Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
....why couldn't we just have one ESPECIALLY this time of year to appreciate and send our thanks and love to those who have chosen to protect our rights.....
|
Pan, you posted the line above, as part of your argument. You can change my mind, I'll post an apology here and I'll thank our troops for their service and post a sincere holiday greeting to all of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, if you can back up your rhetoric.
How are "our rights" better protected by continued US occupation of Iraqi and Afghani territory?
Here is the impact of deploying US troops on the ground in Afghanistan since late 2001, and in Iraq since early 2003:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/us/20army.html?ex=1332043200&en=4fe5ca80b6708d8d&ei=5088">Army officials concede that the unit is not capable of getting at least an initial force of several hundred to a war zone within 18 hours, a standard once considered inviolate.</a>
The preceding sentence is "clickable", read the article. Are our troops in a better position to "protect our rights" and "keep us safe", now, or four years and ten months ago? Isn't "keeping us safe", the justification for maintaining a standing, professional military?
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090702050.html
Are we safer today?
<Six Years After 9/11 and Three Years After the 9/11 Report, Is the U.S. Ready to Get Serious About Terrorism?
By Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton
Sunday 9, 2007; Page B01....
...Four years ago, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld famously asked his advisers: "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"
The answer is no.
U.S. foreign policy has not stemmed the rising tide of extremism in the Muslim world. In July 2004, the 9/11 commission recommended putting foreign policy at the center of our counterterrorism efforts. Instead, we have lost ground.
Our report warned that it was imperative to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries. But inside Pakistan, al-Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability," according to the National Intelligence Estimate. The chief threat to Afghanistan's young democracy comes from across the Pakistani border, from the resurgent Taliban. Pakistan should take the lead in closing Taliban camps and rooting out al-Qaeda. But the United States must act if Pakistan will not.
We are also failing in the struggle of ideas. We have not been persuasive in enlisting the energy and sympathy of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims against the extremist threat. That is not because of who we are: Polling data consistently show strong support in the Muslim world for American values, including our political system and respect for human rights, liberty and equality. Rather, U.S. policy choices have undermined support.
No word is more poisonous to the reputation of the United States than Guantanamo. Fundamental justice requires a fair legal process before the U.S. government detains people for significant periods of time, and the president and Congress have not provided one. Guantanamo Bay should be closed now. The 9/11 commission recommended developing a "coalition approach" for the detention and treatment of terrorists -- a policy that would be legally sustainable, internationally viable and far better for U.S. credibility....
....And finally, no conflict drains more time, attention, blood, treasure and support from our worldwide counterterrorism efforts than the war in Iraq. It has become a powerful recruiting and training tool for al-Qaeda.....
<h3>...We also lack a legal framework for fighting terrorism without sacrificing civil liberties.</h3> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board created in response to our recommendations has been missing in action. The board has raised no objections to wiretaps without warrants and to troubling detention and interrogation practices. It even let the White House edit its annual report. Now strengthened by a new law, the board must become a firm public voice in support of civil liberties....
|
Quote:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004972.php
Unaccountable Musharraf Aid Spent Unaccountably
By Spencer Ackerman - December 24, 2007, 10:59AM
Stop the presses! When the U.S. gave Pervez Musharraf a dumptruck full of cash after 9/11 -- $10.58 billion and counting, <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004658.php">mostly in untraceable cash transfers</a> -- it didn't exactly care how he spent it, as long as he was sufficiently bought off as a U.S. ally for the war on terror. Lo and behold: Musharraf spent his cash how he pleased, and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/24military.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp">not on U.S. "priorities" for Pakistan!</a>
A case in point: now that al-Qaeda's senior leadership has reconstituted itself in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province, U.S. officials fret that Musharraf didn't use his free money to build up a promised counterterrorist force for the FATA.
In interviews in Islamabad and Washington, Bush administration and military officials said they believed that much of the American money was not making its way to frontline Pakistani units. Money has been diverted to help finance weapons systems designed to counter India, not Al Qaeda or the Taliban, the officials said, adding that the United States has paid tens of millions of dollars in inflated Pakistani reimbursement claims for fuel, ammunition and other costs.
“I personally believe there is exaggeration and inflation,” said a senior American military official who has reviewed the program, referring to Pakistani requests for reimbursement. “Then, I point back to the United States and say we didn’t have to give them money this way.”....
|
Have "our rights", increased, stayed the same, or eroded since March, 2003? So, should I send them a greeting to show my sppreciation to them for "trying", when I know that they are deployed in places where the result is a lessening of our potential protection options, not an enhancing?
Should I send the greeting of appreciation for the job that they are doing, this year, next year...when would there have to be results of their service demonstrated before holding the show of support and appreciation? Should I make believe that they are in the right places at the right time, keeping us safe, and "protecting our rights", when I see no indication of their activity doing anyhting greater than increasing hostility towards them and our country, as "our rights" are withdrawn by the ministrations of their CIC, and the cost of their operations pushes our debt into a heavy burden left for our grandchildren?
Maybe if there were no holiday greetings emanating from the homeland, they would attempt to find out why.....or demand that their commanders, up to and including their CIC, tell them, and us, the truth about the progress of "the mission" and it's actual purpose.