Patreas: To report in Washington today.

[Coldkilla]

Petraeus & Crocker Testify

The Senate Armed Services Cmte. holds the first of several planned Congressional hearings with Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus testifying about the situation in Iraq.

When: 9:30AM EST
Where: C-SPAN and probably major networks.
Source:
http://www.c-span.org
Front and center will be: Obama, Hillary, McCain, and Biden.

The media isn't making a big deal out of this this time around. What do you guys make of this?

I think Obama and Billary will be trying to make this political. Biden will be heading the event, saying that he will do his best to keep politics out of this as to the best of his ability, stating this is only about the lives of American soldiers in Iraq, the toll its taking on our forces, and the stability of the region thus far. McCain will speak first after Patreas's report. Which will be interesting to see, considering Patreas will give a grim report, and McCain will somehow have to defend it and explain how well we are doing down there.

 

[jpeyton]

Grim report? Who are you kidding? I don't think I've heard an honest assessment about the war from any General that was still in charge.

Hopefully Obama and Billery will turn the hearing towards benchmarks, many of which we have measurably failed to meet in Iraq. McCain has a hard time when pesky details like benchmark failures come up.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Petraeus & Crocker Testify

The Senate Armed Services Cmte. holds the first of several planned Congressional hearings with Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus testifying about the situation in Iraq.

When: 9:30AM EST
Where: C-SPAN and probably major networks.
Source:
http://www.c-span.org
Front and center will be: Obama, Hillary, McCain, and Biden.

The media isn't making a big deal out of this this time around. What do you guys make of this?

I think Obama and Billary will be trying to make this political. Biden will be heading the event, saying that he will do his best to keep politics out of this as to the best of his ability, stating this is only about the lives of American soldiers in Iraq, the toll its taking on our forces, and the stability of the region thus far. McCain will speak first after Patreas's report. Which will be interesting to see, considering Patreas will give a grim report, and McCain will somehow have to defend it and explain how well we are doing down there.

This war IS political. War is a political issue.

Some people say political like it's some dirty word describing a felony. It's not, it's how we run our nation's government and therefore wars.

A lot of problems are caused by words having too many meanings. "Political" is used both to describe the hackery misuse of troops as background for a speech, and for the goals of using the military to end genocide - a wide range of positive and negative, making the discussion confusing.

It's ridiculous to pretend war is not about politics but only the health of the troops; the soldiers aren't there for reasons unrelated to politics, and suddenly the politicians jump in.

The attempted denial of the political aspects of the war are precisely what prevent the debate needed for it.

No one wants to see 'partisan' politics overplayed, but that's another issue. As one colleciton of quotes noted:

President Franklin D. Roosevelt said ?I don?t want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this disaster,? and then-Senator Harry Truman denounced war profiteering as ?treason.? Earlier in the century, Sen. Robert LaFollette called war profiteers ?enemies of democracy in the homeland.?

Was that politics, was it 'partisan politics'? Or is it just the politicians doing what they're supposed, which is political, to run the country?

Harry Truman as VP ran war profiteering hearings; had the Republicans been in charge of Congress and runthe hearings, would that have made them political?

Demand GOOD politics from politicians; it's absurd to say you don't want politicians to act politically.

And of course, the result s predictable - all the politicians trying not to look 'political', especially the most political ones. Was George Bush buying a (non-)Ranch in Texas just as he started a presedential run and doing other things to make sure he didn't look like the spoiled rich Connecticut Harvard kid he was (a lesson he learned by watching his father lose an election by making the elder Bush look too high-falutin) - to not look 'political' - not political? Are the citizens well served by those games and lies they demand?

 

[Lemon law]

My take is that we will again fail to have frank national discussion of Iraq. And GWB&co. will again be let off the hook.

Last fall, the Petraeus report, actually written by GWB&co, became a three ring circus because Moveon.org had had the temerity to call Petraeus betrayus.

This time, because of the fast moving events in Iraq, which no one can predict, will let Petraeus and Crocker make their in so many word statements that they are guardedly optimistic, while everyone in the room knows those two clowns are as clueless as everyone else. Meanwhile back in Iraq, no one knows which group of lunatics will end up running the asylum. But its getting pretty clear, that the USA is no longer the deciders here, and are merely captive to events while the building around them threatens to burn to the ground. Or another way of looking at it, the USA is like the car that drove off a cliff, and while its in the air and until it hits the ground, the US is still in the drivers seat and the steering wheel is easier to turn. And because turning the steering wheel has no effect, we are staying the course.

The only thing that might disrupt the universal joy of the Petraeus hearings would be if Al Sadr can come up with his million man march in Iraq scheduled for April 9. It may be hard to ignore a million or so Iraqis of all sects all waving signs saying Yankee go home. But if Sadr can't come with all that many, it means the Iraqi people want us and blackwater to stay forever and forever.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
My take is that we will again fail to have frank national discussion of Iraq. And GWB&co. will again be let off the hook.

Last fall, the Petraeus report, actually written by GWB&co, became a three ring circus because Moveon.org had had the temerity to call Petraeus betrayus.

This time, because of the fast moving events in Iraq, which no one can predict, will let Petraeus and Crocker make their in so many word statements that they are guardedly optimistic, while everyone in the room knows those two clowns are as clueless as everyone else. Meanwhile back in Iraq, no one knows which group of lunatics will end up running the asylum. But its getting pretty clear, that the USA is no longer the deciders here, and are merely captive to events while the building around them threatens to burn to the ground. Or another way of looking at it, the USA is like the car that drove off a cliff, and while its in the air and until it hits the ground, the US is still in the drivers seat and the steering wheel is easier to turn. And because turning the steering wheel has no effect, we are staying the course.

The only thing that might disrupt the universal joy of the Petraeus hearings would be if Al Sadr can come up with his million man march in Iraq scheduled for April 9. It may be hard to ignore a million or so Iraqis of all sects all waving signs saying Yankee go home. But if Sadr can't come with all that many, it means the Iraqi people want us and blackwater to stay forever and forever.

Patraeus specifically stated that the Bush White House did not write his report last September. An originally untrue accusation does not become truth through repetiton.

As for the rest of your post, it's clear that the anti-war crowd and naysayers are severely worried. Patraeus buried them last time around and is looking to do the same this time. But since you've pinned your hopes and dreams on Sadr, let's see what happens tomorrow.

 

[Lemon law]

The TLC version is one way to look at it with--As for the rest of your post, it's clear that the anti-war crowd and naysayers are severely worried. Patraeus buried them last time around and is looking to do the same this time. But since you've pinned your hopes and dreams on Sadr, let's see what happens tomorrow.

I was rather hoping to have a frank national debate. Now I doubt we will.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The TLC version is one way to look at it with--As for the rest of your post, it's clear that the anti-war crowd and naysayers are severely worried. Patraeus buried them last time around and is looking to do the same this time. But since you've pinned your hopes and dreams on Sadr, let's see what happens tomorrow.

I was rather hoping to have a frank national debate. Now I doubt we will.

When you start out with an entire load of derisionary rhetoric and slime attacks as your premise it's clear you don't care one whit for any sort of national or rational debate. Anti-war rants != debate.

In regard to Patraeus/Crocker report - Great, another loonie yelling from the back rows. Don't these people realize that they only appear to be unhinged nuts with that moronic form of protest? If they're going to protest at least do it with some class and dignity.

 

[Lemon law]

The TLC comeback is---In regard to Patraeus/Crocker report - Great, another loonie yelling from the back rows. Don't these people realize that they only appear to be unhinged nuts with that moronic form of protest? If they're going to protest at least do it with some class and dignity.

Thats the TLC rebuttal in a nutshell--the unwashed rabble is always wrong---vote for the man in the neatly pressed military uniform. TLC, your man was William Westmoreland. A soldier's soldier.

But OK, class and dignity, I will try to make the case why we will not get a national debate.

1. All the Presidential candidates will be there asking questions and trying to spin the answers their way for political spin.

2. Can we really say that Petraeus and Crocker are doing anything but guessing given how swiftly events are now moving in Iraq.

3. For the first time in the history of the Iraqi occupation, the Iraqi Central government is somewhat standing up and may well start making their own independent decisions if the trends continue. With the possibility that some of those decisions will not be in US interests.

4. The Al Sadr call for a million man march is almost the only possible non violent foreseeable event that could impact US perceptions at the congressional hearings. Al Sadr will turn out the large numbers or he will not*. * with a possibility it will be somewhat debatable either way with semi large but not huge numbers. And the wild card will be what the Iraqi street seems to be saying.

 

[Deudalus]

The simple fact is the neither side is going to be very truthful when it comes to these things.

The democrats will continue to give very specific doom and gloom questions and try to pin down Petraeus in either a yes or no answer while the Republicans will continue to give Petraeus softer questions and let him run with it however he may.

A lot of you here will basically continue to claim that "we still won't have real discussion and debate on this war because Petraeus refuses to give the answer I want" which is humorous at best. In order to have real debate you need to have a little a glimmer of openmindedness about an issue which just doesn't exist here or in Washington.

I think Lieberman said it best so I will paraphrase him:

FRANKLY I THINK WE'VE HAD MORE POLITICAL RECONCILIATION AND IMPROVEMENT IN IRAQ THAN WE HAVE HAD HERE IN AMERICA

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The TLC comeback is---In regard to Patraeus/Crocker report - Great, another loonie yelling from the back rows. Don't these people realize that they only appear to be unhinged nuts with that moronic form of protest? If they're going to protest at least do it with some class and dignity.

Thats the TLC rebuttal in a nutshell--the unwashed rabble is always wrong---vote for the man in the neatly pressed military uniform. TLC, your man was William Westmoreland. A soldier's soldier.

But OK, class and dignity, I will try to make the case why we will not get a national debate.

1. All the Presidential candidates will be there asking questions and trying to spin the answers their way for political spin.

2. Can we really say that Petraeus and Crocker are doing anything but guessing given how swiftly events are now moving in Iraq.

3. For the first time in the history of the Iraqi occupation, the Iraqi Central government is somewhat standing up and may well start making their own independent decisions if the trends continue. With the possibility that some of those decisions will not be in US interests.

4. The Al Sadr call for a million man march is almost the only possible non violent foreseeable event that could impact US perceptions at the congressional hearings. Al Sadr will turn out the large numbers or he will not*. * with a possibility it will be somewhat debatable either way with semi large but not huge numbers. And the wild card will be what the Iraqi street seems to be saying.

It's interesting how you spin my comments, particularly since you are practically famous in here for ranting that Bush and anyone that supports Iraq is nearly always wrong. I guess the opposite extreme from your own extreme pov holds little allure for you?

Note that it's also that same extreme from you and the anti-war crew that prevents any sort of national debate. The anti-war crowd doesn't want debate. They want to pound their fist and yell in people's faces (and disrupt Congressional hearings) as well as berate the other side endlessly with trite little names and FUD-spreading tactics ("With the possibility that some of those decisions will not be in US interests." and let's not forget that al-Sadr bogeyman))

You're not debating here, LL. You are pontificating. There's a big difference. You keep claiming you want debate yet you end up preaching your own opinion as gospel.

 

[chucky2]

My only question for both of them would be 1.) Why Iraq doesn't have a fully modern infrastructure package in place throughout the entire country, and 2.) Why aren't we getting the locals to work in mass numbers on those infrastructure projects?

If they don't answer that some type of massive progress has been made, then it's time to tear them each a new @sshole.

There's sh1tloads of cheap labor available in Iraq...putting it to work making money and feeling good they accomplished something together is loads better than having them poor and PO'd making IED's in their houses.

Chuck

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Grim report? Who are you kidding? I don't think I've heard an honest assessment about the war from any General that was still in charge.

Hopefully Obama and Billery will turn the hearing towards benchmarks, many of which we have measurably failed to meet in Iraq. McCain has a hard time when pesky details like benchmark failures come up.

And you have first hand knowlege of Intel and operations in Iraq...thus you said you havent heard honest assessment...right?

yyeeaahhhh didnt think so. You should change your quote to reflect the truth: I havent heard an assment that says what I want it to say, nor what I think, but have no idea, is going on.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
My take is that we will again fail to have frank national discussion of Iraq. And GWB&co. will again be let off the hook.

Last fall, the Petraeus report, actually written by GWB&co, became a three ring circus because Moveon.org had had the temerity to call Petraeus betrayus.

This time, because of the fast moving events in Iraq, which no one can predict, will let Petraeus and Crocker make their in so many word statements that they are guardedly optimistic, while everyone in the room knows those two clowns are as clueless as everyone else. Meanwhile back in Iraq, no one knows which group of lunatics will end up running the asylum. But its getting pretty clear, that the USA is no longer the deciders here, and are merely captive to events while the building around them threatens to burn to the ground. Or another way of looking at it, the USA is like the car that drove off a cliff, and while its in the air and until it hits the ground, the US is still in the drivers seat and the steering wheel is easier to turn. And because turning the steering wheel has no effect, we are staying the course.

The only thing that might disrupt the universal joy of the Petraeus hearings would be if Al Sadr can come up with his million man march in Iraq scheduled for April 9. It may be hard to ignore a million or so Iraqis of all sects all waving signs saying Yankee go home. But if Sadr can't come with all that many, it means the Iraqi people want us and blackwater to stay forever and forever.

Patraeus specifically stated that the Bush White House did not write his report last September. An originally untrue accusation does not become truth through repetiton.

QFT

As for the rest of your post, it's clear that the anti-war crowd and naysayers are severely worried. Patraeus buried them last time around and is looking to do the same this time. But since you've pinned your hopes and dreams on Sadr, let's see what happens tomorrow.

Well, thats because they only accept reports that reflect what they *think* is going on. Thats why *some* general's reports are praised and some arent.[/q]

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: blackangst1


Well, thats because they only accept reports that reflect what they *think* is going on. Thats why *some* general's reports are praised and some arent.[/q]

You are above this?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

I think Lieberman said it best so I will paraphrase him:

FRANKLY I THINK WE'VE HAD MORE POLITICAL RECONCILIATION AND IMPROVEMENT IN IRAQ THAN WE HAVE HAD HERE IN AMERICA

That's because Lieberman is a moron and a grade A war apologist.

Sure they still have open warfare with different factions taking over entire cities, the government buildings being shelled, etc... but I mean in AMERICA people get ANGRY at each other still!

(unless he was trying to say that from 1% reconciled to 2% reconciled is a 100% improvement, at which point I would again call him a moron but for slightly different reasons)

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The TLC comeback is---In regard to Patraeus/Crocker report - Great, another loonie yelling from the back rows. Don't these people realize that they only appear to be unhinged nuts with that moronic form of protest? If they're going to protest at least do it with some class and dignity.

Thats the TLC rebuttal in a nutshell--the unwashed rabble is always wrong---vote for the man in the neatly pressed military uniform. TLC, your man was William Westmoreland. A soldier's soldier.

But OK, class and dignity, I will try to make the case why we will not get a national debate.

1. All the Presidential candidates will be there asking questions and trying to spin the answers their way for political spin.

2. Can we really say that Petraeus and Crocker are doing anything but guessing given how swiftly events are now moving in Iraq.

3. For the first time in the history of the Iraqi occupation, the Iraqi Central government is somewhat standing up and may well start making their own independent decisions if the trends continue. With the possibility that some of those decisions will not be in US interests.

4. The Al Sadr call for a million man march is almost the only possible non violent foreseeable event that could impact US perceptions at the congressional hearings. Al Sadr will turn out the large numbers or he will not*. * with a possibility it will be somewhat debatable either way with semi large but not huge numbers. And the wild card will be what the Iraqi street seems to be saying.

It's interesting how you spin my comments, particularly since you are practically famous in here for ranting that Bush and anyone that supports Iraq is nearly always wrong. I guess the opposite extreme from your own extreme pov holds little allure for you?

Note that it's also that same extreme from you and the anti-war crew that prevents any sort of national debate. The anti-war crowd doesn't want debate. They want to pound their fist and yell in people's faces (and disrupt Congressional hearings) as well as berate the other side endlessly with trite little names and FUD-spreading tactics ("With the possibility that some of those decisions will not be in US interests." and let's not forget that al-Sadr bogeyman))

You're not debating here, LL. You are pontificating. There's a big difference. You keep claiming you want debate yet you end up preaching your own opinion as gospel.

I call shens on you and your lamentable position. It is in fact the war apologists who are preventing a meaningful debate. If you are for withdrawal, you are actively working for our defeat and are a surrender monkey. You are an ally of Al Qaeda. You will be forever tainted with Iraqi blood on your hands because of the inevitable slaughter that is to occur and you are handing Iran dominance in the middle east. Also you are dishonoring the fallen by not "completing" the mission.

That's the defense for continuing the war, full of assumptions and outright moral falsehoods, but is shouted from the rooftops in the general direction of anyone who thinks it's far past the point of being worth it.

So please stop crying in your soup.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The TLC comeback is---In regard to Patraeus/Crocker report - Great, another loonie yelling from the back rows. Don't these people realize that they only appear to be unhinged nuts with that moronic form of protest? If they're going to protest at least do it with some class and dignity.

Thats the TLC rebuttal in a nutshell--the unwashed rabble is always wrong---vote for the man in the neatly pressed military uniform. TLC, your man was William Westmoreland. A soldier's soldier.

But OK, class and dignity, I will try to make the case why we will not get a national debate.

1. All the Presidential candidates will be there asking questions and trying to spin the answers their way for political spin.

2. Can we really say that Petraeus and Crocker are doing anything but guessing given how swiftly events are now moving in Iraq.

3. For the first time in the history of the Iraqi occupation, the Iraqi Central government is somewhat standing up and may well start making their own independent decisions if the trends continue. With the possibility that some of those decisions will not be in US interests.

4. The Al Sadr call for a million man march is almost the only possible non violent foreseeable event that could impact US perceptions at the congressional hearings. Al Sadr will turn out the large numbers or he will not*. * with a possibility it will be somewhat debatable either way with semi large but not huge numbers. And the wild card will be what the Iraqi street seems to be saying.

It's interesting how you spin my comments, particularly since you are practically famous in here for ranting that Bush and anyone that supports Iraq is nearly always wrong. I guess the opposite extreme from your own extreme pov holds little allure for you?

Note that it's also that same extreme from you and the anti-war crew that prevents any sort of national debate. The anti-war crowd doesn't want debate. They want to pound their fist and yell in people's faces (and disrupt Congressional hearings) as well as berate the other side endlessly with trite little names and FUD-spreading tactics ("With the possibility that some of those decisions will not be in US interests." and let's not forget that al-Sadr bogeyman))

You're not debating here, LL. You are pontificating. There's a big difference. You keep claiming you want debate yet you end up preaching your own opinion as gospel.

I call shens on you and your lamentable position. It is in fact the war apologists who are preventing a meaningful debate. If you are for withdrawal, you are actively working for our defeat and are a surrender monkey. You are an ally of Al Qaeda. You will be forever tainted with Iraqi blood on your hands because of the inevitable slaughter that is to occur and you are handing Iran dominance in the middle east. Also you are dishonoring the fallen by not "completing" the mission.

That's the defense for continuing the war, full of assumptions and outright moral falsehoods, but is shouted from the rooftops in the general direction of anyone who thinks it's far past the point of being worth it.

So please stop crying in your soup.

And if you're not for an immediate withdrawal you're a Bush lackey, neocon scum, a warmonger, a chickenhawk, morally bankrupt, and "an apologist."

Who has been right thus far? Those who claim there has been progress in Iraq or those who have denied it from their highest rhetorical soapbox and only now, belatedly and seemingly through their teeth, are finally coming around to admitting progress? Who was fos and who wasn't? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't me that was wrong.

btw. Anyone just listen to Sen. Wicker?

"There has been progress in Iraq and it would be a willing suspension of disbelief to believe otherwise."

Talk about zinging Hillary. Ouchie.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: blackangst1


Well, thats because they only accept reports that reflect what they *think* is going on. Thats why *some* general's reports are praised and some arent.[/q]

You are above this?

Of course not. Some people think they are though. Although I *do* entertain both sides, and honestly think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. If you notice alot of my posts I post questions. This is to occasionally play devil's advocate to get people to actually think instead of react. But, alas, most poeple are incapable.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: chucky2
My only question for both of them would be 1.) Why Iraq doesn't have a fully modern infrastructure package in place throughout the entire country, and 2.) Why aren't we getting the locals to work in mass numbers on those infrastructure projects?

If they don't answer that some type of massive progress has been made, then it's time to tear them each a new @sshole.

There's sh1tloads of cheap labor available in Iraq...putting it to work making money and feeling good they accomplished something together is loads better than having them poor and PO'd making IED's in their houses.

Chuck

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally someone posting on some other questions we should be asking. Although I doubt these funds are being made available to Petraeus and Crocker. And that those same questions should be asked of both our US congress and GWB. Now that the US congress has switched party affiliation away from the President, we can expect the President's party to gleefully receive the pointed fingers, but we will probably not get the congress being willing to look at itself in the mirror and honestly confront what wisdom they could have accomplished and did not.

And I sure did not miss the fact that a fellow named datalink7 made a recent post that its possible to implement some of those Chucky2 suggestions at the local level. Its really somewhat gets at the fact we the American people are expecting brains to trickle down from only our leaders.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: chucky2
My only question for both of them would be 1.) Why Iraq doesn't have a fully modern infrastructure package in place throughout the entire country, and 2.) Why aren't we getting the locals to work in mass numbers on those infrastructure projects?

If they don't answer that some type of massive progress has been made, then it's time to tear them each a new @sshole.

There's sh1tloads of cheap labor available in Iraq...putting it to work making money and feeling good they accomplished something together is loads better than having them poor and PO'd making IED's in their houses.

Chuck

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally someone posting on some other questions we should be asking. Although I doubt these funds are being made available to Petraeus and Crocker. And that those same questions should be asked of both our US congress and GWB. Now that the US congress has switched party affiliation away from the President, we can expect the President's party to gleefully receive the pointed fingers, but we will probably not get the congress being willing to look at itself in the mirror and honestly confront what wisdom they could have accomplished and did not.

And I sure did not miss the fact that a fellow named datalink7 made a recent post that its possible to implement some of those Chucky2 suggestions at the local level. Its really somewhat gets at the fact we the American people are expecting brains to trickle down from only our leaders.

These questions have been answered.

1. There is. Unless you think the reports of school, hospitals, etc are NOT being built and reopened. But, as you know, there are alot of groups and people who sabatoge this work in the name of anti-Americanism.

3. We are lol who is in charge of oil fields, for example? It aint us.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
1. There is. Unless you think the reports of school, hospitals, etc are NOT being built and reopened. But, as you know, there are alot of groups and people who sabatoge this work in the name of anti-Americanism.

More accurately, anti-occupation by America.

And actually, I haven't seen much in the way of balanced coverage of the benefits to Iraq.

I had thought before the war that the economic improvements were a no-brainer, because the sanctions were so harmful - that it was a 'free' win, liifting them would help a lot.

But the few reports I do see say that not even that has happened much, with power still available an hour a day to many, and so on.

And I don't think economic measures are the relevant issue - if the US were occupied by a foreign power, should the economic situation determine whether we agree to it or not?

3. We are lol who is in charge of oil fields, for example? It aint us.

There are legitimate questions about whether reconstruction project are, as is so often the case, being used for corrupt gain, i.e., big contracts directed to favored people.

Some of the worst corruption can hide behind the 'best causes', as long as there is money to get ahold of. Ever hear of 'faith-based government programs' that just happen to direct billions of taxpayer dollars in the direction of large religious groups who had something like 90% political support for the ruling party, directed by the same leadership that gets the funds, when any financial connection between the two is normally forbidden for good reason, but as long as it's in the name of 'charity programs' or better yet 'abstinence'...

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: chucky2
My only question for both of them would be 1.) Why Iraq doesn't have a fully modern infrastructure package in place throughout the entire country, and 2.) Why aren't we getting the locals to work in mass numbers on those infrastructure projects?

If they don't answer that some type of massive progress has been made, then it's time to tear them each a new @sshole.

There's sh1tloads of cheap labor available in Iraq...putting it to work making money and feeling good they accomplished something together is loads better than having them poor and PO'd making IED's in their houses.

Chuck

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally someone posting on some other questions we should be asking. Although I doubt these funds are being made available to Petraeus and Crocker. And that those same questions should be asked of both our US congress and GWB. Now that the US congress has switched party affiliation away from the President, we can expect the President's party to gleefully receive the pointed fingers, but we will probably not get the congress being willing to look at itself in the mirror and honestly confront what wisdom they could have accomplished and did not.

And I sure did not miss the fact that a fellow named datalink7 made a recent post that its possible to implement some of those Chucky2 suggestions at the local level. Its really somewhat gets at the fact we the American people are expecting brains to trickle down from only our leaders.

These questions have been answered.

1. There is. Unless you think the reports of school, hospitals, etc are NOT being built and reopened. But, as you know, there are alot of groups and people who sabatoge this work in the name of anti-Americanism.

3. We are lol who is in charge of oil fields, for example? It aint us.

Yeah, I guess it's more directed at Crocker than Petraeus, but still, it needs to be asked.

I'm not saying we haven't done a ton of good over there (I'm sure we have), and I'm also not saying that good things haven't been undone or delayed due to insurgents/terrorists themselves (I'm sure that's true also).

However the fact remains that a Iraqi males who are unemployed are much better served being put to work (and paid for that work) rebuilding their own country. All cultures are different, but I've got to think that a former unemployed male who was PO'd at the world for not having anything to do in life, who couldn't provide for his family, is going to have more than just a casual afterthought about blowing up American's/his peers in an act of frustration when he's got a good job doing something for his whole community...and oh yeah, getting paid for it.

We should be pushing for a New Deal type concept in Iraq and Afghanistan...there is 0 reason why it should not be happening en masse.

Chuck

 

[Dari]

11 US troops killed between Sunday and Monday.

 

[ElFenix]

number of cell phones went from pretty much none in 2002 to 10 million now.

on the anniversary of the invasion the chronicle printed a graphic showing various statistics like that. i'll try to find it.

edit: i can find the article but not the graphic, the article doesn't have the information that was in the graphic.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Dari
11 US troops killed between Sunday and Monday.

And there were 3 times that many killed in drunk driving related accidents in that time.

but then again, thats not the thread topic either.