|
|
| Post Number: 51
|
GEOKARJO 
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Sep. 16 2003,8:06 pm |
|
   |
"Are we stretched too thin?" Time magazine thunderously asked on a recent front cover. "U.S. forces are straining to meet missions in Iraq, Pentagon officials tell Congress," according to a headline a few days later in The New York Times. Imperial overstretch is here.
It did not take long.
Only two years after the al-Qaida terrorist attacks of Sept., 11, 2001, and less than half a year after the U.S. Army and Marines carried off a lightning three-week conquest of Iraq with virtually zero casualties, the U.S. global military deployment is stretched dangerously thin, with dire potential consequences if a second full-scale conflict with a rogue nation such as North Korea should erupt.
Senior military officials and political figures openly admit that the U.S. Army Reserve and National Guard are seriously overworked. Senior Army officers are reported in the media as expressing concern that the massive strain of "overstretch" and rapid rotation into low-morale combat zones with escalating casualties might rapidly lead to a massive exodus of experienced veterans especially non-commissioned officers, the backbone of the superb, all-professional force.
A glance at U.S. global deployments makes clear where the "big, black hole" in U.S. global military over-stretch is: It is in Iraq.
Currently the conflict sucks up 161,500 U.S. troops, including 8,000 National Guardsmen -- and women -- and 12,000 Army Reservists. Excluding the Reservists and National Guard volunteers, that means 140,000 regular Army troops are still bogged down in Iraq, a nation of 25 million people, and Kuwait. That is a full 20 percent of the entire manpower of the U.S. Army.
Yet even with that relatively massive force there, the Army is critically undermanned for the job of maintaining security and rebuilding civic society in Iraq, as virtually all experts who are not government spokesmen agree.
Senior U.S. serving and recently retired officers speaking to United Press International on condition of anonymity have said at least twice as many, and perhaps more than three times as many troops -- 300,000 or 400,000 in all -- might be needed to do the job.
This is in large part, they say, because Iraq's long land desert borders are wide open to infiltration from neighboring Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Iran, and Islamist jihad guerrillas and their supporters have been taking full advantage of the fact.
Meanwhile, the global picture of U.S. troop deployments shows other striking anomalies.
Two-and-three-quarter years after President George W. Bush took office vowing to end his predecessor Bill Clinton's commitment to bogging down U.S. troops in futile "nation-building" adventures in Africa and the Balkans, Bush has committed more than 30 times as many U.S. troops as Clinton ever did to Bosnia and Kosovo for the most ambitious "nation-building" operation of all in Iraq.
There are also still 9,600 U.S. troops bogged down in Afghanistan, where the administration's "nation-building" strategy to replace the Islamist Taliban, former hosts of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida group, is now widely acknowledged to have collapsed in a chaotic and increasingly bloody shambles.
Meanwhile, 5,100 U.S. peacekeeping troops remain where Clinton committed them: in the Balkans. After nearly three years in office and with a global imperative of hunting down bin Laden and destroying al-Qaida farther away from victory than ever, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his team have not gotten around to extricating themselves yet.
Other force deployment conundrums abound in Northeast Asia. Some 31,500 U.S. troops remain deployed at the moment in South Korea. That is a larger number than are deployed across the entire United States for domestic security at a time when concerns about possible future mega-terrorist attacks, including with weapons of mass destruction, are greater than ever. The total number of regular Army troops deployed at home for domestic security is 28,600, almost 3,000 less than those still tied up in South Korea.
In fact, Rumsfeld and his civilian strategists want to draw down the South Korea force and use it more agile, aggressive ways -- their favorite adjectives -- to hunt down al-Qaida across the length and breadth of Asia. But a new problem has emerged to throw doubts on that strategy, too.
Pulling out those troops could dangerously escalate tensions with North Korea as Pyongyang might very well interpret the move as removing the "safety tripwire" of U.S. troops that guarantees America will not attack the North. For if it did, those forces would be "hostage" to the overwhelming firepower of as many as 13,000 North Korean artillery tubes north of the demilitarized zone.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 52
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 17 2003,9:47 am |
|
 |
Do I get to say "I Told You So" Now?
Rumsfeld Sees No Link Between Iraq, 9/11
I do wish I had a copy of the discussion we had on the Tribune forum on this-
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 53
|
Bubba
Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 17 2003,10:29 am |
|
|
Slave, you so are right. This war in Iraq looked like and smelled like a turd long before this administration began it. How could we be so lucky to have Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz helping our poor blind President with his foriegn policy. I've been a Republican since birth, but I can not stomach the crap that this administration keeps coming up with. Linclon was once credited as saying; "They lie and relie until they are totally relieable!" I have always thought that was a great line, and now I have this administration to apply it to.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 54
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 17 2003,10:35 am |
|
|
Liberal--| Quote | | "What would you call a person that lived in the "Region" of Palestine? " |
Since Palestine is NOT a nation, but a region, would you call a resident of the Urals a "Uralian"? A resident of the Pampas a "Pamponian"? Someone from the former Northwest Territories of Canada (now called Nunavut) a "Nunavutian"? Someone from Brittany a "Brittanian"?  What WOULD you call someone from the rain forest? Someone from Saudia Arabias Empty Quarter? Someone from the Rocky Mountains? All of these REGIONS show up on maps, and are better defined than the ever-changing "Palestinian" area, but we don't try to identify them as a nation-state.
Edited by jimhanson on Sep. 17 2003,10:57 am
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 55
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 17 2003,11:55 am |
|
|
When there was no country called America only a region with ill defined borders owned by many countries. Didn't the American indians live here? And when people moved here from europe weren't they Americans?
Also, you call the people that lived in the Pampas region "Pampas Indians" not Pamponians and a native or inhabitant of the Brittany region was a Breton, not a Brittanian.
One last thing here is the dictionary definition of "Palestinian"
Palestinian
adj : of or relating to the area of Palestine and its inhabitants; "Palestinian guerrillas" [syn: Palestinian]
n : a descendant of the Arabs who inhabited Palestine [syn: Palestinian]
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 56
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 17 2003,12:31 pm |
|
|
Liberal--define "American". The term "American" referred to people inhabiting the AREA depicted in the crude maps of Italian navigator AMERIGO Vespucci (sp?)--the area includes North America, Central, and parts of South America--not too precise. The term has come to mean "U.S. citizens--yet, if you want to really offend Mexicans and South Americans, try using it in that context. They will tell you that THEY are Americans, too!
You call the people that lived in the Pampas region "Pampas Indians". There WERE no indiginous people in the region--| Quote | | "Only in NW Argentina was there a native population with a material culture"--encyclopedia.com |
--and they certainly weren't "Indians". ("Indians" is about as precise a term as "Palestinians"!  )--the Pampas extend from South-central Argentina into Uraguay.
Finally, | Quote | "Palestinian
adj : of or relating to the AREA of Palestine and its inhabitants; " |
(emphasis mine) makes my point--it IS an AREA or REGION, not a country--as mentioned earlier, the ancient states of Israel and Judea were included in the AREA known as Palestine--and would therefore have as much claim on the area as ANYONE. Nobody has a claim on the name of Palestine, any more than we have a claim on the name Americans.
This has become an exercise in history and semantics (though an interesting one! ). I have long agreed that the U.N. made a huge mistake in putting a Jewish state in the middle of an Arab world (so much for "world consensus and wisdom ). I wish it wasn't there, but the decision is not mine to undo. I think CPUslavwe has the best idea--give them a deadline to "declare peace"--or start all over again!
Edited by jimhanson on Sep. 17 2003,12:38 pm
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 57
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 17 2003,2:05 pm |
|
|
This has not been an exercise in semantics. This has been an exercise in me trying to get you to admit you're wrong and that there is a Palestinian people. I've supplied you with maps and facts that prove you were wrong.(about both Trans-Jordan and Palestine) And all you do is tell me that this fact(or map) is inaccurate because of this reason or that reason. But, you have yet to post a fact that backs up your original statement where you said, | Quote | | there ARE no Palestinian people--any more than "Ebonics" is a true language. There wasn't a Palestine for hundreds of years--the area at different times has belonged to many different countries, and for the hundred years or so before, had been ruled by the British as Trans-Jordan. |
Why do blame the UN for Isreal? Why don't you blame the U.K. and the Balfour doctrine. Here is a copy of the letter from Lord Balfour that started it all.
| Quote |
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
|
Even Lord Balfour acknowledged there was a Palestinian people.
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 58
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 17 2003,2:22 pm |
|
|
Anybody that wants to get in the middle of this one better have the wisdom of Solomon.
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 59
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 17 2003,2:50 pm |
|
|
And I post page after page of encyclopedia text and quotes that shows there hasn't been a palestine (I'm not even going to capitalize it any more) since shortly after Biblical times --that the area formerly known as palestine was ill-defined--that during the time that your map was printed (1836) the area was ruled by the Egyptians--and that more recently than palestine even EXISTED, it was called Israel and Judea. Why don't we call it that NOW?
| Quote | | "Why do blame the UN for Isreal?" |
you ask?
From Encyclopedia.com | Quote | | "The militant opposition of the Arabs to such a state and the inability of the British to solve the problem eventually led to the establishment (1947) of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, which devised a plan to divide Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a small internationally administered zone including Jerusalem." |
The U.N. recognized Palestine as an AREA, with claims by BOTH the Arabs and the Jews. The U.N. erred 56 years ago--the British couldn't solve the problem during their mandate--nobody has for 1800 years--we aren't going to solve it today. Back to CPU's solution.
Edited by jimhanson on Sep. 17 2003,3:03 pm
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 60
|
usmcr
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 17 2003,4:24 pm |
|
|
any one interested in the jewish state & the palastines should read the book "the Haj' by leon uris. it is a fictional account of the birth of the state based on fact. his other book "exodous" relates to the earlier era. both books are excellent reading material to understand the difficulties between the arab & the jews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
