Letters to the Editor
Jebbie
Published Letters: 1037
-
McCain's Short memory
[Read the article: The Associated Press fails to reveal Mukasey's favorite color]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It was al-Sadr that declared the ceasefire, not Maliki," said McCain. "With respect, I don't think Sadr would have declared the ceasefire if he thought he was winning. Most times in history, military engagements, the winning side doesn't declare the ceasefire. The second point is, overall, the Iraqi military performed pretty well. ... The military is functioning very effectively."
McCain should ask Colin Powell who declared the ceasefire in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Did the United States lose that one also?
The more this guy talks extemporaneously (H/T to Pedinska, it's her word), the more I become convinced that either he's dumber than a box of rocks, or his memory is whacked. I'm still convinced that Lieberman and Goofy Graham are with him expressly for the purpose of covering his ass after the fact.
-
Oooops! I almost forgot
[Read the article: The Associated Press fails to reveal Mukasey's favorite color]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why does McCain think that a military unit that has a 30% desertion rate is functioning well?
Ok.
Carry on.
-
-- L.W.M.
[Read the article: The Associated Press fails to reveal Mukasey's favorite color]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"30% Jebbie? That's high. What unit? Or is that a 30% increase over last years rate for the unit, or overall? Are they combining AWOL with desertion?"
First, it was with reference to the Iraqi security forces.
Second, I think that number is probably high. I think it was closer to something between 5-10 percent.
Third, the number represents the percentage of forces who refused to fight in Basra once sent there. It doesn't matter what they call it....desertion or just AWOL. They wouldn't muster for the attack.
Fourth, there was no unit in the United States Army during Vietnam that came even close to a 1% desertion rate. Your implication earlier is absurd and could be taken as an insult to those persons who were in the military during that troubled period.
-
--Kitt
[Read the article: The Associated Press fails to reveal Mukasey's favorite color]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The desertion rate was much higher during the Vietnam era. The Army saw a high of 33,094 deserters in 1971 — 3.4% of the Army force. But there was a draft and the active-duty force was 2.7 million."
Check those numbers. The math is cockeyed.
All this notwithstanding, we're talking about the Iraqi army in 2008, not the US Army in the sixties or seventies.
If we wish to get the American public to stand up against this war, one sure way to fail is to badmouth our troops, regardless of when or where they served.
-
-- omooex
[Read the article: Cokie Roberts speaks out on the war on behalf of the American people]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your point about McCain's son being posted to a locale' which is out of harm's way is bogus.
There is NO place in Iraq which is out of harm's way, including the so-called Green Zone. That's the whole point of the argument to withdraw our troops. They aren't doing a damned thing over there except getting shot at, blown up and otherwise fed into the maw of The Man.
Once the public understand this, and I believe they are coming close to that point, the pressure on politicians to get the hell out of that place will be unbearable and even McCain will call for withdrawl - once Holy Joe Lieberman whispers the word into his ear.
-
-- omooex
[Read the article: Cokie Roberts speaks out on the war on behalf of the American people]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Like any place where there is a conflict, there are relatively safe places, and relatively dangerous ones."..."If you folllow my reasoning--and its perfectly reasonable--I am suggesting that its POSSIBLE, that McCain sort of kind of pulled some strings so that his son would end up in a Ramallah-esque situation, not a refugee camp one. I don't see what's so hard to believe about this, I would imagine its fairly common. You're wrong about the green zone, without looking it up, I can remember only one high profile attack."
But that's not what you said earlier.
Here's what you stated: "Mine (your point) was that McCain's son managed to get an assignment that would exclude him from combat; the fact that he was in Anbar AFTER the fighting there had passed on rather proves my point." (emphasis mine)
My point, if you might go back and actually read it, is that there is no such thing as a Marine in Iraq who is "excluded from combat". Now I have no idea of McCain would try to "exclude his son" from combat or not. That's not the point.
In Vietnam, there were the so-called Saigon Commandos (REMFs) who were, for all practical purposes, pretty safe from combat. In Iraq, however, most of the REMF jobs have been outsourced to civilians (US and other) who perform the more mundane jobs of the occupanty. Combat troops, for the most part, are just that. Combat troops.
About the Green Zone. I'm NOT wrong. I don't know what you might call a "high profile" attack, but as far as I am concerned, when all personnel are ordered no remain in hardened shelters and not leave those shelters unless for a damned good reason, I'd say that's a pretty unsafe place. Would it only be high-profile to you if they managed to get lucky and whack a baracks or messhall and kill a few score of our troops at one time? People (Iraqis and US) are being killed and wounded in the Green Zone on a pretty regular basis.
I'd call that a dangerous place to be.
The easiest way to repell voters is to start giving the impression that we think the war should end not because it's dangerous to our troops, but that it's dangerous to Iraqis.
-
-- omooex
[Read the article: Cokie Roberts speaks out on the war on behalf of the American people]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not paying homage to McCain.
I'm paying homage to the accurate usage of the english language.
You should try it.