Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/28/06 4:08 am:
ETW,

"Do you really think they are that stupid? Were you that stupid when you were young?"

You can use the word "stupid" if you like. I say inexperienced and naive.


George

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/28/06 1:46 pm:
George,

I think that your attitude towards our young adults is pretty condesending. 18 and 19 year olds make life decisions all the time. 18 and 19 year olds are already applying for jobs, for college, etc., and make decisions that will change the course of their lives all the time. So if they are old enough to choose a job or career, why do you consider them too "inexperienced and naive" to choose a job or career with the military? Sure 18 and 19 year olds come to their parents for advice on such life decisions. (I still get advice from my parents at 36) But the choice is ultimately theirs, and nobody would consider them too naive to make such decisions. So why are they considered such when the decision is about the military?

Personally, I think that an 18 or 19 year old who is old enough to vote and old enough to have sex, should also be considered old enough to decide whether or not to serve.

You clearly believe differently. What is the logic behind your decision?

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/28/06 3:41 pm:
ETW,


You've confused condescending for fact. Elliot that's just part of life. The difference between a career in the military and a civilian job is that the military terms, usually 4 years for a single full time enlistment, can ultimately end up landing a youth in Iraq (or whatever next Iran?). Those in my family that managed to survive Nam didn't come back saying what a wonderful career.




George

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/28/06 4:32 pm:
George,

Iraq isn't Vietnam. For a whole bunch of reasons.

1) Our government isn't limiting the military's mission to containment. We're there to win. In Vietnam, the policy was to not attack over the 34th (?) parallel.

2) In Vietnam, while we were OFFICIALLY there to act as advisors, there was little contact between the soldiers and the local populace (except for the hookers while on R&R). By contrast, many (perhaps most) of the populace has day-to-day contact with the local civillian population, and familiarity breeds... more familiarity. The Iraqi civillians don't fear our soldiers the was the S.Vietnamese civillians did.

3) In Vietnam, we blew up a whole bunch of stuff, but we didn't build a damn thing that wasn't for OUR use. In Iraq we are helping to rebuild their country for them, helping them establish an economy, a government and a military of their own.

4) In Vietnam the soldiers felt as if the whole thing was pointless, and that they accomplished nothing. In Iraq, the soldiers have a huge sense of satisfaction at the job they are doing, the accomplishments they are seeing, and the progress they are making.

In short, any comparisons that you might try to make to how you felt about Vietnam aren't good comparisons. The situations are completely different. So the fact that you didn't say what a wonderful career is not proof that those in Iraq wouldn't.

Furthermore, who are you to make that decision for others? What you are essentially saying is that those who made it back from Nam didn't come back saying "what a wonderful career", and therefore you have to stop anyone else from making their own decision on the subject. Do you believe that since you didn't like your time in the military, therefore nobody else will, and you have the responsibility to stop them from making this "bad" choice? Who made you the keeper of military wisdom and lore?

The point I'm making is that just because your time in the military sucked, doesn't mean that others will necessarily feel the same. They have the right to make their own decisions, and the DOD has the right to present their case on the subject.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/28/06 5:48 pm:
ETW,

Ok so what that the geographic areas of location is different and that the politics involved are under differing circumstances. Vietnam didn't become part of the US and Iraq not going to become the 51st state. The soldiers are the same.


George

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/28/06 6:55 pm:
The differences are deeper than that, George, and you know it.

Our soldiers in Vietnam were, for the most part, draftees. Our current military is an all-volunteer military. These are soldiers who want to be in the army, believe in what the army is about and believe that they are accomplishing something important. The soldiers in Vietnam were not. There is a fundamental difference between people who HAVE to do military service and people who WANT to do military service. They are NOT the same soldiers, not in terms of ability, and not in terms of morale.

Not only are the geographic and political situations different, the message our military people are carrying on a day to day basis is different, as is the technique by which they send that message. The nature of how they are doing their jobs is different, and as a result, they are not seen as the enemy of those they are helping (for the most part). The soldiers are seen as a constructive and protective group rather than a destructive group. And as a result, they are accepted by the local people to a much greater degree than our soldiers in Nam were.

Those fundamental differences change everything. They make any comparison between Vietnam and Iraq untennable (except to those who WANT Iraq to be another failure like Vietnam).

Furthermore, while you are right that Iraq will not become the 51st state, that is not our mission. What will happen is that in the end, Iraq will be an ally, or at least not an enemy. It will be able to defend itself from attempts at takeover by others in the mold of Saddam Hussein, the tyranical, terrorist regimes with a desire for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and a will to use them. They will become effective at stopping terrorism themselves, and will become another contributing nation in the war on terror. THAT is our goal, not making them the 51st state.

One last point: we got out of Nam in 1971. Has it made N. Vietnam into a friend of the USA? Do you think getting out of Iraq will make al Qaeda a friend of the USA? "Getting out" because the enemy demands it has NEVER worked at ending the hostilities. What makes you think that if we give in to al Qaeda's demands and the demands of the insurgents, that they will suddenly stop being our enemy?

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/28/06 7:09 pm:
ETW

In reality the Iraqi war campaign already exists and Al Qaeda will spread propaganda and lies no matter what we do. Of course we have enemies, always have. Saddam is not alone in terrorist activity. We leave tomorrow or three years from now it want make a difference. Our government is in no position to continue a crusade quest around the globe in the name of democracy.



George

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/28/06 9:26 pm:
Now that's a completely different argument than the one you put forward till now.

>>>Our government is in no position to continue a crusade quest around the globe in the name of democracy.<<<

Why not?

The fact is that the 130,000 troops we have in Iraq right now bare barely 10% of our active military. We have the manpower to wage war anywhere we need to. And now we have one more base in the Middle East from which to do it if the need arises. So it is not a case of lack of military strength.

Nor is this case of ignoring the forest for the trees. In addition to anti-terrorist activity in Iraq and Afghanistan, we also have anti-terrorism operations in the Phillipines, the Far East, and Europe that nobody hears about, because of the much smaller scale and secret nature of such operations. So it is not a case of not having the intelligence resources to do it either.

Are you saying that politically it is a bad move? Personally, I think it would be disasterous NOT to push for democratic reform whereever the opportunity arises. It's those very democratic reforms that are the REAL deterant to terrorism. People who have a say in their government and their quality of life tend to not have a reason to blow themselves up. It won't eliminate terrorism, but it will certainly eliminate most of the popular support for it... just as it is doing in Iraq. Even there, where the terrorists are most active, they no longer have the support of most of the Sunnis who originally supported them. Why? Because they, and the other Iraqi factions, see the possibility of a better life for themselves. Oh sure, what support the terrorists do receive is predominantly from Sunnis. But that support continues to dwindle. More and more Sunnis are coming forward to give information about terrorists hiding among them. The Sunnis people have become the greatest source of intelligence information against the terrorist insurgency in Iraq. Clearly, on that basis alone, we NEED to develop democratic reform whereever possible, if only to cultivate new intelligence sources and cut the support for the terrorists from the locals. Politically and strategically, it is exactly what we need to be doing.

So what do you mean that "Our government is in no position to continue a crusade quest around the globe in the name of democracy"?

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/28/06 11:03 pm:
ETW,

As much as you and I both believe in repairing the world that's not the same as the U.S. being the world's police force. Afghanistan, Iraq, then what?...Iran, Syria, etc... I'm not saying those countries don't need a positive more tolerant government in place. However to fully comprehend such a task one should realize that in continuation to that goal that there are larger populated countries, some with decent enough technology that we would eventually get in way over our heads. No in spite of what our government may want the public to think, once we get past all the rah rah, reality is that we are not in position to be successful. I find it difficult to even entertain such thoughts. We already have a lot on our plates with GW's Iraqi war campaign.



George

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/29/06 2:13 pm:
George

>>>As much as you and I both believe in repairing the world that's not the same as the U.S. being the world's police force.<<<

I hate to tell you this, George, but we were "elected" the world's police force decades ago... pretty much by the rest of the world. THEY are the ones who keep inviting us to get involved in their problems, to intervene in their wars, to help with their economic difficulties, etc. Every time the UN has some military crisis or other in some little, third-world country, they call the USA for military support. Not the Brits, not the French, not the Germans. Us. We were made the world's police force by the rest of the world.

>>>I'm not saying those countries don't need a positive more tolerant government in place. <<<

I'm arguing further than that. I'm saying that WE need those countries to have a positive, more tolerant government in place in order to mitigate our own security concerns.

>>>However to fully comprehend such a task one should realize that in continuation to that goal that there are larger populated countries, some with decent enough technology that we would eventually get in way over our heads.<<<

Perhaps. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. One crisis at a time.

Besides, which country do you believe has the economic power to take us on without comitting suicide at the economic level?

>>>reality is that we are not in position to be successful. I find it difficult to even entertain such thoughts.<<<

You haven't explained WHY. And we certainly are in a position to be successful in Iraq, and in Iran too if necessary. And Syria too if it comes to that.

>>>We already have a lot on our plates with GW's Iraqi war campaign. <<<

Yes we do. And yet we still haven't used more than 10% of our military manpower. Pretty scary how powerful our military actualy is. There are (as of September 2005) over 1,380,000 active military service personnel in the US military. There are about 137,000 soldiers in Iraq right now. We still have 90% of our active force strength to call upon if needed. And we could also activate the national guard if we need more manpower. We haven't even scratched the surface of our true fighting power... and certainly not in the area of our non-conventional military power. And we have the strongest economy in the world with which to support that military at the logistic level... unlike China, which would go broke trying to feed and arm their "billion man army" within weeks. The "we have too much on our plate" argument doesn't wash.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/29/06 4:55 pm:
ETW,


Woe! Playing armchair general with a thirst for a continual war campaigns is not on my to do list. No doubt we have helped other little countries but we are not the world's police regardless of personal interpretations.

"And we certainly are in a position to be successful in Iraq, and in Iran too if necessary. And Syria too if it comes to that."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In the three years since the invasion, Iraq has less clean water, has electricity for less than six hours per day, and has virtually no sewage control. There are dozens of kidnappings every day. Over 30 people are being killed each day by what is described as sectarian violence.


To make matters worse, Iraq is producing less oil than they were before the attack. Unemployment is over 50%, the U.S. has virtually stopped rebuilding projects, and infants are dying at an increasing rate. Three years later, Iraq is far worse under U.S. control than it was under Saddam.

The people of Iraq know this. That is why they are angry. They are angry because they are shot at by U.S. patrols on a daily basis because they get too close to their vehicles. American soldiers are so fearful of being killed by insurgents, that they often shoot and kill civilians who have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time. American soldiers shout instructions to Iraqis in English and they are often misunderstood. As a result, many innocent people die unnecessarily.

The skilled workers of Iraq have either left, been killed, or have been kidnapped. Insurgents target the people with high-paying jobs, so that they can get a higher ransom. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, and affluent businessman have left the country in droves. Over 200 college professors and 300 schoolteachers have been murdered.

What is left in Iraq is unskilled workers, people too poor to leave, and insurgents. With over 30 people being killed every day, it's a wonder how anyone will be able to survive. Iraqi citizens are afraid to walk out of their house for fear of being killed by Americans or insurgents.

The right wants to talk about the good going on in Iraq so that their leader's poll numbers don't go down any further. First, you have to acknowledge the bad and attempt to fix it. I'd love to be optimistic, but there is no positive news in sight. If Iraq is not seen for what it currently is, a country in disarray, then how is it ever going to be corrected?"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yea uh-huh "Wolverine"... I've seen what that "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" mentality gets us into.


"Yes we do. And yet we still haven't used more than 10% of our military manpower. Pretty scary how powerful our military actualy is. There are (as of September 2005) over 1,380,000 active military service personnel in the US military. There are about 137,000 soldiers in Iraq right now. We still have 90% of our active force strength to call upon if needed. And we could also activate the national guard if we need more manpower. We haven't even scratched the surface of our true fighting power... and certainly not in the area of our non-conventional military power. And we have the strongest economy in the world with which to support that military at the logistic level... unlike China, which would go broke trying to feed and arm their "billion man army" within weeks. The "we have too much on our plate" argument doesn't wash."


There are enough Chinese armed with just pitch forks that they could keep sending them in waves for months. They have enough noodles, don't worry about them starving. N. Koreans with one finger on the red button and at least a half dozen Arab countries ready to send back pack explosive wearing suicide's into our shopping malls. Yea I know you like to entertain thoughts of starting WWIII, but that's one bridge you can cross alone. We have enough problems in Iraq.



George

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/29/06 6:11 pm:
George,

First of all, your reconstruction data is out of date. The following is from the SIGIR report to Congress as of 1/2006:

Electricity production capacity is currently about 4,000 MW, but peaked at 5,375 after the war (during summer of 2005). The USA'a contribution to the current level of capacity is estomated at 2,710 MW or 68%. Furthermore, average availability of electricity in Iraq is up to 10.2 hours per day, compared to 4 hours per day before the war.

Oil production is approximately 2 MBPD, but peaked at 2.67 MBPD post war, higher than the pre-war peak of 2.58 MBPD. The US contribution to the current level of production is estimated at 1.5 MBPD, or roughly 75%.

Approximately 8.2 million Iraqis have access to potable water, which is the highest level post war. The USA is responsible for approximately 2.8 million people having access to potable water, or 34%. Construction of potable water plants and water treatment plants is contnuing, with 320 of 509 planned potable water plants completed, and another 90 under construction. Similarly, 12 of 54 planned water treatment plants have been completed and another 36 are under construction. Expect those numbers to increase as construction continues.

Approximately 5 million Iraqis have access to sewage, and the USA is responsible for 4.5 million having access or 90%. 97 of a planned 120 sewage treatment plants have been constructed, and another 17 are under construction. One of two solid waste management systems have been constructed and a second one is under construction.

And as of January 10, 2006, the unemployment rate in Iraq was down to 25-30%. And when you consider that developed countries like France and Germany are suffering double digit unemployment themselves (France: 10%, Germany 11-12%), Iraq's progress in decreasing their unemployment rate by as much as 20% in a year is pretty amazing.

So your statistical information is out of date.

>>>There are enough Chinese armed with just pitch forks that they could keep sending them in waves for months.<<<

Really? And who is going to feed that pitchfork-wealding army for all those months, much less shelter and clothe them?

>>>They have enough noodles, don't worry about them starving.<<<

Really? Then what's up with the forced abortions for families having more than one kid? Sounds like they are pretty strapped for resources to me.

>>>N. Koreans with one finger on the red button<<<

Yes, but although Kim Gong Il is a complete maniac, he at least doesn't want to die, which he knows he will if he pushes that button. He sends his piddling little second-generation nuclear arsenal at us, and we send our biggest and baddest nukes at N. Korea. He knows that he can't even win a nuclear war against us, and so he's got enough sense of self-preservation not to try. But if he does, we'll kick his Korean ass up between his ears.

>>>and at least a half dozen Arab countries ready to send back pack explosive wearing suicide's into our shopping malls.<<<

Yes, but there are two mitigating factors to that. 1) All the suicidal nut cases are busy in Iraq and Israel. As long as they are busy there, they are not available to start something HERE. Thus the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. 2) Even the suicidal nutcases want their families to live. They know what Bush will do if they do something here in the USA... namely invade their country. And the fear of what will happen to their country and their famility is the greatest deterrant to terrorism on our soil. And again, the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is justified.

>>>Yea I know you like to entertain thoughts of starting WWIII<<<

Hate to tell you this, but WWIII has been around for the past 3 decades, and maybe more. It started with the Iran Hostage Crisis. It started with the Entebee Hijacking. It started with the Munich Olympics Massacre. It started with the 6-Day War and the Yom Kippur War. It started with the Hijacking of the Achille Lauro and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer. It was started with the 2000 Millenium Terrorist Plot. It was started with the bombings of Marine barracks in Beirut, the US embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole in Yemmen. It was started with the first bombing of the WTC in 1993 and the destruction of the WTC on 9-11.

We've been in WWIII for decades, only nobody in the USA realized it until 9-11. We're already at the bridge. You can either cross it, or fall in the deep water. The war is a global one, and it is being fought daily. It has seen battles in Spain, Russia, Chechnya, France, the UK, the Phillipines, India, Pakistan, Japan, China, etc., in addition to the USA on 9-11 and 1993.

You are fooling youself if you think you can avoid WWIII by not engaging the enemy in their countries of origin and support. because if you don't attack them there, they will attack you here. Both of the WTC attacks should have proven that to you already.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/30/06 1:08 am:
ETW,


SIGIR: Independent & Objective Oversight

Welcome to the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), a temporary federal agency serving the American public as a watchdog for fraud, waste, and abuse of funds intended for Iraq reconstruction programs.

SIGIR, the successor to the Coalition Provisional Authority Inspector General (CPA-IG), was created by Congress to perform one focused mission–to execute critical oversight of the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF) allocated for rehabilitation projects. SIGIR oversight is accomplished via independent audits, field inspections, and criminal investigations into potential fraud, waste, and abuse of funds.
Learn About SIGIR

SIGIR Leadership
Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., who served as the CPA-IG since January 20, 2004, continues as the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. His office produces quarterly reports to Congress outlining key findings on the progress and management of Iraq reconstruction efforts, including recommendations for corrective action. Message from the Inspector General (58KB PDF)

Iraq Reconstruction: Lessons Learned in Human Capital Management
SIGIR releases its first report of the Lessons Learned Initiative, designed to enhance ongoing efforts in Iraq, as well as future U.S. reconstruction and stabilization planning. Experts drawn from government, industry and academia, including many who served in Iraq, participated in establishing these findings and recommendations. Access Report. (426KB PDF)

SIGIR's Testimony Before Congress
SIGIR provided testimony before the Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to examine Iraq stabilization and reconstruction, and contracting issues in Iraq. Access Testimonies


New Reporting Section Reveals Current Progress In Reconstruction
A new section of the January 2006 Quarterly and Semiannual Report tackles the question, "What is the current progress of U.S. reconstruction programs in Iraq?" by looking at Activities, Outputs, and Outcomes in three sectors–Electricity, Oil and Gas, and Water. SIGIR analysis finds that although projects completed in the last 18 months have generally delivered expected outputs, services have not returned to pre-war levels. Access Report Highlights (309KB PDF)



By the way, no WWIII has not began yet. While one may argue that the catalysts for such a war comes from multiple sources outside the US we (the US) have definitly contributed.



George:)

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/30/06 1:52 pm:
>>>services have not returned to pre-war levels.<<<

Which services? Look at the actual numbers, and you'll see what has returned to pre-war levels, what has exceeded pre-war levels, and what still has not returned to pre-war levels. The statement that you quote is a statement that there is still more work to do. Nobody denies that, especially not me. That's why I'm arguing in favor of a continued presence in Iraq, remember?

>>>By the way, no WWIII has not began yet. While one may argue that the catalysts for such a war comes from multiple sources outside the US we (the US) have definitly contributed.<<<

I don't know how YOU define a World War. But I define it as a war between multiple nations and nationalities taking place throughout the globe. The Global War On Terrorism is a struggle taking place between the various allied nations against the various terrorist groups of multiple nationalities in multiple locations throughout the globe. So how do you define a world war?

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/30/06 2:28 pm:
ETW,



SIGIR analysis finds that although projects completed in the last 18 months have generally delivered expected outputs, services have not returned to pre-war levels.


Not even stanch Republicans have defined our War campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq as WWIII. In fact you are the first I've heard do so. Global War of Terrorism is an umbrella term that does not necessarily reflect direct war with a specific country. We include our War on Global Terrorism to include the nut cases in our own country, right here at home.


I'v got to go to work. You can have the last opinion on this thread. Again you've shared your view and I've shared mine. Have a great day. :)


George

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/30/06 2:32 pm:
>>>SIGIR analysis finds that although projects completed in the last 18 months have generally delivered expected outputs, services have not returned to pre-war levels. <<<

Again, which services? Unless you have gone through the report (which I have) you don't know what has and has not returned to pre-war levels.

>>>In fact you are the first I've heard do so.<<<

Really? Tomder, Kindj and ITSDB have all said or intimated similar comments here. And Congress CAN'T call it WWIII without some huge political ramifications. But I know that the military and intelligence powers that be all see it that way, whether they admitt to it or not. Most political scientists see it that way as well, whether they wish to or not. However, whether they publicly state it or not, the situation clearly fits the definition of a "world war".

Actually, this may be WWIV. It depends whether you consider the Cold War to be WWIII or not. But in any case, this is the third HOT world war.

Elliot