The Iraq Study Group Report

[DaSmerg]

Just shy of 2mb PDF version care of FOX News.

I don't have anything more to say until I[/u] actually read through the report versus regurgitating the dialouge that's been non-stop since it's release today.

[BOBK]

thanks for the link.

Saved and reading.

[MONOLITH]

One thing about the Study Group;

We have a military operation occurring, in which we are facing an almost intangible combatant using guerrilla warfare.

It was decided to assemble a study group, to determine how to fix the situation; a military strategy situation. We want a strategy to prevail militarily.


So, who do they ask for an opinion?  You would think military experts, right?

James Baker..... Wonderful diplomat. Did a great job putting together coalition support for the Gulf War.  Knows nothing of combat strategy though.

Sandra Day O'connor.   Need some legal help? She's your gal.  Military strategy?...um..nope.

Vernon Jordan...... bigtime New York business socialite. Wanna hold a corporate luncheon? He's your man.  How to fight guerilla rebels?   Not a clue.

Panetta....Office manager for Bill Clinton, and civil rights guy.  Wanna keep the president on schedule, make his appointments, etc?  Excellent.   Urban warfare strategist.....this guy would run at the sight of gun.

Eagleburger......Career diplomat.  Not a military guy. Clueless about urban guerrilla warfare.

Robb....law professor.  Need a DUI fixed. He's your man.  Defeating Al-Sadr? I don't think he can help.

Perry may be the only one with a slight clue. He was Secretary of Defense in '97. But his military service was way back in 1947. Things are a bit different now.



So the point is, if you want advice on how to WIN a military event, you ask MILITARY EXPERTS. Where's the 4 star generals on the panel?

It's quite clear that this was never designed to offer a plan to WIN. It is merely advice on 'how to get the f*ck out' or in other words "How to lose gracefully".

[farmboy]

i've thought about that before.  i also heard, though, that it was actually created long before the republicans realized that they'd lose the election.  it was more designed as a "lets throw those poor, pitiful democrats a bone.  we don't actually have to listen."  it only gained prominence as the right made its series of f*** ups and people started thinking the dems had a chance.  i only heard that, though.

[MONOLITH]

That's correct.

The Study Group was first put on the table about 9 months ago, or something like that.

[Zazoo]

I read part of the report yesterday while waiting for an appointment, and finished it this afternoon. It's pretty short and not heavy reading at all. It isn't a perfect plan (and the study group acknowledges this), but it's something.

Mono, did you even try reading the report before dismissing it?
It doen't address what you think it addresses, and it doesn't suggests what you think it suggests.

The purpose of the Iraq Study Group was not to come up with a totally new military strategy for Iraq. What military recommendations are made are based on the overarching diplomatic/political goals (And it is made clear that military advisors should play a huge role in the future of the conflict in Iraq). The group primarily addressed political and diplomatic issues -- how best to ensure the stability of the new Iraq government, how to ease tensions with neighboring countries, how to get the international community more invested in the rebuilding process, etc.

So the point is, if you want advice on how to WIN a military event, you ask MILITARY EXPERTS. Where's the 4 star generals on the panel?

At this point in the conflict what we need most is a detailed, coherent, long term political and diplomatic strategy for Iraq. Without it, any military operation/strategy really only amounts to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

And,
From the report pg. 51
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDATION 44: The most highly qualified U.S. officers and military personnel
should be assigned to the imbedded teams, and American teams should be present with Iraqi
units down to the company level. The U.S. military should establish suitable career-enhancing
incentives for these officers and personnel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's quite clear that this was never designed to offer a plan to WIN. It is merely advice on 'how to get the f*ck out' or in other words "How to lose gracefully".

From the report: pg. 37-38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe,
and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating
events that have led to the current situation, we believe
it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country
through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support A premature
American departure from Iraq would almost certainly
produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of
conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences
outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant
power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization,
and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our
withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends
into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require
the United States to return.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the report pg. 49
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no action the American military can take that, by itself, can bring about success in Iraq.
But there are actions that the U.S. and Iraqi governments, working together, can and should take
to increase the probability of avoiding disaster there, and increase the chance of success.
The Iraqi government should accelerate the urgently needed national reconciliation
program to which it has already committed. And it should accelerate assuming responsibility for
Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. As the Iraqi Army
increases in size and capability, the Iraqi government should be able to take real responsibility
for governance.
While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly
increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and
supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, we could begin to move combat forces
out of Iraq. The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the
Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. We should
continue to maintain support forces, rapid-reaction forces, special operations forces, intelligence
units, search-and-rescue units, and force protection units.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The report makes it clear that the group does not support a complete and immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq. However they do state that the US cannot make an open-ended commitment of troops to Iraq because of the strain it places on our military and because of other security concerns in the world. As such, the goal should be to bring troops home as soon as possible -- possible meaning when Iraq is stable enough to govern and secure itself.

~Mike

[MONOLITH]

Honestly Mike, I just had a bit of a chip on my shoulder earlier, remnants of an argument in another forum. So it wasn't my most level headed post.

I'm aware that the report doesn't call for immediate withdrawals. Even the anti-war libs know that isn't possible. Well, except Murtha I guess.

Using the term quitting, I wasn't referring to troop pullouts.

I was objecting more to

1. Offering Iran and Syria talks, and requests for 'assistance'. This is like asking a pedophile to babysit your children.

2. Suggesting Isreal must give up real estate to the Palestinians.  

3. Apply pressure to a newborn Iraqi government that can't even wipe it's ass yet. "Toughen up or we'll leave you high and dry". That's a fine 'welcome to the free world'.

4. A timeline for troop withdrawals; which, unless you are Nostradamus, no one can foresee the conditions in 12 months to know if troop withdrawals would be possible.

5. Amnesty for insurgent bosses like Al-Sadr?  That's liberal peace love and happiness, and shoot me in the head when I turn around.
Al-Sadr should have been 'removed' when he first became an issue.

]Without it, any military operation/strategy really only amounts to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Yes, you are completely right. I do understand that point. But it goes both ways.
Right now it is a military action in trouble. The more immediate need, is a military plan to gain control.



This is all just typical left vs right ideology.

The right says no talks, no negotiations. Kill the enemy and end this nonsense.

The left says, talk, negotiate, compromise, make concessions.

The Study Groups report much more reflects the left ideology than the right. Hence my initial cringing.


A trip back in time; to Reagan conservatism.  Reagans critics hated him.  Many in congress and elsewhere hated Reagan for refusing direct talks with the Kremlin (like Bush has done with Iran).

Many feared his cavalier attitude, and continued taunting of Russia. They despised his pro-militant stance (Star Wars defense, and placing Pershing missiles in Europe aimed right at Moscow).

But it is exactly that attitude and actions that won the cold war, and brought down the Berlin wall.

The very stance we all loved Reagan for, we are criticizing Bush for.

I'm not necessarily a Bush fan, but what I'm saying is, Reagan would never have tolerated listening to the Democratic liberals calling for withdrawal and concessions with terrorists.

And we shouldn't now either.


Now, having said all that; I do see the benefits of many of the proposals. I'm not a total warmonger.

What I do have unfortunately, is a complete distrust of the enemy. Giving in, making concessions, allowing the enemy to strengthen and regroup, will come back to bite us in the ass.

Every war that has ever been won, has only been truly won by one side completely castrating the other. As long as Iran is building nukes and supporting terrorist groups, as long as Syria is supporting anti-semetic suicide bombers in Palestine, as long as Al Quaida is still running free in Somalia and Pakistan, we're all screwed. And all the hand shaking James Baker can do, will not change that.


We had to completely overpower the Native American Indians.
We had to beat the nazis to a whimpering pulp.
We had to nuke Japan.

Those wars, we won our security.

We pulled out of Vietnam, and gained nothing.

Pulling away from Islamic Fascism with 'talks', when the enemies very religion demands our destruction, will be a huge mistake in my opinion. We'll see when Ahminejad gets his nukes, or the 5 million muslims on American soil get the next call from Osama.

Trust me, I hope I'm wrong.

Anyway, Sorry Mike. I'm just grumpy today.  :tongue:

[MONOLITH]

There is no action the American military can take that, by itself, can bring about success in Iraq.

There...that's the one.

The defeatist left attitude.

Reagan and Churchill are turning over in their graves.


I know, I know. Military and Diplomacy, together, are the only way to any true victory. Not so, says the Mayor of Hiroshima.  :tongue: :wink:

[Zazoo]

I'm not going to rehash the tired left vs. right ideology argument. I know you and I don't see eye to eye on this, and nothing you or I say is going to change that. We've both been here long enough to know that, and I'm cool with that.
I was simply pointing out that the report isn't that long and it doesn't call for a complete and unconditional withdrawl. Whatever the case, it should be read before being dismissed/supported.

~Mike

[MONOLITH]

I
I was simply pointing out that the report isn't that long and it should be read before being commented on.

Agreed, and I did read it.



The bottom line for me, is nothing in the report, nothing, comes even remotely close to...

 "Do whatever it takes to defeat those that threaten the US, Isreal, or our allies. To ensure the security of the free world and the future of western civilization, backing up or conceding to the enemy is not an option."

What the report does say, is "This is how we can get out of this".

It's a way to back up, not a way to victory.


Those are two very different things, and the latter leaves our enemies to hit us again in the future.


Again, Winston Churchill...  

"You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory—victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival. "


Reagan...

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done. "
"If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if ......."

[MONOLITH]

Just for the hell of it, a semi-related post from another forum; from a discussion about why we went to iraq..

Originally posted by Romex Racer

 but this has nothing to do with Iraq.

You're not seeing the trees through the forest, or the squirrels through the nuts, or something like that.  []

Take a look at a map.






 Afghanistan, and Iraq, which we invaded both, surround Iran on both sides and pin Iran in the middle. There are now coalition forces on both sides of Iran.

Not only is this a valuable strategic military advantage, but if we are successful, would pin Iran in between two democracies.

You're right in a sense, it may not have been specifically about Iraq. But Iraq was a huge tool in changing the course of the Middle East.

Not to be completely dismissed, is by taking Iraq, we've pinned Syria on 3 fronts; Between Iraq and Isreal, and Turkey to the north, where we have airbases and military access.

Basically, taking Iraq and Afghanistan broke up the middle east, and attempted to plant two pro-western democracies in strategic places.

The fact that we have not yet succeeded, doesn't mean it wasn't a brilliant plan.

Not to be completely discounted either, is that to say that Saddam Hussein would not jump on the bandwagon of supporting Al Quaida and other terrorist actions against western assets, is probably naive.

Western military and political think tanks have planned for years on how to remap the middle east, and remove the rogue terrorist regimes. It is truly for YOUR benefit, as 9/11 clearly pointed out. We basically took out the two weaker regimes, in order to surround and prepare to deal with the real tough ones.

Just because we're struggling, doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea that would have made the world a better place for our children and grandchildren. And the US government could not announce what the real plan was all along, so an excuse to get into Iraq was needed. WMDs? I don't care if it was a lie or not. The overall plan to get pro-western democracies into the middle east and topple terrorist supporting regimes, and prevent Isreal from eventually being nuked, seems like a good idea to me.

The plan was good. They just needed to execute it better.

And as for being quagmired in a vietnam like mess and civil war; You can blame the liberals and political correctness.

When our troops are being shot at from mosques and schools, and we're not allowed to shoot back because that would be 'disrespectful', you've aided our enemy and tied our troops hands. With that kind of rules of engagement, we might as well shoot our marines ourselves.

We could have easily gained complete control of Iraq, had we been allowed to fight a war like it was actually a war. Had we blown up the mosques that contained insurgents and weapons, had we killed Al- Sadr when we should have, had we been allowed to kick ass the way American troops know how to kick ass, instead of being made to stand on the corner and play traffic cops, we'd have won this war two years ago.

Now the Democrats will back us out of the middle east before the job is done. They will talk to Iran and give them all the time they need to get nukes. Terrorist training camps will re-appear in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq.

And a little time will pass, and the trouble will start here.

Taco Bell's e-coli? That's nothing.

Wait until you see what the radical anti-western muslims that already live here put in our food supplies and drinking water.

Or they blow up a few nuke facilities, or shut down the northeast power grids.

Release poison gas into the subway systems.

Or get those suitcase nukes into 5 or 6 simultaneous cities.

9/11 was just a practice run. To prove to the muslim world that we could be hit on our own soil. And unless we stop them where they begin, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Good luck America.

[MONOLITH]

From the same discussion...

Originally posted by MONOLITH

Most people forget that 9/11 occured BEFORE we took any action in the MidEast.

Most people forget the nature of human beings, and the lessons of history with it's battles for cultural dominance.

The American Indian, the Romans, the Greeks, The Mongols, the Aztecs, the Incas, the Mayans.

The Jews. The Serbs. China over Taiwan. Saddam over Kuwait.

The Nazis against the world, only one generation ago.


Even fewer truly realize, that we are currently entering another era of fighting for the future of civilization.

Radical Islamic fascism is spreading across the globe, training and recruiting every impressionable mind with the underlying theme of "Death to America".

Putin is quickly restoring the Soviet Union to it's former powerhouse glory of old Mother Russia. He's seizing control of the media outlets, assassinating reporters and statesmen who buck the Kremlin. He's re-amassing Russia's military. He's climbing into bed with the other superpower, China. He's sending anti-missile defense systems into Iran to defend their nuke sites against Israeli or US air attacks.

Right now Chinese subs have been caught stalking US subs.

Dangerous games are being played. Forces are aligning against the US.

And the cushy, pampered, never had a worry in the world, fat and lazy Americans have no clue.

We're too busy watching American Idol and having internet affairs.

There are currently 1 billion muslims in the world.
5 million of them live here in the United States.

We have given part of our own country away to the enemy already.
Anyone heard of Deerborn Michigan? It's an entire town of radical muslims. They regularly have parades in the street, praising Hezbolah, and calling for the downfall of the United States.

They're in Michigan.

That's our Michigan.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23587


One way or another, the western culture is going to have to fight just to survive soon. Just by birthrates alone, we'll be so outnumbered soon they'll be no turning back.

If we don't wake up, America will just be in the history books, like the Romans and the Aztecs.

[Zazoo]

What the report does say, is "This is how we can get out of this".

Like I said, you and I don't see eye to eye.
The message I got was, "Things are bad in Iraq. Leaving now ensures the region descends into chaos, and staying indefinitely weakens the US military, costs ungodly sums of money, and damages our ability to respond to other threats worldwide. So, here's the best way we can think of to fix this problem in a reasonable amount of time so that we can withdraw and focus on other secuirty issues."

~Mike

[Lostroth]

what a scary world we live in. thats about all i can say about this whole mess of a generation we have going on right now. we are heading for total destruction and i fear there is no turning back now. it might be in 5 years or 50 years, but it's coming.

[DaSmerg]

All I can say is interesting.  Interesting report.

Mono, in you're ideas there, you know that Afghanistan has a history of being unconquerable miltiarily for something like +2 millenia?  It's been called the graveyard of armies, if I remember correctly.

I don't think I've seen anyone put this in perspective better than the Tommy Franks interview I just watched on...of all places...Fox News.  It's up there, under the video section, under shows and Hannity & Colmes and in two parts.

I like Tommy.  Smart guy.  Puts things in plain, everyday english.  To borrow from him, Iraq is a 3 chair bar stool.  Take one of those legs away and your falling on your ass.  The military, even of the only so-called last super power, can not win the fight alone.  Even Tommy Franks agrees that talking is always preferable to fighting.  The results of talking with the likes of a Syria and Iran might be unpalatable.  They might end up going in a totally predictable direction.  But if it's what Iraqi leaders would like to try in order to try and work out a resolution, how can we here say no?  The incredible unemployment problem and the major surgery the Iraq justice system needs done so that criminals can be brought to justice are other legs.

I don't agree with a pull out either.  But I don't agree that a military solution is the sole answer, unless it's decided a massive reinvasion is required, we start up a draft and drop an army in the region a la World War II and have dough boys and girls on every dusty street corner in the region, have martial law and are searching every outhouse, farmhouse, chicken house, camel house, dog house, shack, shanty, lean-to, shady spot in the region looking for anyone and anything that's contrary to what we're trying to do.  If we're going to be brutal and win this militarily, let's stop ****ing around.  Let's drop a couple million boots on the ground.  That's tough, old school, World War II, no retreat military talk for those who paid attention in history class.  It would more than likely bankrupt the world's economy, but hey, it's tough no retreat military action right?  Unless of course we're talking about the first 3-4 years of WWII where the Axis pretty much kicked the crap out of us and we (the Allies) continually retreated on 4 major fronts till we got it together, fomented the toppling of one of Axis leaders, got shit lucky bad weather in Russia and launched the single largest military invasion in history.

I agree that a much broader regional approach, that includes getting Israeli's and Palestinians back on track, thas sees direct and highest level talks with Iran and Syria on the issue of Iraq is also needed.  

If there is something like 60% unemployment, how is anything ever going to be fixed in Iraq?  We'll be fighting more than half the country till the cows come home for the simple rationale that these boys and girls need to put food on their plates and a roof over their family's heads and a pay cheque is a pay cheque when times are desperate enough.  I can easily see myself making that decision in similiar circumstances and I'm sitting in my comfortable apartment on the other side of the planet.

This greater and grander dream of planting democracies in the Middle East, fantasitc.  How could it not be?  But my country evolved into a democracy over a century and a half...the U.S. was like 2 and a half centuries.  European nations go back just as far, if not further.  We've given birth to something that's going to take at least half as long.

I know you're intentions are the best Mono but are you seriously advocating an open ended, massive military presence in the Middle East that could go on for say a century if we cut the timeline in half?

I don't mean this as slam but it seems that while intentions might have been good, whomever was in charge of coming up with the larger plan for this military action...which lies in the domain of civilian leadership...was incredibly narrow and based on best case planning.  Another issue to be addressed is the role massive partisianship has played in the United States.  While it's good to disagree and it's never, ever bad to have a dialouge on ideas, the combination of lack of total strategic planning and wicked partisian politics has created a projection of unstable leadership behind this war effort.

Let's get a coherent plan put together. Let's see as many details as possible put out in the public realm.  Let's see some definable and at least some identifiable yard stick goals that jane and joe public can look at and say "look, we're winning and making progress because we've accomplished a, b and we're half way to c".  Let's see an end to the nonesensical political fueding south of the border for now.  You folks have a presedential election in 2 years time and big bad Georgie can't run again so he'll be gone.  In the intermin, let's see some leadership dammit.  Open a diaglouge with regional leaders, even if it doesn't go anywhere.  At least the opportunity can be used to internationally expose the leadership of other countries as being contrary to what we're doing.  Repeating ridiculous catch phrases that completely ignore and run 180 degrees contrary to what we are seeing go on have not worked, have worked to confuse the situation to a large segment of the western world's population (aka, the countries who'll be needed to continue to support, fund and fight this effort).

[MONOLITH]

Unless of course we're talking about the first 3-4 years of WWII where the Axis pretty much kicked the crap out of us and we (the Allies) continually retreated on 4 major fronts till we got it together, fomented the toppling of one of Axis leaders, got shit lucky bad weather in Russia and launched the single largest military invasion in history.

I think with another thread dissecting the actual course of the war after Normandy, would find your statement a little bit historically incorrect.

No offense Smerg, but one thing a liberal/left leaning person always does, is put the military or it's accomplishments in a bad light.

"Oh, we had our butt handed too us"

"Oh, it was just luck..bad weather"

Like Mindless Oath can never find anything positive at Ubisoft, the left will never give credit to the military where it's due.

I agree that a much broader regional approach, that includes getting Israeli's and Palestinians back on track, thas sees direct and highest level talks with Iran and Syria on the issue of Iraq is also needed.  

Every single President since I have been born, has dealt with the Isreali and Palestinian issue. It has never accomplished anything. The Isreali/Palestinian issue will never resolve itself until Iran and Syria take out Isreal, or Iran and Syria are neutered so Isreal can have enough breathing room to offer the Palestinians concessions.

Highest level talks with Iran.

The UN has talked to Iran. The liberals golden boy, kofi, has told Iran "stop the nuke program or face repercussions".

Iran said  "heh...screw you Kofi. And not only that, but Isreal will dissapear soon"

And you still want 'talks'.  How absurd is that? When do we stop 'talking'...when the nukes go off in Isreal?

How much 'higher level talks' can you get? The holy grail of the left, the United Nations, has spoken and told Iran to back down. Iran said "kiss my butt", AND announced it will remove Isreal from the planet. And you want more talks.

The only higher level you can get, is God. And, Iran's god says you must have your head cut off for Ahmadinejad to get his 72 virgins.  So, yeah, go ahead and talk them. But they may not be able to understand you through the gurgling as your heads being cut off.

[MONOLITH]

PS.   Just for the record, I hate arguing with you guys. I love you guys. :tongue:

We just disagree, but that's healthy brain exercise I suppose.


All I know is this;   Radical Islamic Fascism is spreading across the globe, and it's determined to topple western culture. We're all at great risk, whether it be the US ,Canada, Britain, Australia, or anywhere else.

The life we know is not guaranteed. It's not automatic. It can be taken from us.  We have it, because of our strength, and because others feared our strength.

The United States is still only 250 years old. Just a cocky upstart.

9/11 will happen again.

Historical fact; The only time a warring faction has completely regained it's security is by defeating the other side.

Iran will go after Isreal when it feels bold and strong enough. They're literally telling you this.

Other forces are also aligning against us.

Iraq, is not about Iraq. It's about whether or not we appear weak or strong. It's about a much larger process that can swing the larger war for us, or against. Our biggest mistake was not being tougher. Our biggest mistake has been fighting with kid gloves on.

"Sir, Al-Sadr is firing RPG's from that mosque. We've lost two marines. Can we take it out".

"No can do Johnny. That's not politically correct"

Patton would Puke.

America was a superpower because it didn't take any crap. We dominated every other world power that challenged us, every time. And it wasn't luck or weather. It was because of stern, patriotic, no bullshit, surrender is not an option men who went out and did what had to be done to secure our freedom and safety.

Today we have our hands tied by liberal media, political correctness, and politicians who no longer have the stomach to do what needs to be done.

Empires do not rule by 'talks'. Never have, never will.


Showing weakness in any way, and not taking out our enemies when we have the opportunity, will most certainly come back to haunt us.



I have to go to work now, and I don't want to tick you guys off any more, so I'm done with this one.  :yup:

Cheers, and good luck.

[DaSmerg]

Patton would Puke.

Even Patton said "I will return"

PS.   Just for the record, I hate arguing with you guys. I love you guys. :tongue:

We just disagree, but that's healthy brain exercise I suppose.

Wanna hug it out bitch via TCIP? :tongue:

[MONOLITH]

Even Patton said "I will return"

There see...... I  Knew your US history knowledge was suspect.   :tongue:

It wasn't Patton; "I will Return"  was MacArthur, after getting beat up a bit in the Philipines.


 :wink:




.

[Lostroth]

We have given part of our own country away to the enemy already.
Anyone heard of Deerborn Michigan? It's an entire town of radical muslims. They regularly have parades in the street, praising Hezbolah, and calling for the downfall of the United States.

don't you just love Freedom of Speech and political correctness bullsh*t.


just thought i would comment on this part

"Sir, Al-Sadr is firing RPG's from that mosque. We've lost two marines. Can we take it out".

"No can do Johnny. That's not politically correct"

this is the most demoralizing thing you can do to your soldiers. their out there watching their friends getting killed, and they can't do jack shit about it. and they wonder why these soldiers eventually break.

and your right Mono, Patton would puke. it makes me sick to the stomach thinking about it. it's so wrong, and thats half the problem over there. too much political correctness. last time i checked this was a war. you don't win a war by not firing your weapon while being fired at.


i have to agree with Mono. high level talks aren't gonna stop Iran from beefing up it's arsenal. Iran reminds me a lot of Nazi Germany before WWII. hitler said quite a few times that he's gonna do what Germany couldn't do in the Great War, and the world just stood there wand watched as he did it. Britain sent troops over there, but it was too little too late. i remember reading that in 1935(or somewhere around there) France had a bigger and better army then Germany, if they had just acted maybe it would have been a lesser war, but enough de-railment for one day.

i guess what i'm trying to say is if we are gonna do something about Iran we have to do it soon before they get too powerful for anyone to challenge and WWIII breaks out in the Middle East.