This is the second time this week I've read over Michael Yons work "Meanwhile" and have followed his posts over the past two years. He is a remarkably talented writer and well qualified to give the good, bad and ugly on the ground in both Iraq and Afganistan. I urge any CFitters that can to support his website with $$ as it is the only way for us to keep a good set of eyes on the ground in Iraq. This is Yon's second full year of covering the war in Iraq. He spent all of 2005 and is trying to stay all of 2007 if the funds can support it.
As a soldier, I don't look for nuanced approaches to sorting this Iraq problem out. There is good and evil at work there. Evil must be wiped out, eliminated with a ruthlessness only the military is capable of. When we do this,( and you can see that we are very good at it when the rules of engagement allow it) the LAW ABIDING IRAQI citizens feels safe. We should pay no attention to the Al Sadrs like to whine about fair play and safety while they roam around in their death squads. Trust me, the Iraqi citizens, either Sunni or Shiite, would rather see the American or Coalition forces rolling into their neighborhood that just about anyone else. It is a fact around the world that the U.S. is the only country that any of these other countries would like to be invaded by. The only ones that complain are the bad guys. Over simplification, I know, but true at the most basic level. It is our politically correct culture that is dulling our sense of right and wrong. This is as morally justifiable war as we have had in our life time. This war on terrirism spawned by radical Islam is the class of ideology comparable to our fight with all of the other "isms" in the last century.

Loved the article by Michael. First time to see it. Reminded me of how much we owe those men and women who are fighting for us, sacrificing so much.

They are the best!

Butch

awesome video. Nice to see the knee "kissing" the ground but I really liked the descriptions of why the bad were bad (apart from the obvious)

Bill, thank you for your service to our country, it is appreciated. Your post is well written; I enjoyed reading it. I would like for you--if you would-- explain how this war is "Morally" justified? I know we all know the facts but let me recap the important ones: Iraq did not attack us. Iraq was not in a position to attack us. Saddam was a scumbag, okay, that is hardly a reason to invade and occupy Iraq. I still cannot get my head around the invasion and nobody to date has put a post up that validates America's actions. WMD perhaps? didn't find any in large quantity. Wouldn't let Weapons Inspectors in? that is a UN problem, isnt it? Harbored AQ maybe? no again, AQ was persona non grata--until now of course.

I would submit this (as I have on a previous post): If Saddam had not had the nerve to put his sand over our oil we would have never invaded...oh and that thing about "this is the man who tried to kill my pappy." That George W threw out there in one of speeches might give us some indication of why we invaded?????

It is not a far stretch of the imagination to say that it may have been because if we control the supply of oil to the world (or large portions of it) we indirectly control the people who rely on it. I look forward to your reply and again, thank you for your service!!

Just watched the History Channel's special on the movie "300". A little footage of the X-Fit style workouts. Although, no specifics.

ok, nothing too profound here, but I am new to this and wanted to know what is the standard, if there is one, warm up prior to the WOD. thank you much.

Mike #6,
For all your questions, see the FAQ first:
http://www.crossfit.com/cf-info/faq.html#General7

That being said, people warm up in a variety of ways. The official CFWU, rowing, joint mobility. Check out the message board for more info that you could ever digest.

#6 Do the CrossFit Warm up - See the FAQ page EVERYTHING you might ever think about asking is there.
or the below link
http://www.crossfit.com/cf-info/faq.html#General7

Regards,

as usual...Andy's faster!

To: Timmy Comment #4
The argument that we should not have invaded Iraq which did not attack us is based on the nations at war model of the first half of the last century. Since Viet Nam unconventional warfare has been totally unconcerned with national bounderies. When we limit ourselves to those erroneous ideas WE LOSE. The War on Terror is being fought in London as much as in Bagdad.

Comment #4: Timmy, Saddam tried to kill Bush #1. So he did attack us, he tried to kill our President.

We didn't wage war to control the world's oil. If that was our goal, we would have attacked Saudi Arabia where Bin Laden was born, raised and received his funding.

We all know not to trust the government so it's not relevant that we received bogus info regarding the WMDs.

If you want moral justification for the war, it is that we need to control as much of the middle east as possible since that region has supported terrorists acts against the US for more than 27 years (the Iran hostage crisis). We have a right to invade any country in that region based on their history of unprovoked violence towards the US.

Rest day? More like wakeboard day! BRRRRRR

So prior to OIF, what exactly was Iraq's role in supporting terrorism against the US? What unconventional warfare were they engaging in? What threat were they?

Saddam Hussein was a monster, but he was relatively innocuous, vis-a-vis U.S. national security

I really think that our efforts (military, diplomatic, and economic) would have been much more effective focused on a location that truly had something to do with terrorism.

A nuanced approach, however inconvenient it is currently, could have served this nation and its military well prior to invading Iraq.

I'm not a bleeding-heart who thinks we need to get out of Iraq tomorrow. I do think there needs to be some strategy besides wait and see. I also don't think that adding several thousand more troops is going to fix anything, strategically. Tactically and operationally, maybe, strategically, no.

why are the comments on crossfit usually so political? I mean, there is as much conversation about the state of the world as there is people posting their times and reps? Just seems weird.

Hussein gave terrorists a place to hang out, as well as paying money to the families of "martyrs" who went and blew themselves up, via Muhammed Abbas.

You know, the guy who led the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, resulting in the death of a disabled US-citizen?

The terrorist Abu Nidal and his group received training and logistical support from Iraq (as well as others).

Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army trained there.

To say that Iraq has had no connection with International terrorism is silly.

I agree with #14.. Lets comment more on the workouts, video's or general workout talk than on one's political views or agendas. Just my 2 cents.

So in saying that, great video on the walking lunge! I will try to keep my shoulder to the ear next time we do it. I did not know that it was the correct way on doing it. LOL Most of my exercises had bad form, so I am learning alot here. Thx for all the tips ect.

TimW,

Your points are well-taken, and I respect your opinion, but I think they [your assertions] are a little off-topic. No one wrote (unless I missed it) that Iraq has no connection to international terrorism. Yes, Abu Abbas was harbored by Hussein, AN hid and operated from there for a while... What I wrote was that Iraq under Hussein was not enough of a threat to national security to justify attacking and drawing forces and resources from more important areas.

The "war on terror" is justified and it is the right thing to do, both morally and pragmatically. I'm just simply not convinced that Iraq should have been Act II.

#14 and #16

CF has a large number of military personal in its ranks of followers. Political decisions can therefore have a very direct impact on the lives of many CF members, hence the often lively debate.

Plus debate is a healthy sign of a free society as long as it doesn't deteriorate into a yelling match.

Tim on Post #4:

Thank you for your post and appreciation. Your comments were well written and proof read much better than mine was. Looking at the recent history of what Iraq/Hussain did in the '90s gave the UN all the morral justification to "regime" change Iraq that was needed. Thinking that it was a U.N. problem is to dismiss it completely since the U.N. as an international power is completely impotent. I won't get into a discourse on the U.N. for this Rest Day but will say that without the U.S. holding it together, it would have less than no relevence at all. Iraq has been the aggressor against other Middle East countries since Hussien was in power. Iran and Kuwait were significant examples of his aggression as well as his retributional gassing of Kurdish cities in Northern Iraq. Liberating oppressed people is always morally justified. Pointing the Iraq war back to the oil argument misses the fundamental difference as to how you would invade and capture the oil fields. The U.S. and U.S. forces could have done what you suggest in 6 months with virtually no loss of life. We should also be seeing the cost of gasoline hover around 70c a gallon as it is in some of the other Middle East countries. The fact that we are spending our treasure and blood to stand Iraq up as a potent ally in the Region is completely morral AND in line with our strategic interests.

Thanks for the Yon link, again. The 'eyes on' writing is fantastic. It's a great compliment to the intel reports I read from Camp Cupcake.

For the 'nubes' - of which I am really still one - folks discuss political issues on rest day because they want to, and because we are invited to do so by the host. You are welcome not to participate, and you can expect that this will happen every fourth day. Some of us get a lot out of rest day 'discussions,' so rest day sustains itself. The intelligence and passion of the participants makes for an interesting discourse.

Do you suppose we should just put a ‘nube disclaimer’ at the top of every rest day page? And perhaps a “kindly check the FAQ before posting to the board.”

#17/Neil - in previous posts, folks have asserted forcefully that there was zero connection between Saddam and terror - TimW may have been responding to those, or anticipating more.

For Noose - there are several issues in play, and often the two get wound into one. One is, looking back, does it appear that the right choice was made to invade Iraq? Another is, what do we do now? I know I have made this point before, forgive the indulgence of bringing it in again.

For the question of WMD, justification, decision making - is it more important to judge that Bush and Congress chose wrongly, or to sort out why and piece together how to improve the means by which we conduct foreign policy in the future? I realize that's dangerously close to a rhetorical question. I ask it anyway to see if the discussion can be clarified into clearer lanes than it sometimes is.

Since Yon’s post seems to elicited comments about the war - which aspect of the war would anyone suggest be discussed, and to what end? I realize many folks just like to throw out what comes to mind and see what comes out like usual.

A an attempt at summarization so far:

Bill appreciates Yon's unvarnished view and asserts his approval of US troops' efforts in Iraq, and of the moral clarity of purpose they are/he is engaged in there now, to wit, fighting alongside the Iraqis who are working to stabilize their country against monstrous, evil, destroyers.

Noose asks/states - I think - how can the war be justified if, for several reasons, it was started for the wrong reasons; and adds not only were we mis-informed about AQ and WMD, but posits that we were just grubbing for oil (but doesn't clarify whether our oil grubbing was for a higher moral purpose or greed).

Walt posits that the old model of attacking based on nation state boundaries is outmoded based on the current mode of international terrorism.

Champ says we attacked out of legitimate self defense.

Neil questions the justification and asserts that that the outcome today proves the lack of wisdom in the choice, regardless of the justification, but points out that justification of the start of the thing is a different issue than ‘what do we do now?” Closes with a vote against a ‘surge’ based on the belief that it would not help achieve a better outcome.

TimW points out the long series of connections which Saddam maintained with international terrorists, apparently in response to Noose’s comment.

So I put it to the participants: it worth taking a more disciplined approach to today’s effort by starting off with which aspect you want to address, and to what end?

I bring it up because I have seen a lot of cross talk precipitated by folks who mis-interpret what a perceived antagonist is shooting for, then start a “shooting war.” Could be that such a discussion would be too boring to be worth the effort – “dunno” since I’ve not seen it tried on a forum like this.

I think it might even be possible that some folks do not want to use the forum to learn, but rather to vent or for some other motive.

For my part, back to Noose's post, with regard to the reason why we started this, are you asserting that Kerry/Clinton/Lieberman/McCain/Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et al were scheming together to deceive the world for the purpose of gaining control of a series of Iraqi oil fields? Or were they all dupes of some other nefarious power? Or were there some of the many elected leaders in Congress, who were charged with the congressionally mandated duty to prevent reckless executive action, who were not smart enough to execute their duty? Yes, I know these are loaded questions, but I’m not sure how else to get at the point in limited space. I think what I’m requesting is your commentary on why our constitutionally constructed system of checks and balances failed to prevent those responsible for acting out on the motive that you assert was behind the initiation of the war, and how should it have worked, and what could be done to stop a repeat of this event (assuming for now that it happened as you suggest)?

Friggin’ beautiful day in Camp Cupcake, I’m thankful the rockets missed all of us here yesterday, and man does my body need the rest today. Aswab

Sean,
rest days are discussion days. this is generally when the CrossFit HQ posts up a current-event, politically fueled topic for everyone to talk/rant about.

Yon possesses a fantastic voice. As an English teacher in a community with heavy military lineage, getting my students to read his articles is a non-issue. Thanks again for another captivating article.

On a side note: someone recently posted about an Olympian who squatted 400lbs. before sprinting to gold. I was talking to some of our track athletes about this, and they were amazed. If anyone knows what I'm talking about and can help me find a link to this individual or to the physiological premise behind the activity, I'd appreciate it. Enjoy the rest, as short as it seems.

Wow, I had no idea my post would get so much attention I really hate long posts but this one cannot be helped.
Let me address a few of the rebuttals to comment #4:
Walt #10: you say that the war on global terrorism is being fought in London as much as Bagdad. Interesting, I do not recall hearing about daily suicide bombers in London nor have I seen the check posts with tanks near Heathrow airport. I think that it is a stretch to say that kind of stuff but I get your point. As far limiting ourselves, well, yeah, I think attacking a sovereign nation without military provocation should be limited, but that’s just me.
Walt, I want to ask you two questions: If we could use Mr. Peebody's way-back machine and make this whole thing a do-over, would you choose to attack Iraq? And two: what positive outcomes have come out of the occupation as you see it? I am curious also if you are a soldier or previous armed forces enlistee?

Champ #11: you said “Saddam tried to kill Bush #1 so he did attack us” Holy SH%^!!!! What year did that happen in? and why did that not come up in “W”s list of “reasons” when he addressed the nation? Much like Walt, I think you are reaching beyond the scope sound logic because of emotion or perhaps because, as I stated, NOBODY has given a valid reason with proof yet so tertiary issues will have to do for now. But worry not, we will be there for years to come so maybe a good reason can be found in the meanwhile. ALSO you state: “We didn't wage war to control the world's oil. If that was our goal, we would have attacked Saudi Arabia where Bin Laden was born, raised and received his funding” Please remember we are in bed with Saudi Arabia, we do not have any reason to war with them, we sleep with them—come on guys the Saudis dump more cash into American politics than anybody!!! The WMD’s is just a joke so I will let the facts, or non-facts, speak for themselves. LASTLY CHAMP…I want to thank you for saying it: WE did it for the CONTROL. You only underscore the points in my post—thank you!

Walt and Champ, I think you guys are well intentioned and respect your right to support the occupation but think you guys are off base on this one. But that being said, I think that is what makes this forum great and want to thank you both for comments, they do indeed add to the post.

Neil#13: well said. Full Stop.

TimW #15: With all due respect --You are just incorrect on this one, Saddam did not give terrorist a place to hang out and AQ was persona non grata. Saddam has, in the past, given safe harbor to select terrorists and he has funded as few but his involvement was nothing compared to others, so why didn’t we attack the worst of the worst. Saddam was much to smart to have rogue groups within his own borders—the dude was a control freak. Anyway, Muhammad Abbas??? Holy SH&%^$ (again) he was a PLO guy from the 80’s who, if memory serves, committed terrorist acts in Italy (anyone who knows better about Abbas please chime in). Abu Nidal? Also from the 80’s…
Using that logic I guess I can legitimately go back and settle the score with the guys who hid my gym shoes back in the 80's when I was in high school. I mean, why take care of things when they come up when I can wait decades. Man, no offense, but you are really reaching here. If we want to attack every leader who gives money to terrorist then we best re-instate the draft and get ready to attack MOST of the Middle East.

Re-rebuttal to BILL: you are correct on the UN thing and leaving it alone on rest day, wise man you must be. Please allow me to say that if we are in Iraq to liberate oppressed people then we took a wrong turn somewhere, many many countries have more cruel dictators than Saddam…on the Tyrant bell curve he was in the middle of it at best. As far as your comment on strategic interest, thank you for saying it, much like Champ in post 11, it underscores some of my points. Thank you for getting back to me on the post, your input is appreciated.

LASTLY: Apollo #20. Always good to have your input my friend: well thought out and balanced as always. To answer your questions: No we should have not invaded and what do we do now? Well we are at rock bottom so I guess we can get out of the hole or get shovel and start digging…is there a third option? Apollo, you mention that shooting wars get started on this post and I agree, it is sad to see a great forum get soiled with cheap shots, one lady even stated she stopped posting because of hate e-mail---shameful. Sometimes slights and a little ribbing cannot be helped maybe it even adds a little flavor to a painful topic (we are talking about Amercian lives at the core of this thing right?) but hurtful things or attacking a person directly should be labeled as a no-no.
Regarding your “loaded questions” in post 20…. too bad you are such a likeably guy ‘cause I’d like to take some shots at you for those LOL. Bottom line IMHO is that America was attacked (9/11) and we did not have a clear target/enemy so we lashed out. I think we NEEDED someone to attack and it would be naïve to say ?we/they/us? were thinking clearly when Iraq round two started. Just like the big drunk guy at the bar who gets suckered punched, he doesn’t take witness statements to find the perp, he just starts swinging because he is BIG and MAD and HE CAN.... That (and I realize that is not the best analogy) is what we did. I expect to take some heat for that comment but I have my big boy panties on today so I am ready. Just to be clear: Our elected leaders were not smart enough to execute their duties and YES many of them were pressured and duped. I do not have the time nor the space to address your question of checks and balances but if you shoot an e-mail with specifics you know I will do my best to answer when I have more time.
Oh Apollo, one more thing, debasing the value of my post by using the term “grubbing for oil” is a bit base..was that a shot at me? Take care my man, and be safe over in CCC!!!

Champ

Did you really call the violence toward the U.S. unprovoked? Myopia...

I know it is easier to ascribe their violence to some dark, unfathomable evil...but the truth is, our staunch and unconditional support for Israel represents a double standard, our troops stationed on their land represents a threat, and our support for evil dictatorships ("friendly" to us, of course) from Saddam Hussein to the King of Saudi Arabia, represent bad judgment and a blatant hypocrisy.

So there you go. Although we paint ourselves as such, America is not without fault.

Timmythenoose-
"Wouldn't let Weapons Inspectors in? that is a UN problem, isnt it?"

Are we (the US) not a major member of the UN and therefore it partly being our responsibility to step up to the plate and hold countries that aren't playing by the rules, to play fair?

It would be any memeber of the UN's responsibility to step and hold a country accountable for their actions. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that a part of being a member of the UN means that you contribute to making world decisions.

By the way- I was the "lady that stopped posting" because of hate email. I just stopped putting my full email address up for a while, I didn't stop posting. The hate email was just an a-hole trying to feel superior in some small twisted way by taking something that I was honest about and trying to make me feel bad about myself. I wasn't the only one who recieved hate mail from that guy.

The Video- It was very good to see the how and why of the bad form. I used to do two of the bad forms and now I know why! Plus, the variations of adding the weights in gives me something to practice on.

The Article- What I pulled away the most from this article is that Michael Yon is paying close attention to the moral of the troops. I am very glad to see that someone is. Also, that he will continue to moniter it and write about it.

Not on topic- RIP Captain America

Kate

#23 Timmythenoose "If we want to attack every leader who gives money to terrorist then we best re-instate the draft and get ready to attack MOST of the Middle East."
This seems to be bad logic on many fronts. I have never entered these discussions for many reasons but would like to say one thing regarding your post.
The point is, you seem to think in order to stop state sponsored terrorism or any tyrant you must attack them all. I'm not sure that’s true. I think you make an example of one or two and the rest begin to take notice.
This argument “because we don’t hit them all we shouldn't hit just one” just comes up short on many levels.

This is my first time posting on a rest day, so here goes:

I understand that it is difficult to discuss the Iraq War without discussing the reasons we are there to begin with. However, the bottom line is we are there. We cannot change the past. I understand that discussing the legitimacy of the war is good for votes, but it is bad for our troops and for the people of Iraq. I do not know the reason for the war, I would like to THINK the intentions were good (but we all know about the road to hell), but I do know that we need to shift our focus from why we are fighting, to how do we stop fighting. I do not believe in withdrawal for one reason. We created the situation and therefore we must handle the situation. We have a moral obligation to ourselves, to the Iraqis, and to the entire world to restore order to Iraq. Whether this order comes from a democracy or another legitimate form of rule is yet to be seen. Remember that democracy is a completely new concept to most of these people, so who can say how long, if ever, it will take for democracy to take hold. America was no stranger to democracy and even we had much stuggle in the beginning(Civil War, among other things). By changing our focus to how to handle the situation, hopefully we can bring our men and women home, provide the Iraqis with stable, safe lives and restore some of the worldwide respect America once held. But hey, I am only 24, so what the hell do I know.

P.S.-I would like to my fellow Crossfit studs opinions on how stop this insurgency.

Timmythenoose-
"Bottom line IMHO is that America was attacked (9/11) and we did not have a clear target/enemy so we lashed out. I think we NEEDED someone to attack and it would be naïve to say ?we/they/us?"

I meant to comment on this in my last post but I jumped the gun I guess!

We had a clear target and someone that fessed up to it even. We went after them and pushed them back fairly well. I believe that one mistake was made in thinking that we had defeated the Taliban and then stopped sending more troops there. They started to sustain to early. The gov. leaders should have made things a bit more stable before going into Iraq. I don't think that they bit off more than they could proverbally chew, but I do think that they underestimated the tenacity of the Taliban.

Kate

The multiplicity of variables at play in Iraq is impossible to begin to comprehend via comments on a message board.

Bottom line is that Iraq is a physical manifestation of many years of double dealing, greed mongering, and, yes, our addiction to cheap oil.

Does this mean the threat from radicalized Muslims isn't real? No. Finding those who are out to do harm to others and killing them is justified.

The quasi-stupor that most of us in the United States inhabit concerning how our way of life is maintained through resource extraction in other parts of the world is shameful. We wonder why anyone in another part of the world could possibly want to harm mom and apple pie.

It doesn't take much study to find that the United States, and its corporate interests, will stop at nothing to maintain hegemony. If doing harm to others to make one's life better doesn't bother someone than by all means have at it. Pillage and plunder and enjoy the spoils. Yet I think most understand this truth and feel less than virtuous about it. Staring back from the mirror each day is the truth. All of us are complicit in the nasty doings that support our way of life.

It would be nice to believe that good and evil exist in constant polarity. They don't. Thus, I imagine we are doing good things in Iraq and that there is nobility in our efforts there. I also believe that our efforts are less than virtuous and motivated by greed.

I supported the original invasion and have no problem with us establishing permanent bases there. Until all beings are enlightened and we as a species grow out of our damn near chimpanzee like adolescence, in which we delight in violence, name calling and all manner of idiotic behavior(NASCAR anyone?) we're going to have to live in the messy world striving for good and battling our worst impulses.

Reading Yon is like being there again...

re #4 timmythenoose

Unless I'm missing your assertion, it seems you're suggesting the US may have invaded Iraq to "control the supply of oil to the world (or large portions of it)".

Please explain to me how this works.

There are dozens of oil producing countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil-producing_states
We import (purchase) oil from many of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil-producing_states

Saying we are a major member of the UN but then attacking on our own accord seems kind of thin...If we, as major players in the UN (for all they are worth), cannot get everyone on the same page then I think that speaks volumes for how bad an idea it was to attack Iraq. One comment here: sending tens of thousands of US troops and adding in a few hundred here and there from other countries does not a coalition make--period. Kate are you saying if the UN makes demands it doesn't really have to back 'em up because the US will do it??? Wow with that logic if the courts won't give warrants then maybe the police should just GO OUT AND GET IT DONE one their own...Same logic but I bet you wouldn't go along with it in your town.

KATE: As far as clarifying the hate e-mail thing, thanks for setting the record straight. My error was avoidable had I checked the previous posts.

BB -- you state "The point is, you seem to think in order to stop state sponsored terrorism or any tyrant you must attack them all." BB, if I left you with that impression then I failed you. My point is that IF we are really a national of morals and values and are going to go around with a big red cape and "save" others (wether they want to be saved or not) from their tyrants so that they can have mom and applepie and baseball like the USA then perhaps we should start with the worst and move down the list and if we are going to do that, then as a country, lets be transparent about it. I get tired of our government urinating on my back and telling me it is rain. I know better.

As a side note, I cannot help but notice that many of the pro-occupation crowd has yet offer up any "common reason" for being in Iraq. One guy cited terrorist from the 80's one other states it is because of WMD, and yet others just blissfully avoid the topic. I agree that at some level the important thing is to GET OUT of Iraq without making things worse...I'll go with that. I think as painful as it is we have to man-up, or woman-up as the case may be, and admit bad decisions were made so we can learn from them and do our best not to repeat them.

Bret comment 24: few words, powerful message. Good job!

Let me pose one last question to all: If we could invade (or not)again, should we go about it the same way? (that is just food for thought, not really looking for replies)

On #24: Has the US made political mistakes in the middle east? Certainly. We have definitely meddled with foreign governments in an effort to create stability and promote our own interests, when we had no right to do so.

However... there's a big leap from there to say that we "provoked" the murder of innocent civilians on our own soil... The truth is that terrorist actions are based not just in political opposition, but in a blind sense of "some dark, unfathomable evil" that they ascribe to us. Extremist violent Muslims do not feel that we are human on the same plane as them, and they do not feel that we deserve to live.

So while it seems easy to say that if we withdrew our support of Israel, left the middle east alone and turned isolationist, they would leave us alone - I doubt that is true. Radical Muslims hate our decadent western lifestyles and secularism, both for its existance and its pervasive influence on their world. We will always be the enemy. Not "provoking" them further isn't going to change that, or end the threat.

TimmyTheNoose-
"are you saying if the UN makes demands it doesn't really have to back 'em up because the US will do it???"

What I was saying is that the US is a major power player in the UN and that we gave other countries opportunities to help back us up with something that was grossly wrong. The fact is, is that something needed to be done about Saddam and his avoidance of letting inspectors in to do their job and he was given ample opportunities to change his ways. He made the choice not to, and we made the choice to do something about it.

"Wow with that logic if the courts won't give warrants then maybe the police should just GO OUT AND GET IT DONE one their own...Same logic but I bet you wouldn't go along with it in your town."

Are you saying that I want to see our country go along the same way as having a dictatorship?

You, yourself were asked a question by Apolloswabie that you have sidestepped. What are your recomendations for not repeating the same mistakes that were made by the government to get us here in the first place?

Here is one of my own- What is your plan for withdrawal and afterwards?

Kate

First, I never said that we could change their attitudes toward us. Nor did I mean to say that if we abandoned Israel and let that part of the world be, that we would remain terrorist-free. (Of course, we will never know). What I take exception to are people who paint the U.S. with one broad, magnificent and guilt-free brush. That is pure rubbish, as you conceded.

Many Muslims see our actions as the murder of innocent civilians on their own soil (and, in some cases, justifiably so). So, yes, that qualifies as provocation...certainly to them, and in some cases probably even to an IMPARTIAL observer (which none of us likely qualify as).

I do not condone terrorists or their actions. I abhor them. I do not condone our invasion of sovereign nations THAT HAVE NOT ATTACKED US. I abhor that as well.

Death is death whether it is cloaked in the word 'jihad' or 'freedom.'

Rubbish.

Noose - grubbing comment withdrawn following objection. I'll be more direct.

"If Saddam had not had the nerve to put his sand over our oil we would have never invaded."

I resent that statement, because many use it for indiscriminate political attack, and it is an easy assertion to make but is rarely backed up. The implications of this statement are large, broad, and potentially excruciatingly damning. I believe that conspiring to start a war for control of Iraq’s oil fields would require a conspiracy large enough to imply that our constitutional system has broken down, and been stolen by either the foulest of the foul, or by the misguided but well intentioned. My intent was to get you to clarify what you mean, but I also succumbed to my own assumptions about what you meant. I want to clarify vice assume. The parts to clarify, so that I could know what you mean vice assume:
- Did you mean that there was a conspiracy to start a war to gain control of Iraq’s oil fields?
- If so, was the motivation to serve a base level of greed?
- If not greed, are you assuming there’s a perception by the conspirators of a U.S. national security interest in gaining access to and controlling Iraq’s oil fields? In other words, since the oil companies traded on the US stock exchange, like Exxon-mobile, control less than 10% of the world’s proven reserves, most of which have been nationalized under state control leading to gross mis-management and decreasing gains in production, one could argue that US national security depends upon gaining ironclad access to a state like Iraq. If so, the action to take control of the fields by conjuring up evidence about WMD and other issues to start a war would be criminal, but not completely void of moral defense. Is any of this what you are thinking?
- What is your assumption about why so many disparate entities cooperate for such a conspiracy? I will clarify, I don’t see how it would be possible without the cooperation of Kerry, Clinton and Clinton, McCain, Lieberman, and an infinite number of ‘underlings’ (for lack of a better word), as all played significant roles in the decision process. It would also imply that all have hidden their participation since then.
- What is the solution to the implied and perhaps more serious problem that if this conspiracy took place, the checks and balances in the constitution have failed and our government illegally hijacked (not to be confused with FDR’s legal hijacking). What’s the remedy?

I don’t think you would make such a statement light heartedly, and I am interested to know what you mean by it. If you identify assumptions that you think are incorrect in what I’ve stated above, pls clarify. Or, did you meant something entirely different?

You’ve made a request that someone defend the choice to invade Iraq. I’ll work it. It is a good exercise – I have not thought it through for over six months, and I’m surprised how much of it is fogged over by events since then. It does not seem as important to me at this point to defend it. It happened, and must be dealt with; a change of political parties won’t change the fact that the Federal government is doing so many things it shouldn’t, it is not doing the things it should do with the requisite competence. The post mortem will go on for ages. Seeing how little the even a relatively similar group of folks as the Crossfit board members, much less the rest of the US, agrees on ‘what we know now’ I don’t think the analysis will go all that far. Real progress would have to be based on coming to some common understanding of the facts and guesses. It is one thing to work through what was decided and what resulted. It is excruciatingly difficult to do so without devolving into an analysis of intentions, motivations, and other assumptions that may be asserted without any means validation.

One interesting question is, how could the decision process have been made better for the constitutional system that we have? Seeing how upset so many folks are with the decision, will there be a cogent attempt to clarify the different roles of executive/legislative branches? Or will we just bitch about it until it happens again?

Timmythenoose “My point is that IF we are really a national of morals and values and are going to go around with a big red cape and "save" others (wether they want to be saved or not) from their tyrants so that they can have mom and applepie and baseball like the USA then perhaps we should start with the worst and move down the list and if we are going to do that, then as a country, lets be transparent about it.”

I understand your point, I believe, although I still feel my perception was right the first time. I also still have the suspicion that if we would have started with North Korea/Iran you would still be asking “why, what have they done?”
I do not see the point of debating if we went into Iraq purely because we (both dems and reps) thought they had WMD/link to terrorism or not. I think it would be lunacy to think that was the only driving factor in our decision to hit Iraq. If you believed this pre war I apologize for you misunderstanding of the situation. I do feel Bush and our government did a poor job laying the ground work for combat operations in Iraq. Let me ask you this. If they would have told you-
1. We are 95% certain they have WMD or are within 12 months of getting it and this was confirmed by other nations Intel services.
2. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people have been slaughtered by Saddam, and continue to be slaughtered.
3. A democratic Iraq could have a major impact on mid east peace by isolating Iran and putting pressure on their leadership from within.
4. This will be a long tough road but much easier than confronting Iran/North Korea head on.

If this were explained to you before hand would you still have a problem with us moving to stabilize Iraq? Many times I wish it would have been stated up front. I am not naïve enough to believe we did it purely for WMD. Nobody lied to us, IMHO I feel our government miscalculated how important the pre war ground work would be, instead putting all their eggs in the WMD basket which turned out to be empty. I supported and support this action based on my limited working knowledge of geo-politics and for the above mentioned reasons I felt it was the right thing to do both then and now. History will tell me if I’m wrong.

SB/#29; meaty post, wish I had time to work on it with you now, will at least make a writing exercise out of it later.

It appears that one of your entering arguments is that the global system of trade, which the US has defended the last 60 years or so (almost but not totally single handedly), has been beneficial to the US while being harmful to others.

One could argue that the global system of trade has brought unfathomable numbers of humans into unimagined wealth - for those nations that can establish rule of law and property rights and thereby participate in the trade process effectively. Examples would include much of Europe, Canada, Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, S Africa to a degree, Singapore, and some others I'm sure I'm forgetting. The argument could also explain that Middle Eastern nations, except Israel, by virtue of their tyrannical govts, have not been able to participate in the wealth building, in common with most remittance and oil/resource exporting nations, because they do not have the conditions that allow humans to purchase capital and apply their ingenuity such that their enlightened self interest can be applied to their own and others’ benefit.

What are your thoughts about that?

Will post my yesterdays WO as I was having computer problems last night- errggg

CFWUx3
Have been dying to try the WO I missed (for a run)

3 Rounds for time
Row 500 m
BP 80#, then switched to 75#
Time : 19:10

First time using a bar to BP instead of DB. Have a Long way to go with BP to get to BW.

Today's WOD- plowing through stacks and stacks of journal articles :) Anyone else donig the CF cert in Raleigh? Any comments on how hard the test is?

Erin

I just want to know one thing...

If going to Iraq was a President Bush and Co. conspiracy, then why where thousands of service-poeple mobilized in 1998-99 and sent to the Middle East to prepare for an invasion of Iraq for the same reasons given in 2003, but with much less public support and no binding UN resolution.

Bush was not President at the time and I wonder how he and Karl Rove were able to "Influence" President Clinton to do this.

Unfortunately Saddam allowed the inspectors back in for more "shell games".

Answers anyone?

Timmy.

You should work on brevity in your comments. Long-windedness is frequently a sign of incompetence.

We are in Iraq; the discussion is over. What would you do if you were in power?

I did my first muscle up about a week ago, so my I thought I'd give 30 for time a go, 1hr34min.
11 failures

Erin-
I've never been and I am years away from going to one but I have been reading what you do in your WO's for some time now and I think that you will do fine at the cert. You are strong and have good endurance and you inspire me to push myself on the days when I am lagging behind.

Speaking of inspiring- way to go Rob Corson!

Kate

Bret,

We arn't "terrorist free". http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1087538/posts

"I do not condone our invasion of sovereign nations THAT HAVE NOT ATTACKED US. I abhor that as well. "

In a nuclear world, 'tit-for-tat' is an unacceptable defense policy. While there is plenty of room in the world for people who think 'death is death', they should leave the defense of the country to those people who have slightly more nuanced views.

I abhor that as well. Death is death whether it is cloaked in the word 'jihad' or 'freedom.'

Yon’s work is a masterpiece. I read it last night before I went to bed but did not want to be the first to post…I leave that to the old salts. Yon’s honesty, compassion and humanity are conveyed without bias, agenda or censure. I felt like I was there with him counting the IED craters with him as the miles tic off the Humvee. I felt like I could smell the burning cordite and rubber.

I am lucky to have read it. This is so much better (in my opinion) than the usual neo-con party line “discussions” on rest days. It’s a day in the life of our soldiers, no politics, no arm chair quarterbacks, no regurgitation of falsehoods and propaganda. I especially enjoyed reading that morale is still very high. If our boys are there I pray they are happy as they can be and out of harms way, but I think there is no such place over there so relatively happy is going to have to do.

Nice job coach and keep it up.

Ricky
Richmond

Are you saying we are threatened by nuclear weapons? Or that we were threatened by Iraq's nuclear weapons? Wait a minute...what nuclear weapons? Wait a minute, what weapons at all?

Is that the nuance you are talking about?

I think our leaders made a serious and costly miscalculation of threats against us. And we will pay for that for a long, long, long time, in terms of lives (death), money and credibility.

I did not say we are terrorist free.

BB - history is already beginning to tell you how wrong you are.

300 15# wallball in 7:42

Also, don't you think it would be appropriate to distinguish between countries that are threats to our land, and countries that do not have the capability to threaten our land, before playing the nuclear-fear card?

Or is that too nuanced?

#39, Erin, Is there a test? I'm trying to knock off about 3 articles a day, but maybe I have to go back and underline and highlight, etc. What happens if we flunk? Oh, man, I hate pressure...

What version of Sweet Home Alabama is that playing on the walking lunge video posted yesterday? That's a great mix.

Bret
"history is already beginning to tell you how wrong you are." From the entire post is that all you respond to? I was hoping for an intelligent discussion, apparently that was too high an expectation. I am not claiming the answers here. I know that my questions were not aimed at you but for the sake of intelligent discourse maybe you can answer them and I will understand you argument a little more clearly. What from your school yard rant has led to anyone seeing your side or their own side more clearly?

300 will open this weekend and there's been some mention of it here due to the CF inspired training that many of the actors underwent. I heartily encourage everyone to get a copy of Steven Pressfield's "Gates of Fire" a historically accurate portrayal of Sparta's military society and the battle of Thermopylae. While you're at it, also pick up a copy of Victor Davis Hanson's "Carnage and Culture", which has an excellent account of the battle of Salamis which occurred not long after Sparta's sacrifice at Thermopylae. Finally, I wish I could add something insightful to what has been written today about Iraq, but I haven't been there. Folks like Michael Yon, appoloswabbie, and Bill Cattley are there, and what they have to say counts, big time. I'm grateful to be able to read what they have to say.

John #52 I read Gates Of Fire. Perhaps we all should eat onions as our main food as the Spartan warriors did. Then we'd have the gyms to ourselves and we could dump all the bars we want.

Sorry, I am pretty busy at work and didn't really have time to read everyone's comments, or your whole post. Those words just stuck out to me. If I have time later I will respond to your whole post. Also, I was mostly responding to others.

I think one could take from my cumulative posts today that:

(a) it is not unreasonable to see some Muslims, and probably even some terrorists, as having an objectively justifiable reason for hating/attacking the U.S.

(b) similarly, Iraq was not a physical threat to the U.S.

(c) we should be more careful as a country about who we invade in order to save lives (our own and civilians), money, and credibility on the world stage.

(d) the U.S. is not guilt-free in this whole terrorism game, despite attempts by 'patriots' and 'freedom-lovers' to paint the U.S. as inviolate. it is a vicious cycle, and we keep playing into the hands of those we are trying to defeat. Iraq has been more of a long-term benefit to terrorism than a hindrance. IMO. And I base that opinion on the resentment which our occupation (liberation???) fosters in the region, and the tens of thousands of innocents who have been killed by us. Those people have families. Those families may very well foment terroristic tendencies. Again, IMO.

As for my school yard rant...I think my posts have been pretty clear and certainly not hostile. I have my opinion, I laid it out there. I know many disagree. That's cool.

It's good reporting, I guess, but I'm always wary of reporters that are ultimately in it for the money...another book, perhaps??

Also, driving around with a CSM-I don't care how many miles-is not the type of bona fides the "been there, done that crowd" is necessarily looking for. I don't consider a reporter, with pen, pad and camera as "running missions."

In all honesty, I'd rather the media, even Yon stay the f@#k out of Iraq and war reporting all together. You never know when one will have an "honestly reported, militarily unpopular" reporting day. I think the media has done enough damage in this war already...

-Dennis
OIF IV

Bret,

You said "Nor did I mean to say that if we abandoned Israel and let that part of the world be, that we would remain terrorist-free. (Of course, we will never know)." [Emphasis YOURS]

How else can the be interpreted,except that you believe us to be terrorist-free?

You also said "I do not condone our invasion of sovereign nations THAT HAVE NOT ATTACKED US. I abhor that as well."

You were obviously speaking in general terms, which is what I took issue with. Your rebuttal cry of 'no wmd's in Iraq!' is simply diversionary.

Can you defend your statements, as you wrote them? Care to rewrite them?

BTW, characterising a rational fear of nuclear weapons as 'playing the nuclear fear card', is simply asinine.

I have a flight to catch.

Cheers everybody.

We are terrosrist free in that we are not attacked by terrorists in our home country on a regular basis. Or even a semi-regular basis. Or even occasionally. Or even sporadically.

I don't think there is anything wrong with saying we shouldn't attack countries that have not attacked us. Since only approximately 8-9 countries have nuclear weapons, your reference to nukes WAS a scare tactic. And asinine at that.

I will qualify what I said with: we should not attack countries that are not a real physical threat to us. I apologize for being unclear.

As for Iraq having no WMDs, how was that diversionary. It directly relates to my point that Iraq was not a threat to us, even remotely. Here you are, bringing up nuclear weapons when Iraq barely had a scud missile. Who is being diversionary?

tenacious "D"
"I think the media has done enough damage in this war already..."

I believe the media failed us just as our system of checks and balances did.

The media missed its pivotal moment; they should have been raising bloody hell, yelling to the rooftops about the lack of creditable intelligence about WMD’s. Instead all they could see is ratings and drama. They learned the strong correlation between watching smart bombs crash into targets and high ratings. They also bought into the post 911 fear mongering and blame game. Instead of critical thinking and reporting the facts they jumped on the bandwagon and started screaming for blood….regardless of whether we were attacking the right country. This is more of the semblance over substance movement witnessed in media daily. Its looks, alarmism, agendas and charm over integrity and fact finding! Good reporters are rare...again thanks Yon!

Congress….post 911 was the biggest embarrassment to our democracy in a long time. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon for fear of being soft or anti American. What congress did was anti-American! By not doing their jobs and instituting checks and balances every pork filled piece of corporate welfare and erosion of personal liberties was passed without so much as a whimper. Sad sacks indeed.

Ricky
Richmond

Zag #41. despite the fact that your post is base and sophomoric and inflammatory and a few other things, I am going to address it: Please note that at the top of my 2nd post I am against long-winded comments but since I had to address may persons, I was forced to go longer than usual. Second: if long windedness (no hyphen needed by the way) means incompetence that would mean Apolloswabbie must be totally incompetent by your measure. I think everyone here would agree that Apollo is one of the smartest and respected guys on this post and yet his post are often long. This is not a sound bite issue, this is people dying on foreign soil with no real way out. Things like that sometimes take more words (and thought) to discuss. But in order to appease your needs for short posts I will stop there as it relates to you.

Kate, I did not sidestep anything. We cannot make recommendations for not repeating the same mistakes until we can find out what mistakes were made and by whom. Our government is never going to be that transparent so I am at a loss as how to answer that question. Not avoiding it, really, we just do not the information available to answer the question without a huge margin of error. As far as my plans for withdrawal and afterwards…give me a break, that is like asking “what gun do you want to shoot yourself in the foot with?” I will leave it at this, I don't know because I didn't drive the car into the ditch, I have never been for the invasion, even after 9-11 when it was cool to want war.

BB, thoughtful post but I do not have the time to address it right now—sorry friend

Common...somebody who is running their suck about being fooled or manipulated into going to war with Saddam's regime answer my above question #40

Why were we going into Iraq in 1998-99 and how did the Bush and the Neo-Cons MAKE President Clinton think this was a good idea???

I am not sure what you mean by going into Iraq in 1998-99. Did we invade and occupy it then?

I assume you're talking about bombing missions? I honestly don't know the details of that time period with regard to our involvement in Iraq.

You seem to assume, though, that whatever we were doing is the equivalent of a full scale ground invasion and occupation...

did yesterdays workout today....subbed tuck jumps for double unders, kipping pull-ups, otherwise as rx'd

9:34...was shooting to be under 10 mins.

WOO WEE....the power of the mind is incredible!

Great video on walking lunges! Isn't that the hot tattoo guy from Santa Cruz?

Ricky,

I don't care about the media's role as "congressional watchdog" with regard to making sure pre-war intelligence was OK. I'm talking about the post war, after we sent the troops in media that revels in our "spectacular failures" and general betrayal of the the troops. If it bleeds it leads, right?

People are confusing the issue. Who cares why we are there? We are there, and we must win whatever the cost. This is war and not debate. Diplomacy, no matter how flawed and good/bad intentioned, failed. When our nation turned the keys over to the military they gave up the right to "debate" about the war.

Everyone, Shut the f@#k up and let us do our job over there. Then, never send us into another war because our politicians and liberal ilk, do not have the spine to fight and win. Perhaps when the Chinese hordes come spilling over our borders they will find the will to fight. The sad thing is, if that happened, liberals will still find a way to blame the US for getting invaded.

This is turning into Vietnam all over again. The troops in that war never lost an engagement and yet we still pulled out. Please don't do that to our generation!

I'm sorry. I can't hardly even post anymore because of the frustration I feel right now about this war and the betrayal of its Veterans. Please keep the faith, you who are still in the fight with me. My strength and patience is waning...

-Dennis

Yeah, we should just blindly allow our government and military to wage war, regardless of how we feel about it...

Yeah, China is going to invade mainland America...

Yeah, its the Liberals who ran this train off track...

Yes, I am being sarcastic.

Bret,

Thank you for proving my point. This is just some big joke to you. I could introduce you to a few hundred thousand men and women that wouldn't share in your sense of humor.

-Dennis

Dennis # 64

"People are confusing the issue. Who cares why we are there? "

I do! boys are dying then and now. It matters to most humans why people are dying. It says a lot about a country how they use their best and brightest.

"We are there, and we must win whatever the cost. This is war and not debate. Diplomacy, no matter how flawed and good/bad intentioned, failed. When our nation turned the keys over to the military they gave up the right to "debate" about the war."

incorrect...we never had true diplomacy. Bush and Blair wanted to go in and that is all the diplomacy they needed. Also, the military is a tool of the executive branch. We never hand over the keys entirely or we would have invaded china in 53'

"Everyone, Shut the f@#k up and let us do our job over there"

Shut up...never again....lack of discussion and true debate got us there in the first place. your frustration is based on your baseless argument.

ricky
richmond

Ricky,

Baseless argument? How about tours of duty to Kuwait, Kosovo, Oman and Iraq twice since 9/11? I've been deployed more in the last five years then I've been home.

Is that enough "base" for you? What have YOU done for your country lately?

Yes, lets talk, lets chat, lets have a discussion.Talk is for chumps. Let me see you "talk" your way out of an ambush.

Oh, and thank you for your "concern" for our boys dying over there, but no thanks. And if you asked John "Fonda" Kerry, only the dumbest join the military in the first place. Maybe that's how I ended up in Iraq...thanks for reiterating that point with my "baseless" argument.

-Dennis

Tenacious D

Its not a joke. Your assertions are the joke.

China, while perhaps a long-term economic threat, will not invade mainland America. You are being unrealistic and using scare tactics (a favorite of conservatives it seems).

Neo-cons pushed the war, and foxnews pimped it. Thats how the train ran aground. Liberals can, however, be faulted for blindly following and not having the backbone to oppose the war initially.

As for your rationale of not opposing anything our leaders or military push for, and giving free reign, well...they have a name for that, and its what I thought we were fighting against: FASCISM.

So, I guess I am just as exasperated as you are, but for different reasons. Either way, your opinions are valid and I can't fault you for having them. I just think they are dangerous and foolish. As I am sure you think the same of mine.

But, it is no joke. For what its worth, I do hope we "win" this war, whatever that might mean.

Bret,

I love the "kool-aid" lingo. Scare tactics, neo-cons, fox news, fascism...glug, glug, glug...

If you, and everyone else, really understood what representative democracy actually meant, you'd see how foolish that statement about "not opposing our leaders and military" really is. We do, every few years...

I love how everyone throws "fascism" on the fire every time someone suggests that we show some pride and get behind our war effort.

I'll break it down for you:
We elect the president (I know what your liberal brain is thinking, "Bush stole the election in 2000! But indulge me) the president is the Commander in Chief. He has war powers. Congress and the Senate pass legislation and control the money.

Well, Congress AND the Senate, whom WE elected, voted for the authority for war AND have passed every budget put forth to them to fund it. Am I typing slowly enough???

General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the Senate, whom we elected, and the first thing he asked for was 21,500 troops and the first major legislation passed by the new Congress...a motion against the troop increase!!!! Isn't that what Bush's critics complained about before? Not having enough troops! Stay the course? Does anyone remember that? Now who's "staying the course?"

Now, will everyone shut the f@#k up about it and let us do our democratically elected, congressionally appointed jobs??? We're only trying to take our turn on the watch, beating back the wolves.

I'm all done for now...I hope I've made my point.

-Dennis

Dennis,

I do understand your point, and it's a reasonable one, but we are a constitutional republic, not a reprensentative democracy. The government does not have carte blanche.

Bret,

Excellent posts. Would be nice to see some more responses to your points.

tenacious "D"

This: "When our nation turned the keys over to the military they gave up the right to "debate" about the war."

.. is perhaps the most ridiculous statement ever made on this board.

Nobody gave up the right to debate. That's just silly.

Zach

yeah, yeah, support the war effort, show some pride, and support our troops. talk about lingo.

the beauty of an open society is that we can inform our elected leaders when we believe they (or WE) have made a mistake. continuing a disaster for the sake of continuing a disaster seems to make very little sense. that said, none of my arguments have really been about leaving iraq (see the last paragraph here).

what was the china reference, if not a scare tactic? it certainly had no basis in this discussion, or in reality. what else should i call it?

do you not remember the inaccurate "truths" that emanated from certain quarters of the administration, also popularly referred to as the neo-cons (here I am thinking bush, cheney, rumsfeld, rice)? you remember, the ones who seized on certain evidence and disregarded the more voluminous and credible evidence? shall i just call them out by name?

fascism is what happens when you allow a government and military to operate blindly and without recourse. sorry i used the proper word. (am i typing slowly enough for you, sir?)

and, as for a troop surge, i am all for it. seriously, if the general thinks it will help, i say go to town. and as an aside, i do not like that the democrats are trying to impose a timetable for withdrawal. as much as i think the war was folly, i am also of the opinion "we broke it we bought it." but hopefully our elected fascists in the future will use their brains before their you-know-whats next time...

BRET #61..
"I am not sure what you mean by going into Iraq in 1998-99. Did we invade and occupy it then?

I assume you're talking about bombing missions? I honestly don't know the details of that time period with regard to our involvement in Iraq.

You seem to assume, though, that whatever we were doing is the equivalent of a full scale ground invasion and occupation..."

I am not ASSUMING anything...we did got to the Middle East intending to Invade Iraq with the goal of Regime change. I am talking people on the ground and a lot of them. It is a called an Advanced Party or ADVON. Airfields were occupied, Diego Garcia was spun up, and people left home with 48 hours notice. Not just bombings. Saddam got his crap together and let the inspectors back in. Too bad.

My point is you and others know jack-squat about the entirety of the situation, yet you routinely run your sucks about WMD and other things in the "hive-mind" trying to rewrite history. Acting like you are a know-it-all, when you have a 1/3 of the facts and you are using those to bag on the current administration doesn't buy you debating points.

The point of this exercise was to bring out the level of knowledge the nay-sayers and monday morning quarterbacks actually have. In your case you failed.

I suggest you think very clearly about WHO is asking a question before you answer with such a flippant and disrespectful tone or atleast ask clarifying questions. Some of us KNOW the history of this.

Knowing what you know now, would you like to answer the question without your smug attitude or do you want your posted ignorance stand as your answer?

Anybody else want to take a shot?

CCTJOEY,

I'll take a stab at it... It wasn't a good idea then, and it wasn't a good idea this time. The only difference between the two is that last time there was no full-scale ground invasion... that pesky debate thing kept us from making a stupid decision.

Zach

thanks for the knowledge. i honestly did not remember that.

so clinton would have been making a horrible mistake instead of bush.

the knowledge does not change my underlying premise that it was a mistake in 2002, and would have been a mistake in 1998-99. i guess only time will tell if it WAS a mistake.

nor does it change the fact that it was bush and gang who actually did invade iraq. nor does it change the fact that they selectively chose data to fit their objective. nor does it change the fact that they keep flip-flopping rationales for the invasion.

am I to understand that the whole point of your spiel was to show that I am wrong to call out bush because there is a chance that clinton would have done the same thing (even though he did not)? Ok, have it your way...they both suck as leaders.

and as for you KNOWING the history - where did all the WMDs go? or was this really a "liberation?"

Day behind (when am I not?)...did ystd WOD.

Just to chill things out a bit here for a moment:

Tenacious D is back and that's a good thing.

On NPR this morning (I know, I know...) they interviewed Austin Bays, author of a book entitled "Embrace the Suck. Tranlations of Mil-Speak." Sound like a mandatory read for folks like me who haven't served. Excerpt: Bays corollary to Murphy's Law--If something can go wrong it already has; you just don't know it yet!"

See you all tomorrow...

CCT, BB, whiskey

you know what...i apologize for the flippancy of some of my remarks. you are right to call me out for that.

and i want to say to those of you in the military: i respect you. it takes amazing discipline and resolve. i do not mean to demean your occupations, or your duties, or the war we are in.

i just have a vastly different opinion from you guys. i need to learn to express it in a more suitable manner conducive to intelligent discourse. this is just quite a heated topic, and i am human.

thanks to those who've made me wise to my ignorance. i admit i do not know it all, although it probably seems like i think i do sometimes. i confess my opinion in this matter is pretty strong...but i have held this opinion since the rumblings began.

you guys stay safe. believe it or not, i too have loved ones over there...

TimmyTheNoose-
I agree that we need to learn from mistakes and also from history even if it isn't necessarily our history. You also made a very good point about our Government not being transparent. BUT, for me since it's not transparent that means that we don't know all that went on behind the scenes leading up to the invasion, (hhmm, I think Bret and I discussed this one day) therefore we have to trust the decisions that were made by our elected officials.

"As far as my plans for withdrawal and afterwards…give me a break, that is like asking “what gun do you want to shoot yourself in the foot with?” I will leave it at this, I don't know because I didn't drive the car into the ditch, I have never been for the invasion, even after 9-11 when it was cool to want war."

Perhaps I misunderstood you, I thought that you were in the "Bring our guys home now" camp. If I did misunderstand you then I apologize.

Kate

I think the level of intensity being shown in this forum is a good thing, as long as everyone can argue intelligently. Not everyone agrees about everything, which is also a good thing. The second that dissent (no matter how asinine) is prohibited, we've lost, and fighting for the security of the free world is moot point.

I think because of a few unfortunate comments from people on both ends of the political spectrum that this once intelligent conversation has devolved into partisan name-calling. Not all conservatives are war-mongering and oil-hungry. Not all liberals are cowards and opposed to the use of military force. Trust me, there are liberals in the military, believe it or not...

I think I can sum up this entire thread

-Saddam Hussein was a bad guy
-Some people think we should have invaded and some don't think we should have based on the information at the time
-The above statement was OBE when we invaded
-We have men and women in harm's way everyday doing the difficult and dangerous work our nation has asked of them
-Some feel that supporting the armed forces consists of backing the war effort unconditionally and others feel that the best support for the troops is to bring them home.
-It used to be said that politics stops at the water's edge, but this obviously is not the case anymore. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinions and there is NO ONE here with a monopoly on truth, knowledge or the claim to be right and others wrong (however tempting it may be to do so,)and as such, we simply need to agree to disagree and go about staying true to your own beliefs, whatever they may be

-Was that wishy-washy enough...?

I wonder when tomorrow's workout will be posted...?

Neil

...hopefully soon!

cheers all!

Zach, you are wrong that we stopped short of invading Iraq becuase of debate. we stopped short because of Saddam opened his doors again for more "shell game".

Bret, This was not about liberation on its face...that is a benefit of finishing what two other Presidents failed to do...this is about security, through long term stability. I am sorry you seem to miss that point. Just because a country may not be a direct threat to us on a large scale, does not mean they are to be released of their obligations to the International Community that they agreed to in a cease-fire agreement 12 years earlier.

As far as the weapons of mass destruction, several sources and documents have shared with us that they were shipped out by another country's transport en mass to Syria during our build up. I would love to go into more detail.

However, they did go somewhere. The world's intelligence services agree they were there and do to this day.

My point is that you are trying to "pin" this on Bush and Co., yet you can not explain why Clinton and Co. began a build up and dropped bombs as a shot across the bow.

Now tell us how they selectively chose data, where has that been found as the truth besides left-wing blogs on the internet? As I remember the (bi-partisan)Senate Commitee that investigated the reasons to go into Iraq and errors from that action said that there wasn't selectively chosen data as you accuse.

All of the reasons that you mention as "flip-flopping" are neatly covered in the war resolution. Did you honestly forget that too?

As far as they both suck as leaders (Bush and Clinton)...I have a question.

Do you lead?

I do and have. I find your blanket assessment amusing, particularly after you admitted that you are ignorant of the facts.

Opinions are like @$$holes.

Anyone else?

Kate- thanks so much for the encouragement! Wish you were coming to Raleigh!

John Wopat - I hope I am wrong, but the study guide they send gave me the impression of a test. Yikes...the pressure is on now...
I am not fond of tests :)~
Erin

CCTJOEY,

Try not to jump the gun there... there was an enormous amount of debate in this country regarding the efficacy of the arms inspectors and whether or not we should just invade, anyway. So, it's reasonable to express that debate was partly responsible for our not invading.

You said; "As far as the weapons of mass destruction, several sources and documents have shared with us that they were shipped out by another country's transport en mass to Syria during our build up. I would love to go into more detail."

Show us your documents, or don't make such claims.

You said: "However, they did go somewhere. The world's intelligence services agree they were there and do to this day."

Again, some evidence supporting your claim please... I'm not sure that I've seen anything close to consensus on this.

Zach

Iraq trying to obtain uranium. It was bull then and it still is. I remember Colin Powell before the U.N. "showing" us those mobile chemical weapons labs. That was either misleading or serious incompetence. I know, I know, they're in another country...

Both Clinton and Bush had good and bad qualities as leaders. Fine. What do you mean by do I lead?

I understand the argument that this is for long-term security. I just disagree that it is making us more secure.

They are "covered" in the war resolution? So what? We both know what was fed to the public, said in the media. And we both know that the majority of the public has not and will not read it. So, whatever you wish to call it -- flip-flopping or manipulating -- it is shady. You are using the war resolution like a lawyer -- a technical defense to a substantive misdeed.

If you want to bring up the fact that we elect officials and they approved the war resolution...fine. I disagree with the Republicans AND Democrats, then.

Zach -- excellent points about evidence. Like Hume said, "proportion one's belief to the evidence." I will not sit here and trust someone with mystical knowledge and ethereal documents. No offense.

There you go. I think you can probably stop attempting to belittle me. We have a difference of opinion on a divisive, heated issue and you are sure that you know more than me. I dread and suspect that time will prove me right -- but I hope your reality proves closer to the truth.

Stay safe.

Zach... Sure, but the debate was not the reason the invasion did not happen.

no. But with a little research you can find declassified stuff... happy hunting!

and

How about you show me some of the countries on the UN Security Counsel that was positive there wasn't.

Bret, cool man...things get heated. I know this is hard for the people with loved one's in harms way.

You post obviously made it on before my last one.

I am not trying to be a d!ck here, just pointing out the inconsistancies of time vs arguements related to this matter.

If people want to say that we never should have invaded Iraq...I am fine with that.

What I will argue with them about, is this talk of conspiracy by the "Neo-Cons". Or that "Saddam was not a threat so why mess with him?"

History matters.

Timmy.

You still didn’t answer the question.

What would you do if you were in power?

(The hyphen is optional. “Spell Check” is not the end all to punctuation-- English Grad. Master's UCLA -- how is that for dropping names)

Kate, I am part of the bring them home now group but I'll be honest, after reading some posts I have had a slight shift on that, it would not be fair to screw the Iraqi people twice in the same invasion. Guess the jury is still out.

Zag- A masters huh, funny that doesn't come through on your posts. And you don't get an answer because I am not in power. If I was in power before then that is easy, it would have never happened but if I was in power now, well that is like becoming captain of a sinking ship. What does one do one with a sinking ship???

Apollo, I will get back to you my friend, when family matters permit.

I find it Iroic that that I am being asked for evidence about something, which because I can't offer, that makes it less valid. Yet, Zach and others have been doing this all along on this thread, and doing so to make accusations.

Get real guys.

Believe what you want, but quit taking your conspiracy "evidence" and posting it as fact.

If you don't like what you see offer something better to ZAG...which you continue to avoid, of course.

Tell me, did Saddam EVER have WMDs?

Did he get rid of them?

If so, when?

why is it hard to believe they are somewhere else?

Is it because that would ruin your only premis to distract the arguement?

"What does one do one with a sinking ship???"

Save people?

Zach... here is some light reading for you related to public source info of WMD movement.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200602%5CSPE20060202a.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm

http://www.nysun.com/article/27110

http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php/

Zach... stand by for pulic source evidence. my post is being held for review

the walking lunge tips are good as gold, my first day on new program w/lots of them & you saved me from doing them on my toes - thanks. also thanks to crosspit because next week i have to go put some MMA fighters on the mat (or vice versa)

Zag..."Save people"...okay you win, that is funny. Dry, but funny.

I'm back, and happy to see that everyone is getting along.

I would get Zack and Bret those documents they want if I didn't have to go diving down Sandy Berger's pants to do it. Gross.

No idea what the next workout is going to be. But I have been designing this one for Saturday, for a large group.

Basically, the idea is to send one team around the block dragging a heavy sled (200lbs), while the other team does assisted pullups. When the team with the sled gets back to base, they start doing their pullups while the other team drags the sled around the block. When the second team brings the sled back home the workout is done. Each team's score is the number of pullups completed by the team member who completed the LEAST amount of pullups (There has to be a simpler way to state that). Highest score wins.

The strategy involved in doing assisted pullups as a team should be quite interesting.

I may shorten the sled-pull distance and split the workout into two rounds, since that will enable me to adjust the distance mid workout, depending on how fast the first round goes. Plus, it lessens any advantage of starting on the pullups vs the sled. But I like the purity of the one round workout, if I could get the duration correct.

Any suggestions? Anyone have any experience with trying to do 5+ minutes of assisted pullups? Sounds pretty horrible to me :)

I should add that by 'assisted pullup' I mean that your teammates can grab you by your waist and push you over the bar.

CCTJOEY,

Nothing conclusive there... some pretty good speculation, but nothing conclusive.

An equally likely scenario to the one you present is that Saddam was moving munitions on the black market to raise as much cash as possible... preparing for some time on-the-run.

I don't rule out the possibility that Saddam possessed WMDs. As a matter of fact, I think it is quite likely that he had stores of chemical munitions. However, he was well contained. The idea that he posed a threat to anyone outside his borders is a joke in the region... And, yes, I know a number of people form the region, and I pay attention to their popular media.

As for now; I am of the "We broke it, we bought it" crowd. I think that the much-promoted "Surge" is not even close to what we need. I've said it before on this forum. We need at a bare minimum, 1 US soldier to each 30 Iraqi citizens.... more likely 1 to every 20, considering the complexity of the various factions on the ground.

I also think that nothing productive will happen during this administration. We can spend the next year or 2 speculating on their motivations, but I suspect it will be a while before light is shed on the inner workings of this White House. Nonetheless, their leadership has been consistently abissmal.... To say that they underestimated (or "misundereatimated", as the case may be) falls wildly short of the level of incompetence and bull-headedness that they displayed.

Soooo, long story short: This disaster will be up to the next administration to resolve.

Zach

WhiskeySean,

We train a ton of teams here... I'm watching one of my coaches run a U17, boys soccer team through their paces as we speak. The formatt you presented works well for large groups.. as a matter of fact, it is an interesting variation on a common "relay" formatt that we use.

I'm going to train the UNR boxing club tomorrow morning, and I think I'll design a similar workout.

Thanks,
Zach

50-30-20
Tuck Jumps
Push ups
Pull ups

9:50

-Rest 10:00-

35-25-10
25# Weight Vest
Box Jumps
Push ups
Pull ups

8:55

Zach #98,

"However, he was well contained. The idea that he posed a threat to anyone outside his borders is a joke in the region... And, yes, I know a number of people form the region, and I pay attention to their popular media."

He was well contained at enormous U.S. expense and with a U.N. scheme that was going to rebuild or develop WMD programs (the UN oil for terror program). I think the claim that he posed no threat to the region was laughable up to the moment he dropped through the trap door.

You must watch a lot of state run totalitarian media. That is amusing. That you put faith in it is even more interesting. Are you referring to Israeli media? If so, you are selecting your fare very carefully to support your leftist agenda. Can you offer me another choice?

Can you site any evidence for your claim of knowledge of the "region". I'm not seeing it.

Coach,

My agenda is hardly leftist... at least not in the sense that you imply.

I'll do a little homework on my sources this afternoon. Yes, my choices of media includes Israeli sources... at the time of our invasion, there were significantly loud voices supporting my position.

Actually, at the time of our invasion, my sources included Israeli and Egyptian citizens.. folks I trust.

Zach

Coach,

My agenda is hardly leftist... at least not in the sense that you imply.

I'll do a little homework on my sources this afternoon. Yes, my choices of media includes Israeli sources... at the time of our invasion, there were significantly loud voices supporting my position.

Actually, at the time of our invasion, my sources included Israeli and Egyptian citizens.. folks I trust.

Zach

Zach,

Well man, you have pretty much proven yourself ignorant and worthless to this discussion.

You can't answer a simple question that I posed to you without dismissing it. I show you public source interviews and reporting by legitimate news agencies and you dismiss them. You opinion about the "surge", as you term it, is worthless as well. I am gathering you know less and less each rest day...that is a first.

Sorry stud, but you are out of your league. You can't walk the walk. You offer no solutions, yet remind us how you were against all this from the beginning. Good for you. Since you don't even know about the beginning, your opinion is proving you to be just what I said about opinions earlier.

I assume now you will try to deflect Coach's questioning of your "thoughts" (that is a stretch) as well. What is your thoughts on the Oil for Food (terror) program? Why was Saddam "contained"?

Coach and myself (and others) are not trying to quell debate, but put things in historical context. If you want to put forward a thought-out response, for once, be my guest, but there are those who KNOW what happened watching you.

Welcome to the Jungle..."have a take and do not suck."

Anyone else want to answer the simple question I posed above?

Bret #79
No problem. I too have come close to stepping over the edge over issues I believe strongly about.
I do not demand answers to my questions (#38), I just ask them to see if they have been honestly considered before opinions are formed. If you and Timmythenoose can/have honestly answered them either to yourself or openly on this forum I think it adds to the education.
Both stated you needed more time, something I understand.

Joey,
No one wants to admit that Clinton is the one that got us into this current mess, and that Bush has been reacting to Clinton's decisions. They want to remember Clinton as a "good" president that just got caught doing in appropriate things, but hey, that's water under the bridge right? Yeah, right.

It's the same as for a while everyone wanted to remember Carter as a "good" president, not seeing how weak and ineffective he was, and how he really got the whole ball rolling. Now, everyone sees him out doing humanitarian aid and they forget, or they are to young to remember when he was in office.

People don't want to do the research to learn the answers to the questions, that's to hard, which is why you ended up having to put the links up in post 92.

Everyone should question everything, but be willing to search for the answers on their own and not have them spoon fed.

Kate

Kate, the more you post the more I realize your husband must be every bit as proud that you are his wife, as you are for him to be your husband.

Tell him "stay safe" from me sometime...from Blue to Green

CCTJOEY,

With all due respect, go scratch... there is zero need to resort to petty insults like that.

I'm running a business here, so I apologize if it offends your sensibilities that I judged it more important to take care of business this morning than spend time digging up links on the internet. I promised a more lengthy response, and you will get it.

Tell me, oh' mighty genius of all things current and historical, what is the standardly held essential quantity of occupying soldiers to citizens? Which famous military strategist first proposed this ratio, and what current general commonly refers to this author in his strategies?

You know almost nothing about me, my knowledge base, or my intentions.

Incidentally, there is a lot of substance in my proposal of a solution to our current porblems in Iraq... 30 to 1, soldiers to citizens, at a bare minimum. Before you decide to slam me again about not having a solution. Tell me exactly what is not concrete about that.

Also, of the articles you posted, none show conclusive evidence of Sadamm having moved chemical or radiological munitions out of Iraq before our invasion. Period. You can speculate all you want about what was going on, but as of this date, there are ZERO concrete conclusions. I didn't dismiss your position. As a matter of fact, I stated clearly that I don't rule it out, and I thikn it is quite possible.

I sense that for you there are only two sides to this discussion; Conservative or Liberal... I see this from quite a few people on this forum. At the slightest hint of disagreement, those who are perceived as not toeing the standard line here are pounced upon, berated, and assigned all sorts of silly labels.

Try looking a little more closely at the substance of what I have written, rather than flying off the handle.

Zach

BTW - What really makes me laugh about your response is that my second-to-last post actually illecited appreciative personal emails from a few of the more conservative posters on this forum.

Joey- Thank you, I will pass it along to him.

Hari- Right on!

As far as the "driving the car into the ditch" analogy that was used earlier, I have an additional question, if you were a passenger in that car and it went into the ditch, would you help push it out or would you just walk away?
You could throw back at me that what if you were car jacked and it crashed into the ditch, I would counter with, did you vote in the last election?

That is not aimed at anyone in particular, I have heard a similar analogy used before. I give it as something to think about.

Kate

Zach...

30 to 1 is very concrete (like quicksand)...unfortunately it isn't going to happen. So for now it is not an option. Of course a "death-ray" killing Saddam several years ago would have been nice also.

I am looking for the "substance you have written". Please highlight it for me.

Did you know that you are to attack a dug-in enemy in defense with a 3 to 1 ratio as well? You are a smart guy, of course you did. But we didn't either time. Mopped up just the same. Why is that?

Hell, members in BOTH houses of Congess are saying we need 2X the number of Special Operations Forces..like you, they speak in general platitudes, and don't answer how we are to get there from here.

So the question remains. You still fail to answer. Why did we build up in 1998-99 and how did the current Administration convinced the previous Administration to do it?

Now if you don't agree with that question as valid, due to you not thinking this (Iraq situation) is some sort of conspiracy...that is great, you are mentally healthy.

I posed the same type of question to the Global Warming nuts...Why are the polar ice caps on Mars shrinking and how did our enviromental policies cause that?

Now if you didn't want to participate, fine, that would be a smart thing for you to do.

You could have just said "I don't know" or not answered like everyone else. The light of truth make the cockroaches scatter.

Instead of going in the corner and reading up on why we did not "escalate" you have tried to pull my punk card twice...you were corrected the first time, you got what you asked for as based on what I can give the second.

Yet, ironically you think you have an answer to the current dynamic situation on the grounds of barfing out the "30 to 1" ratio. Screw it, I'll do you one better, I say 15 to 1. Better yet, 10 to 1. Right...pie in the sky.

Yet in no sense have you answered...

What type of troops?

What type of ratios based on location?

What percentage are to be COIN focused and how many are to be for SASO? How many for FID? What about QRF?

Do Iraqi Security Forces and Police count in that ratio?

How do we raise that number of troops in the military to cover down on that?

How do we raise the necessary Airlift and logistical support for current operations as well as procurement for the increased need over time?

What role does technology play into that ratio?

Do personal communications and eyes in the sky make up for pure numbers of troops?

Do we need a draft? If so would the results of such actually make the situation better?

How would you define success?

Is not meeting your goals on time, but making forward progress still a form of success?

How many of those troops need language training? What language are they to learn?

What is the widthdrawl plan?

If you just want to voice your opposition, fine, you've been heard. Like your "30 to 1" ratio comment, neither adds to the discussion.

I don't usually get into these rest day debates, because they are interminable and resolve nothing, but why not? It's a slow day at work.

Coach # 101

"He was well contained at enormous U.S. expense"

True enough, but I suspect that the costs of the present war dwarf the containment expense by a very significant margin.

On other matters, I think it is silly to try to figure out which President to blame for this mess. You could go all the way back to Woodrow Wilson if you wanted to -- the Treaty of Versailles ending World War I was the basis for the Sykes-Picot Agreement that divided up the former Ottoman Empire into what eventually became the present countries of the Middle East. What is the point? Every president since then has done something, or failed to do something, that eventually had some effect on the current situation. Harry Truman recognized Israel; Ronald Reagan armed Saddam Hussein as a counterweight to Iran; the first Bush stopped the 1st Gulf War after 100 hours instead of driving on to Baghdad. Every one of them probably thought what they did looked like a good idea at the time; one can easily speculate as to what might be different today if any of them had acted differently.

We're in a nasty situation. There isn't an easy way out. Whether it was a good idea or a bad idea at the time isn't important except as a guide to your vote at the next election (assuming there is anyone worth voting for).

From my perspective, I think the biggest mistake was ignoring General Shinseki's advice to Congress that it would take more than 300,000 (IIRC) troops to control the country effectively as an occupying force. The civilian leadership brushed him aside, put on its rose-colored glasses, and went in on a shoestring. We do great invasions, but the followup was half-assed. Now, there's no stomach (and probably not enough resources) to do what really should have been done 4 years ago. It's no wonder that everyone is running around trying to shift blame somewhere else.

And before anyone gets their knickers in a knot and starts flinging labels around, unless you are at least 29 years old, I've been out of the military longer than you have been alive. My politics don't fit anyone's categories (at least on this board), I have a low tolerance for BS generally, and the last politician I admired was Barry Goldwater. I have really strong views about chickenhawks (which we seem to have a lot of lately), because I don't think anyone who hasn't been in the military can really understand what it is like to receive an order that you know is absolutely moronic and still know that you have to go do it.

Joey and others, stay safe.

All:

The bottom line is that Iraq is coming apart at the seams and it will not be the American military, government and/or people who ultimately fix it. The Iraqis have to take the responsibility for their own country at some point. We can help them get prepared, but ultimately, they have to handle their own business.

Sooner or later, we're leaving. Whether it's in 2007 or 2077, we will not stay there forever (at least in great numbers), and the insurgents, militias and various contentious ethnic groups know this and are preparing for the eventuality.

All we can do is prepare the Iraqis as best we can. If the surge works, great! I'm not confident that it will, but it's a start. The al-Maliki government is infiltrated and corrupt, the police and military (Iraqi) are infiltrated and corrupt, and these are the folks who are supposed to bring peace and prosperity to the unfortunate Iraqis who are heartbreakingly caught in the middle.

We created a sh!t sandwich and now we have to eat it. Part of the logic for "staying the course" (please don't read anything political into that statement) is that we have stirred the hornet's nest in the Middle East and Central Asia several times in the past and then left. That is not a good message to send or policy to have and politicians want to avoid doing it again. This is part of what caused the birth of Al-Qaeda. It also got us dragged into the black hole of blood and treasure that was Operations Provide Comfort, Northern and Southern Watch, in the post-Desert Storm security environment

The issue of the decade has already been posed by CCTJoey. How does one define success in Iraq? The US government can not fix the Iraq problem unless it knows what the short- and long-term goals are (short of ambiguous terms such as democracy and freedom and security and tourism, I mean terrorism...how about something of substance?). No policy maker has stepped up and actually figured this out, much less communicated it to the nation...

Just MHO...

"30 to 1 is very concrete (like quicksand)...unfortunately it isn't going to happen. So for now it is not an option. Of course a "death-ray" killing Saddam several years ago would have been nice also.

I am looking for the "substance you have written". Please highlight it for me."

>Riiiigggggghhhtt... giving you a specific number of troops that I think is necessary is not concrete enough for you??? Sounds to me like you just don't like the idea of me opening my mouth, right or wrong.

"Did you know that you are to attack a dug-in enemy in defense with a 3 to 1 ratio as well? You are a smart guy, of course you did. But we didn't either time. Mopped up just the same. Why is that?"

>Answer: technology. However, technology is not helping us in the case of occupation... Not yet, at least. i don't rule out that it may someday, but it isn't now.

"So the question remains. You still fail to answer. Why did we build up in 1998-99 and how did the current Administration convinced the previous Administration to do it?

Now if you don't agree with that question as valid, due to you not thinking this (Iraq situation) is some sort of conspiracy...that is great, you are mentally healthy."

>What? Does this question make sense to anyone else?

>As for the rest of your post; intelligent questions, and I would like to address most of them in a little while, when time allows.

>A point, though; none of those questions were ever or are now pre-reqcuisites to being involved in this forum. Trying to present tham as if they are issues I have somehow avoided, in order to dimune other points I have made, is a pretty lame tactic.

>And, incidentally, just because you don't like what I have to say, does not mean that I have not added to the conversation.

Zach

To help out Comment # 27
In order to stop this insurgency, one must first recognize what kind of insurgency it is and the degree to which it is succeeding. First, there are at least two types of insurgencies currently raging in Iraq. The first, although not necessarily affecting US Forces on a tactical level daily, is surprisingly close to the classic Maoist model of insurgency. Unlike the Maoist model, this insurgency's center of gravity is in the urban areas. This is because the majority of the population that is interested in supporting this insurgency are poor Shia people living and working in urban and suburban areas. The insurgency I am talking about is the Shia Militia led insurgency of Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army (Jaysh al-Mahdi for all you Arabic speakers out there). Although his insurgents do not attack US Forces as overtly as some of the other insurgents (AQ, Islamic Army of Iraq, etc) they are waging a more effective insurgent campaign as far as the future of Iraq is concerned. They have all the elements of a successful Maoist insurgency: shadow govt ready to step in when the established govt fails (or have infiltrated govt institutions so effectively that no one is the wiser), programs that help the local populace, an armed force that protects the local populace more effectively than does the govt (effectually winning the hearts and minds).

To stop this insurgency, the Iraqi Security Forces must overcome sectarianism and root out the militias and destroy them. Before that happens, however, the essential services (electricity, water, sewage, trash, medical care) of Iraq must get up to speed so the population trusts and can count on the govt.

More to follow on the other insurgency continuing to kill American Soldiers daily.

Post any comments or email me

Here you go Zach...this was very poorly worded:
"Now if you don't agree with that question as valid, due to you not thinking this (Iraq situation) is some sort of conspiracy...that is great, you are mentally healthy."

If you think my question is not a truely valid question (assume that the war is a conspiracy by the Bush Administration), then you can consider yourself of sound mental health.

My question was to flush out the ding-bats. I am still trying to figure out why you felt the need to answer.

stand by

So, you're asking some questions in order to point out how stupid people are for answering your questions... while simultaneously berating me for not answering all of your questions, including ones you hadn't even asked???

Wow! That is a uniquely annoying conversational technique. You must be a riot at parties!

Nonetheless, some of the questions you pose are pretty good. Here are answers to the ones that I have enough knowledge base to answer:

Do Iraqi Security Forces and Police count in that ratio?
>It depends on their readiness and loyalties.

How do we raise that number of troops in the military to cover down on that?
>A draft.. it's the only logical answer at this point.

How do we raise the necessary Airlift and logistical support for current operations as well as procurement for the increased need over time?
>I'm taking a weak stab at this one - engage regional allies and even non-allies... Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc... The best way to make a friend out of an enemy is to make them some money.

What role does technology play into that ratio?
>As I mentioned in my last post; none at this point.. that I'm aware of. I don't rule out that technology may one day drastically alter this picture, but it hasn't yet.

Do personal communications and eyes in the sky make up for pure numbers of troops?
>see above

Do we need a draft? If so would the results of such actually make the situation better?
>To elaborate on this; I think that some sort of public service, either military or other, should be a requirement for citizenship, sometime between the ages of 18 and 26... probably the equivalent of 2 or 3 years service. I think that respect for the benefits and responsibilities of citizenship is greatly lacking in our culture... Pie in the sky? Maybe, but I stand by it as a good idea.

How would you define success?
>A stable, constitutional democracy.. not just elections. Anyone can hold elections, but a constitution is something special.

Is not meeting your goals on time, but making forward progress still a form of success?
>Sure.

What is the widthdrawal plan?
>Considering that my plan is 100% theoretical, I'd say it's a little early to talk about withdrawal.

Zach

Zach...feel free to take your time (this time).

"A point, though; none of those questions were ever or are now pre-reqcuisites to being involved in this forum. Trying to present tham as if they are issues I have somehow avoided, in order to dimune other points I have made, is a pretty lame tactic."

Lame?? it appears now you might contribute. I only ask that if you are going to BBQ you bring some meat.

"And, incidentally, just because you don't like what I have to say, does not mean that I have not added to the conversation"

You are right, the fact that you have not added to the conversation, adds to the fact that you have yet to add to the conversation.

"Answer: technology. However, technology is not helping us in the case of occupation... Not yet, at least. i don't rule out that it may someday, but it isn't now."

Really? Interesting...please explain.

Are you talking on the Strategic, Operational, or Tactical level?

Are you speaking in regards to C4I or weapons?

This is another example of what I am saying about back-up what you lob out.

I don't role onto the fitness topics and spout my mouth about things I don't know about...hell, I rarely post anything other than WOD results. There is a reason for this.

Your understanding of military operations is below par for engaging anything other than you eyes and ears at this point. Your situational awareness is non-existant, you are functioning solely on assumption. Typically, wrong as well.

I look forward to your answers and your future contributions to the discussion.

Wow, Joey... I'm so overwhelmed by your specialized knowledge that I think I'll just crawl back into my little hole here and never think about world politics again... for that matter, I'll just leave all decision making up to you.

Zach

Coach,

In response to your request that I provide evidence backing up my opinion that Iraq was not considered a threat by its regional neighbors, before we invaded;

On Septmber 5th, 2002, the Arab League of Nations issued a statement revoking the notion that military intervention would be necessary to enforce UN resolutions.

Members of the League of Nations: Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Morocco, Tunisia, Kuwait, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Mauritania, Somalia, Palestine (a seat formerly held by the Palestine Liberation Organization), Djibouti, and the Comoros

I'd say that accounts for about 99% of the governing bodies in the region.

Zach

Pace

I'm sorry Zach, I missed where you were commenting on world politics with me.

as a side note, perhaps all is not as bleak as you believe.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

...AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!!!.....

Here is a link to an essay by Frank Miller, director of "The 300" called "This Old Cloth", about Patriotism.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5784518

temescal ridge loop to trailer canyon. 1:10 minutes

dad: temescal ridge loop 1:15

30-40 minutes steady climb

Alright, no arguing today for homeboy, but I couldn't resist posting this. The author was KIA but his ideas have apparently been proven. They make a great deal of sense. And the presentation is so simple ANYONE should be able to understand it.

http://www.geardo.com/docs/how_to_win_in_anbar.pdf

Here's the background on him: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/12/great_in_the_wo.html