But I’m so glad to see Blogicaltroll, uh sorry, Blogicalthought is still around and still not linking to anywhere meaningful. Though I notice it hasn’t said anything complimentary about ABC/Disnazi this time.

Lose our sponsor, did we?

I can’t vouch for any of the figures it quoted, but y’know, based on the fact that every other single thing it’s ever said was a damned lie, I figure I can just throw this on the pile.

It might have been possible to “stand up” Iraq following the invasion. But that would have required about 250,000 more troopies, and a political will to do something besides secure the Oil Ministry and spank Saddam’s bum.

Now, a million soldiers wouldn’t be enough, and yet Bushco continues to demand that the rotten tomato of Iraqi “democracy” be watered with more American blood.

I pity the poor Iraqis caught up in this, but Bush wasn’t there to help them in the first place.

Are we fighting for the Shi’ites against the Sunni’s? Is it worth American blood to be spilled so Moqtada al Sadr will have free reign with his Mahdi Army someday?

Surely the “Iraqi Army” is nothing on its own and only exists as some public relations prop and group of heavily armed/disguised interpreters who shadow U.S. forces but can do nothing independantly.

We are, in a word, fucked. Anyone who thinks any chance of “Success” in this fiasco is forthcoming should immediately define it, explain how it can be perpetuated without U.S, forces, and what the ultimate benefit this new ‘government’ will bring both the Iraqi people and the Middle East. Life was better under a brutal dictatorship, surely it was safer and more sane. Balancing the evil that was Saddam against the reality on the ground today is a grim tradeoff, but the anarchy and violence is not what any Iraqi wants for their country. It’s what they have.

Most Iraqi’s not only want us gone as being occupiers in their country but they also are not objecting to attacks on American troops. Hearts and Minds? Lost a long time ago. No easy answers. No favorable outcomes. A new generation of Jihadist’s are getting better at killing U.S. troops, as the last 4 months have been the bloodiest 4 month period of the entire war.

It will get worse, much worse, for our soldiers plunged into this disaster. We must speak out to end this.

http://www.house.gov/

we should read the “report” done by the Center for Strategic and Int’l Studies? You mean this CSIS group?

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a right-wing, neoconservative think tank which was founded in 1962. Ray S. Cline was a cofounder. (36) Until 1986, CSIS was affiliated with Georgetown University. (2) Its first fulltime staff member was Richard V. Allen, a conservative Republican who was President Reagan’s first National Security Adviser. (2) CSIS describes itself as “an independent insitution for public policy research in the field of foreign and national security affairs.” It focuses on “the issues and challenges that confront the United States in advancing its global interests and discharging its global responsibilities.”(1) It claims to be anonpartisan institution of international, interdisciplinary scholars. (1)

However, Timothy S. Healy, president of Georgetown University, examined its affiliate and decided that CSIS was academically somewhat less credible than it claimed to be. Apparently, CSIS has no library, its faculty are seen more often on television than in the classroom (over 4,000 appearances in 1985), and its publications have a reputation (by academic standards) of being superficial. (2) CSIS has been called “a parking lot for former government big shots,” and a “conservative propaganda machine,” particularly for the policies of the Reagan administration.

The formal affiliation between Georgetown and CSIS ended on July 1, 1987. (1) An article in the London Tribune quotes a Washington Post article saying that Georgetown severed the relationship because of the strong identification CSIS had with the Reagan administration on arms control, Central America, and South Africa. The University was also disturbed because large contributions to CSIS come from some of the biggest defense contractors. (2)

You also quote Wikipedia. I wonder though when you copied over the “inventory” of the so-called airforce you also failed to copy over the order of battle for the force. You see, they may have the inventory, and those obsolete planes sure are worth a lot on on paper, but if they are not operation, just what good do they do? BTW, here’s that order of battle you conveniently forgot…

2nd Squadron – A helicopter airlift squadron operating two UH-1H Huey helicopters donated by Jordan. The squadron is scheduled to have 8 UH-1H helicopters in service by the end of 2006.
3rd Squadron – A helicopter airlift squadron operating two Bell 206 helicopters donated by the UAE Air Force in a light utility role.
4th Squadron – A helicopter airlift squadron scheduled to receive 8 UH-1H helicopters in 2006.
23rd Squadron – An airlift squadron operating 3 ex-USAF C-130E Hercules transport aircraft.
70th Squadron – A reconnaissance squadron operating 6 CH-2000 & 2 SB7L-360A light reconnaissance aircraft.

As you can see, not one offensively capable aircraft in the bunch. And wasn’t that the original point of Mike’s post despite your best efforts to shape the argument in to your point of view? And even if they do have some sort of offensive capability, why is it always the US aircraft that have to come riding to the rescue? hmmmmm?