelligence Estimate has recently been leaked that concluded the Iraq war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. A recent estimate by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health puts the Iraqi death toll since the start of the war at 655,000 deaths. Almost 2800 US soldiers have been killed. Over 21,000 US soldiers have been wounded. The war has cost more than 300 billion dollars so far. What else has to happen before Americans wake up and do something about this? President Bush has said that while he is President, we will not leave Iraq. What Mr. Bush doesn’t seem to remember, is that it’s not up to him. He is not a monarch. While the constitution calls him “commander in chief” of the army and navy, Congress has the sole power to declare war. And Congress has the power to bring our troops home. And who controls Congress? We do — American voters. The current Republican-controlled Congress has shown that they do not have the courage to stand up to Bush. Please vote for change in the upcoming November 7 Election. If you really support the troops, you will do your civic duty to change their tour of duty — VOTE.
__________________
If you really support the troops, you will do your civic duty to change their tour of duty — VOTE FOR CHANGE NOV 7.

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old November 4th, 2006, 04:50 PM
damontucker damontucker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,928
Default Re: Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

http://armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php

I find it interesting the Army Times is printing Editorials saying Rumsfeld should step down!

Quote:
Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads....
Quote:
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go.
Isn't printing something like this in their paper close to being criminal in the military court of law?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old November 4th, 2006, 06:03 PM
Miulang Miulang is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,759
Default Re: Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

The call for Rumsfeld to resign has reached unprecedented proportions. That editorial above will be appearing in the Army Times, Navy Times, the Marine Times and the Air Force Times (all owned by the Military Times Media Group, which is a subsidiary of the Gannett Co.) on Monday. This is the first time that active military leaders are going on record as saying Rumsfeld has to go.

I just hope for the publishers' sakes that their financial affairs are in order for when the federales come beating down their doors to try to find something to accuse the company of in an effort to punish them for opposing the President.

Miulang
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old November 4th, 2006, 11:50 PM
damontucker damontucker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,928
Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by manoasurfer123 View Post
http://armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php

I find it interesting the Army Times is printing Editorials saying Rumsfeld should step down!
Isn't printing something like this in their paper close to being criminal in the military court of law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miulang View Post
The call for Rumsfeld to resign has reached unprecedented proportions. That editorial above will be appearing in the Army Times, Navy Times, the Marine Times and the Air Force Times (all owned by the Military Times Media Group, which is a subsidiary of the Gannett Co.) on Monday. This is the first time that active military leaders are going on record as saying Rumsfeld has to go.

I just hope for the publishers' sakes that their financial affairs are in order for when the federales come beating down their doors to try to find something to accuse the company of in an effort to punish them for opposing the President.

Miulang
I wonder if our local media will pick up on this?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old November 4th, 2006, 11:51 PM
Miulang Miulang is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,759
Default The President's faux pas

While our erstwhile President was out campaigning in Greeley, CO today, during a particularly intense part of his speech, he blurted out "the only way we can win the war is to leave before the job is done..." He quickly realized his gaffe and corrected himself by saying, "the only way we can lose is if we leave before the job is done."

First John Kerry blurted out earlier this week that if you stay in school you can succeed; otherwise you end up in Iraq, which he said was meant to criticize the White House for its bungled planning of the occupation and which the White House and the RNC turned into Kerry bashing the troops, and now the President says what the majority of this country supposedly wants...for us to pull our troops out or Iraq, even though publicly he is saying we're staying the course (not changing our strategy but modifying our tactics).

Hmmm...maybe both the President and John Kerry should just stay home and chill for the next three days instead of "helping" the candidates of their parties in their Congressional races for hotly contested seats.

Miulang
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old November 4th, 2006, 11:56 PM
damontucker damontucker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,928
Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

Dang Miulang...

You really hate GwB however, let some HT readers re-read this... before putting this thread off to a Miulang spewwing thread...please...!

http://armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php

This is some pretty big news....
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old November 5th, 2006, 05:19 PM
TuNnL's Avatar
TuNnL TuNnL is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mō‘ili‘ili
Posts: 2,450
Send a message via AIM to TuNnL Send a message via Yahoo to TuNnL
Question Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

Well, Mānoa, I agree with your Army Times article. And sadly, it doesn’t matter... because GwB has already said he’s keeping Rummy for the rest of his term. So what’s your point?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old November 5th, 2006, 06:28 PM
Miulang Miulang is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,759
Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by TuNnL View Post
Well, Mānoa, I agree with your Army Times article. And sadly, it doesn’t matter... because GwB has already said he’s keeping Rummy for the rest of his term. So what’s your point?
The President had to say that he was keeping Rummy because he knew that the Military Times was publishing that editorial tomorrow.

Even though the Military Times publications are owned by a private corporation, they are the most widely distributed journals to all branches of the Armed Forces. And even though the editorial expresses the opinion of the publishers, I seriously doubt they would have written it if they weren't hearing from active duty people who were expressing concern about the progress of the occupation.

And more than likely, and based on what the Baker Commission report on Iraq indicates (it should be released sometime shortly after the election), I predict Rummy will be gone by the end of the year (possible scenario: the Democratic Congressional leadership approaches the White House and strikes this deal: let Rummy resign and we won't consider impeachment).

Given the anticipated change of power in Congress in the House of Representatives, which is the body that can initiate impeachment proceedings after the election, and the prospect of many Congressional probes into the handling of the Iraqi occupation, I don't think W. will have any choice but to accept Rummy's "resignation" this time (will the 3rd time be the charm?). And if active duty military officers express their dissent loudly enough, it would represent a kind of "silent coup"...the equivalent of a vote of "no confidence" in Rummy and his staff.

Miulang
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old November 5th, 2006, 08:02 PM
damontucker damontucker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,928
Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by TuNnL View Post
Well, Mānoa, I agree with your Army Times article. And sadly, it doesn’t matter... because GwB has already said he’s keeping Rummy for the rest of his term. So what’s your point?
As someone else has told you recently... go back and re-read the thread.

I mentioned what my question was... had you read... you would see that it still has not been responded to.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old November 8th, 2006, 11:56 AM
Leo Lakio Leo Lakio is offline
Ali`i
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,558
Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

Today's big news --- Rumsfeld is out.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

  Partner Sites: Hawaii Blog Hawaii News Hawaii Grinds Hawaii Social Media  
    Blogging the Aloha State. The Hawaii Star. Hawaii Food Blog. The story of Aloha 2.0.