And General Betrayus has announced: “Redeployments of U.S. brigades — even of the surge forces — are dependent on the security situation on the ground in Iraq. If General Petraeus early next year sees the security situation deteriorating, he will have the courage to go back to the president and say he needs to keep forces that he had planned to send home,” said Col. John R. Martin, senior adviser to Petraeus.

Betrayus's congressional testimony was just another "everything is going great" piece of bullshit thrown to the sycophants and purposefully ignorant. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/22/petraeus-security-withdraw/

I actually think it is the "epitome of ignorance" supporting or entering a war without knowing the costs. This a point at which I agree with you; people in the military (especially in combat) have a unique perspective on policy matters. I personally feel those who have seen war first hand are less likely to enter into it lightly. Frankly, I feel that part of the reason we are in the mess we are in, is that our current group of leaders do not have this experience. This is also why I feel it important for the US public (non-military) to be exposed to the realities of war to understand this point.
Just as a brief counterpoint. You seem to focus on one word out of my previous post "comfortable". I of course was not advocating being "personally" comfortable with the carnage, but being able to understand the costs and make a judgement that our involvement in a particular conflict is "worth it". You can substitute "comfortable" with any other choice of words, acceptable losses, collateral damage etc..
From a military and political perspective we (usually) routinely factor in collateral costs to our actions. When my FOB (forward operating base) was mortared daily, we had anti-mortar teams who could triangulate and fire back however we did not. Because the fire was coming from civilian areas we deemed the collateral
costs too high ("winning the hearts and minds").

I am "comfortable" with the costs of WW2 as well as other wars. War is sometimes necessary, and as long as we are human beings we will have them. And there are good (necessary) ones and bad ones... The current one we are in is though is frankly a mess.
I do not support a complete withdrawl from Iraq, like some people propose. However, I have heard little to the contrary that the overall political situation has improved which is disheartening. The problem lies in the fact that many of the politicians there reside in the Green Zone, protected by 15 foot concrete T-walls and our security forces. Corruption is rampant. When I was there Muktada al Sadr was in control of the ministry of Health and he used some of the 1 billion dollars we provided to buy weaponry for the Mehdi army. Politicians fight amongst themselves to preserve their little pieces of power. There were multiple black market oil scandals (with US members military implicated) etc...

People advocate a surge to improve security to facilitate political resolution. I advocate "tearing down the T-wall", unless these politicians have some sense of urgency to create progress there will be little done. After all they have the most comfortable lives in Iraq (money, security, power, etc..).
In terms of the surge, if you put more cops on the beat you will get a decrease in crime. But thats not a long term solution.
I keep hoping a leader of Karzai's caliber will rise to the occasion, but for now it seems are stuck baby sitting an often corrupt short-timer government who has absolutely no motivation to change as long as we are there.
Is this a war that I feel "comfortable" with. On every level the answer is no. I tend to agree with the opinions of those captains...

No one has to be a jingoistic warmonger to be a patriot.

This patriot wants order to go out...

Michale wrote:

What information do you have that qualifies you to give such an order?
~~~~~

You mean there's a higher authority who decides what PlacitasRoy wants?

>this patriot wants order to go out
>to get the troops out an a safe and
>expidited manner.

Tell me... What information do you have that qualifies you to give such an order???

Michale....

"If your criteria for withdrawing from an area is SOLELY based on how safe or dangerous it is..." What an illogical conclusion based on absolute pure speculation. I’d never use such flawed criteria. Changing the argument and moving the goal posts My criteria for withdrawing from Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the how safe or dangerous it is
“Yet you feel qualified to go on record as vehemently condemning the war and those who prosecute the war...” While the comment was directed at, anyone of any intelligence and common sense would know that the lies, distortions, and bullshit that lead to the illegal and immoral invasion means the war must be condemned. Simply by the lack of results, the massive corruption, the tactical and strategic mistakes, the misrepresentations to the American public, and the absolute failure to meet their goals in any timely manner, demonstrate the administrations sheer incompetence.

“My point is, should people be making unequivocal statements out of ignorance??” NO! And I wish you’d stop it.

“But there is NO ONE reporting on Iraq who doesn't have a stake in what's being reported….” While the major corporations had a rating boon in the run up to the war, the all-war, all the time” reporting during the initial stages of the invasion and the dramatic jingoistic troops on the ground and the feel good ‘let’s build a school-house,’ I have no doubt the reporters as a group are doing their damnest to present the situations as they see them. The reporters, photographers, and other new personnel have a stake in what’s being reported…..their lives, their credibility, and their reputation.

While the media corporations’ stake includes currying favor with the administration, appearing ‘patriotic,’ and protecting their viewers sensibilities, their primary mission is to attract eyeballs so they can sell soap. Blown up American bob=dies, maimed and mutilated Iraqi children, and flagged draped caskets interfere with that principle mission.

“AntiAmerica types” Gotta resort to insulting patriots who desire the best for their country. this patriot wants order to go out to get the troops out an a safe and expidited manner. None of this 2- 10 year carp.

You can't name one...

EVERYONE goes to Iraq with an agenda and/or to prove a point.

Even that Democratic Senator I spoke of went to Iraq to find evidence to support the Dems position on the war. The fact that he found evidence to the contrary and acted on it is a testament to his character and integrity..

But there is NO ONE reporting on Iraq who doesn't have a stake in what's being reported. If you believe otherwise, you are fooling yourself..

>Wish the outrage, dedication and
>organization were present now.

It's not and why do you think that is??

Is it POSSIBLE that it's because the majority of Americans don't want to lose in Iraq and doesn't want to put up with the AntiAmerica types who are pushing for complete and utter defeat??

Isn't that possible???

Michale.....

What twisting have I done??? It is you who is trying to twist my posts to fit your answers. Your own words stated that "WWII in my opinion was a very different cause, with a true axis that was carrying out its intentions in action." which simply illustrated my point that it IS possible to support a war, yet not be comfortable with all the death and destruction that goes with war..

>I seek my information from sources other
>than FOx, or mainstream media.

As do I... I rarely watch news on TV because it has become more entertainment and ratings oriented than anything else..

But I read voraciously..

Breitbart, Yahoo News, FNC, CNN, Drudge, AlJazeera, Several Israeli News Feeds, Reuters & API feeds and a host of others..

I honestly doubt that your news reads are as well rounded...

>So i would say that i may be more
>informed than a portion of the
>population that does not look elsewhere.

Which completely contradicts what you stated above..

Regardless of that, the simple fact is you don't know a TENTH of what is going on in Iraq.. Yet you feel qualified to go on record as vehemently condemning the war and those who prosecute the war..

To be fair, I am not much better off.. I probably know a bit more about things, having been in military and federal service most of my adult life. GMO probably knows a bit more than I, having actually served in Iraq...

My point is, should people be making unequivocal statements out of ignorance??

Or, should people on BOTH sides of the issue ALLOW for the possibility that, because they do not know the whole story, that they COULD be wrong??

Michale.....

You are splitting hairs..

GMO stated "war" in general.. Not "this" war or "that" war...

GMO stated that if someone supports a war then they MUST be comfortable with all the death and destruction that goes along with it.

I simply pointed out the fallacy of that remark, as evidenced by your own response to my WWII question.

Now, GMO may have MEANT something different.. According to him, he did..

But that doesn't change the fact of what he said is a gross fallacy..

>As far as the 7yr olds etc,
>these are Captains. They have been
>there and have experience.

But here again, we have to look at GMO's words..

"Nor would I try to discount another's opinion based upon my past military experience."

He wasn't meaning the Captains in the commentary. I am sure he was referring to my "habit" of discounting people's military opinions when they have absolutely ZERO experience with or in the military...

Regardless of all that, you bring up an interesting point..

Your entire post above can be summed up in one sentence..

"We know nothing about the Iraq war or what is going on in the Iraq war."

This being the case, how is it possible that you feel qualified to condemn it and the men and women who prosecute it???

Michale.....

>>>Its just to say if you support the war
>>>you should be comfortable with the terrible >>>costs.

That it was GMO said and it's pretty plain english.

Tell me, do you support WWII??? I assume the answer is yes.. Then that must mean (according to GMO) that you are "comfortable" with all the death and destruction that accompanied WWII..

You see the point?? One can support the necessity of certain actions without being "comfortable" with what occurs during said actions...

@GMO

My apologies for the assumption.. What branch and unit were you with???

But I do not believe I misunderstood you. As I explained to Benskull above, your words are very clear.

Now, I will grant you that you might have stated it poorly and it didn't reflect what you actually meant. But the words themselves are very clear...

>Nor would I try to discount another's
>opinion based upon my past military experience.

This is where we differ.. Personally, I don't hold much stock in people's opinions on things that they have no experience in..

Tell me, would you listen intently to a lecture on auto maintenance from a 7yr old??

Of course you wouldn't.. Because the 7yr old (likely) has had ZERO experience in auto maintenance and therefore has no real information to impart..

Now, of course, there is always the exception. Like when Jack (2 Ls) O'Neill was reverted to a 15-yr old, but was still able to give a lecture on the combat capabilities of an F-302 against G'oauld Death Gliders.... But the point is still valid, as even the 15 yr old Col. O'Neill had the experience to draw on...

So, I rarely trust the opinions on military matters, especially combat, from those who never wore the uniform... Having served in several actions, two different branches of service and dozens of different postings, I have always viewed with disdain the "arm chair" warrior types who would promptly shat themselves if they ever actually faced combat...

I guess you are different and hay, that's great.. To each their own, different strokes and all that other stuff... :D

Michale.....

>Its just to say if you support the war
>you should be comfortable with the terrible
>costs.

I have been in combat on almost every continent that this world has to offer. I have seen body parts of friend and foe strewn about like confetti.. I have smelled 3-day old rotting corpses...

I fully support the idea that sometimes war is necessary.. I can state unequivocally and for the record that I have not been nor will ever, EVER, be "comfortable" with the terrible costs of war..

With the utmost in deference and respect to you, yours is the opinion of one who has never been in combat..

To say that, if one supports a war then he or she MUST be comfortable with all the terrible, perverted and horrible costs is the epitome of ignorance and, frankly, an insult to every man and woman who has worn the uniform in service of this country..

I hope to god that I never, EVER meet anyone who is "comfortable" with war....

Michale.....

It is that kind of hysterical, irrational and uncalled for bashing that makes it impossible to take the Left seriously....

Michale.....

Using your reasoning, authorities should "pull out" of Miami, Harlem and the seedy sides of Chicago as well..

But hell, why stop there.. San Ysidro is a REAL rough area (at least it was 25 years ago. I doubt much has changed.. Might as well 'cede San Ysidro and IB to Mexico, eh???

If your criteria for withdrawing from an area is SOLELY based on how safe or dangerous it is, then authorities MUST 'cede many areas of the US to the scumbags..

Ridiculous, ain't it??

Thought so...

Michale.....

Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent

- Issac Asimov

"Anti War Democrat travels to Baghdad and then comes back and says the troop surge is working and we should give it time..Oh noooooooo You can't even begin to believe THAT, now could you???"

I'll use the same criteria with ANYONE who says it is going well: They go "to Baghdad and wanders down to the market without beng surrounded by a squad of heavily armed troops& mercenaries, no helicopter gunships overhead, no machinegun outfitted armored personnel carriers standing guard, and wearing no body armor."

It would add to their credibility if they were accompanied by a Fox-hole cameraman waring nothing but shorts and a t-shirt.

Oh, I see.. You are basing your condemnation on "probably"s and "had to be"s and the like..

Real solid info you got there.. :^/

Again, you wonder why Joe Q Public rolls their eyes and utters, "Morons" every time the hysterical Left opens up their mouth…
~~~~~

So you make up a story, and then make up a person who finds you moronic based on your story ... Since you made up this John Q., I'd bet you'll win this argument, but at the moment, he seems to have you outclassed.

Oh, I see.. You are basing your condemnation on "probably"s and "had to be"s and the like..

Real solid info you got there.. :^/

Again, you wonder why Joe Q Public rolls their eyes and utters, "Morons" every time the hysterical Left opens up their mouth...

@PlacitasRoy
>I’ll sit up and take notice
>when a pro-war ChickenHawk
>propagandist goes to Baghdad

How about you sit up and take notice when an Anti War Democrat travels to Baghdad and then comes back and says the troop surge is working and we should give it time..

Oh noooooooo You can't even begin to believe THAT, now could you???

Michale.....

Maybe I'm just extending my mistrust of messages from 'voices of authority', but I wonder how much of the shift toward 'non-combat' deaths is a sober assessment, and how much of it is an attempt to keep the official body counts down. After all, the official story line is that the surge has brought violence down, but the truth is that this years official body count already exceeds last years, and we still have months of deaths yet to count.

I know that if a soldier is severely wounded and dies in a hospital in Germany, they are only counted as wounded, the subsequent death is not combat related, as I understand it.

So we have 20+ Generals speaking out, anti-war vet groups speaking out, gold-star families speaking out, ground-ponders speaking out, and ‘mid-management’ speaking out.

These captains are true patriots. I would defy anyone to point out a single statement in the article that lacks credibility. Their comments simply reflect demonstrable facts, accurate historical references, and the subjective reality they saw. Of course they are at odds with the administration’s propaganda efforts and the sycophants’ illogical defense of the failed policies that has cost the country the loss of respect around the world, 100’s of BILLIONS of $$$, 4000+ lives, and 10,000’s of wounded.
I’ll sit up and take notice when a pro-war ChickenHawk propagandist goes to Baghdad and wanders down to the market without beng surrounded by a squad of heavily armed troops& mercenaries, no helicopter gunships overhead, no machinegun outfitted armored personnel carriers standing guard, and wearing no body armor. They won’t even have to make a report IF they get back. The only thing that would impress me more is if Dubya made an announced visit to the highly defended ‘green zone.’
CDub- Thanks for the heads-up on Dahr Jamail’s report. It simply adds more details to already documented reports. His comments about the Battle of Fallujah mirror my nephew’s description. Of course when the facts can’t be disputed, deny them and blame the messenger. Big Lie rule #1.
Editor & Publisher is reporting some significant statistical anomalies in the increase of ‘non-combat’ deaths. http://tinyurl.com/3cdvnv

“Using this reasoning, Mexico and the Central American countries must be in the throes of massive war…” BIG difference – they haven’t been occupied for OVER 4 ½ years by a foreign army and are not subject to ethic cleansing and civil war.

If your "women and children" were shot by snipers, HOW THE HELL DID THEY KNOW THAT THE SNIPERS WERE AMERICAN!!???
~~~~~

Please take that break, I can see you're tired from sniping at EYEWITNESSES from the comfort of your keyboard.

After all, it was the coalition that had Fallujah under siege, perhaps it was those three soldiers from pago pago that did the sniping, or maybe women and children were shooting each other since they saw a chance to get free health care.

This is probably all lies too:
"There were thirty-two. We have buried twenty-four, and I have no information about the other nine who are in US custody. We do not know anything about them. This is a catastrophe. A US general has inspected the area, and he said they are sorry, and he cried after seeing the beheaded children."

24 plus nine doesn't equal 32, how are we to trust this eyewitness that the children had heads at the start of the day?

>Even the fact that the Iraqi's
>themselves are getting out if
>they can will not change the
>minds of those who believe
>in this war.

Using this reasoning, Mexico and the Central American countries must be in the throes of massive war...

And, for the record, no one "believes in war".

Most believe in doing the right thing.. As opposed to doing the wrong thing..

And, on another note...

Rihannsu has begun killing Rihannsu"
-Star Trek, FINAL FRONTIER (Novel)
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-sours-on-senate-2007-10-17.html

And, as far as CDub's unembedded journalist, give me a fracking break..

What you are doing is passing off 3rd and 4th person hearsay as fact...

In effect, it's "I heard from a friend of my second cousin's sister's husband that his best friend's third cousin's wife had said that she was shot by American snipers.."

I'll say it again... GIVE ME A FRACKING BREAK!!

Tell me, CDub.. Do you know ANYTHING about the military or combat??

Snipers operate from great distances and from areas of concealment..

If your "women and children" were shot by snipers, HOW THE HELL DID THEY KNOW THAT THE SNIPERS WERE AMERICAN!!???

This is EXACTLY the kind of bullshit, know nothing hysteria that I am always talking about..

The hysterical and irrational Left takes these reports as gospel when it is obvious to the objective observer that they are nothing but lies and propaganda..

Like I have said before, CDub.. Keep at it.. You might be able to convince your fellow irrational and hysterical cohorts that Bush was the second gunman on the grassy knoll..

And you on the Left wonder why Joe Q Public looks at ya'all like yer whacked... Jesus H Christ!!

Michale.....

That's a difficult statement to have made, since I was raised in the America which was the land of the brave and the home of the free. We had cartoons which showed how good triumphed over evil, and we were always the good guys and the evil were always trying to commit atrocities for economic gain, or increased power.

Decades later we find that our own government and our own media have cast themselves into the roles of the evil ones, and where are the good guys?I don't trust politicians. Doesn't matter how they flip or flop, they brought us here, and their every move is more likely for their own self interest than it is due to some noble cause. Overly skeptical ... you bet, but any politician who wants to prove me wrong has their work cut out for them, and what are they doing about it?

The media has no credibility because they are more likely to own the politicians than the American public, and it doesn't take a lot of research to see that they've played along with this assault on peace and freedom, if not actually engineered it.

I agree CW, that the voices at the bottom are more likely to give the straight scoop in Iraq. Perhaps you saw the report from the unembedded journalist yesterday. Wile the administration is reporting a cease fire, the US military is dropping cluster bombs in civilian neighborhoods while American snipers are picking off women and children with white phosphorous rounds. Is it the good guys that act that way?

I don't know that it's possible that the America of my youth will return, it's taken a lot of erosion to produce a crop of politicians and capitalists that identify themselves with the 'bad guys', but the majority of Americans want our country back, and the majority of the world would greet us as liberators, should we return. In the meantime, we've become the mirror image of those we call the enemy, and those we call enemies are just poor people whose only crime is that they happen to live in countries we intend to plunder.

It is all such a waste.
...Stan

And, while I am not calling into question your quotes in the least, I think that you will admit for that every quote from a grunt on the ground who says that Iraq is wrong, bad and evil, you will find several quotes from OTHER grunts on the ground that say that what we are doing in Iraq is important and necessary...

Like I have always said, it's easy to have a Rush Limbaugh extort the virtues of the GOP or a Cindy Sheehan shine on and on about how great the LEFT is... Those types of "endorsements" are easy to ignore, because you just can't help but feel that it is nothing but PR hype...

What *I* put stock in, is when you have a Democratic Senator who is on the record as ANTI-WAR, travel to Iraq and SEE what is going on and then change his position..

Now THAT is something I would sit up and take notice to.. And I think anyone who is TRULY fair and objective in their viewpoint should also sit up and take notice too..

And the reciprocal of that is ALSO true... If there was a dyed in the wool Republican who was through and through for the Iraq war, was to travel to Iraq and say what a mess it is and how we should leave immediatly, well... That is something I would definitely respect.... I may not agree with him or her unless they offered some pretty compelling evidence, but I could at least RESPECT their opinion...

Just as I respect the opinions of soldiers that have been there and say it's a mess and we should leave...

I respect the opinion, without necessarily agreeing with it..

THAT is something that most of ya'all simply cannot do.. You don't respect ANYONE's opinion but your own.. If someone doesn't march lock-step with you in your beliefs, they are all sorts of evil and disgusting....

It's really sad to see....

Michale......