The Iraq War - Chapter 5

[Miulang]

190,000 AK-47s unaccounted for

OK, so we taxpayers spent close to $3 billion to purchase equipment to arm Iraqi security forces. This summary of a GAO report says the Pentagon lost track of approximately 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols that were supposed to be used by Iraqi security forces to help get them prepared to defend their country between 2004-early 2007. So where did those rifles go? Into the hands of the "enemy"? Are our men and women having pot shots taken at them by enemy snipers who are using US-issued guns? Were we buying the guns that are killing our own troops?

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you . The most galling thing of all is that the person in charge of arming and training those Iraqi forces during that particular period of time when accountability was especially lacking (2004-2005) was none other than the current commander of all Iraqi operations, Gen. David Petraeus. If accountability was that lax during his last watch, how can we be assured that accountability in the September report to Congress and the American people will be any better?

The United States has spent $19.2 billion trying to develop Iraqi security forces since 2003, the GAO said, including at least $2.8 billion to buy and deliver equipment. But the GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005, when security training was led by Gen. David H. Petraeus, who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq.

The Pentagon did not dispute the GAO findings, saying it has launched its own investigation and indicating it is working to improve tracking. Although controls have been tightened since 2005, the inability of the United States to track weapons with tools such as serial numbers makes it nearly impossible for the U.S. military to know whether it is battling an enemy equipped by American taxpayers.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Isn't this treason?

OK, now making the rounds is a little piece of video filmed in 1994 featuring VP Dick Cheney talking about going into Iraq. His judgment at the time was no, it was not worth invading Iraq because we (the US) would ultimately end up being the only foreign force occupying the country, and Iraq at that point would splinter into several different pieces.

Of course, we DID invade occupy Iraq, have been there for more than 4 years, and when we pull out of Iraq, the country will be further torn apart by civil war, and will probably splinter due to age-old sectarian differences.

So was Cheney a sage in 1994, or a liar in 2007? And if he is a liar in 2007, wouldn't his remarks in 1994 now be considered an act of treason for sending our troops into what the Administration knew even before the first forces were sent to occupy the country after the fall of Saddam, that it would be a flawed mission from the very beginning? So can we call the 3,600+ of our troops already killed "martyrs" for democracy?

Miulang

[glossyp]

Re: Isn't this treason?

OK, now making the rounds is a little piece of video filmed in 1994 featuring VP Dick Cheney talking about going into Iraq. His judgment at the time was no, it was not worth invading Iraq because we (the US) would ultimately end up being the only foreign force occupying the country, and Iraq at that point would splinter into several different pieces.

Of course, we DID invade occupy Iraq, have been there for more than 4 years, and when we pull out of Iraq, the country will be further torn apart by civil war, and will probably splinter due to age-old sectarian differences.

So was Cheney a sage in 1994, or a liar in 2007? And if he is a liar in 2007, wouldn't his remarks in 1994 now be considered an act of treason for sending our troops into what the Administration knew even before the first forces were sent to occupy the country after the fall of Saddam, that it would be a flawed mission from the very beginning? So can we call the 3,600+ of our troops already killed "martyrs" for democracy?

Miulang

Let me see, it was 1994 making it 13 years ago and 9 years before we went into Iraq the second time and he was a private citizen at the time. It was also not long after the first Gulf War where we got out of Iraq quickly leaving Hussein in power and he had to have been a major player in that decision since he was part of the Bush I admin. Doesn't seem treasonous to me, but I'm not a member of the Dick Cheney is the Devil Incarnate brigade. I don't like him and wouldn't go hunting with him, but I don't think he is a traitor for expressing an opinion that was uninformed by the events that have happened since 1994 however correct they seem to be now.

[glossyp]

Re: Isn't this treason?

OK, now making the rounds is a little piece of video filmed in 1994 featuring VP Dick Cheney talking about going into Iraq. His judgment at the time was no, it was not worth invading Iraq because we (the US) would ultimately end up being the only foreign force occupying the country, and Iraq at that point would splinter into several different pieces.

Of course, we DID invade occupy Iraq, have been there for more than 4 years, and when we pull out of Iraq, the country will be further torn apart by civil war, and will probably splinter due to age-old sectarian differences.

So was Cheney a sage in 1994, or a liar in 2007? And if he is a liar in 2007, wouldn't his remarks in 1994 now be considered an act of treason for sending our troops into what the Administration knew even before the first forces were sent to occupy the country after the fall of Saddam, that it would be a flawed mission from the very beginning? So can we call the 3,600+ of our troops already killed "martyrs" for democracy?

Miulang

Let me see, it was 1994 making it 13 years ago and 9 years before we went into Iraq the second time and he was a private citizen at the time. It was also not long after the first Gulf War where we got out of Iraq quickly leaving Hussein in power and he had to have been a major player in that decision since he was part of the Bush I admin. Doesn't seem treasonous to me, but I'm not a member of the Dick Cheney is the Devil Incarnate brigade. I don't like him and wouldn't go hunting with him, but I don't think he is a traitor for expressing an opinion in 1994 that was uninformed by the events that have happened since then however correct they seem to be now.

[Miulang]

Re: Isn't this treason?

Let me see, it was 1994 making it 13 years ago and 9 years before we went into Iraq the second time and he was a private citizen at the time. It was also not long after the first Gulf War where we got out of Iraq quickly leaving Hussein in power and he had to have been a major player in that decision since he was part of the Bush I admin. Doesn't seem treasonous to me, but I'm not a member of the Dick Cheney is the Devil Incarnate brigade. I don't like him and wouldn't go hunting with him, but I don't think he is a traitor for expressing an opinion in 1994 that was uninformed by the events that have happened since then however correct they seem to be now.

Not exactly. He had been Sec. of Defense under Bush 41 from 1989-end of 1992 (he helped architect our invasion of Panama and Operation Desert Storm), and when he left the White House, he was employed by the American Enterprise Institute (conservative think tank). Then he spent 1994 exploring the possibility of running for President. And from 1995-2000 he was on the Board of Halliburton, one of the biggest beneficiaries of our current occupation of Iraq. Then in 1997, he was one of the founders of the "Project for New American Century" (PNAC), which advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. He was also on the Board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) prior to being chosen by Bush 43 as a running mate. So he has, for a long time, had a vested interest in capitalizing (and profiting)on events in the Middle East.

Miulang

[waioli kai]

The terrorUSt$ Hall of Fame , re:Re: Isn't this treason?

Not exactly. He had been Sec. of Defense under Bush 41 from 1989-end of 1992 (he helped architect our invasion of Panama and Operation Desert Storm), and when he left the White House, he was employed by the American Enterprise Institute (conservative think tank). Then he spent 1994 exploring the possibility of running for President. And from 1995-2000 he was on the Board of Halliburton, one of the biggest beneficiaries of our current occupation of Iraq. Then in 1997, he was one of the founders of the "Project for New American Century" (PNAC), which advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. He was also on the Board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) prior to being chosen by Bush 43 as a running mate. So he has, for a long time, had a vested interest in capitalizing (and profiting)on events in the Middle East.

Miulang

Those terrorUSt$ who ushered into Iraq more of "American" Vietnam-style "Shock and Awe" on which to begin the 21st Century cry foul when the enemy they created starts playing by pages from the same "cleansing" rulebook terrorUSt$ have merely refined during their centuries of wealth accumulation (via stolen lands, genocides/cleansings, slavery, corruption, deception) which wealth has, in just one lengthy generation, been converted to something now closing in on $100 trillionUS worth of promise-sorry, irredeemable debt. The very people who created that militarist debt expect to retire on the creation of more such debt...as could only wish to receive, the grieving, challenged, soldiers' families (not to mention surviving Iraqi families) who were all created at the pathological whim of terrorUSt$ such as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bush!and!!, Rove, Rice, Feith, Reich, Negroponte, Kissinger, an on through The terrorUSt$ Hall of Fame which is the same as Anti-terrorUSts' Hall of Shame.

General Calls Attack on Yazidis 'Ethnic Cleansing' http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=12800852 .

[kamuelakea]

I stole this. I did not write it. But most seems accurate.

Now, let's talk about statistics as it doesn't lie. Let's talk about facts only to show how induldgent most of us has been made all these years by this statement "the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving people."

1. Today, most conflicts in the world involve Muslims from Asia to Middle East (obviously) to Africa to Europe to America: Indonesia, the Phillipines, Thailand (small one so far), Kashmir, India, China (potentially), Israel, Sudan, Nigeria, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan. Muslims fight each other and non-Muslims FAR MORE OFTEN than do peoples of other civilizations so perhaps the more apt category for this clash of civilizations to depict this is not Islam Vs. the West but Islam Vs. the Rest as no other civilization is on the Muslim's side other than itself. Islam has developed to be the greatest fascism of our day.

2. In the mid-1990's, roughly HALF the ethnic conflicts in the world involved Muslims fighting each other or non-Muslims.

3. Muslims were responsible for 11 and possibly 12 of 16 major acts of international terrorism between 1983 and 2000.

4. Five of the seven states listed by the US State Department as supporting terrorism are Muslim, as are a majority of foreign organisations listed as engaged in terrorism.
5. In counteractions between 1980 and 1995, the US armed forces engaged in 17 military operations against Muslims.

6. According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, 32 armed conflicts were underway in 2000; MORE THAN TWO THIRDS involved Muslims. Yet Muslims are only about one fifth of the world's population.

This statistics and the vicious patterns of violence involving Muslims won't abate anytime soon seeing the fervor many Muslims have rediscovered in
their religious identity all around the world. Their hostility and resentment against modernity symbolised by the West are a reaction against the very thing they covet and can not have due to the limiting, backward mindset fueled by their religion or their interpretation of it as some apologists would rather call it. To regain their battered self-esteem they turn to their religion and the illusion of its past glory and the false belief of the ultimate Utopia called the Islamic Caliphate of the 21st centruy as it is the only thing they have and this in turn perpetuates the backwardness and desperation and helplesness.

Hence, do not say that misleading and meaningless statement EVER again that "the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving, tolerant people." We don't know if it's true, and in many Islamic countries we just know for a fact that the majority Muslims are NOT that tolerant as the minorities (including Muslim women, Muslim intellectuals, free-thinkers and authors) can and will attest. What we do know for sure is OVER HALF OR POSSIBLY TWO THIRDS of big scale violence and world conflicts are involving members of ONE FIFTH of world's population. What we know for sure is these people as a whole are FAR MORE BELIGERENT than any other ethnic/religious group.

And we have just witnessed, their dishonesty and lack of integrity have resurfaced once again (I mean expecting them to issue a fatwa or declare jihad against OBL is a wishful thinking needless to say) after the "ultimate proof" they fervenly demanded 3 months ago on Bin Laden's involvement on 911 attacks was published. The vast majority are of course, as usual, silent about it but many have voiced their suspicion of or flatly rejected the authenticity of the video. So we know now that their concerns about lack of proof was only a pretext to protect their Muslim brother, that no amount of proof will make them turn against him....they didn't care from the start if he was guilty or not as the victims were only the infidel west anyway.

So is it wrong if immigration/VISA policies in America and Europe have worked against the Arabs and Muslims, something they lament as profiling and discrimination?? Of course not. It is fully understandable and seeing the statistics above no further explanation is needed to justify it.

I did not write this either. Author unknown.

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 5,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. who are now dead would be alive today.

[Linkmeister]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

Whoever wrote that ought to get his/her facts straight.

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Several people were tried, convicted, and imprisoned for that.

As to the Saudi events, the FBI never got much cooperation from the Saudi police or intelligence. I remember reading in one of the newsweeklies about how frustrated the FBI was about that.

The Cole happened very close to the 2000 election, and Clinton decided to hand over any retaliation to his successor rather than leave the new guy stuck with a policy he didn't like. Note that it was Bush I who sent troops to Somalia and it was Clinton who got the blame for that, even though he had nothing to do with sending a mission to the place. Clinton didn't want to repeat that scenario.

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

Whoever wrote that ought to get his/her facts straight.


Several people were tried, convicted, and imprisoned for that.

As to the Saudi events, the FBI never got much cooperation from the Saudi police or intelligence. I remember reading in one of the newsweeklies about how frustrated the FBI was about that.

The Cole happened very close to the 2000 election, and Clinton decided to hand over any retaliation to his successor rather than leave the new guy stuck with a policy he didn't like. Note that it was Bush I who sent troops to Somalia and it was Clinton who got the blame for that, even though he had nothing to do with sending a mission to the place. Clinton didn't want to repeat that scenario.

American foreign policy--regardless of the Administration currently in office--has always been fatally flawed in that we tend to "make friends" with repressive regimes to suit our own egotistically-driven motives and which ultimately end up biting us in the butts. And this has been going on for decades. In recent history, we can see the results in Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq...you name it. We've been in bed with our enemies. We've helped them overthrow past governments, we've given them financial and technical assistance, and what have we gotten back in return? The notion that our brand of "democracy" is right for every single country in the world is so egotistical and insane.

Miulang

[Miulang]

"Iraq is disintegrating violently"

That is the assessment of a new report by the Fund for Peace which will be released next week.

Prospects of Iraqi leaders being able to establish a multiethnic democracy are now "fanciful," the nonpartisan Washington think tank says in its report titled "A Way Out: The Union of Iraqi States." Based on data tracked monthly since before the U.S. invasion in 2003, the report authored by Fund president Pauline Baker concludes that Iraq is now "near total collapse.

...The Fund has monitored twelve indicators -- ranging from the economy to political factionalization and the rule of law -- and concludes that all have deteriorated significantly since before the war. Working out a transition that divides political power while continuing to allow Iraq's three major communities -- Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds -- to share economic wealth may be the only way to bring U.S. troops home in the near future, the report concludes.

"This is the best, and possibly the last, chance to end the war, limit spillover and reduce U.S. troop presence, while leaving something constructive behind," Baker writes.

The idea of an economic union would bypass the problem of dividing up current and future oil resources. There are a number of alternatives for Baghdad, the multiethnic capital, including making it the Brussels of Iraq as the headquarters for the new "Union of Iraqi Sates," the report says.

Miulang

[1stwahine]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

I say goodbye to my son tonight. He leaves with his unit ~ The Stryker Brigade to California for training. Returns home in about a month or two. Then their Deployment begins to Iraq.



Auntie Lynn

[infinitypro]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

I say goodbye to my son tonight. He leaves with his unit ~ The Stryker Brigade to California for training. Returns home in about a month or two. Then their Deployment begins to Iraq.



Auntie Lynn

Auntie Lynn, please give him a HUGE hug from my family and I, and thank him for his bravery, for providing protection to us all, and for his SHAKA!

Blessings to you and yours.

[1stwahine]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

Auntie Lynn, please give him a HUGE hug from my family and I, and thank him for his bravery, for providing protection to us all, and for his SHAKA!

Blessings to you and yours.

I will.

Mahalo Noe.

Auntie Lynn

[tutusue]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

{{{{{CONRAD}}}}}
On behalf of my family and me, beeeeg mahalos to you and all the troopers, Conrad. Stay safe, ya hear.
(Please pass the hug along, Auntie.)

[1stwahine]

Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

{{{{{CONRAD}}}}}
On behalf of my family and me, beeeeg mahalos to you and all the troopers, Conrad. Stay safe, ya hear.
(Please pass the hug along, Auntie.)

Awwww...Mahalo TutuSue!

As soon as he comes over, I'll show him this thread and let him see what Noe and you wrote. I won't forget the HUGS too!

Mahalo

Lynn