You must set the ad_network_ads.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).
Republican "leadership" on the Wurr on Turr [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

PDA

View Full Version : Republican "leadership" on the Wurr on Turr


Yerdaddy
12-23-2007, 06:33 PM
Here's another in a long list of examples of the way the current administration has handled the hunt for Bin Laden and the broader Wurr on Turr. And I say "Republican" leadership because the only Republican presidential candidates who don't promise to do things exactly as Bush has done them are McCain and Paul.

Billions in Aid to Pakistan Was Wasted, Officials Assert (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/24military.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print)

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — After the United States has spent more than $5 billion in a largely failed effort to bolster the Pakistani military effort against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, some American officials now acknowledge that there were too few controls over the money. The strategy to improve the Pakistani military, they said, needs to be completely revamped.

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.”

The $5 billion was provided through a program known as Coalition Support Funds, which reimburses Pakistan for conducting military operations to fight terrorism. Under a separate program, Pakistan receives $300 million per year in traditional American military financing that pays for equipment and training.

Pakistan’s military relies on Washington for roughly a quarter of its entire $4 billion budget.

In interviews, American and Pakistani officials acknowledged that they had never agreed on the strategic goals that should drive how the money was spent, or how the Pakistanis would prove that they were performing up to American expectations.

After Six Years, a Plan

Early last week, six years after President Bush first began pouring billions of dollars into Pakistan’s military after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Pentagon completed a review that produced a classified plan to help the Pakistani military build an effective counterinsurgency force.

The plan, which now goes to the United States Embassy in Islamabad to carry out, seeks to focus American military aid toward specific equipment and training for Pakistani forces operating in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas where Qaeda leaders and local militants hold sway.

For their part, Pakistani officials angrily accused the United States of refusing to sell Pakistan the advanced helicopters, reconnaissance aircraft, radios and night-vision equipment it needs.

“There have been many aspects of equipment that we’ve been keen on getting,” said Maj. Gen. Waheed Arshad, the Pakistani military’s chief spokesman. “There have been many delays which have hampered this war against extremists.”

United States military officials said the American military was so overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan that it had no advanced helicopters to give to Pakistan. American law also restricts the export of sophisticated drones, night-vision goggles and other equipment for security reasons.

There is at least one area of agreement. Both sides say the reimbursements have failed substantially to increase the ability of Pakistani forces to mount comprehensive counterinsurgency operations.

Today, with several billion more in aid scheduled for the coming years, American officials estimate it will take at least three to five years to train and equip large numbers of army and Frontier Corps units, a paramilitary force now battling militants.

“I don’t forecast any noticeable impact,” a Defense Department official said. “It’s pretty bleak.”

The program’s failures appear to be a sweeping setback for the administration as it approaches its final year in office. American intelligence officials believe Mr. Bush is likely to leave office in January 2009 with the Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden still at large.

“We haven’t had a good lead on his exact whereabouts in two years,” another senior American military official lamented recently.

Al Qaeda More Active

This spring, American intelligence officials said that the Qaeda leaders hiding in Pakistan’s tribal areas had reconstituted their command structure and become increasingly active. Backed by Al Qaeda, pro-Taliban militants have expanded their influence from the remote border regions into the more populated parts of Pakistan this year and mounted a record number of suicide bombings in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Coalition Support Funds program was intended to prevent that from happening. Under the program, Pakistani military officials submit bills and are paid for supplies, wear and tear on equipment and other costs, as well as for the American use of three Pakistani air bases, according to American officials.

Pakistani officials say the Coalition Support Funds money goes into the national treasury to repay the government for money already spent on 100,000 troops deployed in the tribal areas. But American military officials say the funds do not reach the men who need it. That is especially the case for helicopter maintenance and poorly equipped Frontier Corps units.

During a recent visit to the border, an American official found members of the Frontier Corps “standing there in the snow in sandals,” according to the official. Several were wearing World War I-era pith helmets and carrying barely functional Kalashnikov rifles with just 10 rounds of ammunition apiece.

“It is not making its way, for certain, we know, to the broader part of the armed forces which is carrying out the brunt of their operations on the border,” the senior American military official said.

For years, how money from the Coalition Support Funds was disbursed to the Pakistani government was veiled in secrecy. The size and scope of the payments to Pakistan was held so closely that one senior American military officer in Afghanistan said that he did not know that the administration was spending $1 billion a year until he attended a meeting in Islamabad in 2006.

“I was astounded,” said the officer, who would not speak for attribution because he now holds another senior military post. “On one side of the border we were paying a billion to get very little done. On the other side of the border — the Afghan side — we were scrambling to find the funds to train an army that actually wanted to get something done.”

But by mid-2007, the $1 billion-a-year figure became public, largely because of the objections of some military officials and defense experts who noted that during an ill-fated peace treaty between the military and militants in the tribal areas in 2005 and 2006, the money kept flowing. Pakistan continued to submit receipts for reimbursement, even though Pakistani troops had stopped fighting.

Even then, however, American officials said there was little effort to rethink the purposes of the aid, or impose stricter controls.

Pakistan is a country ballanced between modernity and corrupt traditionalism, and between secular pro-western political and military elite and fundamentalist pro-Taliban political and military elite. This means, with Bin Laden hiding and the Taliban recovering its strength in Pakistan, the country needed our attention as well as our aid in order to bolster it while ensuring that the government and military was truly on board with our Wurr on Turr. But the Bush administration policies towards Pakistan have been as incompetant as they were towards Iraq, and the decision to fuck up Iraq has drawn so much of our military, intelligence and management resources and talent away from Afghanistand and Pakistan that we let Pakistan pick our pockets like tourists and Bin Laden will probably die of old age.

And now Republicans are asking for more of the same, Part III.

earthbrown
12-23-2007, 06:45 PM
like it or not, PAKISTAN is an important ally in the region, and we need to tread lightly when dealing with them...

Anyway I am glad we have not caught Bin Laden, it has given us more of an excuse to keep killing militant muslims.

Also I believe Bin Laden is dead, the last video was most obviously altered and fake imho.


K

epo
12-23-2007, 06:57 PM
Anyway I am glad we have not caught Bin Laden, it has given us more of an excuse to keep killing militant muslims.



For yourself being an obvious conservative, I cannot imagine a statement more un-American coming from the mouth of a citizen of this nation.

earthbrown
12-23-2007, 07:16 PM
For yourself being an obvious conservative, I cannot imagine a statement more un-American coming from the mouth of a citizen of this nation.

we have not caught him because he is dead....

What end would it serve to get him? TO execute him like Saddam?

If he still is alive, he is having to deal with the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of his followers being killed by our superior military might.

IF he was alive he would be taunting us with more videos...

Killing militant muslims is very american.


K

scottinnj
12-23-2007, 07:17 PM
I just got done reading this article, then came here, and sure enough, another astute board member has posted it.

Jesus, I hate crap like this. I get so sick of hearing how our money is just being poured down the drain and in cases like this, actually used against us and what we want to accomplish.

This is not a Republican debacle. This has happened throughout our history. But this Republican administration has to come to terms with this particular offense.

And the band played on...

foodcourtdruide
12-23-2007, 07:18 PM
like it or not, PAKISTAN is an important ally in the region, and we need to tread lightly when dealing with them...

Anyway I am glad we have not caught Bin Laden, it has given us more of an excuse to keep killing militant muslims.

Also I believe Bin Laden is dead, the last video was most obviously altered and fake imho.


K

So, you don't necessarily care if the "militant muslims" are a legitimate threat or that we even have a reason to kill them.. as long as we ARE killing them? That is an absolutely insane thought.

epo
12-23-2007, 07:23 PM
we have not caught him because he is dead....

What end would it serve to get him? TO execute him like Saddam?

If he still is alive, he is having to deal with the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of his followers being killed by our superior military might.

IF he was alive he would be taunting us with more videos...

Killing militant muslims is very american.


K

So you are trying to tell us that the US Government is lying to us about the life status of Osama Bin Laden? To what means?

I can't think of anything more ironic than your statement of "killing militant muslims" being American, as crazied al Qaeda are fed to believe that killing "infidel American christians" is a great & holy thing.

Under that circular logic, you sir are no better than them.

scottinnj
12-23-2007, 07:35 PM
we have not caught him because he is dead....

Killing militant muslims is very american.


K


http://www.geocities.com/reystos/board_building/LUNATIC_circle.png

Dude!
12-23-2007, 07:42 PM
i :wub: earthbrown

DarkHippie
12-23-2007, 07:45 PM
Killing militant muslims is very american.




mod quote!!!!!

pennington
12-23-2007, 08:09 PM
Also I believe Bin Laden is dead, the last video was most obviously altered and fake imho.

I have no inside information but I've felt since Day 1 we'll never know when Bin Laden is killed. What would be the point? Make him a martyr?

There are reports that say they know where he's hiding in the mountains in Pakistan but if we bomb him it will it will destabilize the Pakistani government. That may be true. But really, if he was still alive, wouldn't he be releasing videos every week taunting us?

I have a feeling, again no inside information, there is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes involving Pakistani cooperation.

earthbrown
12-23-2007, 08:35 PM
So you are trying to tell us that the US Government is lying to us about the life status of Osama Bin Laden? To what means?



I believe you mean "to what end"

"Beware the military-industrial complex"

The perpetuation of the war or military action gives BILLIONS to companies that produce the implements of war. Many of todays politicians will be tomorrows top earning lobbyists for these companies.



Look at the last Bin Laden video, to me it is fake, I am not an expert and could be 100% wrong, but I believe it to be fake.

I believe the govt is not sure he is dead, it is to naive to think that the govt could keep a secret of that magnitude,

Yerdaddy
12-23-2007, 09:36 PM
IJesus, I hate crap like this. I get so sick of hearing how our money is just being poured down the drain and in cases like this, actually used against us and what we want to accomplish.

I don't think it's necessarily being used against us; it's being used for what Pakistan thinks is its top priority - preparations for a possible war with India - rather than what we gave it for, which is supposedly our top priority - fighting terrorism.

This is not a Republican debacle. This has happened throughout our history. But this Republican administration has to come to terms with this particular offense.

This is a Republican debacle for Republican voters to come to terms with. This is an example of the monstrous incompetance that this administration has shown at every step of the Wurr on Turr, and Republicans have tolerated and apologized for all along. Sure, after three years of rat-fucking Iraq Republicans finally became embarassed and rejected most of their support for Bush's handling of it while trying to salvage the credibility for an ideology that Bush represented so well up to that point. Claims of "Bush isn't a real conservative" don't and shouldn't reassure non-conservative Americans that conservatism is the salvation of America when Bush was able to beat McCain for the 2000 Republican nomination in large part because Republicans viewed him as a better conservative than a guy who broke party ranks too often. McCain had a resume to be President. Bush didn't. You all chose Bush. And the fact that you're in the process of doing the exact same thing - supporting candidates who are deeming it more beneficial to out-believe-in-Jesus the rest of the field over the guy who is actually willing to take the risk of talking facts and policy ideas and criticize his own party leaders on issues like Iraq, (and has the best resume!) - leads me to believe that you're ready to make the exact same mistake a third time, which is to chose ideology over competancy and rationality. And it's the incompetancy of extreme ideologues in the Bush administration's foreign policy team that caused this fuck up in Pakistan and every other fuck-up in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Palestine, Iran, North Korea, etc. etc. etc.

So, no, disowning Bush does not solve the problem.

[The word "you" in this post refers to Republicans and conservatives as a whole, and not specific individuals, and noting the usual minority who are exceptions to the generalization.]

scottinnj
12-23-2007, 09:56 PM
I don't think it's necessarily being used against us; it's being used for what Pakistan thinks is its top priority - preparations for a possible war with India - rather than what we gave it for, which is supposedly our top priority - fighting terrorism.

It's still a drain of our resources, even if it doesn't mean that the money is directly putting our troops in harms way. And a future war with India will be a disaster. It will really, really destabilize an area of the world that is already on the brink of chaos, and who will answer the phone when my Dell Laptop battery finally dies? That's a wakka wakka, but in the joke here is the irony: many people who are barely living now will be conscripted into a war that has a high probability of going nuclear. And even if that is contained to the two countries, the economic ramifications alone to the rest of the world is priceless. Oil flow is stopped, trade routes destroyed and millions of refugees that will be needing our attention.



This is a Republican debacle for Republican voters to come to terms with. This is an example of the monstrous incompetance that this administration has shown at every step of the Wurr on Turr, and Republicans have tolerated and apologized for all along. Sure, after three years of rat-fucking Iraq Republicans finally became embarassed and rejected most of their support for Bush's handling of it while trying to salvage the credibility for an ideology that Bush represented so well up to that point. Claims of "Bush isn't a real conservative" don't and shouldn't reassure non-conservative Americans that conservatism is the salvation of America when Bush was able to beat McCain for the 2000 Republican nomination in large part because Republicans viewed him as a better conservative than a guy who broke party ranks too often. McCain had a resume to be President. Bush didn't. You all chose Bush. And the fact that you're in the process of doing the exact same thing - supporting candidates who are deeming it more beneficial to out-believe-in-Jesus the rest of the field over the guy who is actually willing to take the risk of talking facts and policy ideas and criticize his own party leaders on issues like Iraq, (and has the best resume!) - leads me to believe that you're ready to make the exact same mistake a third time, which is to chose ideology over competancy and rationality. And it's the incompetancy of extreme ideologues in the Bush administration's foreign policy team that caused this fuck up in Pakistan and every other fuck-up in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Palestine, Iran, North Korea, etc. etc. etc.

So, no, disowning Bush does not solve the problem.

[The word "you" in this post refers to Republicans and conservatives as a whole, and not specific individuals, and noting the usual minority who are exceptions to the generalization.]

I understand that next point all too well. It seems that Huckabee has risen to the top of the heap by driving home to the base that he is the best Christian in the Bunch, subliminal cross or not.

I'm hoping for a melt-down "yeaahhhh!" moment happens to the two top religious candidates, Huckabee and Romney. Then I hope the Biden joke; "noun-verb 9/11" begins to resonate with the rest of us. And then McCain gets the nod.

I'm as of this moment, voting for McCain in the primaries. Or epo. Whoever makes me the VP ticket so I can go all Cheney on the PIMB/FIFB candidates. I'll eat 'em for breakfast.

Yerdaddy
12-23-2007, 10:06 PM
It's still a drain of our resources, even if it doesn't mean that the money is directly putting our troops in harms way. And a future war with India will be a disaster. It will really, really destabilize an area of the world that is already on the brink of chaos, and who will answer the phone when my Dell Laptop battery finally dies? That's a wakka wakka, but in the joke here is the irony: many people who are barely living now will be conscripted into a war that has a high probability of going nuclear. And even if that is contained to the two countries, the economic ramifications alone to the rest of the world is priceless. Oil flow is stopped, trade routes destroyed and millions of refugees that will be needing our attention.

Absolutely.

I understand that next point all too well. It seems that Huckabee has risen to the top of the heap by driving home to the base that he is the best Christian in the Bunch, subliminal cross or not.

I'm hoping for a melt-down "yeaahhhh!" moment happens to the two top religious candidates, Huckabee and Romney. Then I hope the Biden joke; "noun-verb 9/11" begins to resonate with the rest of us. And then McCain gets the nod.

I'm as of this moment, voting for McCain in the primaries. Or epo. Whoever makes me the VP ticket so I can go all Cheney on the PIMB/FIFB candidates. I'll eat 'em for breakfast.

That's what I like to hear. We NEED McCain right now. But that requires your fellow Republicans to recognize that fact before it's too late.

A.J.
12-24-2007, 03:00 AM
As long as some of that money for Pakistan that was siphoned off went to them building a viable command and control system for their nukes, I'll sleep well at night.

Well, not LAST night. Damn insomnia.

Yerdaddy
12-24-2007, 06:07 PM
we have not caught him because he is dead....

What end would it serve to get him? TO execute him like Saddam?

If he still is alive, he is having to deal with the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of his followers being killed by our superior military might.

IF he was alive he would be taunting us with more videos...

Killing militant muslims is very american.


K

Your claims that he's dead and the last video was fake are baseless and represent your preference to suck Bush's dick than to protect America.

Al Qaeda Strikes Back (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86304/bruce-riedel/al-qaeda-strikes-back.html?mode=print)By Bruce Riedel
From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2007

Summary: By rushing into Iraq instead of finishing off the hunt for Osama bin Laden, Washington has unwittingly helped its enemies: al Qaeda has more bases, more partners, and more followers today than it did on the eve of 9/11. Now the group is working to set up networks in the Middle East and Africa -- and may even try to lure the United States into a war with Iran. Washington must focus on attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions in which they thrive.

Bruce Riedel is a Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He retired last year after 29 years with the Central Intelligence Agency. He served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East Affairs on the National Security Council (1997-2002), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Near East and South Asian Affairs (1995-97), and National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Intelligence Council (1993-95).

A FIERCER FOE

Al Qaeda is a more dangerous enemy today than it has ever been before. It has suffered some setbacks since September 11, 2001: losing its state within a state in Afghanistan, having several of its top operatives killed, failing in its attempts to overthrow the governments of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. But thanks largely to Washington's eagerness to go into Iraq rather than concentrate on hunting down al Qaeda's leaders, the organization now has a solid base of operations in the badlands of Pakistan and an effective franchise in western Iraq. Its reach has spread throughout the Muslim world, where it has developed a large cadre of operatives, and in Europe, where it can claim the support of some disenfranchised Muslim locals and members of the Arab and Asian diasporas. Osama bin Laden has mounted a successful propaganda campaign to make himself and his movement the primary symbols of Islamic resistance worldwide. His ideas now attract more followers than ever.

Bin Laden's goals remain the same, as does his basic strategy. He seeks to, as he puts it, "provoke and bait" the United States into "bleeding wars" throughout the Islamic world; he wants to bankrupt the country much as he helped bankrupt, he claims, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The demoralized "far enemy" would then go home, allowing al Qaeda to focus on destroying its "near enemies," Israel and the "corrupt" regimes of Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. occupation of Iraq helped move his plan along, and bin Laden has worked hard to turn it into a trap for Washington. Now he may be scheming to extend his strategy by exploiting or even triggering a war between the United States and Iran.

Decisively defeating al Qaeda will be more difficult now than it would have been a few years ago. But it can still be done, if Washington and its partners implement a comprehensive strategy over several years, one focused on both attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions that allow them to thrive. Otherwise, it will only be a matter of time before al Qaeda strikes the U.S. homeland again.

The senior members of al Qaeda and the Taliban recovered quickly. In early 2002, they hid in the badlands along the Pakistani-Afghan border. Fighters went underground, and the trail for the top three men (bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's top deputy) went cold almost immediately. For the next two years, al Qaeda focused on surviving -- and, with the Taliban, on building a new base of operations around Quetta, in the Baluchistan region of Pakistan.

Al Qaeda also moved swiftly to develop a capability in Iraq, where it had little or no presence before 9/11. (The 9/11 Commission found no credible evidence of any operational connection between al Qaeda and Iraq before the attacks, and the infamous report connecting the 9/11 mastermind Mohamed Atta with Iraqi intelligence officers in Prague has been discredited.) On February 11, 2003, bin Laden sent a letter to the Iraqi people, broadcast via the satellite network al Jazeera, warning them to prepare for the "Crusaders' war to occupy one of Islam's former capitals, loot Muslim riches, and install a stooge regime to follow its masters in Washington and Tel Aviv to pave the way for the establishment of Greater Israel." He advised Iraqis to prepare for a long struggle against invading forces and engage in "urban and street warfare" and emphasized "the importance of martyrdom operations which have inflicted unprecedented harm on America and Israel." He even encouraged the jihadists in Iraq to work with "the socialist infidels" -- the Baathists -- in a "convergence of interests."

Thousands of Arab volunteers, many of them inspired by bin Laden's words, went to Iraq in the run-up to the U.S. invasion. Some joined the fledgling network created by the longtime bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who had fled Afghanistan and come to Iraq sometime in 2002 to begin preparations against the invasion. (Zarqawi had been a partner in al Qaeda's millennium plot to blow up the Radisson Hotel and other targets in Amman, Jordan, in December 2000. Later, in Herat, Afghanistan, he ran operations complementary to al Qaeda's.) Zarqawi's network killed an officer of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Laurence Foley, in Amman on October 28, 2002 -- the first anti-American operation connected to the invasion.

ROOT AND BRANCH

The U.S. invasion of Iraq took the pressure off al Qaeda in the Pakistani badlands and opened new doors for the group in the Middle East. It also played directly into the hands of al Qaeda leaders by seemingly confirming their claim that the United States was an imperialist force, which helped them reinforce various local alliances. In Iraq, Zarqawi adopted a two-pronged strategy to alienate U.S. allies and destabilize the country. He sought to isolate U.S. forces by driving out all other foreign forces with systematic terrorist attacks, most notably the bombings of the United Nations headquarters and the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad in the summer of 2003. More important, he focused on the fault line in Iraqi society -- the divide between Sunnis and Shiites -- with the goal of precipitating a civil war. He launched a series of attacks on the Shiite leadership, holy Shiite sites, and Shiite men and women on the street. He organized the assassination of the senior leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, in the summer of 2003, and the bombings of Shiite shrines in Najaf and Baghdad in March 2004 and in Najaf and Karbala in December 2004. Even by the ruthless standards of al Qaeda, Zarqawi excelled.