RedNose

He's in a tight spot, or to it more bluntly, his head is in a noose he can't escape from. Either way he is going down, and justice in Iraq these days means death. I remember Maliki as not being one of the key players in 2003, but he did step it up in 2004 after the interim president was assassinated at ECP 12. He has a tough decision to make. Does he embrace the US, and take our money, or does he lay down at the feet of Sadr who is openly wooing the Iranians in an effort to make a Shiite powerbase. The rest of the region is Sunni, so we'll have to make our move soon. My guess is that the additional troops are there to punish Sadr, and push the Shiite powers out of Baghdad. Maliki will fade away as soon as he can, and if he survives he will not spend the rest of his days in Iraq.

That's not the one he is referring to. That was a program where people who met certain criteria were allowed to leave service, and given severance packages. The one he is referring to could more accurately be called F-T-A (AKA F*ck The Army)

"I believe the political and economic are tantamount. I proposed here previously (2003-2004) that the underlying reason for the Iraq war was the inevitable lifting of economic sanctions, and Saddams stated desire to back the 3rd largest oil reserve with the Euro dollar. Thus devaluing the gold standard by as much as some estimates at 40%. This would have effectively bankrupted the United States and Japan. Victory can be obtained by simply controlling oil reserves, and pacifying the population in the ensuing windfall of financial reward"

"Joseph, No, I will confirm that I am not a mercenary. I'll send you a PM since it is not good PERSEC to discuss these things openly. There are several categories of contractors. You cannot simply lump them as one. The structure of contracting is very similar to military, with the exception that these are individual companies. Bechtel-Engineering, Blackwater-Combat Arms, Halliburton-logistics, Dyncorp-Military Police, etc. The structure and intent of contracts vary as well. Some contracts are extensions of governments need to address temporary manpower shortages, such as diplomatic security. It's cheaper and more efficient to take a former Special Forces soldier and put him in temporarily, than it is to recruit, vet (background investigations usually run about 100K a piece), train, mentor, promote, retire a federal agent. Others which address DoD shortages such as providing dining facilities and camp management, and some are private companies given contracts to work on infrastructure. The military is stretched, and some of the skillsets are not there. The ideal would be to make the profession of arms a true profession, with higher wages, better screening, and better career progression. A fullscale revamping of the military system is in order. The term mercenary is misleading, since most of the high end security contractors come directly from the military, and still adhere to the same values, norms, and ideology that you would find in the military. The pentagon is taking steps to normalize the relationships between contractors and military, including placing all DoD contractors under UCMJ. Despite the misleading news reports about contractors running amok, there is virtually no evidence to support this, and USC applies, and in some cases local law. Keith Idema who sits here in prison at Poli Charki is a prime example. He is serving ten years in an Afghan prison tried by local courts. Anyway, I could write volumes about the topic, but I would say the average contractor is a retired or former Special Forces soldier, SEAL, Ranger, Federal law enforcement, or SWAT police officer who wanted to take their skillset and put it to good use. I find it to be a fair and rational system. You are getting a guy with above average talents, and instead of him sitting on the sidelines watching the big show, while some 19 year FNG two steps into oblivion you get a first rate warrior doing important work. Just my two cents." Posted with permission of the author

"I seem to have a vague memory that you told me, if I remember correctly, that you had an association with a LRP detachment in Vietnam. Care to share which one? In 72-73 I was 3, and I grew up reading and studying everything I could lay my hands on about the Vietnam war. I too assumed that we might have learned our lessons there, and I also see the parrallels, but the ones I infer is more of the socio-political blundering rather than the nature of the combat. The situation in Iraq is a guerrilla war being waged in an urban environment; Baghdad is a city of 5-7 million, and densely packed with buildings. The slum known as Sadr City and formerly Saddam City is the Shiite enclave. It occupies a place to the north of the main city center. It is 100 square blocks of fortified hell. I have taken ground fire in helos from there. How many battles did they fight in Vietnam directly outside of the HQ's of this or that Corps level HQ, or for control of a firebase? How many Viet Cong worked in the city and then marched out into the countryside at night? Did you feel like you were losing the war when they crept up in your backyard at night, or did you just think they were a bunch of sneaky bastards? Well in Iraq they live where they fight. That is why you see fighting down on Haifa Street, which is a Sunni bastion close to the main palaces that Saddam worked from in Baghdad, and yes I have been in contact on Haifa street, have friends who have been in contact on Haifa street, and as funny as it sounds the fact that they are operating right down the street in no way indicates they are about to overrun the HQ's. It's simply a different situation. Having spent a lot of time humping jungles, and now for 4 years in the middle east, I can tell you it's not the same thing. So armchairing it from the rear with the gear, despite your very astute read on the situation, well no offense, but this isn't the same war. Do you think we should just displace 100 blocks of Sunni's to...where? There are apartments inside the IZ with local nationals living in them. As a Vietnam veteran I'm sure it must piss you off when you hear that the Viet Cong were soundly defeated during Tet, and the NVA was played out. The war was won. All it took was the cajones to drive it home, all the way to the north. I'm sure it's crossed your mind that maybe we should have just pushed a little harder. Oh wait Cronkite opened his big mouth, and America listened to the media instead of the guys on the ground who probably knew better. I do agree 100% that the military is getting screwed again, and that is where I will leave it. I don't post on this website anymore, and I don't plan on registering unless I am invited to do so, which may be a cold day in hell for all I know. Just so you understand I am responding to you from Afghanistan over a SAT feed. This is my 4th year in the war, 2 in Iraq, 2 in Afghanistan. In June it will be the start of my 5th year. I have 15 years of various FID, DFLE, DOD, and military experience."

"I would like to address a few other things. Fear_Greed: Go play with your blocks. I have seen one Canadian in Iraq, and he just walked around the main palace doing nothing. You have no say in this, and your voice is not neccessary in adult conversations. I bet you can't tell me the name of the ISAF compound on the west side of Kabul the Canadian army occupied, yet you wanna flow in here? Nappy time. Buck: From the end of the cold war until 2001 there was really nothing for red and blues to argue about. It was all pretty wishy washy. Remember the US is only a little more than 200 years old. Palestine, Iraq, all these are cradle countries. I have stood in Babylon. It looked a lot older than New Orleans." MattP: I think I may have made the statement previously, that those of us who served in the federal government, either as military men, and as other government agencies felt immediately disenfranchised by Bill Clinton who raised the OPTEMPO of repetetive deployments (Somalia, Haiti, Phillipines, etc), disruptively used the military as a blatant sounding board for social engineering (Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue), underfunded key programs such as HUMINT programs and the CIA, crippled the FBI, it is no secret the Secret Service was very ill treated by the 1st lady and the supposedly leading candidate in the democratic race, that the strikes Bill Clinton ordered were generally considered among the Joint Chiefs to be token gestures, and Bin Laden could have been killed, captured, and handed over (By Sudan) on numerous occassions, yet former president Bill Clinton refused time and time again to take these measures. The list of his failures is tantamount to falling asleep on duty. His complete neglect of anything to do with service to the nation that involved national interest in security, military, intelligence caused MANY MANY good men to walk away from careers they had grown to know and love almost like a family. How do I know this? Because I experienced it firsthand. Hell, even the reenlistment NCO in my last unit left, in fact everyone with a conscience left, not wanting to be a part of something that Bill and Hillary turned into something obscene and unappreciated. All of us knew about the events in Somalia as far back as 1992, and the events of Bakara Market on Oct 3 1993, not ten years later when that trainwreck of a movie came out. Once again how did we know about that stuff, because some of us were either there or tied into the pipeline. This war stuff isn't new news to some of us, it's been our careers for as long as we can remember. Nuff said!

QUOTE Let me address a few things. First, JosephH-you lecture me about troop strength and being able to move along BIAP HWAY and outside the IZ 300 meters like you have been there. Allow me to tell you a few things. I spent all of 2003-2004 in Iraq. I have as an estimate driven BIAP road about 250 times. During that time I was engaged on less than a half a dozen occassions. Several times by SAF, driven past incidents, and past IED's on the road. Several of my coworkers were killed on BIAP road by Chechynen militants. My principal was attacked there in his motorcade in Dec. 2003. I have seen one other group of Americans killed in that road in early 2003. Although this is tragic, it is certainly not the holocaust situation that you insinuate it might be. If the CPA had authorized it they would have barricaded it Jerusalem style and it would have been end of story, BUT remember we are there to HELP the Iraqi people. Secondly, the Green Zone no longer exists as it did early in the war, it has been called The International Zone since 2004, and civilian administrators made every effort to allow life to return to normal in Baghdad by opening the roads, and making some of the main roads passable. It is exactly this level of civilian bungling in military matters that has from the beginning set the tone for difficult times ahead. In 2003 mortars, rockets, RPG fire was not terribly frequent, with only a few incidents a month. By 2004, and possibly due to more political pressure from Washington, the hostilities were beginning to pick up. We were rocketed and mortared on an almost daily basis, with curtailing possibly by the nature of guerrilla warfare which does not allow for protracted battlefields. This was as I saw it firsthand on the ground the result of VERY lighthanded control by the Coalition Provisional Authority. NO ONE on the ground believed that the Iraqi's were content to just let the love of democracy flow in, but it was the orders coming down from the headshed. As early as 2003 I was saying we were making mistakes, and I was amazed at the amount of personal freedom we allowed the Iraqi's to have. It was as if there was a belief that they would welcome us with open arms, which was precisely the part line. In 2003 I had a conversation with 8 Iraqi men driving dump trucks waiting to clear a checkpoint in Baghdad. The gist of the conversation went like this; -------------- "You America?" "Yes" "We love Saddam" (Gestures around, and heads shake in acknowledgement) "Why do you love Saddam?" "Because he is strong man, he kills his enemies. Not like Americans, you are weak." "So you would respect me more if I killed your 7 friends right now, and then beat you senseless?" "Yes, you must be the lion to win here in Iraq. Saddam was a strong man" ------------------------ All of these men were in their 20's to 30's and were more than likely Sunni's. They were in fact a micro representation of the underlying mentality that permeated the culture. These men would want to hand wrestle with you, provoke you, in essense they were never beaten. So we took a slightly wounded opponent and turned them loose in our midst. What would Ghengis Khan have done? He would have slaughtered every single man who even LOOKED like he would put up a fight, and then folded the survivors into his own, making them his own. Iraq was never ready for western democracy, but they WERE open to complete and utter subjugation with an iron fist. Our western culture apparentally no longer has a stomach for that. It's not a matter of numbers, it's a triumph of the will. In our eyes, we could clearly see this was not going to work. You had a tangible feeling that the Iraqi's WANTED US TO BE HEAVY HANDED RULERS. This is a psychological aspect that the 'planners' of the war did not take into consideration properly, but think tank groups had wargamed into their planning. Robert Kaplan has quoted these studies as being important to the Arab mind. For decades the Iraqis had been ground under Saddams Baathist party, and this is the only thing many of them knew. I think you remember when I posted here in 2004 regarding a conversation I had with an infantry Colonel about securing BIAP road. Is the failure to secure this strategic road an indicator of the failed policy of the military? Or is it a failed policy of civilian administrators? My take is that the headshed failed the military by forcing them to put on the kid gloves immediately after the initial push which secured Baghdad. 3rd Infantry Division was literally shuffled out of Iraq shortly after the war because they were deemed too hostile to the population. My end take is this. It is difficult to win a war with your hands tied. I tend to agree with MattP. American politicians and American reliance on clean, surgical warfare, do not match the paradigm of war, which should remain firmly seated in the ancient understanding of conflict. If you look at the Romans they were brutal, and it took many years under the Roman heels before you began to earn your freedom. Apparentally the US is not willing to go to that length to win. My argument in 2004, was a COMPLETE and total reinvasion package which brought troop levels up to the 350K-400K range. Of course since apparentally I am only useful to kill in onesy-twosies my opinion must be way off base. Or may Trashkan YOUR opinion is based in pure academics which tends to be very useless at the ground level, which is where I spend part of my time anyway. Escalation of the war does not wholly depend on the infusion of more troops, but rather a willingness to allow the ones you have to do their job. I've been telling you all along about how to win a war, but some of you like Trashkan thinks there is some pure academic, surgical way this can be accomplished, but there is not. It's war. Now I can't keep cross posting like this. If you would like to continue conversing in civil dialog feel free to ask RedNose for my email. REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION

"Trashkan- I read your attack with some amusement. It's clear you have never met me. However, your words border on defamation, and make false assumptions about my role in both wars. Most jurisdictions provide civil recourse for this type of statement. I suggest you find the edit button. In fact your libel is off base completely regarding my role, which is not open to discussion here or anywhere. My political opinion however is fair game. I believe in negotiating from a position of strength, and this is perhaps the reason for the surge. I support limited escalation as sound military strategy backed by political aims. We are trying to get to a place where we can sue for peace with an edge in the negotiations would be my guess. The dems won't actually support a second attempt at victory, as the course of the conflict has not been effectively managed up to this point."

"Yes, but YOU DID post that Pelosian excrement. Fact is you've all been allowed to circle jerk for too long and need a little wake up call. Now if you want to talk about getting angry...well I'll be your Huckleberry" Last time I'm posting as proxy. I know I started it, but please go to the source if you want to argue anymore. He's easy to find on the internet. OW I concede to you.

I loved this article. Hillary is a true c**t in the very essence of the word. Bill, and I hate to admit it I voted for the man, was OK for the office in regards to domestic affairs but was a total failure in the international arena. I know you will discount this article because of the author but no matter since most of the readers on this site are slobbering limp membered liberals that would roll over at the first sign of aggression. BTW who do you think orchestrated Whitewater? Surely you don't think Bill had the brains for that? Think again...Hillary and George Soros. Anthropologist Margaret Mead, a popular professor during my years at Yale in the late 1960’s, frequently challenged students with her famous formulation that “the biggest problem for any society is to try to decide what on earth to do with its men.” Biology dictates a clear, crucial and inevitable role for women, focusing their energies on childbearing and raising the next generation. For males, however, culture must come up with some arbitrary, artificial but carefully constructed assignment to channel their considerable energies into constructive efforts. Along the same lines, the biggest problem for the current Hillary-for-President juggernaut is trying to decide what on earth to do with Bill. The campaign itself dictates a clear, crucial and inevitable role for the candidate herself, but for her peripatetic husband the cunning strategists must come up with some arbitrary, artificial but carefully constructed assignment to channel his considerable energies into constructive efforts. Unless Senator Clinton and her handlers manage some deft solution to their on-going Bill dilemma (can we call it a Bill-emma?) the former First Lady easily could fail in her drive for the White House. Though many pundits and prognosticators talked about the formidable obstacles confronting her campaign (her unhesitating vote to authorize the Iraq war, her stiff and off-putting public demeanor, her reputation as a shrill liberal ideologue) they generally refused to focus on the obvious, unavoidable problem presented by her husband. In general, Americans know far more about her troubled marriage than they do about her positions on energy independence or the Iranian nuclear threat. They also like Bill (for all his faults) far more than they like her: he remains a phenomenally engaging, fascinating and beloved public figure, while respondents in national surveys give her the highest negative ratings of any major candidate for 2008. In planning their relentless, unstoppable drive to the White House, Hillary’s lieutenants face six basic strategies for dealing with their Bill-emma, ranging from the conventional to the fanciful to the unthinkable (but we’ll think about it anyway). Those options are: Option 1: Ask Him to Accompany Her on Major Campaign Trips Like a Loving, Dutiful Spouse. For several reasons, this won’t work. Most obviously, the former President would upstage his wife at every rally and joint appearance, making her look bad and getting her furious. He is a natural, often spell-binding, incomparably charismatic speaker who forms a deep, visceral connection with both small groups and large crowds. She, on the other hand, seems stilted and awkward; she never looks like she enjoys retail politics the way he does. Anyone who’s been in the same room with both of them can tell you that every woman in the crowd will gravitate toward Bill, while every male will gravitate toward…Bill. It’s not a Broke-Back Billy sort of thing, either: it’s just that he’s warmer, more electrifying, more intriguing than she is. The fact that he’s a former two-term President, a monument to recent history, only adds to his appeal and makes her look less significant by comparison. Hillary and her staff understand that problem, and they want to avoid occasions like a much discussed recent launch of her Senate re-election campaign. Bill wanted to introduce his wife and couldn’t be talked out of the proposition, so he took the stage and then spoke about himself and his activities as a globe-trotting ex-President for 45 minutes, without notes, mentioned her name only at the very conclusion of his remarks when he finally introduced, “Your U.S. Senator, and the most wonderful wife and mother in the world...” This most-wonderful-wife then came up to the podium and read her uninspired remarks for twenty minutes before the eager, panting crowd got a chance to swarm her husband, asking for autographs and a moment of contact with the Great Man. For more than thirty years, the lady has been upstaged by the Big Lug and she wants with all her heart to break the pattern. Note Bill’s absence and virtual silence during the bally-hooed launch of her Presidential campaign. Unlike the top-flight attorney Elizabeth Edwards, or, presumably, Michelle Robinson Obama (who’s reputedly an even smarter, more successful lawyer than Hillary ever was), Bill won’t be standing behind his spouse, beaming with adulation. Aside from the constant danger of upstaging her, his very presence would remind people that Hillary’s main claim to national political stature involves her complicated marriage to this complicated guy. That’s not a message her managers need or want to reinforce. Option 2: Send Him Out to Campaign Separately, Covering States and Communities that Hillary (and her ultimate running mate) Won’t Reach. As they say in Hillary’s adopted home state: “Fuhgettaboutit!” The risks of him upstaging her are even more pronounced if he travels separately. Who do you think would draw bigger, more adoring crowds? And if she’s not by his side, there is simply no controlling him: he will succumb repeatedly to the irresistible temptation to make the evening news with unscripted comments (even if he resists more elemental temptations along the way). If Bill operates on his own and generates independent headlines, it only underscores uncomfortable questions about his potential White House role. It’s hard to imagine he’d feel satisfied by merely planning state dinners, supervising redecorating, and hosting the annual Easter Egg roll. Option 3: Send Him on a Round-the-World Good Will Tour It sounds like a joke, but veteran Clintonistas insist it’s a serious possibility. Hillary would declare (in her convention acceptance speech, if not before) that America’s popularity and prestige has sunk so disastrously under Bush that she can’t wait to begin the process of rebuilding our international stature. Therefore, she’s dispatching her significant other to meet with world leaders and huge, adoring crowds from Berlin to Beijing. One salient advantage of this plan: Bill would love it. He’s told many friends that the “love baths” he receives whenever he travels abroad make him feel uplifted and invigorated. While speaking in Latin America, Australia, Nairobi, Nepal, and Antarctica (just think of the cute, adoring penguins!) he can probably limit himself to patriotic bromides about the traditional goodness and decency of the American people, briefly interrupted by the “brutal nightmare” of the Bush administration, but now preparing for a triumphant return with the longed-for Clinton Restoration. All right, he may not really speak in Antarctica, but everywhere else he’ll draw overwhelming responses. Option 4: Keep Him Home and Out of the Spotlight Because He’s Sick Many of Hillary’s advisors seem to prefer this alternative: it’s obviously the safest course when it comes to dealing with the ex-President. After all, he’s had open heart surgery and his frail health (he does look notably less robust than he did when he left the White House) would provide the perfect excuse for keeping him out of the public eye. From one of couple’s lavish homes in Chappaqua or Georgetown, he could continue to work the phones and maintain a powerful role in the campaign and the Democratic Party, but he’d only appear in public for big, big occasions like the convention, or an election eve rally, and so forth. The idea of the ailing ex-President, suffering quietly at the side lines with his damaged ticker while his soul mate and partner in power criss-crosses the country, would invest the whole campaign with an edge of poignancy–a “Win One for the Zipper” intensity. The problem with this scheme is that there’s little chance that Bill would stand for it, and even if they tried to lock him inside some haunted mansion, Bubba would find a means to escape. Remember, this is the world’s most natural and tireless politician, who reputedly once told his intimates that campaigning was the only thing in the world more pleasurable than sex. He might be willing to give up physical intimacy during a presidential run (there’s that faulty heart, remember?) but there’s virtually no chance that he’d be able to stay away from the campaign trail. Option 5: Divorce Him For Hillary, this constitutes the Nuclear Option: nobody wants to mention it, but in a crisis that threatens obliteration it may become necessary. According to persistent Washington gossip, the former President has continued an active social life since leaving the White House. Even the cautious New York Times, in an article that reportedly enraged Senator Clinton, suggested that husband and wife spend at most 14 nights a month in the same city; other sources suggest that 14 nights a year would be closer to the truth. One credible journalist (a former editor for Newsweek, in fact) told me that he has acquired incontrovertible evidence that Bill has conducted a passionate, and unquestionably consummated, recent affair with a glamorous, wealthy and prominent married woman in New York City. There have also been bizarre but persistent rumors (accompanied by eyebrow-raising photos) of a 29-year-old blonde bombshell girlfriend in Israel (of all places) who recently broke off her relationship with the ex-President. If any of this is true, and the tabloid press secures strong indications that Big Bill has resumed his wanderin’ ways, it could force Senator Clinton to divorce (or at least separation) as the only means to salvage her campaign. If her husband has stepped out on her again with a much younger woman, and she forgives him once again, she looks genuinely pathetic – and we don’t generally elect Presidents out of pity. Republican pollster Kellyann Conway has already questioned Hillary’s leadership capabilities by asking: “If she can’t even stand up to a cheating husband, how can we expect her to contend with North Korea and Iran?” If, on the other hand, she reacts to new infidelities with a decisive, classy, but non-vindictive termination of the oddest-marriage-in-history, then it supports the idea that she knows how to handle a crisis while keeping her cool. If they ever did separate (without public bitterness, and with earnest mutual pleas to respect their privacy), Hillary might even benefit from a huge wave of sympathy and support. In a sense, going through her campaign rounds with zest and determination at the same time she suffered a break-up with the man she’s loved for nearly four decades, could provide a display of toughness and determination that could help allay inevitable concerns about the weakness and emotional vulnerability of our first female president. If the reports about Slick Willie’s cheating heart turn out to be false or exaggerated (remember the bogus stories during his Presidency about his illegitimate African-American child?), she certainly doesn’t need to dump him in order to show how macho (or is it macha?) she is. But if the media catch him in any unseemly or inappropriate behavior, the resulting personal crisis might harm Hillary’s marriage while notably helping her campaign. Option 6: Kill Him No, I don’t really believe that any of Hillary’s strategists or staffers have actually prepared plans to solve the Bill problem in the most definitive way and I’ve certainly never discussed the murder alternative with anyone close to the New York Senator (or with anyone at all, your honor, I swear to it). Nevertheless, after the public outpouring of grief and love following the death of Ronald Reagan, I do know that Bill began to make plans for his own ultimate funeral and of course hoped that he could top the Gipper in terms of posthumous adulation and affection. In fact, the recent mourning for Gerald Ford (a less consequential and popular president, by any measure, than Clinton) suggests that Bill’s passing (particularly if he dies at a relatively early age) will provoke an overwhelming, perhaps unprecedented, deeply emotional reaction from hundreds of millions of Americans. These reflections should force any serious political observer to think the unthinkable for a few moments, at least: what if (God forbid!) something happened to Bill during Hillary’s campaign? Try to imagine her as the grieving widow, heartbroken yet dignified, managing to overcome her shattering loss for the sake of the nation she loves and the principles of the man she loved. Think of the Democratic Convention in Denver, as the hall goes dark and they play an emotional tribute film to the late President, showing this electrifying leader in all his explosive vitality. They did something similar with a tribute film to JFK in the Democratic Convention of 1964 in Atlantic City (I was there). The images of the lost leader reduced all the thousands gathered in the Convention Center to hopeless, uncontrollable sobbing, and when Bobby Kennedy got up to speak about his brother it got even worse (the Democrats went on to win an historic landslide for Lyndon Johnson). Would Hillary appear at the convention, at the Presidential debates, even the Inauguration, dressed demurely but appropriately in black? Think about the emotions she would generate each time she quoted her late husband! This constitutes the ultimate nightmare for Republicans, frankly. I believe that Hillary remains eminently beatable, whatever she does with Bill, as long as he stays alive and well. If something happens to him, all bets are off. If she’s a courageous widow, trying to pick up the fallen torch from her sainted, devoutly missed late husband, she could easily ride an unstoppable tidal wave all the way to the White House. For that reason, all GOP’ers should wish former President Clinton many, many years of vibrant good health, and hope that the Secret Service continues its unblemished record of success in their dedicated efforts to keep him safe. In fact, we should make it a point to remember Bill Clinton in our prayers. I’m serious about this, and I will readily confess that I’ve never personally prayed so hard for a politician I don’t support. In other words, Viva Bill! To your health! L’Chaim! And let us say---- Amen. Michael Medved is a film critic, best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host.

Will do. You should give the guy an account. He probably knows better than anyone about a lot of this stuff. You'd be surprised at how much of the democratic party line he strongly believes in, but plays devils advocate anyway.

Own Voice: Dems and Republicans both suck. Are we not allowed to quote here? =============================== You have good points, but I think the tone needs to step down a bit. I have read 2 of your totally opinionated postings, and yes these are simply YOUR opinion based on current party doctrine. Opinion you clearly state as fact, but to my ears comes across as self righteousness. So now that we have a clear understanding on one another, let's continue on. The democrats have sat by like sheep, and the bully republicans have indeed squandered the whole freak show. So which one is better and HOW? The reds do need to step up and say "We suck", because everyone who knows anything knew they were screwed walking into Iraq with 130K instead of 500K. Which if your self righteous reading comprehension had taken note, I said was caused by the BUSH era downsizing post Gulf War 1, as well as Clinton's yellow escape from Somalia which gutted the NCO corps who no longer wished to serve under that president. Also, the young warhawks on the ground level knew it was going to turn into a knuckledragging suckfest. But damn man, take some responsibility yourselves. I don't see blues running the roads in Iraq, or climbing ghars in Afghanistan, and everything back home is still all FUBAR so how are the dems so superior? I mean do most people even REALLY know there is a war on? How has it affected your day to day commute? Your eating habits? Your social life? Have you had to stop climbing because all the mountain passes up near Mt Hood are mined and covered by snipers? You are free to speak your opinion, same as me, but let's discuss the playing field. Fact, based on your credentials listed in your profile, I assume you have no military background, federal law enforcement, or political experience base to speak from do you? I could be wrong. Fact, you have never been to any of the middle eastern countries. And if you have they were not hostile at the time. I could be wrong. Fact, you have never worked in government? If so, and you have, correct me if I am wrong. I am happy to acknowledge that experience. I bring these facts to light because once again you are stating the BLUE PARTY LINE, which is equally offensive to...how did you put it? "Embarrassed Redstaters". The BPL is equally disdainful as the current administrations screw-ups. Don't underestimate the fact that redstaters hate bluestaters almost as much as they terrorism. Fact is they view you as a significantly less honorable enemy from within. If you take an objective look at the whole Democrat versus Republican thing, within the framework of a VERY young nation, you see all the makings of a good Shiite, Sunni civil war. Honestly I find it amusing that I am even here discussing this with you, because I can see your entire argument is centered on some kind of angry center. Portland seems to have you wrapped up pretty tight, and this is the "Power Base" you will exist in. My backbone? I have my spine in the thick of the mix where it has been for many years. (Reprinted via permission of the author)

Ostensibly, was it not because the UN article didn't allow for this? It was because Bush Sr. had the common sense to listen to better men than himself which is where his son has failed time and time again.

JH, of course those are valid points, but I also think you partially missed the point, because it was not a partisan argument placing blame. Nonetheless, didn't the democrats vote in favor of the war as well, or did I miss something? They then hold equal blame since they are supposed to be participating in government. Likewise, the 'fools' who voted twice for Clinton should be held accountable. After all, it is partiallty the previous administrations failings that led up to the catalysts that led us into conflict to begin with. As far as cleaning up messes, does cutting and running, sound like clean up to you? Furthermore, if you think that was neocon speak, well you must have missed the rally, because that was moderate conservative speak. Get it right.

It's never gone over my head that for the last 5 years some of you here have done little more than lay blame at the governments feet, the militaries feet, and just about everyone in between. Never really taking stock of the fact or totally ignoring the fact there is indeed an enemy out there that would like nothing more than to walk right in here and put all preconceptions of your civil rights to rest under Ashura law. For instance, you mourn the souls at Gitmo, yet I rarely hear you make mention of bringing the killers of Nick Berg to justice. I read you discussing situations in Iraq in the same vein you throw out My Lai, yet you make no mention of the abduction and murders of American soldiers, contractors, aid workers, rights groups, and Iraqi civilians. You've forgotten your history, the ghosts of Malmedy rest knowing they were avenged through unconditonal victory. You rest on a distorted viewpoint, and the agenda falls in line with the party. You desire for the Clinton dynasty to continue with all the abject failings that administration heaped down on us, inadvertantly leading to the current situation. Yes, Clintons foreign policy bordered on ineffectual appeasement, while gathering economic incentives that gave America it's first real taste of Corporate Alice in Wonderland at a national level. In the Looking Glass that is time, the fantasy has become the horror. Smaller government, ineffective intel services cut by Clinton, military downsized by Bush 1 in the wake of Gulf War 1 "Victory". Wake up to the reality again. Cold War over, the new era of conflict ushered in. The draft has been blowing in the window for 30 years, trace it's origins. Beirut, Israel, Egypt, Somalia, Syria, France, the US, the waste of the UN. Unless you devote at least some of your obvious energy to finding a solution, which doesn't involve the wholesale selling out of American foreign policy, and has at least an iota of rigid backbone in the best Winston Churchill manner, you are going to find yourself watching your crown of thorns poking into your cerebral cortex as you watch American power and influence decline. You cannot weigh on the side of left for too long without upsetting right, and vice versa. Both sides hold equal blame in this debacle. Don't allow your voice to be drowned out again, like it has been the past 5 years. The Neocons demonstrated the fault of marching blindly to the party line. As a democrat do not let your real fears of a changing world be masked by the curtain pulled over your eyes. The threat is within AND outside. Unless we agree on some things, it will more than likely fall into the laps of later generations to deal with outright defeatist attitudes, or blind nationalistic rhetorics. Neither promotes true justice or the spirit of unity we so badly need. Does anyone believe that the current administration did a bang up job? No, of course not, they are failing us, but it is my belief that turning the US into Pelosistan is an equally disguisting proposition. Until middle ground can be reached, until we can all come together, this country will continue to falter and sputter under the weight of it's own inadequate leadership. Are the architects of the war in trouble? Of course they are. Is the new leadership going to rectify? Of course they won't. They are yin to the yang that got us into this shit sandwich to begin with. (Written and Reprinted by permission of author)

Sheet you and good old Penis Pubic wouldn't know what to do with a Cap. Cook whore.

Can you tell me the name of this peak or which map sheet I can find it on? http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/plab/data/503/9300P1000680.JPG Thanks

Pink, Thanks for the tip. I'm not looking for a flat mate, but I appreciate the suggestion. SC, I'll check that one out too. Thanks.

Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about Pique magazine.

Kevboner, what is the banned gif all about. You the man or the cunt.

If you or anyone you might know has a rental home available in these areas or proximate areas for approximate period 1 March to 1 May can you please PM me the details or contact information here? Thanks

AMAN!

Whoa!!! That's a huge F'n ski strap!! To match his cannoli.

I shit bigger chunks that you.

Shit, I had to fucking move the boat out of Dutch last night because of a tsunami warning that fucking did not happen. Now I am back flat ass tired and crabby. What the fuck are you cunts from the Seattle Metro area doing? Sucking cock or corn holeing? Fucking fags... Well, it's early or late what ever way you look at it and I have a ton of coffee in my system, so it's off to booze land to reverse the effects. See you on line latter ladies and queers.