SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Selectric II who wrote (24833)1/4/2005 7:58:45 PM
From: sea_biscuit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
Excerpt:

"For almost six decades, I’ve borne witness to scuzzy machinations that had little or nothing to do with America’s national security. And because of them, I’ve watched my beloved country become enmeshed in far too many blood-splattered military misadventures only because they were good for Pentagon business. I’ve seen trillions of dollars allocated for gold-plated pork of value only to the monsters who manipulate the military-industrial-congressional complex and absolutely worthless to our gallant soldiers – the kids who end up paying the ultimate price for the madness of war.

Had a decent chunk of that dough been spent on the right stuff – supporting our troops – our warriors wouldn’t have fought in Korea in 1950 with World War I gear or be slugging it out in Iraq in scrounged “hillbilly armor” and told to go to war with the Army we have and to suck it up.

The final straw for me was when I asked Pentagon flack Jim Turner last November if Donald Rumsfeld personally signed the letters to the loved ones of those killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. A day later he told me, “Rumsfeld signs the letters himself.”

But before the sun had set, he sent me the following e-mail: Our official response follows. Jim. “The SECDEF correspondence with any family members of DoD (Department of Defense) personnel is private in nature.”

Then Stars & Stripes reporter Leo Shane III contacted me, jumped onto the story with both boots and brilliantly wore the Pentagon lie machine down into finally confessing that Rumsfeld had not personally signed all the KIA letters.

If Rummy & Spinners are into lying about signing KIA letters, then what really went down with WMDs in Iraq, and how is our $6 billion-a-month war in that sad, bloody land really going? And is the Pentagon truly busting its butt to provide our soldiers with sufficient armor protection, or is that spin, too?"



To: Selectric II who wrote (24833)1/4/2005 8:15:51 PM
From: sea_biscuit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
Iraq battling more than 200,000 insurgents: intelligence chief

(This is from the intelligence chief appointed by the US; So, unless you admit that the Dumbya administration appointed a fool, you have to come up with some other explanation as to why he is wrong about what he says)

AFP

01/03/05 -- BAGHDAD, Jan 3 (AFP) - Iraq's insurgency counts more than 200,000 active fighters and sympathisers, the country's national intelligence chief told AFP, in the bleakest assessment to date of the armed revolt waged by Sunni Muslims.

"I think the resistance is bigger than the US military in Iraq. I think the resistance is more than 200,000 people," Iraqi intelligence service director General Mohamed Abdullah Shahwani said in an interview ahead of the January 30 elections.

Shahwani said the number includes at least 40,000 hardcore fighters but rises to more than 200,000 members counting part-time fighters and volunteers who provide rebels everything from intelligence and logistics to shelter.

The numbers far exceed any figure presented by the US military in Iraq, which has struggled to get a handle on the size of the resistance since toppling Saddam Hussein's regime in April 2003.

A senior US military officer declined to endorse or dismiss the spy chief's numbers.

"As for the size of the insurgency, we don't have good resolution on the size," the officer said on condition of anonymity.

Past US military assessments on the insurgency's size have been revised upwards from 5,000 to 20,000 full and part-time members, in the last half year, most recently in October.

Defense experts said it was impossible to divine the insurgency's total number, but called Shahwani's estimate a valid guess, with as much credence, if not more, than any US numbers.

"I believe General Shahwani's estimation, given that he is referring predominantly to active sympathizers and supporters and to part-time as well as full-time active insurgents, may not be completely out of the ballpark," said defense analyst Bruce Hoffman who served as an advisor to the US occupation in Iraq and now works for US-based think-tank RAND Corporation.

Compared to the coalition's figure, he said: "General Shahwani's -- however possibly high it may be, might well give a more accurate picture of the situation."

Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq analyst with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, put Shahwani's estimates on an equal footing with the American's.

"The Iraqi figures do... recognize the reality that the insurgency in Iraq has broad support in Sunni areas while the US figures down play this to the point of denial."

Shahwani said the resistance enjoys wide backing in the provinces of Baghdad, Babel, Salahuddin, Diyala, Nineveh and Tamim, homes to Sunni Arabs who fear they will lose influence after the elections.

Insurgents have gained strength through Iraq's tight-knit tribal bonds and links to the old 400,000-strong Iraqi army, dissolved by the US occupation in May 2003 two months after the US-led invasion, he said.

"People are fed up after two years, without improvement. People are fed up with no security, no electricity, people feel they have to do something. The army was hundreds of thousands. You'd expect some veterans would join with their relatives, each one has sons and brothers."

The rebels have turned city neighborhoods and small towns around central Iraq into virtual no-go zones despite successful US military efforts to reclaim former enclaves like Samarra and Fallujah, he said.

"What are you going to call the situation here (in Baghdad) when 20 to 30 men can move around with weapons and no one can get them in Adhamiyah, Dura and Ghazaliya," he said, naming neighborhoods in the capital.

The spy chief also questioned the success of the November campaign to retake Fallujah, which US forces have hailed as a major victory against the resistance.

"What we have now is an empty city almost destroyed... and most of the insurgents are free. They have gone either to Mosul or to Baghdad or other areas."

Shahwani pointed to a resurgent Baath party as the key to the insurgency's might. The Baath has split into three factions, with the deadliest being the branch still paying allegiance to jailed dictator Saddam Hussein, he said.

Shahwani said the core Baath fighting strength was more than 20,000.

Operating out of Syria, Saddam's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan and former aide Mohamed Yunis al-Ahmed are providing funding and tapping their connections to old army divisions, particularily in Mosul, Samarra, Baquba, Kirkuk and Tikrit.

Saddam's henchman, Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, still on the lam in Iraq, is also involved, he said.

Another two factions, which have broken from Saddam, are also around, but have yet to mount any attacks. The Baath are complemented by Islamist factions ranging from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda affiliate to Ansar al-Sunna and Ansar al-Islam.

Asked if the insurgents were winning, Shahwani answered: "I would say they aren't losing."

(And that is how guerrillas essentially win wars - by not losing; conventional armies lose as long as they have not won).



To: Selectric II who wrote (24833)1/4/2005 9:28:03 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 90947
 
The sinkings in sight of the eastern coastline were after Hitler's declaration of war. Of course, US ships sinking German sunmarines or German submarines sinking US Naval ships (both of which occurred before 12/7/41) were all acts of war. As was the US supplying Britain, a belligerent power, with Naval destroyers which occurred before Pearl Harbor. Hitler probably declared war on the US because he figured, what the heqq, he really was already at war with the US.