|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
Yes I did. I'd appreciate it if you would cite some of the passages from the blog, in context, that you see as racist. If you would.
|
c'mon stevo, what possible difference would anything pointed out to you, by anyone who disagrees with you, make....as far as influencing you to alter your opinions.... i.e., look how far you've had to dig to reinforce your belief system... <b>yer reduced to posting "fringe stuff".... by fjordman</b>
fjordman ????...a guy fomenting racial division by blogging about the growing trend of rapes by Somalis, of Swedish women?
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12...in-sweden.html
<img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1949/552/1600/NYHETER-17s09-09valdtakt-512.jpg">
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12...-magazine.html
Boys....even if I agreed with your opinions....I don't, obviously....
it would be difficult for me not to consider the strong words of criticism of what amounts to a failed policy, a failed prosecution of a "war" that the pretzeldent claimed, weeks ago, to be "war against Islamic fascists". Doesn't that phrase sound silly to you? Here are the recent remarks, and three instances of references to "impeachment", between 2004 qnd 2006, of Reagan's NSA chief, retired Lt. Gen. Odom:
Quote:
http://woolsey.house.gov/SupportingF..._Testimony.pdf
TESTIMONY
THE COSTS OF THE IRAQ WAR
26 September 2006
By William E. Odom, LT GEN, USA, Retired
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to appear before
the members who are holding this hearing.
You have asked me to testify today on the costs of the Iraq.
They are many and varied, and I shall choose to focus upon a few
categories of costs.
The word “costs” naturally evokes the idea of dollar values and
lives lost. I have no special knowledge of the actual Federal funds
that have been spent on the war to date, but I believe a fair estimate
is over $300 billion and perhaps as much as a half trillion dollars. As
you know, the number of American service personnel killed in Iraq is
approaching 2,700, and the number of wounded is much greater, at
least 16,000.
As large as these estimated physical costs are, they do not
began to capture other important categories of costs. It is difficult to
appreciate them outside the context of critically important facts that
are either ignored or grossly distorted in most discussions of the war.
I shall, therefore, state those I consider most essential.
First, to understand the costs of being in Iraq, we must look
back at whose interests were served by the invasion. No American
interests were served. The interests of Iran and al Qaeda have been
hugely advanced. Toppling Saddam avenged Iran’s grievances for
his invasion of that country and eight years of war that ended in a
stalemate in 1988. More importantly, the inevitable Shiite dominance
in any successor Iraqi regime greatly enhances Tehran’s influence
there. These were unexpected gifts to the Iranian republic at0
America’s expense.
Al Qaeda is no less grateful to the United States than Iran. Our
toppling of Saddam opened Iraq to al Qaeda cadres and placed
Americans there where they would be vulnerable. It also boosted al
Qaeda’s international appeal to young Muslims, something that was
suffering after the US successful campaign in Afghanistan in 2001.
Finally, the invasion harmed US relations with Europe and NATO
allies more than anything I can recall in the history of the alliance.
Osama bin Laden has publicly noted this as a great gain for his
strategy against America.
Second, the implications of the strategic error of invading Iraq
are two. First, staying the course can make no sense. Everyday we
stay merely improves the position of our enemies while squandering
our wealth. Even if an Iraqi regime can be created that prevents the
breakup of the country, it will be extremely oppressive, anti-American,
and under considerable Iranian influence. To “stay the course” is to
say that “we must continue to advance the interests of Iran and al
Qaeda, not American interests.” At the same, being in Iraq paralyzes
the US strategically, denying it both diplomatic and military flexibility
that are necessary to create a coalition of major powers to design and
implement a larger strategy for stabilizing the whole region, not just
Iraq.
Once these two facts are recognized – that we are fighting in
the interests of our enemies in Iraq and that we cannot improve
things there in the larger region until we withdraw – we can begin to
talk sense about what to do next. In the meanwhile, the costs go up
everyday. We squander American lives and money, and lose allies
and the moral authority we need and used so effectively during the
long course of the Cold War.
Understanding this context is absolutely essential to
recognizing the larger costs of the war. International organizations
like the United Nations and security alliances such as NATO have
been the key to leveraging US power by two or three times for
managing the international order and for making the United States
the wealthiest country in history. The longer we remain bogged down
in Iraq, the closer we come to the destruction of these institutions that
have served us so well, financially, militarily, politically, and morally.
2
The costs to the United States in every one of these categories rise
every additional day we continue the war.
It will be objected that the mess we leave in Iraq will be even
more costly. Precisely the contrary is the truth. Why? First, in
economic terminology, those are “sunk costs.” They cannot be
avoided no matter how long we stay.
Second, to use military terminology, wise commanders know
when to make tactical withdrawals in order to regain the strategic
initiative. The wisdom and moral courage to change course for
strategic purposes is what we need today, not mindless rhetoric
about “staying the course.” “Cutting and running” from Iraq is neither
cowardly nor imprudent. It is the only way to recover from what is
turning out to be the greatest strategic mistake in American history.
3
|
Quote:
Short video excerpt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDNcJ...elated&search=
Long video excerpt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voLzi...elated&search=
Lt. Gen. Odom Speaks Truth In US Capitol Basement
Wednesday, 27 September 2006, 10:15 am
Opinion: David Swanson
Rep. Woolsey and 15 Other Congress Members Hold Hearing on Iraq
Lt. General Odom speaks truth in basement of U.S. Capitol. Dome shakes.
By David Swanson
Present (whole time or briefly, in order of arrival): Representatives Lee, Woolsey, Jackson-Lee, Rothman, Kilpatrick, Conyers, Hinchey, Owens, Kaptor, Hoyer (Hoyer!?, yes Hoyer, but he left quickly and did not get a chance to speak), Tierney, Farr, Watson, Delahunt, Shakowsky.
Corporate media present: apparently none.
Panel 1: Witnesses: Lt. Gen. William Odom, Dr. Paul Pillar.
live blogging below...
Pillar spoke first. He addressed the question of whether the disaster in Iraq is the result of poor execution or of the initial decision to go in at all. "Most of what we are seeing," he said, "and in particular the communal violence, is an almost inevitable result of having ousted the dictator Saddam Hussein."
Odom spoke second and addressed points of argumentation that he hears too often and is tired of hearing, including being told to ignore the past and focus on the future, to ignore how we got into Iraq and only talk about what to do from here on. Unless, Odom said, we discuss whose interests this war served, we cannot decide what to do. It served no U.S. interests. It served the interests of al Qaeda and Iran.
Al Qaeda recruiting declined in 2002, Odom said, but spiked after the U.S. invaded -- rose in Asia as well as in the Middle East. And Iraq is a great training ground for terrorists now. In addition, Odom said, a wedge is being driven between the United States and its European allies. "Osama understands that; we seem not to." The invasion of Iraq, Odom said, probably saved al Qaeda from ceasing to exist.
"Iran's clerics," Odom added, "must have been equally surprised and delighted." Terrorists can now train in Iraq and engage in violence in Israel.
The longer the war goes on, Odom stressed, the more it benefits al Qaeda and Iran.
During questions and answers Odom addressed the notion that U.S. troops need to do a better job of training Iraqi troops. If we do that, he said, the military will take over and install a dictatorship. The problem is not one of soldiers' skills, he said, but of political loyalties.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee said that the House is voting today on more money for the war, and that she will vote against it, but that she is glad to have successfully included in the bill a stipulation that no money can be spent on permanent U.S. bases in Iraq during 2007.
Odom again spoke about what would happen when/if the United States pulls out. The aftermath is going to be great, he said. It was going to be great the day you went in, but the longer you wait the greater it will be. And, Odom added to noticable effect, this will be the greatest strategic defeat in American history.
Congressman Rothman said that he had voted for the war because he had believed Bush and Rumsfeld, and that he now understood they had been lying. He said he saw the same approach now underway with Iran, and that he thought it was aimed at the coming U.S. elections.
Odom again spoke of leaving Iraq and said "It takes a very high level of ignorance to believe America can leave behind in Iraq any government that will not be anti-American."
But Odom argued that staying longer in Iraq would make things worse, whereas getting out would dramatically improve America's standing in the world. Our standing went up as soon as we got out of Vietnam, he said.
"Beating the war drums on Iran," Odom said, "is a disaster that will make this one look small."
Odom did not hesitate to criticise the Congress Members in the room. He recalled the day on which Republicans in Congress, in response to Rep. John Murtha's bill, proposed a bill to simply withdraw from Iraq. The Democrats scattered in fear, Odom said. He recommended that they should have introduced a bill to send 600,000 more troops to Iraq.
Congressman Conyers replied that the Republican bill did not allow amendments, so the Democrats could not have done that.
Odom said that the most important thing for the United States to do now is to talk to Iran, a nation with which we have many common interests. Both nations, Odom said, oppose al Qaeda. One wants to sell oil, the other wants to buy. Iran's government hated Saddam Hussein and should appreciate what the US did. "We have two issues," Odom said, "Hezbollah and nukes, and they're going to get nuclear weapons - there's nothing we can do about that."
Conyers thanked Odom and Pillar but said that he and his colleagues who agree with him cannot convince other Congress Members. "There's one thing that gets to members, and that's constituents...." In the end, conyers said, the question is how do we get more of our people to tell their representatives that the Progressive Caucus members are right?
Pillar drew a comparison between Iraq and Afghanistan. The jihad in Afghanistan for 10 years against the Soviet Union served to train terrorists, he said, and we are still experiencing the results. Iraq is now that training ground, and we may see results for many years, he said.
Rep. Hinchey asked Odom "How do we get out?" Odom's reply came without a pause: "Well, the Constitution gives the House the right to impeach."
<b>Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF7IR...elated&search= </b>
|
Quote:
http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese01252006.html
<b>January 25, 2006</b>
Supports the US Empire, But Opposes the War
Gen. William Odom on Iraq
....General Odom was asked by an Iraq veteran who had just returned how he knew the war was lost when we have only been there for three years. Odom described the problems in Iraq as beyond our ability to control. The multiple ethnic groups in Iraq, the divisions in Arab culture and their lack of history with a limited state makes "Iraq one of the hardest places on earth to put in place a liberal democracy." Odom sees spreading democracy, especially liberal democracy, as very difficult.
When asked how we can bring the president to heel? Odom responded with a question <b>"how do you impeach the president?"</b> He went on to express concern about the weakening constitutional balance in the United States.
When it came to Congress, Odom talked about meeting with Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) where he congratulated Jones for "taking the lead because then it won't go to the radical left and we won't be spitting on our soldiers." Regarding Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA), Odom said he "absolutely agrees with Murtha."
Odom came to oppose the Vietnam War, not from the left but from the right and he is doing so on Iraq as well. He saw Vietnam as uniting our enemies and failing to contain China. He sees the same thing occurring in Iraq. The unintended consequences of strengthening Iran, undermining U.S. influence in the Middle East and the world and strengthening Osama bin Laden make this a war counterproductive to U.S. interests. He pointed out that like Vietnam the Iraq War was justified by false intelligence comparing the Gulf of Tonkin with the Weapons of Mass Destruction claims. Odom saw three stages in Vietnam: 1961-65 getting into the war; 1965-68 understanding we are not fighting it right, changing approach to a pacification policy; 1968 to end--Vietnamization and phony diplomacy in Paris. He sees us at the end of Phase II in Iraq and beginning Phase III this year. We are seeing the Iraqization of the war and concludes we will see Congress starting to break with the President more and more; and the final conclusion will be the U.S. leaving the "Green Zone" much like the U.S. left the embassy in Vietnam.
Odom noted that the United States is "running out of Army" and that people underestimate how difficult the Iraq War is on the Army. Indeed, he said "if we took a referendum among U.S. troops 80 percent would favor leaving. We might be winning tactically, but we are losing strategically." He predicted a dramatic draw down by next Christmas with some type of political cover invoked to accomplish it......
|
Quote:
http://www.antiwar.com/bock/?articleid=2572
<b>May 14, 2004</b>
Former NSA Director: War Weariness Growing
...."I'm not sure I want to help the administration move on," Gen. Odom said. "I'd rather impeach them.".....
|
....and stevo....where is the coverage of Gen. Odom's three years of anti-Bush policy comments.....by the "liberal media" that you, Ustwo, Brent Bozell, and now, your "fjordman", constantly complain about the existence of?
Quote:
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12...in-sweden.html
......<b>Sweden's largest newspaper</b> has presented the perpetrators as "two men from Sweden, one from Finland and one from Somalia", a testimony as to <b>how bad the informal censorship is in stories</b> related to immigration in Sweden. .....
|
<b>So....yesterday, you resort to posting the rantings of the racist Norwegian, "fjordman".....what will you come up with tomorrow, to take our attention, and of course, yours....from any contemplation of the validity and implications of what Lt. Gen. Odom (retired), has been speaking about for three years? Keep electing folks who prevent Odom from testifying before any bipartisan congressional committees, and instead, offer up your "fjordman"! </b>
Last edited by host; 10-06-2006 at 09:25 AM..
|