this would be separate book from the one you claim to have written about global warming? either actually been published?

Hell no! I write them for fun. I only have five works published all of them by the government although next December God willing I have one coming out it has nothing to do with politics it is a novel. Just waiting for permission from two agencies.

People are interested in getting out because we are there for reasons that we didn't go in for. I.E. No nation building, no WMD, no end in sight.

So the stockpile of WMD that has been found is not good enough for you?
The nation building became a necessity because of the collapse of their government and to prevent anarchy we stayed to help just like we did after World War 2 because we saw how great it is to leave after WWI. (Remember Hitler) The no end in sight crap is the same thing published in the New York Times after WWII. As things settle down we will pull out. I don’t see any of the “no end in sight” crowd screaming about the troops still in Germany, Italy, and Japan. Where are the “no end in sight” crowd shouting that we have to get our troops out of Haiti. We still have troops getting killed in all four nations but no one has said a word about it since the 1950’s. So if you are serious and honest then either demand we pull all our troops out from around the world or shut up.

"if you cared you would want this over as quickly as possible without having to come back a third time."

Good point. I do care, and I do want it over, I think we have done enough "good" "over there"

This war did not begin about us building Iraq into a free and democratic Iraq, it was sold to the public as a hunt for WMD, and a regime change, to that end, the stated goal was to stabilize Iraq enought to permit a vote, and election of a government, turn the country, with it's problems over to the Iraqi government and then the silent but implied notion was to leave.

To date, I am unaware of any WMD found in country, that is to say any nuclear bombs or even low grade radioactive waste, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, only naturally occuring desert anthrax bacteria. Regime change has been a success, Iraq was stable enough for a vote, a government has been elected, yet we still remain.

"To say we'd be returning for a third time is ridiclious, under what circumstances can you make that asertion? Al-Qaeda infestation? Doubtful as Sunni and Shia Iraqi's are about as happy to have Al-Qaeda there as they are to have us there. My point about the permanently injured American and alliance soldiers is that is the untold story in the media. There is no daily reporting on soldiers that are injured for life, no count of them, just the deaths.

"I am uninsurable and no one cared about me or my people that got hurt"

I wasn't alive during the war in Vietnam, but for your service let me extend a thank you. This is exactly my point today, dozens of troops are mutilated by the actions of war, in Vietnam, the rate of deal to wounding was 1:3, today it's more like 1:10, or 1:12, because we are able to keep more soliders alive and surviving from their war wounds.

"I don’t see any of the “no end in sight” crowd screaming about the troops still in Germany, Italy, and Japan. Where are the “no end in sight” crowd shouting that we have to get our troops out of Haiti.We still have troops getting killed in all four nations but no one has said a word about it since the 1950’s. So if you are serious and honest then either demand we pull all our troops out from around the world or shut up."

Paladin you are full of it. That entire paragraph doesn't apply to the current conflict at all.

In Iraq since the government has been elected what large scale goals have our troops accomplished besides being place holders in the region? What of the insurgent violence? Do you see that increasing upon our departure?

At the begining of this war, there were never a set series of conditions to leave, after the war was over a few short weeks, then it was the "terrorists" planting all these roadside bombs and irregular guys making attacks, all terrorists of course, throught the standing up of their governement, it isn't Al Qaeda or terrorists it's been insurgents and people fighting to rule themselves, criminals exploiting the situation working in a society that is much less secure and much less organized. These are problems we can't solve but only the Iraqi government can.

Keeping a garrison of American troops in Iraq isn't solving any of those problems but only prolonging the wait before the coming battles the Iraqi's themselves are going to fight, with themselves. That and slowly killing and injuring our troops. I don't think it's fair to ask a voluntary force to go on deployments for 12 or 18 months only to extend them more months because we can't figure out how to remove ourselves from the situation.

The insurgency is an Iraqi problem, staying there forever or even a few more years isn't going to change that.

To date, I am unaware of any WMD found in country, that is to say any nuclear bombs or even low grade radioactive waste, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, only naturally occuring desert anthrax bacteria. Regime change has been a success, Iraq was stable enough for a vote, a government has been elected, yet we still remain.

Yeah, I know except for the New York Times reports of chemical weapons shells discovered last year. It only got one day play in the news just like the biological weapons discovered a few months before that. When Iraq surrendered after the first Gulf war they gave an accounting of chemical and biological weapons they still had. They agreed to allow the UN to destroy them. We are still looking for the stuff that the UN did not get to before they were kicked out of the country. We are still looking for the nuclear equipment that Germany sold them. If we can't find that then what else is hidden in the country? This is stuff that we know they had, they admitted they had not stuff that intelligence community from many nations speculated they might have.

We have lost no battles and have dominated the battle field like no other war in history. We won the war yet people want us to run away. What is it with you people, is losing so good to you that you can’t stand to win even once? Once again the nation seems divided by anti-war activists and Democrats seeking political advantage. Once again there are leaks in the news papers of critical information that is dangerous to us and helpful to the enemy. Once again we are showing the world that if we get our nose bloodied we will run from a fight. This fight is one that holds our lives in the balance. It is better to have Afghanistan and Iraq as magnets for terrorist than it is for them to use their ever shrinking resources to come here.

Have we really won? If you look at the definition of "win," we haven't. We may have overthrown Saddam, but we clearly haven't won the war. We're not even close, in my opinion.

Also, have you ever heard the saying, "Run away, and live to fight another day." Would you rather stay, and have this war drag us down, and wear our country down to "skin and bones," or back out - so that we are not messed up, etc...

WWW Link


Why is it that there is such an aggression? Why is it, that it's "WE MUST FIGHT!"

Why can't we just accept that we are losing? Do we have to be macho, and arrogant (sometimes ignorant) about it? We lost, so what?

Are we better, if we are weak and sore because of continuing to be in Iraq -or- Do we back off, so that later...if need be, we can have our forces for the actual battles against the terrorists?

Everyone loses, lets just back off, and regroup. I.e. Live to fight another day.

I am not slamming Democrats or Liberals but showing how there lust for power will help the enemy win the war just like they did in Vietnam.

Erm, what about Republicans/Conservatibes lust for power? Don't go pointing fingers now, there is enough blame to go around.

Also, why not point out the republicans/conservatives who are against the war...or, in fact, why not point out the others? The independents, etc...give the entire picture, not just the "anti liberal/democrat" one.

"Paladin wrote: I don’t see any of the “no end in sight” crowd screaming about the troops still in Germany, Italy, and Japan. Where are the “no end in sight” crowd shouting that we have to get our troops out of Haiti.We still have troops getting killed in all four nations but no one has said a word about it since the 1950’s. So if you are serious and honest then either demand we pull all our troops out from around the world or shut up." Mr. Greene replied: Paladin you are full of it. That entire paragraph doesn't apply to the current conflict at all.

I disagree with you here. It does apply, after WWII the New York Times said it was a desaster and that there was no plan to get our troops home. In Germany our troops were attacked for the first two years of the occupation by loyalist to Hitler, the same was true in Japan but not as bad, my father was in Japan during that time. It is part of war, you will have people that will not give up the ghost. In this war that happened because it was planned. Most of them have been killed and the majority being killed and captured now are from out of the country meaning that they are enemy forces from another aspect of the war on terror. It is better to deal with them there. Those people are coming from Iran for the most part but people fear we will go to war with Iran. I believe we will if we have to just like in Korea but when we are ready instead of just jumping into another conflict without preperation.

At the begining of this war, there were never a set series of conditions to leave, after the war was over a few short weeks, then it was the "terrorists" planting all these roadside bombs and irregular guys making attacks, all terrorists of course, throught the standing up of their governement, it isn't Al Qaeda or terrorists it's been insurgents and people fighting to rule themselves, criminals exploiting the situation working in a society that is much less secure and much less organized. These are problems we can't solve but only the Iraqi government can.

The reason you don't set those goals is because war is fluid. Things change if you set the goal of changeing leadership and after the leadership has been changed another problem pops up where leaveing is worse than staying do you stay or go? At this point from a military point of view it is safer to stay than to leave. If we pull out the little problems that the government can solve will have to be put on the back burner to deal with the larger problems. AQ as already stated that they have to win in Afghanistan and Iraq or they will lose the greater war. Iran has stated that they need to control Iraq in order to unify the Arab world under their flag. This is what we are fighting now.

Paladin you gotta give me a chance to catch up man hehe.

"We did not have to stay to stablize the country but given that our enemy is adept at taking over countries that have weak leadership it is prudent to stay for our own protection."

The enemy if you are talking about is Al Qaeida (I can never spell it right), they didn't have political control of Afghanistan, The Taliban did, When we went terrorist hunting they were given the option of handing them over or being taken out of power. Since then the real threat in Afghanistan is lack of economic developement, because of infastructure, and an insurrection-like resurgence of Taliban, Al Qaeda has no interest in basing in Afghanistan or any country in which we plan to invade or currently occupy. Simply because they cannot operate freely.

Now as for Iraq, the insurgent movement is largely divisive between the political groups in the country not Al Qaeda, foreign fighters from the neighboring region also have irregular freedom fighters, and covert ops working there subverting the new government as you would expect them to. Again not Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda's modus operandum is to lay low inside the country of basing and use remote areas for training and planning, the rural areas where they can easily bribe their way in and out with no questions asked.

When a shepard is offered a months' or half years salary to house someone for one night no questions asked they do it.

Regarding WMD...
"I know except for the New York Times reports of chemical weapons shells discovered last year"
"If we can't find that then what else is hidden in the country? This is stuff that we know they had, they admitted they had not stuff that intelligence community from many nations speculated they might have."

The whole issue is cloudy, Saddam has maintained since before the invasion that they destroyed the stockpiles, prewar weapons inspectors, that guy on the UN team form the USA, not Hans Blix but the other guy maintained before Operation Infinite Justice/Iraqi Freedom, that there was nothing there.

To date since the invasion there have been over 125,000 troops in country at any time, "weapons inspectors" as Rush Limbo called them, that haven't found massive stockpiles of chemical weapons, not even the stuff we gave them/the knowledge to build back in the 80's, mostly traces of stuff, but nothing there. Certainly no nuclear stockpiles, the "centrifuges" were supposedly indicative of nuclear weapon manufacture. All the while North Korea has developed and tested a bomb, and Iran is actively seeking one, of the three Iraq has turned out to be the nation without one.

The bottom line here, within a month of the invasion Tommy Franks was lighting a cigar in every palace Saddam had, within 6 months it was pretty clear Iraq didn't have a massive stock pile of WMD, the semi-trucks supposed mobile weapons labs, turned out to be well read it...

"They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons."

observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html

So now we are 150,00 troops into the depth of Iraq 6 months down the line, setting up a government, capture of Saddam less then a year away, insurgency attacks basically where they are today in November 2006, bacl to 2003-04 the leadership is putting on the face that the attacks are subsiding and the country is largely in our control. Militia control of Fallujah is a "concern", so we level the city, ah but war is hell, in this case major combat ops over, so we can declare anybody caught as an unlawful combatant. How am I doing so far in recapping this for ya?

Fast forward to today, the government of Iraq is democratically elected by the people. Security inside Iraq is still largely sh*t because the police are corrupt because we didn't have the number of troops to secure a country of this size evidently. The leadership has mismanaged the war, because all they could do was keep one of those sh*t eating smiles on their face the entire time, and only now is the extent of the nightmare being realized because there is no acceptable way out, nobody to turn the reigns over to. Sound like Vietnam to you?

Three years after the war is declared over, troops are still dying and being mauled as rapidly as before the combat operations ceased.

"Will you get people wounded that will bitch about it? Sure but until they raise above the 10% factor I won't worry about it."

What do you mean here I fail to understand what that statement means.

"The cost you mention is one the people in the military know about. If you did not notice it until the war started then shame on you! These people put their lives on the line for you and me you should KNOW what price freedom."

Hey I took military history in highschool, and I was alive during Desert Shield and Storm, all through the 90's, I'm a huge fan of the Navy and Air Force, and would say I know quite a bit about both. My neighbor is a Marine.

To say I didn't notice the price of the war until it started, I should be shamed, well that is an disrespectful and insulting remark.

I wasn't in congress, I didn't vote to approve a war, I also supported it in spirit because I believed that it would be a quick operation similar to the one in Afghanistan, estimates in the six month range were quoted, in my mind a year or perhaps two at most worst case. I also expected that military planners would have a plan to leave and that the civillian leadership would know when the hell to leave. It's not my fault that the war has gone this way.

I did and do support the original reasons for invasion, regime change and securing the hunt of WMD, once those were achieved, all we should have been obligated to do was get the country turned over to an Iraqi elected government. Let them figure this out.

"you should KNOW what price freedom"

I am quite well aware of the price of freedom but it is not our freedom that is being fought for in Iraq it is their freedom. Twelve to eighteen month deployments with extensions on top of that, lying politicians embroilling us into messes that sow seeds of hate world wide against us, 3100+ dead American GI's to date, ten thousand more critical injured, missing limbs, eyesight, hearing, is this the price you are speaking of because it's the price I am no longer willing to bear for a war we now know was wrong to initiate.

When the hell did we get sold into the business of fighting for other people's of the world freedom anyway? Helping sure, but exclusively fighting, acting as a police force. It wasn't a part of the pre-war speeches I recall listening to, and beyond that, isn't it the Iraqi people who should be standing up for themselves not us, putting down their own rebellion, fighting their own damn battles? Are we to believe there is some new domino theory of countries turning to radical Islam? I mean when does the line between reality and unproven fantasy become straight and clearly delinated?

"Unlike in Vietnam the troops want to win."

So you are saying that the troops in Vietnam didn't want to win the war? But troops in Iraq do and that is going to make the difference?

"Why can't we just accept that we are losing?"

We aren't truely losing but we sure as hell aren't winning, with the current process of staying the course, measure 2 months ago, 3, 6, 12. What has changed in country in the last year? Nothing we've just occupied the territory, spent more money, wasted more lives. This is an Iraqi problem, We can offer aid, as I'm sure we will for a long long long long time, but troops in country, that is their responsibility, staying another year, two, five, ten, won't change the fact, that it is the Iraqi's themselves that have to fight the insurgency in order to have peace and order.

Would you expect Canadians to police our city streets in New York City if cops there were having a difficult time of it? I mean come on. The time has come to go and take care of other interests.

"You are welcome, but I was not wounded in Vietnam, I was wounded in the Republic of the Philippines in 1977 just after my birthday."

Sorry about getting that wrong, I thought I had read it, and since you were talking about Vietnam it just stuck in my mind. Again let me thank you for your service, you are part of what has made our country a greater good in the world, and official or not, you deserve recognition for your sacrifices.


"I disagree with you here. It does apply, after WWII the New York Times said it was a desaster and that there was no plan to get our troops home. In Germany our troops were attacked for the first two years of the occupation by loyalist to Hitler, the same was true in Japan but not as bad, my father was in Japan during that time. It is part of war, you will have people that will not give up the ghost. In this war that happened because it was planned. Most of them have been killed and the majority being killed and captured now are from out of the country meaning that they are enemy forces from another aspect of the war on terror. It is better to deal with them there. Those people are coming from Iran for the most part but people fear we will go to war with Iran. I believe we will if we have to just like in Korea but when we are ready instead of just jumping into another conflict without preperation."

I wanted to make sure I got your whole statement quoted correctly. In Germany during WW2 it was a total war, the German people were beaten both economically, but psychologically, they had nothing left, obviously you've seen the pictures of post war cities in Germany, nothing left but burned out hulks, then they were forced to bury the Jews of the concentration camps and basically have memory blocked the entire period out. Not only were they beaten down during WW2, but suffered the same defeat in WW1, the difference was the post war period was the UN treated the people with dignity and respect, not just the people but the nation. It was the same in Japan, where they had the mentality that they could not be beaten on home soil.

In Iraq, the war was over so quick, the hardships were not brought about by us but by Saddam, you saw them running through the streets stepping on his face in Baghdad, or Mosul where-ever that statue was, they hated him, and were relatively happy regarding us. But not everyone was, because it became clear that we were occupiers rather then liberators, at first the insurgency wasn't as big a reported threat as the supposed terrorists, and though they both were rampant at one time, the vast majority of violence is of these death squads and insurgent violence. Al Qaeda is not a major presence in the country, foreign fighters and insurgents make up the vast majority.

Both of those wars you've mentioned were defensive, Germany declared war on us, Japan obviously made the first move, and so did North Korea when they attacked South Korea, in Iraq we were re-invaders and agressors more so then in any other conflict in history save Afghanistan. This is part of the pre-emptive strike Bush doctrine, though the premise is solid, the intel has to be there, and not just ours but independently collaborated, which it really wasn't.

It was molded to fit the policy which is where we went wrong. Not only that but the excuse was to get us into Iraq the idea, to establish and support a second democracy in the region.

"As long as it looks like we are winning they will support us and fight them. Their mentality says if we pull out we have lost."

To hell with the mentality of anybody else, what matters when it comes to our country, our troops is our mentality, this is the wrong war at this time to be pursuing in Iraq. I'd love for the Iraqi's to have freedom, but they need to fight for it on their own. Just like we did in 1776. Only this time the enemy isn't colonialism, but terrorism and an insurgency of rebels. Be it Iraq to determine how best to fight their battles.

"The reason you don't set those goals is because war is fluid."

B.S. The goals were stated before the war, regime change, and hunt for WMD, give the Iraqis a chance to govern themselves, because peace loving people don't attack their neighbors.

The've morphed into security, and staying the course as long as necessary, nation building.

You set goals, and measurable milestones in anything you do in life, business, government so you know if you are coming or going. Bush was supposed to be the "accountablity" president. We've seen just how well that accountability trait has worked out for the nation, with Rumsfeld at DOD and Brown at FEMA.

"Those people are coming from Iran for the most part but people fear we will go to war with Iran. I believe we will if we have to just like in Korea but when we are ready instead of just jumping into another conflict without preperation."

As well they should, Iran has a credible as well as very modern military in certain areas, and sizable too. The terrain is not Iraq like but much more like Afghanistan, there also is no great place to base an airforce and provide air support unless you consider Iraq your base. hmmmmm.

Not only that but Iran hasn't had the mortal defeat Saddam's forces took back in 91, so they've had almost 20 years since the Iran-Iraq war to build up a capable and credible force both in the air, under the water, and on the ground. War with Iran would be very very serious for the United States. A war in Korea would be over in a few weeks, maybe a month or two, they would be won or lost in the first 72 hours, depending on how much momentum the North could generate, as well as if they use tactical nuclear weapons or not. Either way neither war would be pretty, neat or clean, nothing like Operation Desert Storm. Korean penisula war also would open up the can of worm of Chinese involvement which would not be a great thing for the United States unless they were allied or neutral.

"The insurgency is a local problem and not much of one."

This is where you me and the generals differ, I along with the generals believe that the majority of the violence in Iraq right now is largely from foreign fighters fighting on either side of the insurgency, against the government, Al Qaeda is a minor player if involved at this point in any meaninful way at all. Certainly whoever comes to power in Iraq should the government not survive, likely they wont be inviting Al Qaeda to stay, because their aims are totally different. Iraqi's want stability in their region and nation. Al Qaeda wants our destruction. Any time Al Qaeda had a success we come knocking with warplanes, cruise missiles, and lately ground forces. So it would be in every Iraqi's interest to rid their country of Al Qaeda which is what they have largely done.

Are you telling me you think Al Qaeda is wholly or in large part responsible for the violence in Iraq and that you also buy into the argument that we are confronting them on the streets of Baghdad rather then insurgents. Explain how that makes sense when their stated goal and method of operation is targeting of civillians inside the United States?

It doesn't make sense and anybody who isn't inside the influence of the Bush administration can see that.

Again that argument is twisting the facts and evidence to support the policy which is staying in Iraq at all costs, for as long as it take to pump out the oil and establish a nation that isn't going to ever attack us or their neighbors again. In the years since human civillization sprang from mesopotamia, i.e. modern day Iraq, we have been at war with each other and, the United States, sticking around for a few more months/years/decades isn't going to do a damn thing to change that. I would love to believe that we could just magically exert our influence on a people and make it so, but Vietnam is an example where staying longer has cost nothing but lives and money and the benefits were reaped after we left.

I think very similar things of Iraq. If the nation is to survive they will do it by working together against their common problems, with or without our help. If they are to decide to seperate into several smaller countries, well that's their choice. Kuwait has already done so, it has worked out quiet well for them.

A unity government isn't the end all be all of how to live in the middle east.

...although I did enjoy this informative article.

The enemy if you are talking about is Al Qaeida (I can never spell it right), they didn't have political control of Afghanistan, The Taliban did, When we went terrorist hunting they were given the option of handing them over or being taken out of power. Since then the real threat in Afghanistan is lack of economic developement, because of infastructure, and an insurrection-like resurgence of Taliban, Al Qaeda has no interest in basing in Afghanistan or any country in which we plan to invade or currently occupy. Simply because they cannot operate freely.

Actually Mr. Greene, the Taliban was financed by AQ (see I can't spell it either)when they first got going in order for AQ to have a base of operations since they were kicked out of another country, I think it was the Sudan.

You are incorrect about basing. They used Afghanistan as an officer training school, and for years they trained people to go to other countries and build networks that work outside of AQ's control. AQ means the base or foundation, it was not expected to survive as a single unit but instead a loose collection of cells which is harder to locate and hunt down. The attack in Afghanistan was to break up the training center but the damage was done years before 9/11. They seemed to have operated freely enough to train thousands of cell leaders and send them out around the world. They were smart enough to do this first then make huge attacks upon their enemies knowing that the base would be shut down and the leaders hunted down and killed.

"These are not freedom fighters. Don't ever give them a title that elevates them to the status other than terrorist and cold blooded murderers."

What I mean but "freedom fighters" is fesicious, nobody from Iran or Syria is fighthing for freedom at all. Neither is Al Qaeida, nor am I saying they are freedom fighters. They are murderous criminals nothing more.

The "freedom fighter" was an expression that I probably shouldn't have used to describe the foreign irregulars that are crossing the border and adding to the death squads and insurgency violence.

"Bin Laden's goal is the destruction of Saudi Arabia and bring down the house of Saud."

That may have been the goal at one time, but it's pretty clear that they are willing to attack Americans no matter where they are on the globe, but their real passion is for devastating civillian attacks against civillian infastructure as well as military targets to a lesser degree.

I agree that he has aimed to bring down the Saudi's as well and there have been incidents in their country as well. I recall the Gulf war and how he has used it as basis for attacks against us and the other "infidels"

"He is also getting help from Iran whos goal is world domination. The old saying the enemy of my enemy is my friend holds true with this nut."

That may be true as it would seem they have a common enemy in the United States, however Iran's leadership seems much more interested in, hell bent even in the destruction of Israel, at least the president guy, as for the Aye O Tollas, I'm not convinced they either care about UBL or are as relevant as they were during the Gulf war period.

If Iran's goal is world domination they had better think twice. Neither the United States, nor the chinese, or Isreal, will allow Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. It just isn't likely to happen.

That may be true as it would seem they have a common enemy in the United States, however Iran's leadership seems much more interested in, hell bent even in the destruction of Israel, at least the president guy, as for the Aye O Tollas, I'm not convinced they either care about UBL or are as relevant as they were during the Gulf war period.

I am sorry my dear friend, but you don't get it. Iran, the president guy, has stated that his goal is to convert or kill every person on the planet to Islam. Israel is just the nearest target. He knows that if he messes with Israel he will have the US to deal with. UBL is a tool for Iran nothing more than misdirection which is useful for Iran. If we put all our energy in finding UBL we won't notice Iran. Notice that when we started to get close to restricting Iran's nuclear program we had a dust up in Lebanon.