The Silence Is Deafening

What is the Sound of a Quiet Politician?

from JoeUser Forums


I came across this article

Link

makes you want to rethink how and where we should put our energy and resources into.

but I don't hear any response. Hello ? What do you think ?
politics
9,477 views 17 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your link lead to this.....
Sorry, the page you requested was not found.

Perhaps that explains the silence.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think I get an error page when I click that link. I also think posts with just a link and nothing else are boring.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I also think posts with just a link and nothing else are boring.


that was yesterdays song
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry, Myr, Mano, but I had that link corrected. If you chance on a repeat of the article on a Yahoo post, you'll find a totally different URL posted. (beats me.)

Anyways, I thought the use of the author's parting words was an appropriate title, including not saying so much since he seems to have brought an important point.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah, yes, so it is working now.

If the powers that be didn't see this coming, I'd like some of what they're smoking. Is anyone surprised that a country with a majority of Shiites would ally with the only other Shiite nation now that they've taken power from the Sunni minority? The US is between a rock and a hard place here -- a Sunni insurgency on the one hand and a pro-Iranian Shiite government on the other.

But we wanted an Iraqi democracy, right? So if the majority is gonna rule, it's gonna be a Shiite government. And with the recent election of an extremist in Iran, an alliance between the two countries means our soldiers will be in country for a long time to come.

Cheers.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
It just struck me as uncanny since I posted a blog months ago warning of "two headaches instead of one". Link

Now this better-written,in-depth article is confirming my worst fears.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
there was a small, single column article in the la times last week which i copied and pasted into the comments thread of an article bout iraq being a terror state.

the times article was buried near the back of the first section. altho most of the details are no longer news, the last 2 paragraphs hit me pretty hard:

Dulaimi said Iran had offered $1 billion in aid to show its support for Iraq's quest for postwar recovery. He did not give further details.

Asked about possible U.S. opposition, Shamkhani said, "No one can prevent us from reaching an agreement."
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
If the powers that be didn't see this coming, I'd like some of what they're smoking


if the powers that be are able to say shit like this two years into the war in iraq with a straight face (and i dont discount that smirk one bit), they don't need to be smokin anything. they already gonzo:

To further prepare Iraqi forces to fight the enemy on their own, we are taking three new steps: First, we are partnering coalition units with Iraqi units. These coalition-Iraqi teams are conducting operations together in the field. These combined operations are giving Iraqis a chance to experience how the most professional armed forces in the world operate in combat.

Second, we are embedding coalition "transition teams" inside Iraqi units. These teams are made up of coalition officers and non-commissioned officers who live, work, and fight together with their Iraqi comrades. Under U.S. command, they are providing battlefield advice and assistance to Iraqi forces during combat operations. Between battles, they are assisting the Iraqis with important skills, such as urban combat, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance techniques.

Third, we're working with the Iraqi Ministries of Interior and Defense to improve their capabilities to coordinate anti-terrorist operations. We're helping them develop command and control structures. We're also providing them with civilian and military leadership training, so Iraq's new leaders can effectively manage their forces in the fight against terror.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
"ARVN?"


we never took our eyes off the army of the republic of vietnam and had "orders" to shoot them if they broke and ran.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
"we never took our eyes off the army of the republic of vietnam and had "orders" to shoot them if they broke and ran."

-this is essentially the point with the US training a foreign force in this current war. We just can't do it automatically without being assured that
the trainees are ideologically of the same viewpoint as we are. To do so w/out this assurance would be dangerous for our forces in the long run. In my previous blog on unconventional warfare, I stated that the war is for the "hearts and minds", meaning ideological and that there was a need to devote time, in fact, majority of time, to threshing this out with potential foreign trainees before imparting them with skills the enemy has a great need for.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
it's funny that the comment/reply counter should only count 3 when there are already 13 entries to the thread. The same goes for my previous blog on unconventional warfare which lists 0 replies as against 3 actual entries. I don't really care that much about points or so, but I hope this isn't censorship. I think the point of training a foreign force without devoting time to ideological training/ retraining is a mistake which we should correct, and if I'm going to keep quiet about it, how do I expect a valid issue like that to be addressed ?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
not censorship (unless you mean on your end) but server problems. i'm showing 13 here.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
hearing an announcement that they've finally worked their way around to those 'three new steps' several years into the rebuilding of iraq is as scary as it is mindblowing.

btw. the last step--the one involving the defense minister?

defense minister dulaimi is the guy who's meeting with the iranians this week.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
" not censorship (unless you mean on your end) but server problems. i'm showing 13 here." - Kb

I'm glad for that, at least. I saw a blog that complained about it ("Strange Things Happening in JU"), but I think, even with a recheck, this Admin problem is still on . Since it's disorienting for the blogger, Admin should correct this. (unless they want particular bloggers to concentrate on this problem rather than their blogs).

"But we wanted an Iraqi democracy, right? So if the majority is gonna rule, it's gonna be a Shiite government. And with the recent election of an extremist in Iran, an alliance between the two countries means our soldiers will be in country for a long time to come." - Myr

That's an important input to the problem posed by the Link I gave, Myr. A lot of JU readers seem to understand the current war superficially. In case some JU readers fail to connect, the Link is "The Shiite Paradox" by Bob Dreyfuss.

Anyways, to continue, I'm glad the post was able to entice some ( at least those who view the Iraq campaign as a "model" war to be replicated in other parts of the Middle East) to at least question how previous Wars were handled . For me, it reflects an open-mindedness to consider options other than the "sacred" positions we once held on how to win this war. I'd like to invite readers
to visit my previous blog ("The Dilemma of Conventional Troops in Unconventional War) to understand the Dreyfuss article.