-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com
-
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!
Iraq
- Thread starter Spaf
- Start date
James48843
Well-known member
Re: Market Talk / Dec. 24 - 30
Sorry Birchtree, but you don't know what the heck you are talking about.
Al Anbar and Sadr City populations are not "the enemy". You simply can't open up on anything that moves after 2200 hours.
Population:
Towns in Al-Anbar Province Population
Falowja 425,774
Al-Kaime 116,129
Ramadi 444,582
Rowtba 24,813
Ana 37,211
Haditha 75,835
Hit 105,825
Total 1,230,169
Sadr city- population 2.5 million
So you think simply throwing another 30,000 US troops under the tires of a foreign war is going to quell a little over 3.7 million Shiites who don't want us there? Or a large number of Sunni who still think Saddam was a good guy?
Right.
Let's see- surge 140,000 Americans up to 170,000 Americans, and throw them in the middle of 3.7 million people who would rather we leave.
I'd say we were outnumbered about 22 to 1, even if all of our guys were only in Sadr City and Al Anbar.
But were not. We're trying to maintain order in all of Baghdad. That's about 7 million people. And we've got about 70,000 in that general area to do it with. And of those 70,000, only about 30,000 actually are available to patrol outside US bases. So we have 30,000 to bring order to an area of 7 million people.
That works out to being outnumbered 233 to 1 in Baghdad alone. And you say we should be ones to seal the borders. Hell, we can't even seal our own border with Mexico, one fourth as long as Iraq's border with Syria and Iran. You are not living in reality.
Birch, I don't know where you got your military training. I spent 21 years as enlisted and then officer before I retired. And I can tell you that 233 to 1, even with the surge, is not good odds for victory.
No.
The only thing we are doing now is keeping our soldiers there to give political cover to the President.
Sorry, but in my book, the life of one American soldier is worth a whole heck of a lot more than any misplaced political cover for a bungling misfit of a Commander in Chief.
You are entitled to your opinion.
You are not entitled to waste the lives of the good men and women who so valiently serve our nation.
Doesn't matter if it's, in your words "only 3,000, not 50,000".
3,000 is too many. And we don't need any more.
Sorry Birchtree, but you don't know what the heck you are talking about.
Al Anbar and Sadr City populations are not "the enemy". You simply can't open up on anything that moves after 2200 hours.
Population:
Towns in Al-Anbar Province Population
Falowja 425,774
Al-Kaime 116,129
Ramadi 444,582
Rowtba 24,813
Ana 37,211
Haditha 75,835
Hit 105,825
Total 1,230,169
Sadr city- population 2.5 million
So you think simply throwing another 30,000 US troops under the tires of a foreign war is going to quell a little over 3.7 million Shiites who don't want us there? Or a large number of Sunni who still think Saddam was a good guy?
Right.
Let's see- surge 140,000 Americans up to 170,000 Americans, and throw them in the middle of 3.7 million people who would rather we leave.
I'd say we were outnumbered about 22 to 1, even if all of our guys were only in Sadr City and Al Anbar.
But were not. We're trying to maintain order in all of Baghdad. That's about 7 million people. And we've got about 70,000 in that general area to do it with. And of those 70,000, only about 30,000 actually are available to patrol outside US bases. So we have 30,000 to bring order to an area of 7 million people.
That works out to being outnumbered 233 to 1 in Baghdad alone. And you say we should be ones to seal the borders. Hell, we can't even seal our own border with Mexico, one fourth as long as Iraq's border with Syria and Iran. You are not living in reality.
Birch, I don't know where you got your military training. I spent 21 years as enlisted and then officer before I retired. And I can tell you that 233 to 1, even with the surge, is not good odds for victory.
No.
The only thing we are doing now is keeping our soldiers there to give political cover to the President.
Sorry, but in my book, the life of one American soldier is worth a whole heck of a lot more than any misplaced political cover for a bungling misfit of a Commander in Chief.
You are entitled to your opinion.
You are not entitled to waste the lives of the good men and women who so valiently serve our nation.
Doesn't matter if it's, in your words "only 3,000, not 50,000".
3,000 is too many. And we don't need any more.
Last edited:
wht00ss
Honorary Hall of Fame Member
Re: Market Talk / Dec. 24 - 30
James 48843 I don't know where you got your training or what branch of the service you were in but it doesn't sound to me like you no what you are talking about no offense intended.
I was a 23 year old lieutenant in Korea at the Frozen Chosin 1st battalion 3rd Marines where my men and I were overrun by large number of Chinese troops. I received the silver star and purple heart and later when I was a light Colonel in vietnam where I received the bronze star.
The only reason I bring this up because in my opinion you are showing your shortsightedness about the big picture involving the Iraq conflict.
You are right about the numbers not being where they are to control this thing but do it wouldn't hurt to do a little study of history.
Factions in the middle east have been actively planning to kill us (the US) for the past 30 years from the Iran Embassy under Carter to the U.S. Cole to the 1st World trade center bombing to the twin towers with a few things left out inbetween.
Last time I checked before the twin towers we were minding our own business being those so called awful capitalist devils.
Let me spell it out for you so you can I understand what I'm saying. It's either them or us. That's from them.
I watched a movie with my grandson call Independence Day and I recall what the alien said when the President asked what we could do to coexist.
The alien said all they wanted was for us to die. As rediculous as they analogy appears on the surface it's about as true as one can get.
I was in the service for 22 years (infantry) and let me tell you I've never seen a more dangerous situation that we have to win or at some time we will pay the ultimate price. I would rather stop them now than let them make the decision for the next time and place of their chosing so don't talk about having a clue. Birch is on to something but in my opinion not stong enough.
James 48843 I don't know where you got your training or what branch of the service you were in but it doesn't sound to me like you no what you are talking about no offense intended.
I was a 23 year old lieutenant in Korea at the Frozen Chosin 1st battalion 3rd Marines where my men and I were overrun by large number of Chinese troops. I received the silver star and purple heart and later when I was a light Colonel in vietnam where I received the bronze star.
The only reason I bring this up because in my opinion you are showing your shortsightedness about the big picture involving the Iraq conflict.
You are right about the numbers not being where they are to control this thing but do it wouldn't hurt to do a little study of history.
Factions in the middle east have been actively planning to kill us (the US) for the past 30 years from the Iran Embassy under Carter to the U.S. Cole to the 1st World trade center bombing to the twin towers with a few things left out inbetween.
Last time I checked before the twin towers we were minding our own business being those so called awful capitalist devils.
Let me spell it out for you so you can I understand what I'm saying. It's either them or us. That's from them.
I watched a movie with my grandson call Independence Day and I recall what the alien said when the President asked what we could do to coexist.
The alien said all they wanted was for us to die. As rediculous as they analogy appears on the surface it's about as true as one can get.
I was in the service for 22 years (infantry) and let me tell you I've never seen a more dangerous situation that we have to win or at some time we will pay the ultimate price. I would rather stop them now than let them make the decision for the next time and place of their chosing so don't talk about having a clue. Birch is on to something but in my opinion not stong enough.
Birchtree
Well-known member
Re: Market Talk / Dec. 24 - 30
Gents, my war was RVN from 11/67 to 7/69. Let's not lose Iraq on the streets of the USA like we lost Vietnam. I'm closer to the situation because I have a daughter deployed like many others in this country. James 48843 and I agree to disagree. I could be a lot more dramatic but our troops will do what is necessary to finish this thing. The jihads and insurgency and shiite militia understand the code of violence - they should fear what is coming because the gloves are coming off and they will face certain death. We left the back door open in Faluja (spelling) and the militia escaped - not this time. They either surrender or go to hell. It's their choice. Wht00ss thanks for your words and your courage. Now James I realize the population is not the enemy - that's why you set a curfew - if a young jihad wants to place an IED then he gets shot by a sniper - simple. No questions asked - if it moves after 2200 hours kill it. We are currently fighting revolutionary guards from Iran and every other damn place. And for crissakes keep the press away from the battles.
Gents, my war was RVN from 11/67 to 7/69. Let's not lose Iraq on the streets of the USA like we lost Vietnam. I'm closer to the situation because I have a daughter deployed like many others in this country. James 48843 and I agree to disagree. I could be a lot more dramatic but our troops will do what is necessary to finish this thing. The jihads and insurgency and shiite militia understand the code of violence - they should fear what is coming because the gloves are coming off and they will face certain death. We left the back door open in Faluja (spelling) and the militia escaped - not this time. They either surrender or go to hell. It's their choice. Wht00ss thanks for your words and your courage. Now James I realize the population is not the enemy - that's why you set a curfew - if a young jihad wants to place an IED then he gets shot by a sniper - simple. No questions asked - if it moves after 2200 hours kill it. We are currently fighting revolutionary guards from Iran and every other damn place. And for crissakes keep the press away from the battles.
Last edited:
SkyPilot
Well-known member
Re: Market Talk / Dec. 24 - 30
To think that we can negotiate or appease this dangerous enemy is to misunderstand the culture and the theology that is driving this conflict. As a nation we are still approaching this with a Cold War mentality and seem to believe that our good intentions and noble action can win "hearts and minds". I am afraid this will be our undoing.
We only have to hear the words of their own leaders to understand that the intention is for global domination, and the crushing of western civilization.
We as a nation have not yet come to terms with the scope of what we are faced with. Half measures and political timidity will only embolden those who already suppose we do not have the resolve to step up to this task.
We cannot just "get out", as this conflict has already come to our shores (Trade Center #1). We did not recognize the danger then, and I fear we still refuse to accept what is daily becoming more apparent.
While we may disagree on the particular strategies, we must come to consensus that this issue must be addressed. And this time, diplomacy is not the answer, unless we are willing to negotiate away western civilization.
But, there are many good opinions regarding this issue, and some strong arguments that are contrary to those opinions expressed above.
Let us continue to pray for peace.
To think that we can negotiate or appease this dangerous enemy is to misunderstand the culture and the theology that is driving this conflict. As a nation we are still approaching this with a Cold War mentality and seem to believe that our good intentions and noble action can win "hearts and minds". I am afraid this will be our undoing.
We only have to hear the words of their own leaders to understand that the intention is for global domination, and the crushing of western civilization.
We as a nation have not yet come to terms with the scope of what we are faced with. Half measures and political timidity will only embolden those who already suppose we do not have the resolve to step up to this task.
We cannot just "get out", as this conflict has already come to our shores (Trade Center #1). We did not recognize the danger then, and I fear we still refuse to accept what is daily becoming more apparent.
While we may disagree on the particular strategies, we must come to consensus that this issue must be addressed. And this time, diplomacy is not the answer, unless we are willing to negotiate away western civilization.
But, there are many good opinions regarding this issue, and some strong arguments that are contrary to those opinions expressed above.
Let us continue to pray for peace.
Re: Market Talk / Dec. 24 - 30
Sky,
Very well stated. I can't add more to your opinion. These are very tough times, when appeasing the enemy will only increase their resolve to destroy us. Only by facing up to the most radical interpretation of this theology and stopping them on their tracks we will manage to stay on top of the situation and then we will be able to influence change for the better. If we don't understand the destructive nature of this fanatical politico/theological enemy we will lose the better part of our civilization for the present and for the future.
Sky,
Very well stated. I can't add more to your opinion. These are very tough times, when appeasing the enemy will only increase their resolve to destroy us. Only by facing up to the most radical interpretation of this theology and stopping them on their tracks we will manage to stay on top of the situation and then we will be able to influence change for the better. If we don't understand the destructive nature of this fanatical politico/theological enemy we will lose the better part of our civilization for the present and for the future.
nnuut
Moderator | TSP Legend
Re: Market Talk / Dec. 24 - 30
There is only one I can say "Saddam is dead, may the Christan's prevail"
James48843
Well-known member
Re: Market Talk / Dec. 24 - 30
I agree. Except that it's not a cold war mentality- its a "We're not going to ask for sacrifice of the nation, except the kids who volunteer for this. We're not going to commit the nation resources that it takes, and we're not going to create a military of the size necessary to deal with the situation. No, we're going to try to rely on technoligy instead of "boots on the ground". Because we're not ready as a society to commit the boots on the ground necessary to get the job done." mentality that I object to. I agree with Colin Powell, we should have gone in with 500,000 or more, not the force we went it with. But that is water under the bridge now. So now we have to figure out what our military is supposed to do now. What is the mission?
Fight every Muslim? No, that's not the answer.
Provide security in every town and on every street corner?
Not with the paltry amount of forces we have on the ground. Can't do it physically, even with an additional 30 or 300 thousand.
Train Iraqi forces? Fine, but if what we are doing is training them, why do we have to train them there, in IED country, when we have a perfectly good National Training Center here, where our guys don't get blown up at the rate of 100 a month?
It's a lot less costly, both in terms of equipment and lives, to fly a few Iraqi Divisions to Fort Leonard Wood, Ft. Knox, and then Fort Irwin, and train and equip them up to standard in a year or two. You get them out of that environment and into a place they can learn to be soldiers, and then let them go back and fight their own war, if it is military capability you are trying to build.
But this war doesn't have a purely military solution. It must be a politcal solution by the Iraqi's themselves.
What exactly is it you want our soldiers and Marines to do? That is the problem. Decide what the mission is, and let's do it and come home.
I agree. Let's all continue to pray for peace.
I agree. Except that it's not a cold war mentality- its a "We're not going to ask for sacrifice of the nation, except the kids who volunteer for this. We're not going to commit the nation resources that it takes, and we're not going to create a military of the size necessary to deal with the situation. No, we're going to try to rely on technoligy instead of "boots on the ground". Because we're not ready as a society to commit the boots on the ground necessary to get the job done." mentality that I object to. I agree with Colin Powell, we should have gone in with 500,000 or more, not the force we went it with. But that is water under the bridge now. So now we have to figure out what our military is supposed to do now. What is the mission?
Fight every Muslim? No, that's not the answer.
Provide security in every town and on every street corner?
Not with the paltry amount of forces we have on the ground. Can't do it physically, even with an additional 30 or 300 thousand.
Train Iraqi forces? Fine, but if what we are doing is training them, why do we have to train them there, in IED country, when we have a perfectly good National Training Center here, where our guys don't get blown up at the rate of 100 a month?
It's a lot less costly, both in terms of equipment and lives, to fly a few Iraqi Divisions to Fort Leonard Wood, Ft. Knox, and then Fort Irwin, and train and equip them up to standard in a year or two. You get them out of that environment and into a place they can learn to be soldiers, and then let them go back and fight their own war, if it is military capability you are trying to build.
But this war doesn't have a purely military solution. It must be a politcal solution by the Iraqi's themselves.
What exactly is it you want our soldiers and Marines to do? That is the problem. Decide what the mission is, and let's do it and come home.
I hate to point this out, but Iraq didn't conduct the World Trade Center attack. Osama did. And our resources are now stuck in Iraq rather that going after "the real killers", as OJ would say.
I agree. Let's all continue to pray for peace.
James48843
Well-known member
Re: Market Talk / Dec. 24 - 30
Tell you what-
let's just agree to disagree, and call it a day.
Saddam is dead. That's the news of the day.
What will that do to world markets next week?
Where is the market going next?
Tell you what-
let's just agree to disagree, and call it a day.
Saddam is dead. That's the news of the day.
What will that do to world markets next week?
Where is the market going next?
mailmanusa
Member
I am for more troops for this aspect. Increase the effort to train Iraqi people to handle thier problems. They wont have to worry about being scrutinized by the world like America always is. They wont be held back by politics and world view and all that crap. They will just flat out kick butt. Didnt take em long to hang Sadam once the sentence was handed down, did it?
grandma
Well-known member
Very wise of them - less time to organize an escape, a bribe, or a martyr's death by bombing him.
Judging by all the videos over the past years, we see that the Iraqui's are a very demonstrative people -
-my question :
These folks we see dancing in the streets this morning -
- are they the same ones we watched dancing in the streets on
9/11???
I would wish that the trial over the 5,000 Kurds he gassed would continue, some folks are tending to forget that, along with all the other mass graves.
Finally - I wonder if those of his gang that died ahead of him are trying to beat him up for leading them straight into Hell, & demanding to know where their virgins are. I wonder if he is pleading with God to send a warning to his still living compatriots as did another fellow when he found himself in Hell?
I pray we do not allow ourselves to be blackmailed into lessening our stance against terror because of what `May Occur.'
Spaf
Honorary Hall of Fame Member
Iraq
Do we cut and run or do we stay?
I kind of agree with what this veteran has to say. It's worth the time to watch it.
Link --> http://www.youtube.com/v/m9Yc3wYJOtI
weatherweenie
Well-known member
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.
Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."
However, a declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.
The Sept. 11 Commission's 2004 report also found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network during that period.
Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had requested that the Pentagon declassify the report prepared by acting Defense Department Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble. In a statement Thursday, Levin said the declassified document showed why a Defense Department investigation had concluded that some Pentagon prewar intelligence work was inappropriate.
The report, which had been released in summary form in February, said that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had acted inappropriately but not illegally in reviewing prewar intelligence. Levin has claimed that Feith's intelligence assessment was wrong and distorted but nevertheless formed part of the basis on which President Bush took the country to war.
Although Feith's assessment in mid-2002 offered several examples of cooperation between Saddam's government and al-Qaida, the report said, the CIA had concluded months earlier that no evidence supported the existence of significant or long-term relationships.
Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."
However, a declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.
The Sept. 11 Commission's 2004 report also found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network during that period.
Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had requested that the Pentagon declassify the report prepared by acting Defense Department Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble. In a statement Thursday, Levin said the declassified document showed why a Defense Department investigation had concluded that some Pentagon prewar intelligence work was inappropriate.
The report, which had been released in summary form in February, said that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had acted inappropriately but not illegally in reviewing prewar intelligence. Levin has claimed that Feith's intelligence assessment was wrong and distorted but nevertheless formed part of the basis on which President Bush took the country to war.
Although Feith's assessment in mid-2002 offered several examples of cooperation between Saddam's government and al-Qaida, the report said, the CIA had concluded months earlier that no evidence supported the existence of significant or long-term relationships.
I remember months before September 11th I would be driving to work. My drive takes me past Pearl Harbor (Kam Hwy).One day (I believe it was April or May 2001) I saw an aircraft carrier -the USS John Stennis (brand new)-in port.
The John Stennis's dock is across the the USS Arizona Memorial reception center and not far from the Kam Hwy which I was taking. They had some huge stage being erected on the carriers deck and as it turned this was was for the movie premier ceremony for 'Pearl Harbor' (Starring Ben Affleck....). As the days went by the stage got bigger and more elaborate. They had more news about the movie premier on TV. There were interviews with locals, Navy PR types, Pearl Harbor vets, movie actors etc about how we should be prepared and never let another Pearl Harbor happen again yada yada yada blah blah blah. I personally though it was all a waste of money and resources. But I guess it was great public relations for Hawaii, the Navy, Pearl Harbor etc etc.
As the summer progressed before 9/11 you probably all have forgotten by now what the great national security problem that was being debated. More then enough video tape
was used on it.
Anyone remember?
Why it was the great 'Black Beret' debate.
Should the US Rangers give up their beloved black beret so the regular army types could get it. That move was designed to increase espirt in the regular US Army. I remember some pair of US Rangers were going do some protest march to show their displeasure on trading in their black beret for a tan one.
Now I'm not going to get political here saying who should have done what to whom and when back before 9/11-But what I related to you above are 2 vignettes I remember from my country running through my mind after an old girlfriend called me early 9/11 morning to tell me somebody had crashed a jet airliner into the World Trade Center and I better go turn on the TV etc etc etc.
I thought then as I watched that horror all unfold on 9/11 that all victories and all defeats are TEAM EFFORTS.
And I thought of the movie preimier on the USS John Stennis deck and all those words....("We should always be prepared blah blah blah) and the important Black Beret debate.
A lot of people will go on about who was responsible for 9/11. I have felt then as I feel now more then a few people-past and present -political (both parties) and military and media-had their collective heads in a very dark place.
Damn them and damn Osama Bin Laden to hell.
The John Stennis's dock is across the the USS Arizona Memorial reception center and not far from the Kam Hwy which I was taking. They had some huge stage being erected on the carriers deck and as it turned this was was for the movie premier ceremony for 'Pearl Harbor' (Starring Ben Affleck....). As the days went by the stage got bigger and more elaborate. They had more news about the movie premier on TV. There were interviews with locals, Navy PR types, Pearl Harbor vets, movie actors etc about how we should be prepared and never let another Pearl Harbor happen again yada yada yada blah blah blah. I personally though it was all a waste of money and resources. But I guess it was great public relations for Hawaii, the Navy, Pearl Harbor etc etc.
As the summer progressed before 9/11 you probably all have forgotten by now what the great national security problem that was being debated. More then enough video tape
was used on it.
Anyone remember?
Why it was the great 'Black Beret' debate.
Should the US Rangers give up their beloved black beret so the regular army types could get it. That move was designed to increase espirt in the regular US Army. I remember some pair of US Rangers were going do some protest march to show their displeasure on trading in their black beret for a tan one.
Now I'm not going to get political here saying who should have done what to whom and when back before 9/11-But what I related to you above are 2 vignettes I remember from my country running through my mind after an old girlfriend called me early 9/11 morning to tell me somebody had crashed a jet airliner into the World Trade Center and I better go turn on the TV etc etc etc.
I thought then as I watched that horror all unfold on 9/11 that all victories and all defeats are TEAM EFFORTS.
And I thought of the movie preimier on the USS John Stennis deck and all those words....("We should always be prepared blah blah blah) and the important Black Beret debate.
A lot of people will go on about who was responsible for 9/11. I have felt then as I feel now more then a few people-past and present -political (both parties) and military and media-had their collective heads in a very dark place.
Damn them and damn Osama Bin Laden to hell.
Last edited:
Dodge_Em
Member
Re: Cool Vids
Here's a MadTV skit ... about the iRack (including blooper)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGHty_S0TU0
Here's a MadTV skit ... about the iRack (including blooper)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGHty_S0TU0
nnuut
Moderator | TSP Legend
GREAT WORDS, THEY NEED TO PAY FOR THEIR ACTIONS!
Show-me
Well-known member
Will Turkey Invade Northern Iraq?
Reports of Turkish Troop Concentrations on Iraqi Border Spur Debate About Possible Invasion
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA Associated Press Writer
ISTANBUL, Turkey Jul 9, 2007 (AP)
Reports that Turkey has massed a huge military force on its border with Iraq bolstered fears that an invasion targeting hideouts of Kurdish rebels could be imminent. But how deeply into Iraq is the Turkish army willing to go, how long would it stay and what kind of fallout could come from allies in Washington and other NATO partners?
All these questions weigh on Turkey's leaders, who have enough on their hands without embarking on a foreign military adventure. Turkey is caught up in an internal rift between the Islamic-rooted government and the military-backed, secular establishment, less than two weeks ahead of July 22 elections that were called early as a way to ease tensions in a polarized society.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3360172
Reports of Turkish Troop Concentrations on Iraqi Border Spur Debate About Possible Invasion
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA Associated Press Writer
ISTANBUL, Turkey Jul 9, 2007 (AP)
Reports that Turkey has massed a huge military force on its border with Iraq bolstered fears that an invasion targeting hideouts of Kurdish rebels could be imminent. But how deeply into Iraq is the Turkish army willing to go, how long would it stay and what kind of fallout could come from allies in Washington and other NATO partners?
All these questions weigh on Turkey's leaders, who have enough on their hands without embarking on a foreign military adventure. Turkey is caught up in an internal rift between the Islamic-rooted government and the military-backed, secular establishment, less than two weeks ahead of July 22 elections that were called early as a way to ease tensions in a polarized society.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3360172
The_Technician
Active member
Radical Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered his dreaded Shiite militia on Wednesday to stop attacks on US-led forces as part of a six-month suspension of the militant group's activities.
AS I always said, he's bad news to his fellow humans......need I say more....
AS I always said, he's bad news to his fellow humans......need I say more....
James48843
Well-known member
Foreign Service employees NOT happy campers today:
From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031...y&printer=1;_ylt=AmcDiWG9cYQH6zDgOmAVxfeWwvIE
Some US diplomats angry over Iraq posts
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press
Several hundred U.S. diplomats vented anger and frustration Wednesday about the State Department's decision to force foreign service officers to take jobs in Iraq, with some likening it to a "potential death sentence."
In a contentious hour-long "town hall meeting" called to explain the step, these workers peppered the official who signed the order with often hostile complaints about the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam. Announced last week, it will require some diplomats - under threat of dismissal — to serve at the embassy in Baghdad and in so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams in outlying provinces.
Many expressed serious concern about the ethics of sending diplomats against their will to serve in a war zone, where the embassy staff is largely confined to the so-called "Green Zone," and the safety outside the area is uncertain while a review of the department's use of private security contractors to protect its staff is under way.
"Incoming is coming in every day, rockets are hitting the Green Zone," said Jack Crotty, a senior foreign service officer who once worked as a political adviser with NATO forces.
Employees directly confronted Foreign Service Director General Harry Thomas, who approved the move to so-called "directed assignments" late last Friday to make up for a lack of volunteers to go to Iraq.
"It's one thing if someone believes in what's going on over there and volunteers, but it's another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment," Crotty said. "I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?"
"You know that at any other (country) in the world, the embassy would be closed at this point," Crotty said to loud and sustained applause from the about 300 diplomats who attended the meeting in a large State Department auditorium.
Thomas responded by saying the comments were "filled with inaccuracies" but did not elaborate until challenged by the head of the diplomats' union, the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), who like Crotty and others, demanded to know why many learned of the decision from news reports.
Thomas took full responsibility for the late notification but objected when AFSA President John Naland said that a recent survey found that only 12 percent of the union's membership believed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was "fighting for them."
"That's their right but they're wrong," Thomas said, prompting a testy exchange.
"Sometimes if it's 88 to 12, maybe the 88 percent are correct," Naland said.
"88 percent of the country believed in slavery at one time, was that correct?" shot back Thomas, who is black, in a remark that drew boos from the crowd. "Don't you or anybody else stand there and tell me I don't care about my colleagues. I am insulted," he added.
Rice was not present for the meeting, but her top adviser on Iraq, David Satterfield, did attend.
Other diplomats did not object to the idea of directed assignments but questioned why the State Department had been slow to respond to the medical needs of those who had served in dangerous posts.
"I would just urge you, now that now we are looking at compulsory service in a war zone, that we have a moral imperative as an agency to take care of people who ... come back with war wounds," said Rachel Schnelling, a diplomat who served in Basra, Iraq and said the department had been unresponsive to requests for mental heath care.
"I asked for treatment and I didn't get any of it," she said in comments that were greeted with a standing ovation.
Thomas, who has been in his current job for just a few months, said the department was working on improving its response to stress-related disorders that "we did not anticipate."
Under the new order, 200 to 300 diplomats have been identified as "prime candidates" to fill 48 vacancies that will open next year at the Baghdad embassy and in the provinces. Those notified that they have been selected for a one-year posting will have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough say yes, some will be ordered to go. Only those with compelling reasons, such as a medical condition or extreme personal hardship, will be exempt from disciplinary action.
Diplomats who are forced into service in Iraq will receive the same extra hardship pay, vacation time and choice of future assignments as those who have volunteered.
From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031...y&printer=1;_ylt=AmcDiWG9cYQH6zDgOmAVxfeWwvIE
Some US diplomats angry over Iraq posts
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press
Several hundred U.S. diplomats vented anger and frustration Wednesday about the State Department's decision to force foreign service officers to take jobs in Iraq, with some likening it to a "potential death sentence."
In a contentious hour-long "town hall meeting" called to explain the step, these workers peppered the official who signed the order with often hostile complaints about the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam. Announced last week, it will require some diplomats - under threat of dismissal — to serve at the embassy in Baghdad and in so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams in outlying provinces.
Many expressed serious concern about the ethics of sending diplomats against their will to serve in a war zone, where the embassy staff is largely confined to the so-called "Green Zone," and the safety outside the area is uncertain while a review of the department's use of private security contractors to protect its staff is under way.
"Incoming is coming in every day, rockets are hitting the Green Zone," said Jack Crotty, a senior foreign service officer who once worked as a political adviser with NATO forces.
Employees directly confronted Foreign Service Director General Harry Thomas, who approved the move to so-called "directed assignments" late last Friday to make up for a lack of volunteers to go to Iraq.
"It's one thing if someone believes in what's going on over there and volunteers, but it's another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment," Crotty said. "I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?"
"You know that at any other (country) in the world, the embassy would be closed at this point," Crotty said to loud and sustained applause from the about 300 diplomats who attended the meeting in a large State Department auditorium.
Thomas responded by saying the comments were "filled with inaccuracies" but did not elaborate until challenged by the head of the diplomats' union, the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), who like Crotty and others, demanded to know why many learned of the decision from news reports.
Thomas took full responsibility for the late notification but objected when AFSA President John Naland said that a recent survey found that only 12 percent of the union's membership believed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was "fighting for them."
"That's their right but they're wrong," Thomas said, prompting a testy exchange.
"Sometimes if it's 88 to 12, maybe the 88 percent are correct," Naland said.
"88 percent of the country believed in slavery at one time, was that correct?" shot back Thomas, who is black, in a remark that drew boos from the crowd. "Don't you or anybody else stand there and tell me I don't care about my colleagues. I am insulted," he added.
Rice was not present for the meeting, but her top adviser on Iraq, David Satterfield, did attend.
Other diplomats did not object to the idea of directed assignments but questioned why the State Department had been slow to respond to the medical needs of those who had served in dangerous posts.
"I would just urge you, now that now we are looking at compulsory service in a war zone, that we have a moral imperative as an agency to take care of people who ... come back with war wounds," said Rachel Schnelling, a diplomat who served in Basra, Iraq and said the department had been unresponsive to requests for mental heath care.
"I asked for treatment and I didn't get any of it," she said in comments that were greeted with a standing ovation.
Thomas, who has been in his current job for just a few months, said the department was working on improving its response to stress-related disorders that "we did not anticipate."
Under the new order, 200 to 300 diplomats have been identified as "prime candidates" to fill 48 vacancies that will open next year at the Baghdad embassy and in the provinces. Those notified that they have been selected for a one-year posting will have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough say yes, some will be ordered to go. Only those with compelling reasons, such as a medical condition or extreme personal hardship, will be exempt from disciplinary action.
Diplomats who are forced into service in Iraq will receive the same extra hardship pay, vacation time and choice of future assignments as those who have volunteered.
Similar threads
