RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,174817,00.html
Speaking truth to power. Good stuff, Jeff! Keep it comin'!

I've wasted 5 mins of my life reading this article and I'll never be able to get it back. Complete waste of time Jeff Huber articles ftl.

It wasn't a waste, you're just to locked into the HYPE to know it.

quote:

The military experts" the media hire to "educate" their audiences are, in fact, covert Pentagon information operatives.

Allllrrrrighty then....

Now Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki says we have to leave. Administration bull feather merchants have tried to deny he really means that—Maliki was misinterpreted, or drunk, or he was trying to impress some hooker he met online, or what have you—but Maliki keeps saying it, so it sounds like he really, really does mean it, and his Shiite rival Muqtada al Sadr really means it too, as does Grand Ayatolla Ali al Sistani. The Sunnis, well, if they don't like it, they can go fish in a sand dune. Whether the administration can talk its way out of this crack remains to be seen.


The above quote from the paper is arrogant and stupid all at once.

quote:

Originally posted by Anbar7:
Now Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki says we have to leave. Administration bull feather merchants have tried to deny he really means that—Maliki was misinterpreted, or drunk, or he was trying to impress some hooker he met online, or what have you—but Maliki keeps saying it, so it sounds like he really, really does mean it, and his Shiite rival Muqtada al Sadr really means it too, as does Grand Ayatolla Ali al Sistani. The Sunnis, well, if they don't like it, they can go fish in a sand dune. Whether the administration can talk its way out of this crack remains to be seen.


The above quote from the paper is arrogant and stupid all at once.

How so? Maliki has said over and over, that there will be no agreement without a time-table for withdrawal. Is this not true?

Yet Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain have said over and over that such a time table would embolden the enemy? Well, then who's the enemy?

One point in this article really rang home to me. The plain fact that without the cooperation of the so called Liberal Media, we never would have gotten into Iraq in the first place. The Times especially ran front page story, after front page story, hyping the weapons that Iraq had. They even went further than the administration in their claims - And each and every one of these stories was repeated as gospel all over the country.

Dave

I've resigned myself not to get rejected the day the troops are out of Iraq. For Pete's sake, isn't that what we hope for? Why in the world can the number of troops in Iraq start a war on a different front by an administration that will leave office far earlier than our troops leaving Iraq. Four months compared to 40 months.

I draw this conclusion.

Foreign combat troops are to be gone in 40 months.
And from thier own lips:

"Even if the withdrawal is completed by 2011, some US troops could remain to train Iraqi security forces, he said". chief Iraqi negotiator Mohammed al-Haj Hammoud told AFP.

The withdraw could be done earlier, the sticking point is foreigners will fall under Iraqi laws which include contract personnel as well as military.

Seems like much ado about nothing. Previous we had a thread on "Baghdad taking over from the Sunni" "Sons of Iraq" that sent the AQI packing. The truth is they are taking the "Sons of Iraq" over only to place them on Baghdad's payroll to the tune of $15 million a month. Guess who been paying them. The Sunni stay on the job.

I hate to be critical but this author rabbling about himself only trying to convince any readers that indeed the administration has missed some points. That's not news. Being an opinion that many might share but less caustic in their writing about it.

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Sir Winston Churchill

What is Huber going to do when Bush is out of office? It seems as if he doesn't write anything except "bash the Bush administration" articles. If he wasn't so partisan, he might actually be taken seriously. But like NickBrand stated, "I've wasted 5 minutes of my life reading this article.

Spinners and Losers = Jeff Huber

Mr Huber's article might be more humorous if it wasn't for the waste of God's gifts to destroy God's creatures in another country by those who claim to be God's people and say they are grateful for that.

3rd century America spends more that most of the rest of the world devising, constructing and using weapons of mass destruction....beating ploughshares into swords.

Keep it up Huber, someday real Americans will take their country back. Hopefully before the 'faithful' destroy it.

Sounds like the breakfast food of anti-Huber posters is "ad hominem" grits. I'll admit, Huber can venture in to Don Rickles territory with his criticisms sometimes, but he never claims opinions are anything but opinions. The facts he cites to support his opinions check out. The "selling" of the Iraq war is well documented if you care to look.

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:
Mr Huber's article might be more humorous if it wasn't for the waste of God's gifts to destroy God's creatures in another country by those who claim to be God's people and say they are grateful for that.

3rd century America spends more that most of the rest of the world devising, constructing and using weapons of mass destruction....beating ploughshares into swords.

Keep it up Huber, someday real Americans will take their country back. Hopefully before the 'faithful' destroy it.

Trying to reflect on nations that can or has taken care of business without the assist of the evil American. Even China and Russia, the only other "Super Powers", owe a debt to American blood being spilled for their independence and convenience. Like us or not, the world would be entirely different if Americans kept to the selfish isolation practices of some country's.

I can see where a North Korea or Venezuela would love to get in our face but ever the time comes when we decided they are a threat to our nation they better cover the arse and pray to whatever god they think will save them. But for a nation that has been close and part of the largest most progressive continent that the world has ever seen it should be obvious. Thank God the voice is crying not by strenght of a majority but that of a whinning minority.

What other country can ride to the rescue as seen in 1918 and 1942 and make immediate improvements to a war that was not made by them, and then assist in the construction of normalcy. What other country is hated by Soviets, Communist, and totalatarian regimes so rabid? We take this as a compliment. And then, there are country's that would love to have their voices and declaration understood while small upstart theological state's thumb their nose. Those that threaten with a weak response will be snubbed by the lesser nation and continue look impotent to those that carry the load.

One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.
Sir Winston Churchill

Another redundant but apropos Jeff Huber-ism: the biggest lie—among a vast field of strong contenders—in the American military ethos is that we lost the Vietnam War on the home front. We lost the Vietnam War in Vietnam. Walter Cronkite didn't lose it for us. Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara and Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and William Westmoreland lost it for us. Nonetheless, scapegoating the media for our wartime failures remains a popular pastime among the right-wing warmongery.

Someone tell me he is kidding. The winner of any war is the side that has the stones to see it to the end. Clearly that did not happen in a vacuum. When the most trusted man in the news said it was lost the sheeple responded. Other than that I have no strong feeling.

quote:

Originally posted by JOgershok:
Another redundant but apropos Jeff Huber-ism: the biggest lie—among a vast field of strong contenders—in the American military ethos is that we lost the Vietnam War on the home front. We lost the Vietnam War in Vietnam. Walter Cronkite didn't lose it for us. Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara and Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and William Westmoreland lost it for us. Nonetheless, scapegoating the media for our wartime failures remains a popular pastime among the right-wing warmongery.

Someone tell me he is kidding. The winner of any war is the side that has the stones to see it to the end. Clearly that did not happen in a vacuum. When the most trusted man in the news said it was lost the sheeple responded. Other than that I have no strong feeling.

Since the American People would have NEVER backed an invasion of the North, and that would have been the only way to "win" the war, what are you talking about?

Nations "fight to the death" when they have no choice - Vietnam was a war we could simply walk away from. The Vietnamese on the other hand, Lived There. We didn't lose the war because of the media - We lost it because NO ONE wanted to fight to the death, incur a million dead, over a piece of real estate that we are now happily buying shrimp from.

Could we have walked away from WWII? Sure, if we didn't mind the Nazi's and the Japanese owning us.

"We have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them in the streets of San Diego."

Did that happen?

Dave

Saw an interesting documentary last night "War Made Easy".

It relates how the greatest nation on earth has felt the necessity to 'defend' itself, over the past 50 years, by repeatedly attacking other countries. And how Americans have come to be willing 'buyers' of war.

America could qualify for warmonger of the 21st century.

And you, Popsig could qualify as the all-time supporter of all things un-American. What is your problem with our country? Does it not measure up to your Canadian idea of how a country should conduct its wars? Sorry that we didn't consult you first. We'll try to remember to do that next time somebody needs their azz kicked!

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:
Saw an interesting documentary last night "War Made Easy".

It relates how the greatest nation on earth has felt the necessity to 'defend' itself, over the past 50 years, by repeatedly attacking other countries. And how Americans have come to be willing 'buyers' of war.

America could qualify for warmonger of the 21st century.

I am a firm critic of much of American Foreign policy. But don't you think we make lousy conquerors? Take a look at history?

For example, what country would invade an oil rich country, and then allow their puppets to run wild? Can you imagine Germany or Russia doing this?

I assume. for example, that we've lost the Iraq war. Lost in the sense that Iraq is going to become an ally of Iran. If I'm right, (and for arguments sake, let us say I am) then what kind of conquerer are we?

And even if wrong, take a look at our begging Maliki to let us stay. Odd, wouldn't you say?

Seems to me that the American people hardly fit your description...

Or, you've been posting a lot on Afghanistan. (and good for you, we Need a change of tactics) - What conquerer in history, based on the provocation they've given us, would even bother trying to keep them alive. Hell, the Germans would have already murdered five or ten million of them - And the Russians Would have, if they could have afforded the commitement.

The ambitions of our politicians are always tempered by the desire of Americans to "do the right thing." Certainly this is unique to the USA. Unlike other historicial examples of countries justifying aggression - We mean it, and often enough, recognise our errors.

I think that we can be proud of being Americans, warts and all.

Dave