NationStates Jolt Archive

There has alway been a singlular message coming for US generals in Iraq and in CENTCOM. "We don't need anything more. We have everything we need." We can all see this isn't and wasn't true but that's not why I think they should be removed. I've always noticed a trend of every successful military leader. When asked what they need the first word out of thier mouths is... more! More everything! Until one has control so firm that none of thier troops are dying they should say they need... more! They finally relented but asked for far less than they needed. Get rid of these idiots, get someone thier who wants more than the chaos Iraq is now.

Wouldn't more U.S. troops surpress the terrorist attacks in Iraq?

There has alway been a singlular message coming for US generals in Iraq and in CENTCOM. "We don't need anything more. We have everything we need." We can all see this isn't and wasn't true but that's not why I think they should be removed. I've always noticed a trend of every successful military leader. When asked what they need the first word out of thier mouths is... more! More everything! Until one has control so firm that none of thier troops are dying they should say they need... more! They finally relented but asked for far less than they needed. Get rid of these idiots, get someone thier who wants more than the chaos Iraq is now.

This is what happens when politicans run wars (Vietnam-Iraq, same story)

Wouldn't more U.S. troops surpress the terrorist attacks in Iraq?
Probably, but the commanders there seem to always say they have everyting they need.

Wouldn't more U.S. troops surpress the terrorist attacks in Iraq?

No, it seems the more troops there are, the more resistance there is...

The best way to 'win' the war in Iraq is to leave...

Wouldn't more U.S. troops surpress the terrorist attacks in Iraq?

No, it seems the more troops there are, the more resistance there is...

The best way to 'win' the war in Iraq is to leave...

Really? Have evidence? Wouldn't it make sense that all the terrorists there are all that Iraq has to hit us with? I honestly doubt more are going to pop up because more Iraqis see U.S. troops

Indeed, in order for a just society politicians must concern themselves with politics and military generals with military affairs, it seems obvious but impossible to the US.

Wouldn't more U.S. troops surpress the terrorist attacks in Iraq?Not necessarily. It sure didn't work in Vietnam.

Something you have to realize is that this long after the original invasion--we just celebrated (sort of) the one year anniversary of Bush's retarded "Mission Accomplished" photo-op after all--the resistance is no longer just former Ba'athists who are out of power, or foreign fighters here to give the US trouble. The resistance is made up of people who might have been happy with the invasion at first but now feel that the US is just trying to take over, become another oppressive regime like the British in the 1930s, the Turks before that, and Hussein just recently. They're morphing into freedom fighters, and the problem is that no amount of troops can effectively suppress that kind of motivation. You can't defeat a patriot--you can only kill him. And do we really want to wipe all of them out?

Oh? So those freedom fighters are the ones kidnapping American civilians? Japanese civilians? Russian, Chinese, Italian innocents?

Oh? So those freedom fighters are the ones kidnapping American civilians? Japanese civilians? Russian, Chinese, Italian innocents?Imagine your city is invaded, that you are outgunned and outnumbered and the invaders walk your streets with impunity. They don't speak your language and eye with you suspicion every second of every day. Is there any tactic you wouldn't at least consider using if you thought it might get them to leave? I would take nothing off the table if I were in the situation those Iraqis are in right now. That doesn't mean I wish harm on our troops--just that I understand why the Iraqis are doing what they are doing.

The idea that war has rules is a silly one. The rules depend on your level of desperation.

Oh? So those freedom fighters are the ones kidnapping American civilians? Japanese civilians? Russian, Chinese, Italian innocents?

who is innocent? When your a mercenary for Halliburton and Bechtel then you've alligned yourself with the occupation.

Don't you think it's weird that the Iraqis are starving and looking for work but only foreigners are allowed to "rebuild" the country? Do you think it makes an Iraqi electrition happy to see these Carpetbaggers working on the power lines, while pushing him around with the butts of their rifles?

A hungry man is a dangerous man.

Oh? So those freedom fighters are the ones kidnapping American civilians? Japanese civilians? Russian, Chinese, Italian innocents?Imagine your city is invaded, that you are outgunned and outnumbered and the invaders walk your streets with impunity. They don't speak your language and eye with you suspicion every second of every day. Is there any tactic you wouldn't at least consider using if you thought it might get them to leave? I would take nothing off the table if I were in the situation those Iraqis are in right now. That doesn't mean I wish harm on our troops--just that I understand why the Iraqis are doing what they are doing.

The idea that war has rules is a silly one. The rules depend on your level of desperation.

Ummm....okay....so if I see a Chinese civilian walking across my street, during a Chinese occupation of my Californian city, I'm gonna kidnap him in hopes that the enemy would stop for his life.

No....just no

Oh? So those freedom fighters are the ones kidnapping American civilians? Japanese civilians? Russian, Chinese, Italian innocents?

Well, in fairness under the Geneva Convention any one working for the Americans are actually fair game. However, kidnapping is against the Geneva Convention, they can be held, but not kidnapped. Example being what the Americans did at first with the Ba'athist party members.. They kidnapped their families and left notes saying "If you want your family let free turn yourself in" That is against the Geneva Convention. There is a difference between holding some one as a prisoner and kidnapping them. If you demand some thing for their return, it's kidnapping and a breach of the Conventions. .

Ummm....okay....so if I see a Chinese civilian walking across my street, during a Chinese occupation of my Californian city, I'm gonna kidnap him in hopes that the enemy would stop for his life.

No....just no

Then you're not an American, the oath I took to Constitution explicitly tells me that it is my duty to defend America from all threats!

Oh? So those freedom fighters are the ones kidnapping American civilians? Japanese civilians? Russian, Chinese, Italian innocents?Imagine your city is invaded, that you are outgunned and outnumbered and the invaders walk your streets with impunity. They don't speak your language and eye with you suspicion every second of every day. Is there any tactic you wouldn't at least consider using if you thought it might get them to leave? I would take nothing off the table if I were in the situation those Iraqis are in right now. That doesn't mean I wish harm on our troops--just that I understand why the Iraqis are doing what they are doing.

The idea that war has rules is a silly one. The rules depend on your level of desperation.

Ummm....okay....so if I see a Chinese civilian walking across my street, during a Chinese occupation of my Californian city, I'm gonna kidnap him in hopes that the enemy would stop for his life.

No....just noYou're not faced with that situation, so you can't really say one way or another. You simply don't know what you would do if you were desperate enough.

Ummm....okay....so if I see a Chinese civilian walking across my street, during a Chinese occupation of my Californian city, I'm gonna kidnap him in hopes that the enemy would stop for his life.

No....just no

Then you're not an American, the oath I took to Constitution explicitly tells me that it is my duty to defend America from all threats!

Dude, as a future member of the Air Force Academy, I KNOW that we are not allowed to resort to terrorism or torture.

Oh? So those freedom fighters are the ones kidnapping American civilians? Japanese civilians? Russian, Chinese, Italian innocents?Imagine your city is invaded, that you are outgunned and outnumbered and the invaders walk your streets with impunity. They don't speak your language and eye with you suspicion every second of every day. Is there any tactic you wouldn't at least consider using if you thought it might get them to leave? I would take nothing off the table if I were in the situation those Iraqis are in right now. That doesn't mean I wish harm on our troops--just that I understand why the Iraqis are doing what they are doing.

The idea that war has rules is a silly one. The rules depend on your level of desperation.All rules and laws depend on ones level of desperation. But, with more forces in Iraq the civilians could be sent packing. Better security could be provived everywhere in Iraq. These steps would make attacks far less frequent and make a better enviroment for rebuilding and restoring order. Leaving would only place the many Iraqis who want nothing more than to go about thier lives and live in peace at the mercy of those who want to kill anything that disagrees with them or want to install themselves or thier leaders as the out-right rulers of Iraq.

Ummm....okay....so if I see a Chinese civilian walking across my street, during a Chinese occupation of my Californian city, I'm gonna kidnap him in hopes that the enemy would stop for his life.

No....just no

Then you're not an American, the oath I took to Constitution explicitly tells me that it is my duty to defend America from all threats!

Dude, as a future member of the Air Force Academy, I KNOW that we are not allowed to resort to terrorism or torture.If we get to this kind of situation, I think you can assume that all military discipline has either been eliminated or is ineffective. We're talking about irregular combat here. Guerilla tactics. Terrorism.

Dude, as a future member of the Air Force Academy, I KNOW that we are not allowed to resort to terrorism or torture.

Oh, okay ~ since your a future member of the Air Force Academy that means something.

Anywhoo - back to reality: Fighting an occupying force isn't "terrorism" it's our duty!

All rules and laws depend on ones level of desperation. But, with more forces in Iraq the civilians could be sent packing. Better security could be provived everywhere in Iraq. These steps would make attacks far less frequent and make a better enviroment for rebuilding and restoring order. Leaving would only place the many Iraqis who want nothing more than to go about thier lives and live in peace at the mercy of those who want to kill anything that disagrees with them or want to install themselves or thier leaders as the out-right rulers of Iraq.The problem is that the US military is not equipped to handle its own needs without the aid of contractors anymore--and I'm only talking about food service and the like here. Military contractors need to be removed from the equation as far as I'm concerned. Mercs are bad news and endanger our own troops' lives because not only are they not beholden to military rules regarding conduct, they can bail out at any time and leave our troops holding the bag.

All rules and laws depend on ones level of desperation. But, with more forces in Iraq the civilians could be sent packing. Better security could be provived everywhere in Iraq. These steps would make attacks far less frequent and make a better enviroment for rebuilding and restoring order. Leaving would only place the many Iraqis who want nothing more than to go about thier lives and live in peace at the mercy of those who want to kill anything that disagrees with them or want to install themselves or thier leaders as the out-right rulers of Iraq.The problem is that the US military is not equipped to handle its own needs without the aid of contractors anymore--and I'm only talking about food service and the like here. Military contractors need to be removed from the equation as far as I'm concerned. Mercs are bad news and endanger our own troops' lives because not only are they not beholden to military rules regarding conduct, they can bail out at any time and leave our troops holding the bag.By civilians I meant the "mercs"! There are regular military units that perform the exact function that the contractors do. We should use them.

Leaving would only place the many Iraqis who want nothing more than to go about thier lives and live in peace at the mercy of those who want to kill anything that disagrees with them or want to install themselves or thier leaders as the out-right rulers of Iraq.Like the US?

Leaving would only place the many Iraqis who want nothing more than to go about thier lives and live in peace at the mercy of those who want to kill anything that disagrees with them or want to install themselves or thier leaders as the out-right rulers of Iraq.Like the US?Sure, just like the US.*I know you can't see me but I'm waving my fist forward and back in front of my crotch, figure it out.*

*I know you can't see me but I'm waving my fist forward and back in front of my crotch, figure it out.*What does that mean?

*I know you can't see me but I'm waving my fist forward and back in front of my crotch, figure it out.*What does that mean? :shock:

*I know you can't see me but I'm waving my fist forward and back in front of my crotch, figure it out.*What does that mean?

it means you excite him

Most US citizens usually don't have the ability to place themselves in other boots. They think they can only do good and that everybody on earth agrees with them (it was true 20 years ago in western Europe when the US had this soft power thing). Sometimes they even think they wan go invade and rule a country and that the people in that country will think they are liberated and now have a chance to live the normal US like life. They don't understand the US is not their model.

Oh? So those freedom fighters are the ones kidnapping American civilians? Japanese civilians? Russian, Chinese, Italian innocents?Imagine your city is invaded, that you are outgunned and outnumbered and the invaders walk your streets with impunity. They don't speak your language and eye with you suspicion every second of every day. Is there any tactic you wouldn't at least consider using if you thought it might get them to leave? I would take nothing off the table if I were in the situation those Iraqis are in right now. That doesn't mean I wish harm on our troops--just that I understand why the Iraqis are doing what they are doing.

The idea that war has rules is a silly one. The rules depend on your level of desperation.

Oh..so given your rationale...then carpet bombing Fallujah back to the stone age would have been ok with you.as wars having rules is silly. I mean it's ok with me..but some on here might have a problem with it. This is what perplexes me...all the anti-War people here say they "understand" why the Iraqis do what they do..they're apologists.. but somehow we are prevented from anything that in the least might be constued as inappropriate or against the Geneva Conventions?

Oh..so given your rationale...then carpet bombing Fallujah back to the stone age would have been ok with you.as wars having rules is silly. I mean it's ok with me..but some on here might have a problem with it. This is what perplexes me...all the anti-War people here say they "understand" why the Iraqis do what they do..they're apologists.. but somehow we are prevented from anything that in the least might be constued as inappropriate or against the Geneva Conventions?They understand, that does not mean they support. They understand as well why the US is there, that is for oil stealing, but do not support it either.
Actually there is a debate as well between the pro-peace people as to how to deal with the war and how to stop it, there are many different ways but they all have the same goal however none is effective as the war happened. That doesn't mean the cause is wrong, it just means the means are ineffective.
However, the iraqis have no choice, but to resist.

Oh..so given your rationale...then carpet bombing Fallujah back to the stone age would have been ok with you.as wars having rules is silly. I mean it's ok with me..but some on here might have a problem with it. This is what perplexes me...all the anti-War people here say they "understand" why the Iraqis do what they do..they're apologists.. but somehow we are prevented from anything that in the least might be constued as inappropriate or against the Geneva Conventions?They understand, that does not mean they support. They understand as well why the US is there, that is for oil stealing, but do not support it either.

Oil stealing??...really..my gas prices have increased..not decreased..and our ports aren't being flooded with tankers with Iraqi Oil..if this was about oil..someone isn't doing their job..and if it is about oil then dammit..I want my cheap gas.

Oil stealing??...really..my gas prices have increased..not decreased..and our ports aren't being flooded with tankers with Iraqi Oil..if this was about oil..someone isn't doing their job..and if it is about oil then dammit..I want my cheap gas.I'm not talking about you. You are just the sheep flooded with propaganda and paying taxes to give them the means to steal the oil, they never intended to give it to you.
Not to mention they utterly failed and didn't expect that level of resistance.

The real question is why the hell are the americans still in Iraq. The idiots ruined the entire country by first targeting hospitals and red cross stations the blew the rest of the country to shreds. They have destroyed any hope of peace and any hope of there being a real government for the iraqis, all they will have is a fanatic fundamentalist state.

The real question is why the hell are the americans still in Iraq. The idiots ruined the entire country by first targeting hospitals and red cross stations the blew the rest of the country to shreds. They have destroyed any hope of peace and any hope of there being a real government for the iraqis, all they will have is a fanatic fundamentalist state.

Excuse me..but Saddam screwed over those hospitals and Red Crescent (being an Arab he'd never have a Red Cross station)..when he placed weapons, ammunitions in those places thereby violating the Geneva Conventions and thereby eliminating any statute regarding attacking those sites..

As for the fundamentalist state..that began long before the attacks occured when the Iman Al-Sistani was going to hijack the new constitution because it didn't base their future law on Sharia law nor did it give more power to his Shiite community..it began the moment Al-Sadr came back into Iraq from Iran from exile overflowing with Iranian money in order to facilitate an Islamic revolution just like Iran's.

DP

TRIPLE POST

Fourth Post..what server demons do we have here?

5th Post?....Arrrrghhhhhhhhh....sorry everyone

The real question is why the hell are the americans still in Iraq. The idiots ruined the entire country by first targeting hospitals and red cross stations the blew the rest of the country to shreds. They have destroyed any hope of peace and any hope of there being a real government for the iraqis, all they will have is a fanatic fundamentalist state.

Excuse me..but Saddam screwed over those hospitals and Red Crescent (being an Arab he'd never have a Red Cross station)..when he placed weapons, ammunitions in those places thereby violating the Geneva Conventions and thereby eliminating any statute regarding attacking those sites..


Clearly you were not paying attention last year. The bulk of the damage to the hospitals occurred because of looting - not any battle damage. the US failed to secure those areas as mandated by the Geneva Conventions. They stated that this was due to a lack of manpower. Oddly enough, they had plenty of people to safeguard the offices of the Ministry of Oil.


As for the fundamentalist state..that began long before the attacks occured when the Iman Al-Sistani was going to hijack the new constitution because it didn't base their future law on Sharia law nor did it give more power to his Shiite community..it began the moment Al-Sadr came back into Iraq from Iran from exile overflowing with Iranian money in order to facilitate an Islamic revolution just like Iran's.

Gosh - Shi'ites wanting some aspects of their religion enforced in the new constitution. Gee that would never happene anywhere else. I mean, I never hear how the US constitution was meant to reflect the Christian values of the American forefathers when people are discussing things like statues in courtrooms......

And actually, what Al Sistani objected to were minor details like the fact that the new constitution expressly forebade a democratically elected government from overturning any deals or decisions that the unelected CPA put in place. And given that Bremmer gave the CPA the right to privatize and sell off every publicly owned bit of Iraq - I think he had a right to complain about that. This is the property of the IRaqis being auctioned off without any input. Gee... wonder why that bothers him....

:roll:

-Z-

The real question is why the hell are the americans still in Iraq. The idiots ruined the entire country by first targeting hospitals and red cross stations the blew the rest of the country to shreds. They have destroyed any hope of peace and any hope of there being a real government for the iraqis, all they will have is a fanatic fundamentalist state.

Excuse me..but Saddam screwed over those hospitals and Red Crescent (being an Arab he'd never have a Red Cross station)..when he placed weapons, ammunitions in those places thereby violating the Geneva Conventions and thereby eliminating any statute regarding attacking those sites..


Clearly you were not paying attention last year. The bulk of the damage to the hospitals occurred because of looting - not any battle damage. the US failed to secure those areas as mandated by the Geneva Conventions. They stated that this was due to a lack of manpower. Oddly enough, they had plenty of people to safeguard the offices of the Ministry of Oil.


As for the fundamentalist state..that began long before the attacks occured when the Iman Al-Sistani was going to hijack the new constitution because it didn't base their future law on Sharia law nor did it give more power to his Shiite community..it began the moment Al-Sadr came back into Iraq from Iran from exile overflowing with Iranian money in order to facilitate an Islamic revolution just like Iran's.

Gosh - Shi'ites wanting some aspects of their religion enforced in the new constitution. Gee that would never happene anywhere else. I mean, I never hear how the US constitution was meant to reflect the Christian values of the American forefathers when people are discussing things like statues in courtrooms......

And actually, what Al Sistani objected to were minor details like the fact that the new constitution expressly forebade a democratically elected government from overturning any deals or decisions that the unelected CPA put in place. And given that Bremmer gave the CPA the right to privatize and sell off every publicly owned bit of Iraq - I think he had a right to complain about that. This is the property of the IRaqis being auctioned off without any input. Gee... wonder why that bothers him....

:roll:

-Z-


Clearly you weren't paying attention last year....the primary sites of looting (as originally stated) were museums..Arabs everywhere were crying their eyes out and shaking their fists at Americans for not securing valuable pieces of Iraqi history..truth was..the majority of those priceless relices had been safeguarded away by museum personnel for sake-keeping, and as far as safeguarding them...we had a little thing like continuing combat operations to contend with...and as far as safeguarding the Oil infrastructure...let's face it..oil was going to be the sole resource available to the Iraqis if they were ever going to get into their feet. and we sure as hell didn't want a repeat of sabotaged oil wells..like Saddam did during the war with Kuwait..you remember..something to the tune of 700 oil wells he lit up...we couldn't take the chance he'd do it to his own country's wells.

And as far as what Sistani objected too..that's not what I heard coming from his own mouth in several televised interviews.

and as far as safeguarding the Oil infrastructure...let's face it..oil was going to be the sole resource available to the Iraqis if they were ever going to get into their feet. and we sure as hell didn't want a repeat of sabotaged oil wells..like Saddam did during the war with Kuwait..you remember..something to the tune of 700 oil wells he lit up...we couldn't take the chance he'd do it to his own country's wells.
The country does not use that much oil and the history of this country is far more valuable than something that will last 20 years or so. This is the craddle of civilization dammit.

and as far as safeguarding the Oil infrastructure...let's face it..oil was going to be the sole resource available to the Iraqis if they were ever going to get into their feet. and we sure as hell didn't want a repeat of sabotaged oil wells..like Saddam did during the war with Kuwait..you remember..something to the tune of 700 oil wells he lit up...we couldn't take the chance he'd do it to his own country's wells.
The country does not use that much oil and the history of this country is far more valuable than something that will last 20 years or so. This is the craddle of civilization dammit.

Ahmm..you can't buy food or medicine or repair infrastructure or give out small business loans to jumpstart local economies with museum pieces and has already been stated...the initial reports by upset Iraqis were incorrect..the museums were not looted..their pieces were spirited away by museum personnel to prevent looting.

Ahmm..you can't buy food or medicine or repair infrastructure or give out small business loans to jumpstart local economies with museum pieces and has already been stated...the initial reports by upset Iraqis were incorrect..the museums were not looted..their pieces were spirited away by museum personnel to prevent looting.Wait a minute, are you saying that Iraq has a market economy?