All Hank, all the time.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Pat Buchanan also said:

"Powerful Mexican and U.S. elites seek to erase America’s borders and merge the United States and Mexico into a 'North American Union.'"

Sometimes I get the feeling that he is reading my posts and mistakingly thinking they are being made by someone who matters.

The weird thing is that Mr. Buchanan is Catholic so why is he so afraid of Mexican culture? They have strong family values, listen to the Pope much more than their Catholic American counterparts (when it comes to contraception etc.) , have much fewer abortions per capita, get divorced less, and they attend church much more than your average American.

Because he is a demonstrated racist?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did the administration ever say that the occupation and the transition to democracy in Iraq would be quick and painless? I don't think they ever said that. In fact I am pretty sure they said just the opposite.

Former Army secretary Thomas White said in an interview that senior Defense officials "are unwilling to come to grips" with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq. The Pentagon has about 150,000 troops in Iraq and recently announced that the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's stay there has been extended indefinitely.

"This is not what they were selling (before the war)," White said, describing how senior Defense officials downplayed the need for a large occupation force. "It's almost a question of people not wanting to 'fess up to the notion that we will be there a long time and they might have to set up a rotation and sustain it for the long term."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ite-usat_x.htm

"In fact, some senior Pentagon officials had thought they could bring most American soldiers home from Iraq by September 2003. Instead"

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm

APRIL 23, 2003: USAID Administrator Andrew Nastios Claims Rebuilding of Iraq Could Be Accomplished With $1.7 Billion

TED KOPPEL: I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you’re not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

NATSIOS: Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US.
[…]
KOPPEL: You’re saying the, the top cost for the US taxpayer will be $1.7 billion. No more than that?

NATSIOS: For the reconstruction. And then there’s 700 million in the supplemental budget for humanitarian relief, which we don’t competitively bid ’cause it’s charities that get that money.

KOPPEL: I understand. But as far as reconstruction goes, the American taxpayer will not be hit for more than $1.7 billion no matter how long the process takes?

NATSIOS: That is our plan and that is our intention. And these figures, outlandish figures I’ve seen, I have to say, there’s a little bit of hoopla involved in this. [ABC, Nightline, 4/23/03]

http://www.thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline




And this from about 3 minutes of my weak googling.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
And my rebuttal is, that they knew where some of the arms were but not others-it's probably impossible to know where all of them were. They may have underestimate the amount, or perhaps not, its impossible to tell with certitude. They probably underestimate the technology leaps in weaponry.

I am not arguing that they did not make mistakes or that the war went perfectly. On the other hand, the fight is not fair in the sense that Israel continues to play by certain rules. Part of the reason Lebanon is armed as it is is because of Syria, but Israel was not meaningfully striking back at Syria. If they were to do that, the equation might change. Not that the battle would be over more quickly but tey would start to get to the root of the problem.

But your rebuttal is based on pure speculation.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) Iran will never control the middle east because they are Shiite and the rest of the Middle east is Sunni (except for sixty percent of Iraq and a few scattered pockets in Lebanon, Pakistan and other places). Most of the region would not tolerate these "heretics in charge". Most of the oil is in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and those countrys will never let Shiite Iran control them.

That is the conventional wisedom. But as a westerner, I just don't whether that longstanding (and bloody) internal feud will overcome a shared vision of the perfect Islamic state.

I suspect that you are right that Sunni and Shiite will not be able to get along in the end, but they might be able to stomach it for awhile in a united effort against that evil west. I just don't know.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
That is the conventional wisedom. But as a westerner, I just don't whether that longstanding (and bloody) internal feud will overcome a shared vision of the perfect Islamic state.

I suspect that you are right that Sunni and Shiite will not be able to get along in the end, but they might be able to stomach it for awhile in a united effort against that evil west. I just don't know.

The problem is that a Shiite Islamic state and a Sunni Islamic state are two very different things. One is ruled by Imams, the other by the Caliphate. These guys can't put their differences a side. They both think it is just a matter of time until the other guys see the light and everyone converts. There is nothing more delusional than a religious fanatic. Al Queda hates the Shiites more than the west. The Taliban was horrendous to the Shiites in Afghanistan, and the Iranians are not very nice to the very few Sunnis that are left in Iran. You are much better being a Christian or a Jew in Iran than being a Sunni.

The Wahabbists preach that killing Shiites is actually a mercy killing. The Shiites in Saudi Arabia are put in Ghettos that in some instances are more similar to concentration camps than Ghettos.

The only thing these two groups can agree on is their hatred of Israel. After that they have nothing in common. You have Sunni Nuclear weapons in Pakistan. If you get Shiite nuclear weapons in Iran the last place I would want to be is either Tehran or Islamabad.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Because he is a demonstrated racist?

OK. But then again, if there is such a thing as race (which is very disputable) Mexicans are the same race as us. Their big difference is culture, and the biggest difference between our prospective cultures is the Catholic influence. Mr. Buchanan claims he is not a racist but a culturist, and his biggest problem with American culture is that we are not catholic enough, so you would think he would embrace a strong influx of Mexican culture into this country.

I think it is safe to say that he is just an idiot.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Adder
Because he is a demonstrated racist?

Jinx!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
But your rebuttal is based on pure speculation.

Agreed. I don't think we are saying hugely different things here. There was some imperfect intelligence that led to some imperfect result from the Israeli side, but the actual analysis of what they knew when is speculative, although based on past history, they certainly knew something, albeit imperfect.

Yes?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK. But then again, if there is such a thing as race (which is very disputable) Mexicans are the same race as us. Their big difference is culture, and the biggest difference between our prospective cultures is the Catholic influence. Mr. Buchanan claims he is not a racist but a culturist, and his biggest problem with American culture is that we are not catholic enough, so you would think he would embrace a strong influx of Mexican culture into this country.

I think it is safe to say that he is just an idiot.

I get confused by race at times, but, I am fairly certain that Buchanan is caucasian and is generally pimping for a White-Male-American ideal, and Mexicans are "people of colour", which is different.

Is this right?

Eitherwhichway, going back to the early 80s McLaughlin Report, I never like Buchanan. I was a Novak guy. I see Sidd as a Morton KOndracke type, Wonk as a Jack Germond type, Adder as Michael Kinsley when he was guesting type. And Shifter as Eleanor Clift when she was guesting type.

[Spanky]

Ouch. However, in practical terms I am not sure they indicated how the operation should have been run (indecisiveness is a pretty vague term). Somtimes you have to adapt to changing circumstances, as the unexpected always happens in war.


TEXT: Protest petition by IDF reservists back from the war

By Haaretz Service

The following is the text of a petition signed by IDF reservists who served in the Spearhead Brigade in Lebanon, sent to Defense Minister Amir Peretz and IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz in protest at the handling of the war by the government and senior military officials:

We, fighters and commanders at the Spearhead [Hod Hachanit] Brigade, were called up to enlist under an emergency mobilization order [Tzav 8] on July 30, 2006. Our attendance was complete in all battalions.

As we were signing on the battle equipment and weapons, we knew that we were signing for much more. We left behind wives and children, girlfriends and families. We put aside our jobs and livelihoods; we were prepared to carry out our mission under the most difficult of conditions, in heat, thirst or hunger.

At the back of his mind, each and every one of us knew, that for the just cause of protecting the citizens of Israel, we would even put our lives on the line.

But there was one thing we were not and would not be willing to accept: We were unwilling to accept indecisiveness. The war's aim, which was not defined clearly, was even changed in the course of the fighting.

The indecisiveness manifested itself in inaction, in not carrying out operational plans, and in canceling all the missions we were given during the fighting. This led to prolonged stays in hostile territory, without an operational purpose and out of unprofessional considerations, without seeking to engage in combat with the enemy.

The "cold feet" of the decision-makers were evident everywhere. To us the indecisiveness expressed deep disrespect for our willingness to join the ranks and fight and made us feel as though we had been spat on, since it contradicts the principles and values of warfare upon which we were trained at the Israel Defense Forces.

The heavy feeling that in the echelons above us there is nothing but under-preparation, insincerity, lack of foresight and inability to make rational decisions, leads to the question - were we called up for nothing?

We are now on the day after, and it seems that the immorality and the absence of any shame are the fig-leaves to be used in order to cover up for the blunders. The blunders of the past six years and the under-preparation of the army have been carried on our backs - the backs of the fighters. In order to face the next battle prepared - and this may happen soon - a thorough and fundamental change must take place.

The crisis of confidence between us as fighters and the higher echelons will not be resolved without a thorough and worthy investigative commission under the auspices of the state. When the commission completes its task, conclusions must be drawn both on the level of strategic planning and national security, and on the personal level of the parties involved.

We paid a heavy price in order to fight and come out of the battle victorious, and we feel this has been denied of us. We will all attend calls to enlist in the future for any mission we will be required to complete, but we would like to know that these missions will be part of a clear objective and will be carried out by striving to engage in combat.

As soldiers and citizens we expect a response at your earliest convenience,

We the undersigned

Fighters and officers of the Spearhead Brigade

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I get confused by race at times, but, I am fairly certain that Buchanan is caucasian and is generally pimping for a White-Male-American ideal, and Mexicans are "people of colour", which is different.

Is this right?

Eww, going back to the early 80s McLaughlin Report, I never like Buchanan. I was a Novak guy. I see Sidd as a Morton KOndracke type, Wonk as a Jack Germond type, Adder as Michael Kinsley when he was guesting type. And Shifter as Eleanor Clift when she was guesting type.

He is anti busines, anti free trade, against the invasion of Iraq, and hates Israel. I wish he would just join the Democrat party already.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ouch. However, in practical terms I am not sure they indicated how the operation should have been run (indecisiveness is a pretty vague term). Somtimes you have to adapt to changing circumstances, as the unexpected always happens in war.


TEXT: Protest petition by IDF reservists back from the war

By Haaretz Service

The following is the text of a petition signed by IDF reservists who served in the Spearhead Brigade in Lebanon, sent to Defense Minister Amir Peretz and IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz in protest at the handling of the war by the government and senior military officials:

We, fighters and commanders at the Spearhead [Hod Hachanit] Brigade, were called up to enlist under an emergency mobilization order [Tzav 8] on July 30, 2006. Our attendance was complete in all battalions.

As we were signing on the battle equipment and weapons, we knew that we were signing for much more. We left behind wives and children, girlfriends and families. We put aside our jobs and livelihoods; we were prepared to carry out our mission under the most difficult of conditions, in heat, thirst or hunger.

At the back of his mind, each and every one of us knew, that for the just cause of protecting the citizens of Israel, we would even put our lives on the line.

But there was one thing we were not and would not be willing to accept: We were unwilling to accept indecisiveness. The war's aim, which was not defined clearly, was even changed in the course of the fighting.

The indecisiveness manifested itself in inaction, in not carrying out operational plans, and in canceling all the missions we were given during the fighting. This led to prolonged stays in hostile territory, without an operational purpose and out of unprofessional considerations, without seeking to engage in combat with the enemy.

The "cold feet" of the decision-makers were evident everywhere. To us the indecisiveness expressed deep disrespect for our willingness to join the ranks and fight and made us feel as though we had been spat on, since it contradicts the principles and values of warfare upon which we were trained at the Israel Defense Forces.

The heavy feeling that in the echelons above us there is nothing but under-preparation, insincerity, lack of foresight and inability to make rational decisions, leads to the question - were we called up for nothing?

We are now on the day after, and it seems that the immorality and the absence of any shame are the fig-leaves to be used in order to cover up for the blunders. The blunders of the past six years and the under-preparation of the army have been carried on our backs - the backs of the fighters. In order to face the next battle prepared - and this may happen soon - a thorough and fundamental change must take place.

The crisis of confidence between us as fighters and the higher echelons will not be resolved without a thorough and worthy investigative commission under the auspices of the state. When the commission completes its task, conclusions must be drawn both on the level of strategic planning and national security, and on the personal level of the parties involved.

We paid a heavy price in order to fight and come out of the battle victorious, and we feel this has been denied of us. We will all attend calls to enlist in the future for any mission we will be required to complete, but we would like to know that these missions will be part of a clear objective and will be carried out by striving to engage in combat.

As soldiers and citizens we expect a response at your earliest convenience,

We the undersigned

Fighters and officers of the Spearhead Brigade

Translation: Take the leash off and let us do our job.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
He is anti busines, anti free trade, against the invasion of Iraq, and hates Israel. I wish he would just join the Democrat party already.

He shoots, he scores!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK. But then again, if there is such a thing as race (which is very disputable) Mexicans are the same race as us. Their big difference is culture, and the biggest difference between our prospective cultures is the Catholic influence. Mr. Buchanan claims he is not a racist but a culturist, and his biggest problem with American culture is that we are not catholic enough, so you would think he would embrace a strong influx of Mexican culture into this country.

I think it is safe to say that he is just an idiot.

Buchanan is a nativist (in addition to being an idiot). That, and an extremely strong "law and order" sense, is why he will not embrace an influx of Mexican culture.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Agreed. I don't think we are saying hugely different things here. There was some imperfect intelligence that led to some imperfect result from the Israeli side, but the actual analysis of what they knew when is speculative, although based on past history, they certainly knew something, albeit imperfect.

Yes?

Yes. But I think that what they didn't know is sufficient to render any plan that relies on targetted bombing of Iran, based on Israeli intelligence about the location of Iran's weapons programs, pure folly.

Let's put it this way: If Israeli intelligence is good enough to tell us exactly where to bomb to neutralize Iran's weapons program (rendering ground forces unnecessary), then why wasn't Israel's intelligence good enough to tell Israel where to bomb to neutralize Hezbollah's long-range missile capabilities before the ground invasion?