I was wrong...we are failing in Iraq...


PDA






Drjones
April 8, 2004, 03:18 PM
I recieved this in an email and thought it was interesting. Subject to verification of course, but I thought it would make for interesting discussion here...

Oh, and I wonder why we never hear about this stuff on the news... :rolleyes:
-----------

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1:

The first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty (~60,000 Iraqis providing security to citizens).

Nearly all of Iraq's 400 courts are functioning.

The Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.

Power generation hit 4,518 megawatts (Oct), exceeding prewar output.

All 22 Universities & 43 technical institutes/colleges are open

Nearly all primary and secondary schools are open.

Coalition has "rehabbed" 1,500+ schools (500 ahead of schedule).

Teachers earn from 12-25 times their former salaries.

All 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.

Doctors salaries are at least 8 times what they were under Saddam.

Pharmaceuticaldistribution has gone from almost zero to 12,000 tons.

Coalition has helped administer 22 million+ vaccinations to children Coalition has cleared 14,000+km of Iraq's 27,000km of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created 100,000+ jobs for Iraqi men & women. Coalition has restored over 3/4 of prewar telephone services and 2/3+ of potable water production. and 4,900+ full-service telephone connections (~50,000 by year-end). Commerce is expanding rapidly (bicycles, satellite dishes, cars, trucks, etc) in all major cities and towns.

95% of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.

Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.

The central bank is fully independent. Iraq has one of the world's most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.

Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.

Satellite TV dishes are legal.

Foreign journalists are not on "10-day visas" paying mandatory fees to the Ministry of Information for minders. There is no such Ministry.

There are 170+ newspapers.

Foreign journalists (and everyone else) are free to come and go.

A nation that had not one single element - legislative, judicial or executive - of a representative government, now does. In Baghdad alone, residents have selected 88 advisory councils.

Baghdad's democratic transfer of power (1st in 35 years); city council elected its new chairman.

Iraqi Chambers of commerce, businesses, schools and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.

25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq's history, run the day-to-day business of government. The Iraqi gov't regularly participates in international events.

Since July the Iraqi gov't has been represented in 24+ international meetings, including UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank, IMF and the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it is reopening 30+ Iraqi embassies worldwide.

Shia religious festivals (all but banned) are no longer illegal.

For the first time in 35 years, in Karbala, thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.

The Coalition has completed 13,000+ reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Uday and Queasy are dead, and no longer feeding Iraqis to the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing Iraq's soccer players for losing games, or murdering critics. Children aren't imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree with the government.

Political opponents aren't imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.

Millions of long-suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.

As a side effect, in neighboring countries, (1) Saudis will hold municipal elections, (2) Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents, (3) Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms, (4) The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded (first time) to an Iranian (Muslim woman) who speaks out for human rights/democracy & peace.

Saddam is gone.

Iraq is free.

Little or none of this information has been published by the Press Corps that prides itself on bringing you all the news that's important. Iraq, under US lead control, has come further in six months than Germany did in seven years or Japan did in nine years following WWII. Military deaths from fanatic Nazi's and Japanese numbered in the thousands and continued for over three years after WWII victory was declared. It took the US over four months to clear away the twin tower debris, let alone attempt to build something else in its place.

Now, take into account that many people in our government and media continue to claim on a daily basis on national TV that this conflict has been a failure. Taking everything into consideration, even the unfortunate loss of our sons and daughters in this conflict, do you think any other country in the world could have accomplished as much as the United States and its coalition partners have in so short a period of time?

Karl Nielson LT, CHC, Chaplin, USNR
---------
Semper Fi,
Jack

If you enjoyed reading about "I was wrong...we are failing in Iraq..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
10 Ring Tao
April 8, 2004, 05:19 PM
While I can't vouch for any specific numbers, I can relay what my brother (served for a year in iraq with the 173rd airborne) told me.

He said the growth has been incredible. When they first jumped in, there was nothing, as if the infrastructure just disappeared. When he left in the early part of march, it was a basically functioning place, and had come a very long way.

So, while that doesn't support all those numbers in the email, it does go against the cries of the media that we have utterly failed in iraq.

fix
April 8, 2004, 05:25 PM
I spoke with a contact in Baghdad late last night who was having a double whopper combo meal for lunch...at Burger King. No media in sight. They were all out trolling for bad news. He said he expects the media to set up shop in the BK in less than a month, if Kerry gets elected, to do a special report on the immediate success of the "Kerry Doctrine." :rolleyes:

Gary H
April 8, 2004, 05:38 PM
We will be able to declare victory when only Iraqi dead are burried. This means that Iraqis fight for their own freedom and that American service men and women are able to sleep in safety. That whole area is a basket case and it is a real shame that Carter and some of those that followed failed to do what they promised, ie.. disengage from the Middle East and become energy independent. Lots of political B.S. from all, but little action. Now don't say "nuclear", the radiation might just kill you.

SodaPop
April 8, 2004, 06:09 PM
The Bush Administration will be out of excuses after June 30th.

Why does June 30th still seem so far away..:(

HBK
April 8, 2004, 06:15 PM
Iraq is a lot better off, thanks to the United States. If it was up to France and Germany, they would still be under Hussein's rule getting tortured to death. It would have been fine with me to turn it into a nice big hole in the ground, but we went beyond that and actually improved the place. Too bad Hussein squandered all that oil for food money on palaces, he could've helped build them a decent infrastructure. :rolleyes: Stupid dictators...now if we could do something about all the foreigners coming in and causing trouble.

El Tejon
April 8, 2004, 06:41 PM
Oh, yeah, well, Johnny Ketchup served in Vietnam!

WonderNine
April 8, 2004, 06:43 PM
No, if it was up to France the Middle East would be a nuclear wasteland right now as Saddam would have had nukes by now, provided by them of course.

Jokerman
April 8, 2004, 06:54 PM
It does an American proud. http://www.thehighroad.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

R.H. Lee
April 8, 2004, 07:01 PM
So what? We have found no WMD, Bush lied, and this is another Vietnam.

Ted (hic) Kennedy told me so.:rolleyes:

tiberius
April 8, 2004, 07:09 PM
Oh, yeah, well, Johnny Ketchup served in Vietnam! Are you sure Kerry served in 'nam? I've heard rumors to that effect, but has he ever actually confirmed it?






:p

HBK
April 8, 2004, 07:10 PM
Ah, Wondernine, I forgot the French were providing Iraq with WMDs. One more reason to loathe their country. Of course, we never found the WMDs, which leads not to the question those on the left are so fond of posing (Did Bush Lie?) but the really important one. Where are they? Syria anyone?

HBK
April 8, 2004, 07:12 PM
The question isn't "did he serve?" He was there for a whole four months. The question is WHO did he serve? He certainly helped the North Vietnamese with his senate testimony and did our missing POWs no favors.

idd
April 8, 2004, 07:24 PM
I recieved this in an email and thought it was interesting. Subject to verification of course, but I thought it would make for interesting discussion here...

It is indeed interesting. Check out what Snopes had to say about it. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/combatend.asp) "An Iraqi citizen whose response to this piece was published (http://vitw.us/weblog/archives/000485.html#more) on the Voices in the Wilderness web site maintains that some of the information presented is true, but much of it is inaccurate or misleading."

DonP
April 8, 2004, 07:25 PM
My kid said that they have tried repeatedly to give press people tours of some of the engineering battalion's work on the schools and infrastructure.

No one is interested. They all want to be "War Corrspondents" in the mold of Edward R. Murrow and Ernie Pyle (no wait, they were honest and reported on our own troops)

Hey, speaking of progress, what ever happened to the "looted museums" and the "5000 years of culture lost because Bush didn't have a plan for Baghdad"?

I guess it went in the same box as the "vicious Baghdad house to house fighting we weren't trained for that was going to result in thousands of American casualties".

I'd pay good money for a blooper reel of Nancy Pelosi, Kerry, Schumer, Rangel, Ted "The Swimmer" and the rest of those weasels making their dire declarations and then modifying them as time goes by and they're proven wrong, counting on the fact that none of their newsie buddies would ever embarrass them with facts.

Why is it that some people can't wait to declare a failure and quagmire at the drop of a hat. Isn't this the fifth offical "Democratic Quagmire" decree since last year?

Thank the lord that Roosevelt at least had the fortitude to stay the course. He might have been the last Dem with a spine and some vision beyond the next election results.

moa
April 8, 2004, 07:30 PM
According to Coalition chief Bremer, unemployment that was at 60% not too long ago is now down to 10% in Iraq. Don't know if that is true or not but with everything opening back up and all the construction and re-construciton going on, it may be plausible.

Michigander
April 8, 2004, 07:40 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recieved this in an email and thought it was interesting. Subject to verification of course, but I thought it would make for interesting discussion here...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It is indeed interesting. Check out what Snopes had to say about it. "An Iraqi citizen whose response to this piece was published on the Voices in the Wilderness web site maintains that some of the information presented is true, but much of it is inaccurate or misleading."

:D Now that says it all!!! Thanks idd.:D

feedthehogs
April 8, 2004, 07:43 PM
Some of my close friends kids who have served in Iraq have kept in touch with me over the year and sent numerous updates on the redevelopment of Iraq.
They are so excited about what is happening and that they have been a part of rebuilding Iraq into a free nation.
They know there are some who want to kill Americans but the majority of people welcome and support us and it is done for them.

They have commented that the fighting amongst the politicians is down right childish and that they have lost sight of the work being accomplished over there.

I just hope that this country and its politicians will stand tall and firm and see this thru to the end.

I am proud to be an American.

CarlS
April 8, 2004, 07:46 PM
Democrats have put themselves in the position that if something is bad for the country as a whole, it is good for Democrats. Conversely, if something is good for the country, it is bad for the Democrats. Thus, most everything they say is negative and they are compelled to make things look as bad as they can. And they have a liberal press to assist them.

Kind of a disgusting position to be in. :uhoh:

Lord Grey Boots
April 8, 2004, 08:45 PM
From other reports I have seen the original post may not be 100% correct, but its pretty close.

The Iraq Provisional Authorith does have info on its website about current status. I did a quick look, and some of the status is better than that what the original article above said.

Iraq Reconstruction status reports (http://www.cpa-iraq.org/weeklies.html)

Drjones
April 8, 2004, 08:52 PM
It is indeed interesting. Check out what Snopes had to say about it. "An Iraqi citizen whose response to this piece was published on the Voices in the Wilderness web site maintains that some of the information presented is true, but much of it is inaccurate or misleading."

Thank you for providing a link with a differing view, but I find it amusing how many people hold up snopes to be an absolutely infallible source of information.

More often than not, someone will post something, someone else will post a snopes link "debunking" the original post, and everyone goes "oh," failing to pause and think that snopes could, *gasp* be wrong as well.

Just an observation. :)

idd
April 8, 2004, 09:02 PM
Just an observation.

A poignant one. "[My Trusted Source] said it, I believe it, that settles it." Sometimes one trusts sources merely because they reinforce preconceived notions. That tendency is always a stumbling block towards understanding the world.

Lone_Gunman
April 8, 2004, 09:17 PM
I will consider it a victory when Americans stop dying for people unable to civilize themselves.

I don't think Iraqis will be able to pull off legitimate, free self government anytime in the near future. As soon as we leave, they will degenerate back into fascism.

Michigander
April 8, 2004, 09:24 PM
Has snopes been proven wrong yet? Let me know, will ya?

Furthermore, as for failing in Iraq, I guess I'm just as informed and misinformed as anyone esle. But a picture is worth a thousand words:

http://electroniciraq.net/uploads/boudreaux525.jpg

Sure don't think this goes towards success.

Makes ya proud to be an American, doesn't it?! :fire:

Nightcrawler
April 8, 2004, 10:06 PM
I have a sneaking suspicion that that's Lance Corporal Boudreaux standing right there, and he intended this to make his friends chuckle. I verymuch doubt that he actually killed that boy's father or impregnated his sister.

How the press got ahold of it, who knows.

TaurusCIA
April 8, 2004, 10:17 PM
If it's true maybe he can go work for Kerry...a self incriminated war criminal.


KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities. And I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed, in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones; I conducted harassment and interdiction fire; I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people; I took place in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages.

All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions. And all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.

And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUSSERT: Thirty years later, do you stand by that?

KERRY: I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that. But I do stand by the description--I don't even believe there was a purpose served in the word ``war criminal.'' I really don't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/sidebars/rumsfeld.html

the men...the men...the men...the men...are war criminals, but not me John "50 cal" Kerry.

Don Gwinn
April 8, 2004, 10:18 PM
That's possible. My first thought was photoshop.

Lone_Gunman
April 8, 2004, 10:20 PM
I agree its very unlikely he did what is printed, but its in extremely poor taste to dupe people like that.

I hope his buddies got a good laugh.

I wonder if they will still be laughing when it is translated into arabic and used as a motivational tool for the insurgents in Iraq they are fighting?

CarlS
April 8, 2004, 10:26 PM
I have a sneaking suspicion that that's Lance Corporal Boudreaux standing right there, and he intended this to make his friends chuckle. I very much doubt that he actually killed that boy's father or impregnated his sister.

I tend to agree. Actually, it sounds like something I might have done many years ago!

Michigander
April 8, 2004, 10:27 PM
From what I understand, "Boudreaux" is kinda a generic name down south in the Louisiana area. Maybe like "Bubba" is elsewhere. IOW, the serviceman pictured is not actually "Boudreaux."

In any case, it is very poor taste to say the least.

(note: I also tried to find out if this photo was doctored before I posted it. To the best of my knowledge, this is the original, although there are others on the net that have different messages written on the cardboard, but those are pretty obvious touch-ups.)

TaurusCIA
April 8, 2004, 10:38 PM
To the best of my knowledge, this is the original,

No accusation intended. It looks original to me too but I'm not setup to analyze it thoroughly.

I had several similar idiots in boot camp with me years ago but we weeded most out before graduation. It looks like some still slip through. :cuss:

Drjones
April 9, 2004, 12:00 AM
Michigander:

If you have such a low opinion of the people serving in our Armed Forces that you would not instantly think that photo was a joke of some sort (or perhaps photoshopped), you have big problems.

AF_INT1N0
April 9, 2004, 12:25 AM
Actually we are doing well in Iraq. Very well when you consider we've lost only a few hundred troops. You here these Demos talking about Vietnam. We lost moire folks in some weeks in Vietnam than we have so far in Iraq.
I'm not trying to trivialize the loss but it could be a hell of a lot worse.

As far as not finding WMD. Iraq has a heck of alot of desert and you don't need massive amounts of space to hide NBC. Saddams spide hole filled with anthrax would easily infect a city. I don't doubt for a second that they buried it somewhere (knowing Saddam under a school) If they don't have NBC then someone play a heck of a joke on the Bathists, because every Iraqi General we get ahold of is sure someone had them even if his army did not.

The problem is that the Kerry crew and the rest of them are skewed to far off kilter.

These are the same people that think if you take away everyones guns all of a sudden criminals will suddenly get jobs and lead productive lives. :barf:

Reno
April 9, 2004, 12:26 AM
I'm pretty sure it's photoshopped. It's very easy to fake text like that. If it's not, it's a joke. Deal with it.

AF_INT1N0
April 9, 2004, 12:41 AM
{ I'm pretty sure it's photoshopped. It's very easy to fake text like that. If it's not, it's a joke. Deal with it. }

Well said. :cool:

mohican
April 9, 2004, 12:51 AM
WonderNine
Senior Member

Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Shaolin Temple
Posts: 3676
No, if it was up to France the Middle East would be a nuclear wasteland right now as Saddam would have had nukes by now, provided by them of course.

The French have nukes?

And I thought that all they exported was greasy cheese and hairy women
Oh, and how could I have forgotten the Citroen?

AF_INT1N0
April 9, 2004, 12:57 AM
(And I thought that all they exported was greasy cheese and hairy women
Oh, and how could I have forgotten the Citroen?)

Hey!!! That's not funny!! The Citroen is a marvel of of modern technology!!
:scrutiny: You marvel as to who would actually pay real money for one.:D :neener:

RatFink
April 9, 2004, 01:10 AM
I vote photoshop, either from Fark or Something Awful.

Michigander
April 9, 2004, 01:22 AM
If you have such a low opinion of the people serving in our Armed Forces that you would not instantly think that photo was a joke of some sort (or perhaps photoshopped), you have big problems.

I never said I have a low opinion of the people serving in our Armed Forces.

And if you read my posts, you'd see that I did indeed scrutinize the photo and did some research on it as well prior to posting it here. Obviously it is a joke; poor taste, but a joke nonetheless. I suppose I was trying to point out that not every American in Iraq is benevolent. There are many accounts of indecency, to say the least, of our troops in Iraq. Of course, I cannot verify them and even if they were verified ten ways come Sunday, certain people here at THR would never, ever, ever believe it. They would close their eyes, cover their ears and start humming.

However, perhaps the suicide rate of our Armed Forces in Iraq is an indication of how they feel about themselves. And when my country invades and occupies another country whiched posed us no immediate threat, let alone any threat at all, then yes indeed I have big problems.

LawDog
April 9, 2004, 01:34 AM
Personally, I thought the Lance Corporal Boudreax picture was a hoot.

Of course, I've actually been the 18-year-old soldier.

I can remember what is was like to be 18, blitzed out of my skull on testosterone, bullet-proof, and so high-speed-low-drag that angels were jealous.

*shrug*

Lot of things were damned funny when I was that kids age. Probably more than a few pictures of me laying about that would cause conniption fits amongst those with delicate sensibilities.

That kid is in a shooting war. There are people with Bad Intentions looking to toe-tag him, or his one of his buddies, with car-bombs and RPGs and ambushes.

He's either making fun of himself, or one of his squaddies. A laugh that he either needed right then, or one of his buddies needs right now. So he's blowing off steam with a picture, something to josh his friends with, something funny to him.

Used to be we understood that kind of thing.

LawDog

7.62FullMetalJacket
April 9, 2004, 01:36 AM
Back on topic,

we are doing good despite the best efforts of the left to stop it.

Drjones
April 9, 2004, 03:26 AM
And when my country invades and occupies another country whiched posed us no immediate threat, let alone any threat at all, then yes indeed I have big problems.

I was not mistaken.

You do have problems indeed.

RKCheung
April 9, 2004, 05:53 AM
Oh man, if you guys are offended by that tame picture, you would scream bloody mary at some of the ones I took over there...

These kinds of things aren't meant to be published, but when you are out there day in and day out working in dangerous situations, you need something light-hearted to keep your head straight.

Brett Bellmore
April 9, 2004, 07:43 AM
Nearly all primary and secondary schools are open.

Coalition has "rehabbed" 1,500+ schools (500 ahead of schedule).

Teachers earn from 12-25 times their former salaries.

One quibble: It's kinda important what those schools are teaching. The real enemy is pretty big on what they'd call "education", too.

Khornet
April 9, 2004, 08:29 AM
Posting that photo makes me think of Mark Twain's remark about nasty rumors:

"It takes two people to hurt you with slander: an enemy to slander you, and a friend to tell you about it."

CarlS
April 9, 2004, 10:46 AM
However, perhaps the suicide rate of our Armed Forces in Iraq is an indication of how they feel about themselves. And when my country invades and occupies another country whiched posed us no immediate threat, let alone any threat at all, then yes indeed I have big problems.

Michigander, have you ever served? Have you ever served in combat? If so, you know what it is like to have your life on the line 24/7. Sometimes you live minute by minute. You see buddies get wounded or killed. If you have not been there; don't criticize. You cannot begin to understand.

The battlefield is not a liberal, politically correct place. Such a photo taken at a ski resort might be in poor taste. Taken in an combat area as a joke, it is a stress reliever; a way of keeping one's sanity. Nice, warm, fuzzy, politically correct stuff does not apply to a combat zone.

"And when my country invades and occupies another country which posed us no immediate threat, let alone any threat at all, then yes indeed I have big problems." I agree; you do have big problems.

TaurusCIA
April 9, 2004, 12:05 PM
Taken in an combat area as a joke, it is a stress reliever; a way of keeping one's sanity.

Used to be we understood that kind of thing.

That is why it continues. Understanding immaturity and bad judgement is one thing, condoning it is another.

That attitude is the reason the photo was not immediately dismissed as a fake. I hope it is a fake but since some consider it a legitimate way to "blow of steam" then it might be authentic.

There are other ways to blow off steam that show respect for the principles that we are supposed to be fighting for.

"It takes two people to hurt you with slander: an enemy to slander you, and a friend to tell you about it."

And who would be the be slanderer here?

Attacking the dignity of people who we are supposed to be helping is not a joke.

Ebbtide
April 9, 2004, 12:33 PM
The picture could be anything. Three brothers in Texas, two cuban kids and a GI in florida, or even three Iraqis making trouble.

Is it normal to not have any markings on the uniform? The guy in unform looks French to me, and who gives a "thumbs up" with the left hand anyway?

More info here: http://electroniciraq.net/news/1444.shtml

Awad said CAIR has also received an anonymous letter from a soldier who recently returned from Iraq that claims a commanding officer engaged in inappropriate conduct with prepubescent Iraqi girls. The letter states that the officer, who was named by the writer, referred to the girls as "pre-rag heads" and coerced local Iraqi leaders to provide them in exchange for protection by American soldiers. (The officer's military unit was also named in the letter.)

Sounds like crap to me!

Leatherneck
April 9, 2004, 12:39 PM
To the best of my knowledge, this is the original, although there are others on the net that have different messages written on the cardboard, IOW, my fake is the original fake. Nice tough analysis there, Mich.

Does your further analysis indicate that the Iraqi boy holding the sign reads and writes English--you know, the English on his sign?

Gimme a break. :rolleyes:

TC
TFL Survivor

R.H. Lee
April 9, 2004, 12:46 PM
And when my country invades and occupies another country whiched posed us no immediate threat, let alone any threat at all, then yes indeed I have big problems.

Saddam paid rewards to families of homicide bombers. Saddam sponsored and ran terrorist training camps in Iraq. Saddam harbored fugitive terrorists.

How "immediate" is necessary for you?

moa
April 9, 2004, 01:53 PM
I do not think we are failing in Iraq. I think the latest surge in violence is a last ditch attempt to turn things around for the Baathists dead-enders, foreign fighters and the el Sadr militia American public opinion and Iraqi public opinion against the occupation and the new Iraqi government.

For a few thousand militia men, whose heaviest weapon is mortars and maybe some rockets, to take on the American military and expect to defeat it, is incomprehensible for even an idiot.

The Iraqi fighters only real advantage is they are conducting urban warfare in populated areas. That reduces the amount of firepower that can be used against them.

Reading the newpapers, it looks like the militias are getting beat up pretty bad. Appears for every American killed, 10 or 11 militant Iraqis and others are killed. There are many wounded and a number captured. Pretty hard to sustain those losses without being annihilated soon unless they get large reinforcements.

fix
April 9, 2004, 02:28 PM
.

telomerase
April 9, 2004, 02:58 PM
Appears for every American killed, 10 or 11 militant Iraqis and others are killed. There are many wounded and a number captured. Pretty hard to sustain those losses without being annihilated soon unless they get large reinforcements.

It is courteous to give credit when you are quoting, especially when you are quoting a President about body counts.

Oh, wait, the Johnson quote was about a country with a different name, which everyone seems to have forgotten. Obviously a completely different situation. I'm sure the US military will prevail and the Imperial eagles will fly over the Middle East forever, just as our fleets are still based in Cam Ranh.

And why not? After the Chinese take the Solar System, they'll probably lose interest in conquering Earth's deserts. The poor class of America can look forward to marching back and forth in the Mesopotamian sand for the next century. Maybe they'll even have the educational level to realize that the moving lights in the desert sky are other nation's space stations.

moa
April 9, 2004, 03:52 PM
Credit? Just pick up some newspapers or logon to Internet news services. You will spot the various assertations and estimates.

I normally read the Washington Times and Post.

Khornet
April 9, 2004, 03:54 PM
SHACK!

w4rma
April 9, 2004, 04:27 PM
That is a photoshopped image. This, imho, is the original (notice that it is larger and that the horizontal cardboard ridges are visible in this picture, but blurred in the photoshopped one):
http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2004/04/285035.jpg

Khornet
April 9, 2004, 04:58 PM
THANK YOU.

w4rma
April 9, 2004, 06:12 PM
W4,
THANK YOU.You're welcome. It is my pleasure.

Michigander
April 9, 2004, 06:43 PM
Nice try. Both of them look pretty good. But...


editted to add: I tried to add an image which shows the obviousness of the faked photos. I do not know how to attach an image from my own computer.

mercedesrules
April 9, 2004, 06:48 PM
For the record, I think that the United States Government (USG) is failing to attain the goals they told american citizens were the reasons for invading Iraq.

That does not mean that the USG, and some members here, will not try to define just about any outcome as a success.

I fully expect to someday hear, "If it weren't for (some soldier/s), you'd be speaking Iraqi now."

MR

Michigander
April 9, 2004, 06:49 PM
One more attempt....
may be too small to see the detail I was pointing out...

fix
April 9, 2004, 06:51 PM
I fully expect to someday hear, "If it weren't for (some soldier/s), you'd be speaking Iraqi now."

Why? You never hear people saying that about Vietnam, or Grenada, or Lebanon, or Panama, or Iraq, or Bosnia, or Kosovo, or Albania, or :rolleyes:

Jokerman
April 9, 2004, 06:55 PM
:eek:

Drjones
April 9, 2004, 07:02 PM
As others have demonstrated how easy it is to obtain very convincing results with a few seconds of time with photoshop, I submit that the photo originally posted was photoshopped by some leftist American hating communist for the purpose of slandering and defaming our troops.

Again, the depravity of the left knows no bounds... :cuss: :cuss:

Khornet
April 9, 2004, 07:38 PM
fix is right. And some folks look at Iraq, where most of the country is doing fine, thank you very much, but only see the few cities where some of the people who oppose us control some of the area, and declare failure. I cannot help but believe that this is because they opposed the whole thing from the get-go, and while that is their privilege, they now must deny or explain away anything good which comes of the undertaking.

I realize that I'm well to the right of many folks, but I must say that I'm impressed by the instant readiness of many to believe the worst about anything this administration does.

mercedesrules
April 9, 2004, 08:37 PM
(Khornet) fix is right.
About what? I thought he was agreeing with me. I hear those things all the time. Have you ever told some former soldier his efforts were wasted? He'll tell you all about the freedoms he protected. Haha!
And some folks look at Iraq, where most of the country is doing fine, thank you very much,
Who cares?
but only see the few cities where some of the people who oppose us control some of the area, and declare failure. I cannot help but believe that this is because they opposed the whole thing from the get-go,
Guilty and proud of it. People that oppose an occupying military force are called "the resistance". They are usually revered.
and while that is their privilege, they now must deny or explain away anything good which comes of the undertaking.
You mean like that list at the beginning of the thread? Why should I care about, or pay for, any of those things?

I realize that I'm well to the right of many folks, but I must say that I'm impressed by the instant readiness of many to believe the worst about anything this administration does.
And I'm impressed at the creativity of those that still think the Bush administration has any interests in mind but their own.

MR

TaurusCIA
April 10, 2004, 12:30 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And some folks look at Iraq, where most of the country is doing fine, thank you very much,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Who cares?

ME! Thank you very much...:D


Guilty and proud of it. People that oppose an occupying military force are called "the resistance". They are usually revered.

So you think they should be revered. Hmmm?

A noble "resistance" would not take aid workers hostage and threaten to burn them alive.

Alas "noble" for some is anything that they can spin against the current admin.

Nightcrawler
April 10, 2004, 02:53 AM
The poor class of America can look forward to marching back and forth in the Mesopotamian sand for the next century. Maybe they'll even have the educational level to realize that the moving lights in the desert sky are other nation's space stations.

Yeah, only poor illiterates like me are in the military. Our entire military is just an extension of the American caste system (similar to India's former example, but not as of yet codified into law). Only the poor, the racial minorities, and the downtrodden are in the military, and only then because rich white men and corporations force them into that position.

That what you wanted to hear? :rolleyes:

You don't happen to write for my college newspaper, do you? It's editors seem to hold our military in about the same regard you do.

Delmar
April 10, 2004, 03:16 AM
Nightcrawler-it ain't worth gettin thin skinned about. For those of us who serve or have done so there is a knowledge of pride which those who didn't or wouldn't will never in their lives understand.

Khornet
April 10, 2004, 07:53 AM
the hallmark of the left. Saw it in the 911 hearings, as they patronized NSA Rice.

But really, is it not a fact that most of Iraq is improved? Is it not a fact that free commerce and free speech are flowering there? Is it not a fact that people are no longer fed into shredders for being related to someone the Big Man doesn't like? The creativity you cite, Mercedes, is your own.

RealGun
April 10, 2004, 08:55 AM
Don't be in a rush for us to leave Iraq. If you look closely, we are not welcome to have an air base in Saudi Arabia. Being in Iraq with the UN having only as much say as we allow makes Iraq a prime candidate for a permanent air base and military staging area, not only for supporting the Middle East but in having strategic access to all of Europe and that entire region of the world.

If purposes are for peace keeping, which I believe they are, then I think matters are going rather well. We are opportunistic rather than aggressive. Not only are our own self interests served but we are in a good position to support our allies and promote peace and civil rights. What's good for them is good for us.

Afghanistan is not as good a candidate for permanent US military presence, because the UN is fully involved. An area that is landlocked is not good for naval access, so a route from the sea is going to be secured in the process, which might involve us in neighboring countries.

It's a fair assumption that involvement in Iraq is part of a grander plan, so to say that we should leave based upon how things are going lately ignores the bigger picture.

I'm not necessarily saying that all this is good and that I will defend it in every detail, I am just saying what I believe is really happening.

fallingblock
April 10, 2004, 08:56 AM
"And I'm impressed at the creativity of those that still think the Bush administration has any interests in mind but their own."
************************************************************


Who cares?:neener:

fix
April 10, 2004, 10:18 AM
People that oppose an occupying military force are called "the resistance". They are usually revered.

Then go join 'em hotshot! :cuss: :banghead: :fire:

Joe McCarthy is being vindicated right here on THR every day. Michael Savage is right. The enemy within is very real.

mercedesrules
April 10, 2004, 11:06 AM
(fix) Then go join 'em hotshot!
I told you I didn't care about conditions in Iraq. Even if you (and others) do, It is you who should take individual action, not me.

Guerrilla warfare is messy. The Iraqis are trying to fight off a superior invading force. They're using the only methods available to them. Can't you be objective about this?

McCarthy was wrong then, and would be wrong now, to bring people into hearings because of their beliefs.

MR

mercedesrules
April 10, 2004, 11:12 AM
(Khornet) But really, is it not a fact that most of Iraq is improved? Is it not a fact that free commerce and free speech are flowering there? Is it not a fact that people are no longer fed into shredders for being related to someone the Big Man doesn't like? The creativity you cite, Mercedes, is your own.
I never discussed the verity or falsehood of these statements. All I said is that, as an individual who lives thousands of miles from the area in question, I don't appreciate my money being taken and spent in this way.

MR

fix
April 10, 2004, 11:14 AM
The Iraqis are trying to fight off a superior invading force. They're using the only methods available to them. Can't you be objective about this?

:banghead:
We are soooooooooo screwed!!! :(

mercedesrules
April 10, 2004, 11:15 AM
(RealGun) Being in Iraq with the UN having only as much say as we allow makes Iraq a prime candidate for a permanent air base and military staging area, not only for supporting the Middle East but in having strategic access to all of Europe and that entire region of the world.
...for the United States' eventual world domination!Muahahaha!

telomerase
April 10, 2004, 11:52 AM
Yeah, only poor illiterates like me are in the military. Our entire military is just an extension of the American caste system (similar to India's former example, but not as of yet codified into law). Only the poor, the racial minorities, and the downtrodden are in the military, and only then because rich white men and corporations force them into that position.

That what you want to hear?

No, what I WANT to hear is that the US has gone to a Swiss-style militia system and is defended by citizen-soldiers rather than lower-class slave mercenaries who will kill anyone the President orders them to. I didn't WANT to hear that US mercenaries blew up the Sudan's only pharmaceutical factory just to keep Clinton's indiscretions off the front page for one day, nor did I WANT to hear that our military had entered Iraq in an undeclared war on the Emperor's, I mean the President's, orders alone.

Remember, back when the US had citizen-soldiers, they thought for themselves. For instance, the Connecticut militia refused to invade Canada in the War of 1812, causing the US regulars to lose. (And if you think that's a bad thing, ask yourself who would be paying for Quebec's welfare class if the militia had "followed orders")

(As you know, we don't always get what you want :D )

PS You might want to write some articles for your college paper. I'm sure it could use some balance... and you could learn the difference between "it's" and "its".

fix
April 10, 2004, 12:15 PM
rather than lower-class slave mercenaries who will kill anyone the President orders them to

Wow. Just wow. I can't believe what this site is turning into.

LawDog
April 10, 2004, 12:24 PM
"Slave mercenaries?"

Most of the Staff on this site are/were "slave mercenaries?"

I don't know about George, or Jeff or any of the other Moderators who served in the US Armed Forces, but being referred to as a "slave anything" tends to annoy me.

LawDog

mercedesrules
April 10, 2004, 12:42 PM
(fix) Wow. Just wow. I can't believe what this site is turning into.
A free-speech zone where all sides of the issues are discussed?

MR

fix
April 10, 2004, 01:13 PM
A free-speech zone where all sides of the issues are discussed?

No, a haven for those who harbor obvious anti-American sentiment. Terrorists should be revered, while our own troops are "lower class slave mercenaries." You have the right to say whatever you want. But I reserve the right to :barf: .

7.62FullMetalJacket
April 10, 2004, 01:19 PM
I'll second that :barf: :barf:

mercedesrules
April 10, 2004, 01:28 PM
(fix) Terrorists should be revered,
How can people resisting an invading/occupying army be terrorists?

MR

fix
April 10, 2004, 01:31 PM
:barf:

telomerase
April 10, 2004, 02:40 PM
I don't know about George, or Jeff or any of the other Moderators who served in the US Armed Forces, but being referred to as a "slave anything" tends to annoy me.

There are people who print the money with which they "pay" you, run the Aid To Dependent Dictators programs, decide whether we are at war with Eastasia or Eurasia today. You and I are not those people. We are slaves.

FWIW, "mercenary" is a big step up from "draftee" (another name for slave). Some mercenaries even have principles, and won't kill random civilians without some better reason than the convenience of a politician.

HBK
April 10, 2004, 02:45 PM
The people of the United States owe ALL the members and veterans of ALL the armed forces an enormous debt of gratitude. I'm not sure it can even be paid, but I think NOT referring to them as slave merceneries would be a pretty good start. It's because of them we can lay our heads down for a peaceful sleep. It's because of them you can use your first ammendment rights to call them slave merceneries. Just because you are can do something doesn't mean it's not rude, crass, and downright ignorant.

Nightcrawler
April 10, 2004, 02:47 PM
I like how you used a typo to "prove" your point. Nicely done.

I'm thinking you just threw out the most outrageous things you could think of, in order to make people mad. Well, it worked, you made people mad. Congratulations.

I don't know about that Swiss style militia. In addition to a standing military, they also have compulsory military service. They're forced to be there, but they get paid. They are, by your definition, "slave-mercenaries". Everyone in the US military volunteered. The militia volunteered, too, but standing militaries get paid, so that makes them "mercenaries", yes?

You're right, though. We'd obviously be better off if units could just refuse to fight when they didn't want to.

If you think you're a slave, fine, you're a slave. It's all the bad-old government's fault. All of your life's problems can be attributed to your enslavement by the United States Government and those evil people at the Treasury Department that print money. The whole governmental and economic system of the United States is, in fact, enslaving us all.

Does it go something like that? Hey, don't forget to throw in big corporations. They're pretty evil too, hey?

telomerase
April 10, 2004, 03:02 PM
It's all the bad-old government's fault.

Governments have directly killed over 200 million people in the last century... NOT counting wars, and not counting deaths from poverty caused by trade barriers, taxes, socialism in general etc. There is certainly good reason to think that the problem of limiting government is the most important unsolved problem that we face.

standing militaries get paid, so that makes them "mercenaries", yes?

Of course. The US Founding Fathers considered a large standing army to be the single biggest threat to liberty, and tried to balance it out with a militia and the Second Amendment. They would consider your cheerleading for unquestioned service to the Emperor to be degrading and abhorrent.

those evil people at the Treasury Department that print money

The Treasury Department has nothing to do with money creation... and I'm sure that you know that, probably better than myself. Let's just cool off for a bit here before this turns into random flaming.

RealGun
April 10, 2004, 03:02 PM
mercedesrules:
"How can people resisting an invading/occupying army be terrorists?"

[RealGun]

At a minimum they are criminals since they violate martial law. They are subject to a righteous shoot, if brandishing a weapon. Restoring law and order is the name of the game. No one said it would be pretty, and it has been said that the resistance was unexpected. I would have thought that a known concentration in and around Fallujah would have to be dealt with sooner or later. Let's not pretend we know enough to pass judgment on what's happening. You are likely to hear some "ain't it awful" from the press and propaganda from many others, who for various reasons don't believe we should be there or stay there.

The "resistance" is subject to the interim Constitution adopted by their own recognized government. If they don't like that and respond by killing people, then they become anarchists, "criminals" again, hardly patriots. Take a look at the Iraqui interim Constitution (http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html)

7.62FullMetalJacket
April 10, 2004, 03:55 PM
We are going to lose if and only if the leftists win.

We had the debate about Iraq 2 years ago. The leftists endorsed it then because of the national will. We had unity in this country for about 3 weeks after 9/11, and it took about 3 months for the venomous left to get back into the I hate America mode.

Just as you can not negotiate with terrorists, neither can you negotiate with leftists. For them, aquiescence is only the beginning. If you want a familiar insight, look at gun control. We give a little, they take. But they are always back for more. Always. Relentless. It never ends.

The leftists have been attempting to derail this action since its inception. At every turn we must renegotiate the conditions. At every turn we must re-examine, re-define, re-visit to satisfy their insatiable need to hate America.

We are now seeing the same developments in this country that we saw during Vietnam. It took 5 or more years in that old struggle for the leftists to mobilize the hate America crowd. The left is now so self-loathing after 30 years that we have insta-hate in a cup.

If we lose, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy for the left.

Every time we re-examine, re-debate, re-evaluate and the leftists such as The Swimmer and the Flip-Flop come out and say "We Hate America and We Support the Baathists" another soldier of marine dies. They die because the Baathists are emboldened by the We Hate America leftist politicians in the US. They are hoping and holding on to see if America will lose her will to fight. They are hoping and praying the the Flip-Flop carries the day so that the Baathist Butchers can return to power.

The blood of American soldiers and marines are on the hands of the left. But they will never accept the blame. After all, the "resistance" is justified in fighting the "imperial occupier." Is that about right? Yes, the blood is on their hands and they must be held to answer for it.

Not only will American blood be on their hands, but the innocent Iraqis who believed in America. When the Baathists resume power there will be a massive purge of freedom. That Iraqi blood will also be on the leftist's hands.

Here's to not losing

__________________

RatFink
April 10, 2004, 04:25 PM
A few of the posters in this thread exemplify perfectly why I, while having several very Libertarian beliefs could never jump completely into the pool

telomerase and mercedesrules are great poster children what the extreme of that political leaning can bring, similar to the way that extreme Left = Communism and extreme Right = Fascism.

I in no way mean to insult those here with a more reasonable Libertarian viewpoint.

7.62FullMetalJacket
April 10, 2004, 05:03 PM
Well. on September 10, 2001 I was a libertarian. On September 11, 2001 I saw the ultimate weakness in libertarian principles. There is no "big stick."

Nightcrawler
April 10, 2004, 05:06 PM
Let's just cool off for a bit here before this turns into random flaming.

Perhaps then, in future, you should avoid making inflammatory statements like calling the entire military establishment of the United States "low class slave-mercenaries". Starting off with an insult makes it all that much harder to make any valid points you may have heard, as I'm sure you're aware.

Mizzoutiger
April 10, 2004, 05:18 PM
Is there any reason for me to believe that the serviceman in the photo is not a Marine?

The article complaining about the photo that was published by "respected Middle East alternative news publishers, the 'Electronic Intifada' " targets the US Army and soldiers blah blah blah... while the Lance Corporal would have to clearly be a Marine.

I might be wrong, but I thought the majority of Marines in Iraq are wearing the newly designed desert BDUs. The serviceman in the picture is wearing the older style. There is also no unit patch on his "left" shoulder. Do Marines not have unit patches?

Can anyone clear up these inconsistancies for me... or let me know of any that I am forgetting?

Nightcrawler
April 10, 2004, 05:31 PM
Do Marines not have unit patches?

Actually, I don't think so. The USMC was never big on patches like the Army and Air Force are.

I don't know if ALL Marines have been issued MARPAT (pixelflauge) fatigues yet. I'll bet that reserve and second-line units still have the regulat three-color desert BDUs.

fix
April 10, 2004, 05:41 PM
Marines don't wear unit patches on utility uniforms, but they do wear the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor on everything...which is suspiciously absent in that photo.

Mizzoutiger
April 10, 2004, 05:44 PM
He must have his boonie cap on backwards eh?

No eagle globe and anchor.

Khornet
April 10, 2004, 07:02 PM
and stooge of Big Oil and the Multinational Corporations would like to point out that we are not fighting GUERILLAS in Iraq.

Guerillas wear uniforms of one sort or another and attack other soldiers. Their tactics are irregular in the sense that they do not fight pitched battles with their enemies, but otherwise they are truly soldiers.

These people dress as civilians, EVEN WHEN FIGHTING, and hide themselves among noncombatants when the enemy arrives.

You slander guerillas everywhere when you call Sadr's people by that name.

'course, if you've never been a slave or stooge of Big Oil, guess you wouldn't know how to draw that distinction.

thefitzvh
April 10, 2004, 09:29 PM
Despite what the occasional dirtbag 5 year E1 might say, no one forced ANYONE into joining the military.

I'm certainly not lower class. Tooting my own horn for a minute, I'm intelligent, a computer science major, and before the infantry, I worked as a part time network administrator.

I joined the army, of my own free will, and joined the infantry, to be the tip of the spear.

How, then, does that make me a "lower class slave"?


I ask you to talk to someone who's been to iraq, either time we've been there. Ask him how saddam treated his people, and ask him what the MAJORITY, (note I said majority, not this group of terrorist ???????s) thinks of the US

They're a helluva lot better. Hmm... they're not getting biological weapons tested on them anymore, thats for sure.


You, sir, have no credibility anymore. Generalizing about US soldiers by saying they're "lower class slaves" or whatever is tantamount to calling all gun owners "gun toting maniacs" or rednecks.


:barf:
James

telomerase
April 10, 2004, 10:48 PM
I'm certainly not lower class. Tooting my own horn for a minute, I'm intelligent, a computer science major, and before the infantry, I worked as a part time network administrator.

No one ever said that there were not intelligent people in the lower classes. I am in the lowest financial class of all (biological researchers), and I am at least as smart as the average Congressman. The point is that as Machiavelli pointed out, having ALL the military force in a society concentrated in a professional mercenary force is a certain recipe for tyranny. The Founding Fathers were extremely concerned about this.

As far as the upper classes go, they don't tend to join the infantry. They tend to find positions in the Fed, the IMF, corporations that receive large tax subsidies etc.

mercedesrules
April 10, 2004, 11:08 PM
(RatFink) telomerase and mercedesrules are great poster children (for) what the extreme of that political leaning can bring, similar to the way that extreme Left = Communism and extreme Right = Fascism.
What? :confused:

HBK
April 10, 2004, 11:30 PM
He said you guys were great poster children (for) what the extreme of that political leaning can bring, similar to the way that extreme Left = Communism and extreme Right = Fascism.

thefitzvh
April 10, 2004, 11:33 PM
I know that, my point was to illustrate that many would consider the infantry "below my station in life", especially my mother.

His comment was insulting, and I was trying to illustrate the flawed thought.


James

mercedesrules
April 10, 2004, 11:44 PM
(HBK) He said you guys were great poster children (for) what the extreme of that political leaning can bring, similar to the way that extreme Left = Communism and extreme Right = Fascism.
:D Haha!
I really don't know what he meant, but I am a poster child for extreme individual liberty - nothing more.

MR

Delmar
April 10, 2004, 11:45 PM
No, what I WANT to hear is that the US has gone to a Swiss-style militia system and is defended by citizen-soldiers rather than lower-class slave mercenaries who will kill anyone the President orders them to.

What I and many others want to hear is you retract the above statement.

You just might want to check your "facts"-because you are missing a lot.

The Reserve and National Guard comprise a lot of the total components which round out active military units. In some, such as the military's airlift formations, it is almost entirely reserve/ National Guard.

If you stand by your above statement, its pretty clear you never wore the uniform, and I'm not sure you possess the dignity to.

HBK
April 10, 2004, 11:46 PM
:D :neener:

RKCheung
April 11, 2004, 02:51 AM
Marines don't wear unit patches on utility uniforms, but they do wear the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor on everything...which is suspiciously absent in that photo.

EGA would be on the left-breast pocket of the uniform blouse which is hidden under the flak jacket.


He must have his boonie cap on backwards eh?

No eagle globe and anchor.

EGA is not present on the desert tri-color boonie cover as there are stitch lines around it that make it difficult to cleanly iron transfer the EGA. Some Marines choose to have it embroidered on however. The MARPAT digital boonie cover has an embroidered EGA.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 11, 2004, 03:38 AM
(mercedesrules) How can people resisting an invading/occupying army be terrorists?


Like the Al-Queda and Taliban terrorists resisting the US invasion of Afghanistan, that's how.

The presence of US forces in an area doesn't somehow magically transform terrorists into noble freedom fighters, except perhaps in the sick, warped mind of an anti-American leftist.

w4rma
April 11, 2004, 03:55 AM
Like the Al-Queda and Taliban terrorists resisting the US invasion of Afghanistan, that's how.

The presence of US forces in an area doesn't somehow magically transform terrorists into noble freedom fighters, …Proclamation 5034—Afghanistan Day, 1983
By the President of the United States of America, 21 March 1983

The tragedy of Afghanistan continues as the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters [The Taliban] persevere in standing up against the brutal power of the Soviet invasion and occupation. The Afghan people are struggling to reclaim their freedom, which was taken from them when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December of 1979.

In this three-year period the Soviet Union has been unable to subjugate Afghanistan. The Soviet forces are pitted against an extraordinary people who, in their determination to preserve the character of their ancient land, have organized an effective and still spreading country-wide resistance. The resistance of the Afghan freedom fighters is an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/278.html

Cool Hand Luke 22:36, you really should read some history instead of lashing out at everyone who disagrees with you, imho.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 11, 2004, 04:47 AM
w4rma wrote:

Proclamation 5034—Afghanistan Day, 1983
By the President of the United States of America, 21 March 1983

The tragedy of Afghanistan continues as the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters [The Taliban] persevere in standing up against the brutal power of the Soviet invasion and occupation. …

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/278.html

Cool Hand Luke 22:36, you really should read some history instead of lashing out at everyone who disagrees with you, imho.

w4rma:

The original proclamation did not mention the Taliban. That bit was added in later by one of your typical shrill, anti-American leftists. It's very sad to see anyone stoop so low as to post a doctored version of this proclamation when the original is easially available.

Perhaps if you did a little reading in serious history from time to time instead of just doing the type of shallow, uninformed cut and paste of the leftist propaganda sites you frequent, you would know that the Taliban did not come into existance untill the mid 1990's, and therefore the Reagan procalamation of 1983 could not possibly have mentioned them.

But then again, the truth would never support a strident, shrill, anti-American agenda now would it.

********************************************************
Here's the original version of the proclimation:

Proclamations, March 21, 1983
Proclamation 5034 -- Afghanistan Day, 1983
March 21, 1983

By the President of the United States

of America

A Proclamation

The tragedy of Afghanistan continues as the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters persevere in standing up against the brutal power of the Soviet invasion and occupation. The Afghan people are struggling to reclaim their freedom, which was taken from them when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December of 1979.

In this three-year period the Soviet Union has been unable to subjugate Afghanistan. The Soviet forces are pitted against an extraordinary people who, in their determination to preserve the character of their ancient land, have organized an effective and still spreading country-wide resistance. The resistance of the Afghan freedom fighters is an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence.

We must also recognize that the sacrifices required to maintain this resistance are very high. Millions have gone into exile as refugees. We will probably never know the numbers of people killed and maimed, poisoned and gased, of the homes that have been destroyed, and of the lives that have been shattered and stricken with grief.

It is, therefore, incumbent upon us as Americans to reflect on the events in Afghanistan, to think about the agony which these brave people bear, and to maintain our condemnation of the continuing Soviet occupation. Our observance again this year of Afghanistan Day on March 21, the Afghan New Year, will recall for all the world America's unflagging sympathy for a determined people, its support for their refugees and commitment to achieving a political settlement for Afghanistan which will free that country from tyranny's yoke.

The Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution 65, has designated March 21, 1983 as ``Afghanistan Day'' and has requested the President to issue a proclamation in observance of that day.

Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, do hereby designate March 21, 1983 as Afghanistan Day.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-first day of March, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and seventh.

Ronald Reagan

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 3:10 p.m., March 24, 1983]

Note: The proclamation was not issued in the form of a White House press release.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1983/32183d.htm

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 11, 2004, 04:52 AM
w4rma:

Here's a little background reading on the Taliban to start you off. Again, the Reagan proclimation of 1983 couldn't mention the Taliban, since the Taliban wasn't formed untill the mid 1990's. The Reagan proclamation was referring to the group of genuine freedom fighters led by people like Ahmed Shah Masood, murdered by Al-Queda operatives on Sept. 15, 2001.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan Atlas Project

Where did the Taliban come from?

The first devotees came from the poverty-stricken refugee camps that sprung up along the Pakistani border during the Afghan-Soviet war. The young men of these camps learned a fierce and fundamental strain of Islam through the madrassas, Islamic schools that dotted the Afghan-Pakistani border. In September 1994, Mohammad Omar, then a mullah and today the leader of the Taliban, created the militia in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar. From the start, its goal was to unite a divided and war-plagued Afghanistan under a strict and unyielding version of Sharia -- Islamic law as written in the Koran, the life of Mohammed and his followers, and Muslim scholars through the ages.
Initial victories

The Taliban's growing power in Kandahar attracted the attention of the Pakistani government, which hired the Taliban in November 1994 to protect convoys traveling between Pakistan and Central Asia. Taliban successes against local warlords attracted more followers and emboldened the Taliban to take control of Jalalabad, the eastern city bordering Pakistan on Sept. 11, 1996. Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, was occupied by the Taliban on Sept. 27, 1996.
Support

Following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, the mujahedeen -- Islamic warriors -- once united against the Soviets, divided along ethnic and regional lines.

During this civil war, the Taliban promised an end to the corruption and chaos plaguing much of the country. That young men followed, to the word, the teachings of mullahs was neither unusual nor radical within the context of Afghanistan's history. Since the Anglo-Afghanistan wars of the 19th century, religious leaders have played a major role in galvanizing opposition.

The Taliban gained the support of both disaffected mujahedeen as well more recent graduates from the madrassas. Ethnic allegiance also secured Taliban membership. Most of its members are Pashtun, the majority ethnic group that ruled Afghanistan for 2 1/2 centuries but lost power following the Soviet occupation. The Taliban's popularity and predominant military might gave it a tentative legitimacy to rule the country, and by June 1997 the militia controlled two-thirds of the country.


Building an Islamic State

After seizing control, the Taliban instituted strict enforcement of Sharia, Islamic religious law. Modern conveniences such as computers, televisions, movies and radios were banned under the pretext that they diverted minds from the tenets of Islam. Any depiction of living things, including photography, paintings and sculpture was banned. Men were required to wear beards at least a fist-length below the chin. Women and girls were banned from schools and the workplace and ordered to wear burqas, a one-piece gown with a built-in mesh screen from which to see and breathe. Enforcement for breaking Taliban law is meted out by the Department for Promoting Virtue and Preventing Vice. Infractions such as improper beard lengths may merit a public beating. More serious crimes such as theft or blasphemy could result in an amputation or execution.


Global recognition

Despite armed resistance from warlords in the countryside, the Taliban has managed to gain control of 90 percent of the country. The assassination of Ahmed Shah Masood on Sept. 15, 2001, may help the Taliban take control of the far north, Afghanistan's last anti-Taliban stronghold. Nevertheless, the Taliban's dominance has earned it little outside recognition. U.N. sanctions were imposed in 1999 and increased in 2001 in hopes of forcing the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. Only two countries -- Pakistan and Saudi Arabia -- officially recognize the Taliban. The United Arab Emirates withdrew its recognition some two weeks after the attacks.
Challenges

War and its aftermath have laid waste to Afghanistan. Cities lack potable water and sanitation facilities. According to the United Nations, there are between 9 million and 10 million land mines in the countryside. Meanwhile, drought has pushed parts of the nation into famine. So far, the Taliban has been unable to demonstrate feasible administrative, technological and governmental solutions to the problems.

The current situation threatens not only specific military action by U.S. led forces, but also the end of outside financial support.

The policy has boomeranged. The editor of the international Arabic paper Al-Hayat met Osama bin Laden six months ago and said that the aides and bodyguards who surrounded him, almost 200 people, were all Saudis. In an article in the current Spectator of London, Stephen Schwartz points out that every major terrorist attack against the West in recent years has been conducted by people who have embraced Wahhabism. "Bin Laden is a Wahhabi. So are the suicide bombers in Israel. So are his Egyptian allies, who exulted as they stabbed foreign tourists to death at Luxor... So are the Algerian terrorists... So are the Taliban-style guerrillas in Kashmir." It is clear that Saudi Arabia now exports two products around the globe-oil and religious fanaticism.
Egypt's problem is more familiar. It has turned into something resembling a police state, repressing political dissent with a brutality that Hafez Assad of Syria would have admired. It censors all information that enters the country. It jails intellectuals for even the slightest criticism of the regime. The result is a society that is utterly dysfunctional, a regime deeply unpopular and furtive opposition movements that are increasingly extreme.


We think of our allies in the Middle East as "moderates." And certainly compared with the barbarians of Al Qaeda , they are cautious, conservative rulers. But for decades now the governments in Riyadh and Cairo have resisted economic and political modernization with disastrous results. (And Saudi Arabia is the richest Arab country and Egypt the most populous, so they are watched closely in the Middle East.) There is another path. Those governments that have chosen to walk ever so slowly on it-being modern and tolerant and easing up on the police apparatus-are actually in better shape politically. There have been few terrorists from Jordan, Morocco, Oman and Qatar. None of these regimes are democracies-elections in the Middle East would simply bring more Talibans into power-but they have opened up a little political and civil space and tried to show that Islam is compatible with modernity.


It has been said that Africa is the basket case of today's global market, but in many ways the Arab world is in worse shape, with 65 percent of its population under 18, stagnant economies and a fetid political culture. By the thousands young men are increasingly taking comfort in radical religious and political doctrines that promise salvation through a struggle with the West. But the focus of their hatred is their own regimes. In fact, the Qaeda network began in the early 1990s as a series of disparate groups in Algeria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia that were seeking to topple their respective governments. When those efforts failed, they decided to attack what they saw as the power behind the thrones, the upholder of order in the Middle East: the United States of America. We are now searching for the roots of this conflict in Islam and in theories about the clash of civilizations. But the roots may lie much closer, in our association with dysfunctional Arab regimes that have spawned violent opposition.

http://www.unomaha.edu/afghanistan_atlas/talhist.html

Proud Infidel
April 11, 2004, 04:54 AM
Guerrilla warfare is messy.Cheap thrill. Tell us something we don't know.The Iraqis are trying to fight off a superior invading force.You mean that at worst case estimates, that 20-30,000 of the 27,000,000 Iraqis are trying.They're using the only methods available to them.Awwwwww....Can't you be objective about this?Implying that you are? Hah!I am a poster child for extreme individual liberty - nothing more.Next time you see a slave/mercenary, you might think to take the time to thank him/her for your opportunity to enjoy that liberty. It never hurts to thank and be respectful of our betters.

RatFink
April 11, 2004, 05:25 AM
(mercedesrules)
Haha!
I really don't know what he meant, but I am a poster child for extreme individual liberty - nothing more.

MR



AHHH I see, you have completely broken the bonds of Libertarianism which while it espouses the greatness of personal liberty, also acknowledges Duty to the country and the greater good, it just doesn't like it forced on it. You have chosen pure piggish, self-centered Egoism, if it's not good for you RIGHT NOW then screw it.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 11, 2004, 05:28 AM
w4rma;

This is from the homepage of the site where you obtained the fraudulent and doctored version of the Reagan proclamation. It's a good example of leftists supporting their anti-American agenda with propaganda and outright falsehood.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policies of World History Archives
(...or "How I learned to love Rigoberta Menchu and stop worrying about the Capital Gains Tax") :D

Haines Brown, 9 April 2004

The nature of the World History Archives site
The purpose of the World History Archives site is to support those who would teach or learn about world history. It offers 9000 documents on all aspects of world history.

The coherence of the site derives from its implementing a (arguably inevitable) social perspective. (Translation: hard-left, anti-American propaganda to follow, "We will never think of resting untill every truth conforms to the workers' need for tools with which to build a new socialist future") :D This perspective is non-Eurocentric and is that of the working class. However, the site does not apply these constraints rigidly, and it offers documents on a variety of subjects that might be of interest or use.

By non-Eurocentric I mean a shift in emphasis away from Europe and the United States. This means that the West is neither privileged in terms of the number of documents nor the values used in their selection. This is not always easy to do in practice.

The phrase working-class perspective must also be understood loosely. There is some emphasis here on labor and what the union movement is doing, but weight is given to concerns that affect the great majority of people (the working class), such as the social, economic and cultural dimensions of life. For philosophical reasons, I avoid a loss of contact with private life, people’s real needs and aspirations. This goal is not always within my reach.

[more]

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/10/040.html


:D = Editorial Comment Added - CHL22:36

Lone_Gunman
April 11, 2004, 08:43 AM
You mean that at worst case estimates, that 20-30,000 of the 27,000,000 Iraqis are trying.

I am not sure I agree. If we had support of the 27 million Iraqi's, it would seem to me that it would be a lot easier for us to track down the 20-30,000 who are engaged in fighting us.

Instead, that 27 million appears to be letting the fighters hide amongst them

JohnBT
April 11, 2004, 10:38 AM
Could it be they're afraid of being shot?

The same thing goes on here with folks being afraid to point out the street corner drug dealers.

John

RealGun
April 11, 2004, 10:57 AM
JohnBT wrote in part:

"Could it be they're afraid of being shot?"

[RealGun]

The Achilles heel of these anarchists would be discredit by their own religion, undermining/dishonoring what the impressionable have been taught by extremists to motivate them. The problem with doing that is a religious leader who spoke up would consequently be assassinated. I think we need to protect these truly religious people, if not doing so already.

mercedesrules
April 11, 2004, 12:33 PM
(RatFink) AHHH I see, you have completely broken the bonds of Libertarianism which while it espouses the greatness of personal liberty, also acknowledges Duty to the country and the greater good, it just doesn't like it forced on it. You have chosen pure piggish, self-centered Egoism, if it's not good for you RIGHT NOW then screw it.
Yes, I have discovered the flaws of big-L Libertarianism. "Duty to country" and "greater good" are two of them. Taxation and welfare/warfare are the worst. There can't be liberty while there is any of these things.
Individual liberty is my "greater good".

To all of those that keep calling me a "leftist", please point out any collectivist ideas I've promoted. I am the arch-enemy of collectivism.

MR

TaurusCIA
April 11, 2004, 01:20 PM
I am the archenemy of collectivism.

And apparently an archenemy to the realities of the world. If we had not followed "Duty to country" we would not be a country. Maybe a British colony or Soviet Republic but not an independent country.

You would most certainly have experienced a new definition of individual liberty under Soviet rule.

I'm sorry that reality will not succumb to your "Individual liberty" ideals. With liberty comes responsibility.

mercedesrules
April 11, 2004, 01:50 PM
(TaurusCIA) If we had not followed "Duty to country" we would not be a country.
Boo Hoo! The invention of the "country" was a bad idea. They are always fighting each other.

Without "duty to country" we just might be a number of peaceful people living in north america. Do you contend that every little baby that is born in the current USA is saddled with an obligation to serve a group of strangers in Washington, D.C.?

MR

Bruce H
April 11, 2004, 02:42 PM
Easy to spot the cream sippers. Give me my absolute rights to do anything I want but not be responsible for helping in any way. The I have no obligation to the country that I live in crowd are wonderful parasites. Guzzle from the well of freedom but shirk any responsibility. Bet they don't vote in any elections either. Always find fault with everyone else.

HBK
April 11, 2004, 02:49 PM
w4mra, do you ever post an original thought or are you allergic to them? Typical leftist, post the parts that agree with you but leave out the other facts. Bruce H has it right.

RatFink
April 11, 2004, 04:37 PM
Sorry MR, but your Personal Liberty wonderland would be over the minute a roving band of sheep led by a few bad wolves decided they want your stuff, and nobody would help you because they would all be too busy worrying about their own stuff.

TaurusCIA
April 11, 2004, 06:07 PM
Without "duty to country" we just might be a number of peaceful people living in north america. Do you contend that every little baby that is born in the current USA is saddled with an obligation to serve a group of strangers in Washington, D.C.?

Citizenship ain't free skippy. If you don't like it then pack it up and go find something better somewhere else. Free yourself from this oppressive country. Hurry, before they confiscate your vast personal reserve of hot air.

Good luck sport. :D

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Link... (http://www.usvisanews.com/memo2142.html)

Proud Infidel
April 11, 2004, 11:38 PM
I am not sure I agree. If we had support of the 27 million Iraqi's, it would seem to me that it would be a lot easier for us to track down the 20-30,000 who are engaged in fighting us.What does your disagreeing have to do with the context of what I wrote? Try reading what I wrote again and get back to me. Thanks.
:rolleyes:

Lone_Gunman
April 11, 2004, 11:51 PM
OK, I re-read it.

I took your previous quote to indicate that you think a vast majority of the 27 million Iraqis are on our side, and only a small fraction, the 20-30 thousand you mention, are not.

Is that what you meant? Or am i misinterpretting it?

mercedesrules
April 12, 2004, 12:08 AM
(TaurusCIA) link......the oath that immigrants take ...

(MR) ...every little baby that is born in the current USA

Read my sig. I am not talking legalese; I'm making the point that it is immoral to proclaim that each person born anywhere owes a debt to the state. I'll defend my person, family, land, property and neighbors from imminent threats.

MR

Proud Infidel
April 12, 2004, 02:03 AM
Is that what you meant? Or am i misinterpretting it?The latter.

I was responding to the sentence "The Iraqis are trying to fight off a superior invading force." Which contains no modifiers to suggest anything other than ALL Iraqis trying to fight off the Americans. I said nothing with regard to whether or not the remaining Iraqis - minus the pathetically small number of scum ambushing civilians - are on "our side."

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 13, 2004, 05:36 AM
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Requirements for community service such as that found in the oath of citizenship and that some States have adpoted for H.S. students have passed muster from SCOTUS over involuntary servitude objections.

bountyhunter
April 13, 2004, 09:03 PM
w4rma:

The original proclamation did not mention the Taliban. That bit was added in later by one of your typical shrill, anti-American leftists. It's very sad to see anyone stoop so low as to post a doctored version of this proclamation when the original is easially available.

Perhaps if you did a little reading in serious history from time to time instead of just doing the type of shallow, uninformed cut and paste of the leftist propaganda sites you frequent, you would know that the Taliban did not come into existance untill the mid 1990's, and therefore the Reagan procalamation of 1983 could not possibly have mentioned them.
: Perhaps you should review history, because it would inform you that none other than Reagan both supported, armed, and groomed Saddam Hussein as the US enforcer in the region. Hussein was a Murdering Thug in Good Standing with the Reagan admin for his fine work in slaughtering Iranians, both as revenge for their arrogant seizure of US hostages and the threat that Iran posed in spreading islamic fundamentalism. Times change, but going back in time to find a president to blame invariably shows the great Republican heroes were blind fools as well as the democrats.:barf:

TaurusCIA
April 13, 2004, 09:32 PM
Thug in Good Standing...

I agree that the US government has often chosen what it considers to be the lesser of 'X' evils when it was perceived to be in our strategic interest. Kind of like the way we elect our government officials.

TheLastBoyScout
April 13, 2004, 10:51 PM
As far as the upper classes go, they don't tend to join the infantry. They tend to find positions in the Fed, the IMF, corporations that receive large tax subsidies etc.


How high up does one have to be to become your "upper class"?

My mother is a politician. Before that she was a lawyer who argued before the US Supreme Court. My father was the CFO of an investment firm before the economy went south, and is now working as a consultant. I have been educated in private schools- K-11 so far.

Why does this matter?

Because right now I'm busting my butt to get into USNA, and from there into the USMC, INFANTRY in particular, because I want to be on the tip of the spear with the best my country has to offer.

Class has nothing to do with it. If anything, the military is an elevating force as far as socio-economic status goes in this country (both of my grandfathers were only able to go to college with the help of GI Bill benefits). Its a far cry from the "slave mercenary" force you mentioned earlier.

longeyes
April 13, 2004, 11:06 PM
Without "duty to country" we just might be a number of peaceful people living in north america.

I think someone needs to do a bit more reading about the rough edges of tribalism, both on this continent and elsewhere.

mercedesrules
April 13, 2004, 11:27 PM
(Longeyes) I think someone needs to do a bit more reading about the rough edges of tribalism, both on this continent and elsewhere.
Tribes kill dozens; governments kill millions.

MR

7.62FullMetalJacket
April 13, 2004, 11:39 PM
Tribes kill dozens; governments kill millions.

True, to a point. In a very broad sense. Let's be specific. When has the modern US killed millions? Are you equating the US to Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Do you think this country would be as powerful if we were nothing more than tribes? We would be annexed by Canada :eek:

Get real.

Drjones
April 14, 2004, 12:02 AM
Boo Hoo! The invention of the "country" was a bad idea. They are always fighting each other.

Without "duty to country" we just might be a number of peaceful people living in north america. Do you contend that every little baby that is born in the current USA is saddled with an obligation to serve a group of strangers in Washington, D.C.?


Riiiiiiight.....people only fight because of the concept of "countries."

Just like guns cause violence, right?

TaurusCIA
April 14, 2004, 12:12 AM
Tribes kill dozens

But they kill them more often. Just look at the tribal issues in 2nd and 3rd world countries. Constant fighting over land and lineage...a real paradise of personal freedoms...right?

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 14, 2004, 02:13 AM
bountyhunter wrote:

Perhaps you should review history, because it would inform you that none other than Reagan both supported, armed, and groomed Saddam Hussein as the US enforcer in the region. Hussein was a Murdering Thug in Good Standing with the Reagan admin for his fine work in slaughtering Iranians, both as revenge for their arrogant seizure of US hostages and the threat that Iran posed in spreading islamic fundamentalism. Times change, but going back in time to find a president to blame invariably shows the great Republican heroes were blind fools as well as the democrats.


LMAO. You're trying pretty desperately to bring me down a peg here. The reason why you fail is that you are trying to put words in my mouth that I never said, and then attempt to criticize me for them. Are you self-medicating again? LOL.

At no point have I defended the Reagan Administration's handling of US-Iraq relations. I have no need to review the history of the period because, unlike you, I lived through it and I am well aware of what transpired.

My comments in this forum regarding US assistance to Iraq during the 1980's have been limited to asking the strident, shrill leftists to provide some proof of their allegation that Reagan approved sales of chemical weapons and precoursers to Iraq during the period. Something which you, w4rma, and others have been unable to do as yet.

w4rma made himself look very foolish earlier in this thread by posting a doctored copy of a Reagan era proclamation. As a result, he demonstrated a very great lack of knowledge about the subject of the Taliban. He clearly didn't know that the Taliban didn't come into existance untill the early 1990's and therefore the Reagan proclamation of 1983 couldn't have mentioned them. But he's a big boy, how about you let him take his lumps himself instead of making yourself look equally foolish in defending him by undertaking the type of cheap tactics you used in your post to me.

RGR
April 14, 2004, 02:37 AM
No, a haven for those who harbor obvious anti-American sentiment.

Haven. n. A place of refuge or rest; a sanctuary.

This place hardly qualifies as a "haven" for anyone who dares criticize the Fatherland. :D

RealGun
April 14, 2004, 05:54 AM
Be careful not to justify trolling. The thread started out pretty positive in my opinion. It's okay to be critical, but there then is a burden to have an alternative suggestion with some apparent merit. Simply dropping little negative bombs here and there, going against the grain, is trolling, plain and simple.

TheBluesMan
April 14, 2004, 09:03 AM
Actually, this thread has devolved into beating the proverbial deceased equine.

Closed.

If you enjoyed reading about "I was wrong...we are failing in Iraq..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!