Ass Hat

Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

End Ass Hat

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by PatMeebles at 2006-03-22 14:34:52

I have to agree; Shadow should replace Howard Dean at the DNC.

But once again, just because something is bad policy doesn't make it a non-realist one. Supporting the lesser of two evils is realism, no matter how arguably bad the policy is. The reason why we supported Hussein in the 80's was because we had hoped he would win, and the Iranian Theocracy would collapse, thus leaving only "the lesser of two evils." I'm not saying it's right; just that it's realist

ShadowSD said:

What made the Iraq/Al Qaeda association seem particularly asinine to me from the outset was that the Middle East has in the last generation been balanced between two major forces: fundamentalist theocracies, and military dictatorships. The fact that Iraq and Al Qaeda would "team up" therefore, defies common sense. (I know there are several instances historically where a shared enemy can make strange bedfellows, but this situation simply does not fit that mold.)

These people are so Machiavellian in their goals they'll do anything to achieve them, even if it means that they side with someone as "secular" as Saddam (secular meaning that he imposed Sharia Law and made Baathists take religious tests, right?). They piss on their own Korans, just so they can lie to Newsweek.

ShadowSD said:

anti-US propagandist influence would have to be exponentially greater than the pro-US propagandist influence, which would inherentally prove my side of the argument anyway, if you think about it.

Prove your point, yes. I just hate the fact that you're right, and sensationalism will always outweigh good news. But, enter the European and US MSM, and you do have a seriously larger anti-US propoganda machine, mostly from Europe, but American media is still pretty bad.

ShadowSD said:

-- February 2004: Rumsfeld says the number of Iraqis serving in the security forces was over 210,000, and that the number may grow to over 226,000 by April. (State Department, 2/24/04)

-- September 2004: Rumsfeld says the "latest number, last week was 105,000. Now it looks to be 95,000 - that is to say that are trained and equipped." (DOD Briefing, 9/7/04)

-- February 2005: Rumsfeld says ".the fact of the matter is that there are 130,200 who have been trained and equipped.That's a fact. And how do I know that? I know it because General Petraeus counts them." (Fox News, 2/1/05)

-- June 2005: Rumsfeld says the" fact of the matter is the number's (of trained troops is) 168,000." (ABC News, 6/26/05)

-- July 2005: General Casey told told Congress that only three of the approximately 100 Iraqi army battalions are taking on the insurgents by themselves. Three battalions is approximately 700 soldiers. (Associated Press, 7/22/05; Knight Ridder, 11/30/05)

-- November 2005: President Bush says, "40 Iraqi battalions are taking the lead in the fight." He said a battalion is typically comprised of "between 350 and 800 Iraqi forces," which would bring the latest estimate of fully trained Iraqi troops to somewhere between 14,000 and 32,000. (Bush Speech in Annapolis, 11/30/05)

-- December 2005: When asked how many Iraqi troops were now able to stand alone without the backing of U.S. troops, President Bush said there were "about 200,000-plus capable" forces. He continued by saying that " Now, not all of them are ready to take the fight to the enemy." (Bush Speech, 12/12/05)

-- March 2006: President Bush says, "60 Iraqi battalions are taking the lead in the fight." He previously said a battalion is typically comprised of "between 350 and 800 Iraqi forces," which would bring the latest estimate of fully trained Iraqi troops to somewhere between 21,000 and 48,000. (Bush Speech, 3/13/06)

This is actually consistent if you take into account battle-ready levels. By "taking on the insurgents by themselves," those battalions mentioned are at level 1, which means absolutely no support from Americans AT ALL. No intel, no air support, nothing. Level 2 means that the Iraqis take the lead in fighting, with American assistance in intel and some air support, and maybe a commander to direct the troops. But the Iraqis in that instace are going to do the figthing themselves. NATO forces are level 2. I think it was the Danish that were offering to send troops to Iraq if the Americans provided security for them. What the hell does that mean!? The Iraqis are actually better equipped to handle the situation than NATO allies. Now, the first quote doesn't say whether the recruits are in the process of traning, and therefore not battle ready, or if they are "trained and equipped," as in the second quote. But, when it comes to "trained and equipped" troops, the numbers are consistent as time progresses.

[default homepage]

11:03:26am Apr 27,2024
load time 0.01569 secs/10 queries]