Remember how the Army General contradicted Donald Rumsfeld's claim ( that only a hundred thousand troops would be required for post War Iraq ) when the General stated that over 300,000 troops would be needed? Remember how Deputy Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz called General Shinseki's estimate for troops required in postwar Iraq, "Wildly off the mark" . . .? Now it appears that General Shinseki is right, and that the consensus for post-War Iraq will require upwards of 350,000 troops during "reconstruction. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm http://www.hqusareur.army.mil/nurevision files/vi-index/Archived Images/1999/April/shinseki.htm
Well, Waggie, only reason I am posting on this thead is because the forex market has quieted down a bit... Probably 100K troops were adequate for what was going on and expected to happen at that time. Now there's troubles. Onsite they think that counter-US "rebels" number no more than 3000 (as per Rumsfeld) indicating that once they dust these guys off, it's smooth sailing with no more *surprises.* I feel differently. I see 25 million citizens (60% Shi'ite) with very questionable religious/social structure. I think there is going to be many surprises to come. If our securtity guys couldn't figure out the time of day in America, what makes them think they can provide security in Iraq? It took the likes of a cruel dictator Saddam with an ARMY to keep the Iraqi people subdued. He did not just have 3000 wildmen to deal with. It says a lot. First, the current resistance may prove much more difficult to overcome if the coalition even can suppress it. According to this article, Bush has lost total control in Iraq. Later... it's anybody's guess. The US is dealing with wiley, clever, cunning, brilliant and ruthless enemies this time. They flew two jets right into the Twin Towers like they were flying kites on a carefree beach - which primal strikes utterly destroyed both buildings into dust! That may not have just been a lucky afterattack occurrence. There may have been some thought taken. What's disturbing is that these guys knew more about our own buildings than not only the national security guys did but the guys who built them. Now Bush is saying there is no way he could have known?? Bunk. The marked contrast (the reason Rice and them are now testifying) between terrorists striking the heart of America, and all our CIA/FBI guys is stark and plain. It points to a very clear and simple fact: Bush and his admin SHOULD have easily been able to protect us from this specific threat that was used to create the 9/11 horrors. Yet he did not. NO thought was taken by the 1000s of people this country pays to provide national security. They should all be fired including Bush. But... each person gets what they have coming, regardless of their awareness level. It's called having a guilty conscience. God sees to it that the rest is taken care of. gsr
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/tetintel.htm Bush getting off his jet at his ranch recently, turning and blowing a high gesture KISS to onlookers Michael Jackson style does not negate what is appearing to be obvious now. That the Bush admin has lost control in Iraq. This looks to be the Tet Offensive all over again. As an increase in US troops is now in the wings, Sen. Robert Byrd, in opposition said, "Increasing the US troop presence in Iraq will only suck us deeper. And deeper!" Rumsfeld is contemplating extending troops' time that are already there? Ha! They are already being held together by meds... which there are not enough of! gsr
IMHO this statement is wildly off the mark. I do not fault Bush for 9/11. I DO question why the upper FBI ranks ignored their Phoenix agent's warning about the hijackers who were taking flight lessons at the time. But to plant this firmly on Bush, or Clinton, etc. doesn't make sense to me. Terrorists strike targets of opportunity, and our country is rife with such targets. That is the cost of an open society like ours.
Very, very premature statements. And inaccurate. We have NOT lost control in Iraq. We never had complete control to begin with, and we are dealing with the remaining insurgents and now with a few thousand militia belonging to some fundamentalist cleric. The majority of the country is pacified and not lobbing grenades and shooting bullets at us. Tet was an attack that encompassed many, many areas. What is happening in Iraq is in no shape or form a mirror image of that.
I agree. But, dude, structurally speaking, the JOB of security guys is to THINK about ways we COULD get hit. I mean, this was just too big a deal to overlook. You got jumbo jets taking off all the time... you got massive skyscrapers in NY.... It is not as if a jet has NEVER been high-jacked before... What else do these people DO with their time all day if their job title is "national security"? And, Bush and his admin, are over the people who (are supposed to) take care of these things and THINK about how we could get hit - then at least try to safeguard us against it. What Clarke is indicating is that he was OPENLY TELLING Bush about the terrorist threat! And that Bush had other things to think about... or whatever. The Twin Towers were ALREADY bombed once! What more of an interest by terrorists in jets and towers need to be shown? A board game being brought to market by Bin Laden called, "Terrorist Bomber Jets And The NY Twin Towers." ? gsr
Well, hapaboy, I sure hope you're right. If not for any other reason at least than that I have a long USD position and would like to get out of a trade/market that has been climbing against me due to all of... this.... I mean, so far I am not in "trouble' but I don't want to get TOO close to a margin call due to us killing 40 Allah worshippers during prayer time in some stinkin' mosque in Iraq who some say were rebels. I never read about the Tet thingy, I just heard a senator mention it - I will read it over now though. Regards, Gamal Saham Ruach
OK, so I read about the Tet deal. Well, so Iraq is NOT then a Tet offensive because... that was a cooridinated 70K North Vietamese soldiers attack. Iraq has just 3000 militants that are seen as "rebels, thugs, gangs, terrorists, militants, insurrgents, rioters, picketers, law breakers," and other such small potatoe malcontents... And in no way can this EVER become a Tet Offensive because we will just waltz in there and kill every last resister. Fine. And even if it takes... 20 years... we shall stay the course... and stand with our dearly beloved Iraqi friends fighting "Evil." And even if it costs 10,000s of 1000s American troops lives, and MILLIONS of Iraqi lives... it is all worth it, because 'Evil" MUST be destroyed from under the sun and from under Bush's administration, so that... no one gets hurt in the future. Iraq is NOTHING like Vietnam. And as soon as we kill the 3000 insurgent rebels... Iraq will be a peaceful and loving nation and EVERYTHING will go smoothly. Got it. Sam
I will not debate Allah or any other god in this thread because it is pointless. Muslims themselves are divided into many sects and beliefs, so who am I (or you) to conclusively state this is or isn't about Allah. It's like debating the concept of God among Christians. Al-Sadr's concept of Allah obviously includes fighting the American infidel, but I suspect his motivations are mostly political in nature.