Kurdish leader threatens Iraq secession

Thanks...

Clinton era:

Since 1990, active Army ranks have been reduced from 770,000 to 495,000.The Army currently has 10 active combat divisions compared to the 18

That tells me a lot. I would assume that would take a while to change. I wonder if this had anything to do with how we're putting national guards in Iraq?

Anyone have the current numbers....I'd like to compare the numbers just for reference.

 

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/departments/elearning/?article=mosteducatedstates

Not really a bunch of dumbassess, but blue states have the most college educated people and the highest incomes

Actually its not at all, they need people, you are qualified, please, you believe in the war, so go signup.

 

You guys are so quick to blame Clinton for stuff that Happened during the Bush administration!!!!

Truthful evidence, which has been supressed, more and more indicates that the Bush administration decided to go to war and Manufactured reasons to attack Iraq.

The real battle was against Al Queda located in Afghanistan, not in Iraq.

Even as the Bush administration---the guys on top were saying there were weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was assisting/helping/conspiring with Al Queda the evidence was debatable within the intelligence community.

That didn't stop Bush and Cheney though.

So we ultimately went to war.

Now Rumsfield had control and he attacked with a limited force in numbers.

It did the job militarily to defeat Saddam's army...but has been severely understaffed to quell the subsequent uprising.

Again, intelligence was ignored.

If the current administration had used ANY BRAINPOWER at all maybe they would have heeded intelligence and heeded people with real military experience and calculated that they needed more manpower.

But they didn't.

It's ironic. After 9/11 the current administration had a united America and a huge surge in real patriotism. It was a great opportunity to grow the military and keep the focus on the real enemy and assess our own abilities within a changing environment.

But none of that happened. So blame it all on Clinton. Disregard the fact that Bush made decisions and took actions that haven't turned out well!!!

Now we are in this mess. I referenced the problems with the mess earlier. None of the outcomes will be PAINLESS.

What is the long range scariest outcome?

In my mind, currently, it is an Iraq that turns to civil war with a dominant Shiite majority, supported by Iran that takes control and becomes a sort of puppet state with additional control of its oil reserves. That would see incredible ethnic killing between shiites and sunnis....and possibly increased violence in the middle east as supporters of the shiites and sunnis use Iraq as a battle ground.

None of this bodes well.....but don't blame the current conditions on Clinton. He wasn't making the decisions in 2001, 2002, 2003 and so on.

 

So there was a space time continuum and Bush went back in time and told Clinton to gut the military and let bin laden go three times? In addition, Bush went back in time to help Clinton see the light? And Bush was so smart, he went back in time and planted brain wave devices in democrats?

Is this opinion, or is this the same way you knew Karl Rove, Dick Cheny and Bush were guilty for outing Plame?

Let's look at those reasons, shall we?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

So which one(s) do you think Bush manufacturered?

What's really sad is, this was actually covered in a post you started here. Wasn't really too long ago either

Debatable is not infactual. The evidence is overwhelming. And when learned, suddently it no longer matters.

Do you recall how many voted in Congress?

Debatable. Do you really submit that if twice as many were used, you would not longer have an issue?

What intelligence was ignored? Sources?

In history, which war do you think was perfect?

Do you think it was liberals or conservatives that lost that patriotism? Many charges have been made, very few proven. In fact, it seems like "only the message matters." The military did need growing. Someone gutted it.

How about we blame Clinton for what he did do, which was the subject, until you tried to expand it? He gutted the military. He let bin laden go, three times. I could be wrong, but isn't that "all" was being blamed on Clinton here? So you take no issue with Clinton's faults, only the perceived faults of Bush? OK, so now we know.

And who said it would be painless?

Interesting hypothetical.

Clinton gutted the military. Someone asked about it, the numbers were posted. He was making similar decisions that you claim Bush manufacturered long before Bush was in office.

 

any kurds in the house other than me?

 

You actually live there?

 

no but i got a ton of family there
i go there once in a while to visit, and might be moving there soon for good

 

Curious, how do you see things in your part of Iraq?

ps...

I hope your family (and you) well.

 

well depends on what exactly the question is.
in the north (kurdistan) they are very safe, no bombs no one is being be headed... so its pretty safe.
but then again its been pretty safe in the north for a number of years even before the iraq war due to the no fly zone that was imposed.

thanks for your sympathies, they all fine.

 

Froggie:

Best of luck to you and your family.

GTech:

I'm going to spend time going through citations and statements over the years about the war. It will be interesting to see how the Bush administration has descibed this situation over time.

As far as the Plamegate situation. We discovered from the source itself that Richard Armitage, a then State Department employee, was the original source. On that basis there was no conspiracy.

I don't understand why the administration played into the thing. Also why did the special prosecutor chase this thing so long if he knew right away that Armatage was the source and was not connected with the top of the administration.

That whole thing speaks to the side effects of over politicizing of issues.

both sides attack the other political side for all sorts of things, some of which turn out not to be true. There are wierd distortions of facts. People write about these types of issues in wierd ways to distort facts. For instance, why did you keep reiterating that Wilson was the "outing source" referecing a single line in Novak's writings that he learned Valerie Plame's name from the Who's Who in America book.

Novak was very clear that he earned about Plame from 3 sources. After that he looked up Wilson and found out the name of his wife.

That just takes a sentence, misplaces its reference and distorts what happened.

But it appears the whole Plamegate issue was overstated in the midst of other issues and that there was no initial conspiracy by the administration to reveal Plame's identity.

I'd say the two way street of over politizing issues distorts and moves us away from uncovering facts.

 

Here is one reference to the question of size of forces, GTech. It is not an answer to the specific question of actual fighting forces in the army...but it references total size of all connected to the US military as of 9/10/01:

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.html

Also please note, for those of you who blame Clinton for everything that went wrong with Al Queda, preparing for the attack on 9/11, etc.

Please note what Rumsfeld considered a major issue with the US military and defense.

Didn't look to me like he was focusing on terrorists from the outside!