Abu Ghraib since the Americans left

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Note: It wasn't Sharia under Saddam.

Right, we've ousted one of the only secular leaders in the region, and replaced him with democracy so that the survivors can elect religious nutjobs into office, and then the actual terrorism can really begin!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Well we can't protect 'everywhere', just where we can find them. We found lots in the Middle East and very few (who want to attack the US) around the pacific. Where are the professional soldiers though? We keep hearing about Guard units being asked to do yet another rotation in Iraq, but we have a standing army of almost 500,000 in the Army alone (not including AF and Navy). Current levels in Iraq are ~120,000, 48,000 of which are NG. What are we doing with the other 452,000 troops we've got?

Unlike the troops in Iraq, they're protecting American interests.

[tw]

Originally Posted by warch

I am not an expert on Dafur, and dont pretend to be.
But I suppose you start with being truly concerned, as you are. I also think goodness is generally found in compassion, a value of human rights. From that stance, strive to understand the range of perspectives, dont squander our assets, form the strategies, articulate the missions, make the hard decisions, act, analyze, respond, adjust...

It sounds good. It is one basis on which to make decisions. One problem though. There is no such thing as good and evil. xoxoxoBruce more closely answered reality:

Don’t be silly, there's no oil there.

America is not that self centered and self serving as others might assume from Bruce's response. But don't fool yourself for one minute. Our George Jr administration is that self serving. After all, how many world wide insults and how many weeks did it take before the US take - with a complete carrier battlegroup even next door in Hong Kong - to respond as a million were dying after a Tsunami?

There was neither oil nor American interests in the Balkans. And yet Americans, with leaders using a different agenda, did respond. Moreso, Americans responded with proper restraint - without a kneejerk or 'big dic' reaction.

Don't assume I have an emotional concern for Darfur. I have a strictly technical and hard core response to Darfur as I had - for same reasons - to Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Afghanistan. I don't see any good or evil. I see perspectives - which neither an extremist Democrat nor Republican will understand. But the point of my question was about evil in some places. And yet we don't see evil in Darfur with Sudanese troops now massing for genocide? (Watch Kofi Anon to see if this genocide occurs.)

Ironic that those so protective of zygote life don't give damn about genocide to a million living creatures in Darfur. Are they righteous - or do they simply blindly manipulate weak minded (extremist) Americans to promote their perspectives - a self serving agenda?

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Current levels in Iraq are ~120,000, 48,000 of which are NG. What are we doing with the other 452,000 troops we've got?

First, for every troop on the lines, something like 9 others do support functions. Some of those support functions are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others are in a very long (expensive) supply line.

There are other commitments such as less than 20,000 (?) in Korea. Troops essential in Guam and Japan for a war with China. Navy forces all over the world. A long chain of bases and troops from Bulgaria to the K'stans preparing bases for the invasion of Iran. Nuclear deterrent forces. Remember, America is now the world's policeman whether you like it or not.

Not all active duty troops are fully trained or equipped. Some active duty units (and guard units) have been depleted of equipment for action in Iraq which is taking a massive toll on first line equipment and on transport aircraft.

Remember the repeated speculations for a draft? The general in charge of Guard made that point over one year ago. The Guard is suffering tremendously because we have no time and resources to train and not enough equipment to equip all units. This is why major powers that want to stay strong are reluctant to get into any war - why the smoking gun is so necessary.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

What? Coming in your mouth?

You really don't want to be that close to my teeth.

[Spexxvet]

wait...ouch *just thinking about it*

[jaguar]

Well, before it was a dictatorship, with him alone torturing pretty much anybody. Now it's a democracy so anyone can torture anyone. Anyone that says that isn't progress is with the Terrorists.