NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I've been watching the news of late, and it seems more and more like the insurgents are changing their tactics. It almost seems like they're attacking civilians a lot more than US troops or Iraqi security forces. I'm not saying that this means anything, just looking for confirmation that I am right, or confirmation that I'm a delusional moron.

thats what i heard on the news or something. that its so much easier to get the civilian targets than US military targets that thats what they go for.

it also looks to me like the iraqi people are getting sick of it. they didnt seem to hesitate turning in those guys who shot down the helicopter then murdered the pilot.

Erm...They've been doing this for quite a while, actually. Most of the people to die in Iraq Terrorist attacks...are civilian iraqis. By far.

thats what i heard on the news or something. that its so much easier to get the civilian targets than US military targets that thats what they go for.

it also looks to me like the iraqi people are getting sick of it. they didnt seem to hesitate turning in those guys who shot down the helicopter then murdered the pilot.

That was great how fast they were turned in and caught. Once a guerrila army loses civillian support, it is toast. Lets hope thats the case in Iraq.

That was great how fast they were turned in and caught. Once a guerrila army loses civillian support, it is toast. Lets hope thats the case in Iraq.
but its a matter of which civilians they are killing and who doesn't support them. the attacks seem to be focused on people working for the government and the shia, i think it is turning into more of a religious civil war. the insurgents accept they can't drive the us out so they are trying to cripple the government, take out shia leaders and generally terrorize the shia population inorder to maintain the remnants of sunni power. i don't think its very easy to tell at this point how effective these efforts are.

but its a matter of which civilians they are killing and who doesn't support them. the attacks seem to be focused on people working for the government and the shia, i think it is turning into more of a religious civil war. the insurgents accept they can't drive the us out so they are trying to cripple the government, take out shia leaders and generally terrorize the shia population inorder to maintain the remnants of sunni power. i don't think its very easy to tell at this point how effective these efforts are.
One of the things I noticed, at least today is that there were attacks against marketplaces in Baghdad and Tikrit, not just government officials.

One of the things I noticed, at least today is that there were attacks against marketplaces in Baghdad and Tikrit, not just government officials.

Isnt Tikrit a place full of Sunnis? At some point, even the Sunnis are going to get sick of the terrorists.

Isnt Tikrit a place full of Sunnis? At some point, even the Sunnis are going to get sick of the terrorists.
Yeah, it's part of the "Sunni Triangle", home of the insurgency...

You are right, but by doing this all hell will break loose, if you start killing innocent civilians and blowing up mosques than the civilians will develope more militias, but not against the US, to help the US, if this is what the insurgents do, blow up their own people in the name of their god, or in the name of Saddam than the innocents will get mad.

One of the things I noticed, at least today is that there were attacks against marketplaces in Baghdad and Tikrit, not just government officials.
the bagdad one targeted a shiite mosque and market, the tikrit ones were at the gates of a police academy. i'm not saying these attacks won't disgust many sunni iraqis but they still follow the insurgents recent patterns of attack against government workers and the shia.

the bagdad one targeted a shiite mosque and market, the tikrit ones were at the gates of a police academy. i'm not saying these attacks won't disgust many sunni iraqis but they still follow the insurgents recent patterns of attack against government workers and the shia.

True but they are also killing a lot of Sunnis, people who have families and friend that wont be so thrilled that they are dead.

This new tactic is unsustainable. It would very well work if they had a large base of support, but there is no evidence of that. In fact, some of the signs point to the contrary.
On top of that, the insurgency seems to be getting more and more poorly organized. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was regarded as a de facto leader for a long time, but now his group has lost control of the various groups.
If one is interested in knowing the future of the insurgency, the answer lays in Afghanistan, as the Taliban used similar tactics. Once, they were a major threat. Now, it is small, and what is left is divided. The main combat issue is now a handful of small conflicts in clans or tribes, but nothing like the Taliban. Such will probably be the fate of Iraq's insurgency. It is petering out, and in a few years, it will moderate into a Northern Ireland style conflict, which is much more manageble.

Iraqs alquada is vowing to kill sunnis who join the government. Like that is going to go over well with the local population

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=3&u=/nm/20050424/wl_nm/iraq_qaeda_dc

The insurgents will have a hell of a time trying to provoke religious war. The shia have a HUGE incentive to institute stable democracy: they are the majority. They are motivated to not retaliate, so they can work toward setting up some sort of democratic government. They have even shown themselves to be willing to make compromises and conciliation toward the sunni minority in the interest of setting up a stable government.

The insurgents can outlast our militarya because they are familiar with the territory and can adjust.

the insurgency seems to be getting more and more poorly organized.

I don't know what news you watch but that is the exact opposite of the facts. The freedom-fighters are becoming ever more sophisticated and organised. Their numbers also continue to grow. The US forces are putting many more Iraqis in to 'police' and battle so the figures for casualties decline. After all, what American or Brit cares how many Iraqis die?

The freedom-fighters

whoa there johnny

are becoming ever more sophisticated and organised. Their numbers also continue to grow.

would you care to quote a source for that?

After all, what American or Brit cares how many Iraqis die?

better question; how many of your "freedom fighters" care how many Iraqis die?

better question; how many of your "freedom fighters" care how many Iraqis die?

i think the insurgents are a mixed bag, both foriegn and domestic jihaddis, and domestic sunni nationalists, all with agendas that sometimes coincide and sometimes don't. i think they care about how many iraqis die and which ones. they just want the numbers to be large, and the iraqis who die to be mainly the ones who don't support their cause.

While certain people in the west claim that all insurgents are followers of bin Ladin, this is not the case. There are those who do follow him but then there are those who feel that they are under an illegal occupation(I saw a deal where a journalist had stayed with a bunch for a short time, they hated Saddam but wanted the Yanks out) It is impossible to know how many different large groups there are.

As for the attacks against civilians, it might work. Your average Iraqi will most likely be upset for every dead civilian around them, no matter if an Iraqi or American killed them. If too many die they might demand the US to get out just to make it stop. It is a damned pit where no matter what happens you will get covered in shit.

If the US leaves prematurely Bush is humiliated, if they stay well who knows.
Sure as hell we all want to know what is going to happen.

the insurgency seems to be getting more and more poorly organized.

I don't know what news you watch but that is the exact opposite of the facts. The freedom-fighters are becoming ever more sophisticated and organised. Their numbers also continue to grow. The US forces are putting many more Iraqis in to 'police' and battle so the figures for casualties decline. After all, what American or Brit cares how many Iraqis die?
if fire fighters fight fire, then what do freedom fighters fight?

While certain people in the west claim that all insurgents are followers of bin Ladin, this is not the case. There are those who do follow him but then there are those who feel that they are under an illegal occupation(I saw a deal where a journalist had stayed with a bunch for a short time, they hated Saddam but wanted the Yanks out) It is impossible to know how many different large groups there are.

As for the attacks against civilians, it might work. Your average Iraqi will most likely be upset for every dead civilian around them, no matter if an Iraqi or American killed them. If too many die they might demand the US to get out just to make it stop. It is a damned pit where no matter what happens you will get covered in shit.

If the US leaves prematurely Bush is humiliated, if they stay well who knows.
Sure as hell we all want to know what is going to happen.
A US withdrawl will not fix anything. Theres a good chance it would plunge the country into anarchy, with the insurgents and militias setting up rule by local strongmen. That means tribal fighting and contests for control. Look at Somalia if you want an example of what that is like.

Sure most of them are fighting to get the US to leave, but what happens when the US does leave? Chaos, instability, and violence. The only people who want that are insurgent and militia leaders and their cronies, who would profit from their position of power as their gangs fill the power void.

The insurgents can outlast our militarya because they are familiar with the territory and can adjust.
The US can hold its own militarily because we have spy satellites, armored vehicles, air power, helicopters, night vision equipment, communication and coordination, precision guided munitions, body armor, and well trained troops.

The only reason we haven't beaten the living shit out of the insurgency is because we are trying to minimize civilian casualties, damage to infrastructure and homes, and disrespect for the privacy and dignity of the Iraqi citizenry.

We can hold our own militarily, but the insurgents can turn the American public against the war and end it by way of our own domestic politics.

Yes, I think the US HAS to stay. It kinda dug a pit going into Iraq. I think the UN, preferably Muslims should take over to make it less being Iraq vs USA.

If they leave now a new dictatorship will arise.

While certain people in the west claim that all insurgents are followers of bin Ladin, this is not the case. There are those who do follow him but then there are those who feel that they are under an illegal occupation(I saw a deal where a journalist had stayed with a bunch for a short time, they hated Saddam but wanted the Yanks out) It is impossible to know how many different large groups there are.

As for the attacks against civilians, it might work. Your average Iraqi will most likely be upset for every dead civilian around them, no matter if an Iraqi or American killed them. If too many die they might demand the US to get out just to make it stop. It is a damned pit where no matter what happens you will get covered in shit.

If the US leaves prematurely Bush is humiliated, if they stay well who knows.
Sure as hell we all want to know what is going to happen.
A US withdrawl will not fix anything. Theres a good chance it would plunge the country into anarchy, with the insurgents and militias setting up rule by local strongmen. That means tribal fighting and contests for control. Look at Somalia if you want an example of what that is like.

Sure most of them are fighting to get the US to leave, but what happens when the US does leave? Chaos, instability, and violence. The only people who want that are insurgent and militia leaders and their cronies, who would profit from their position of power as their gangs fill the power void.and the suffereing would be blamed on the US and Iraq will become a bigger breeding ground for Terrorist. Now the US is planning to leave. (as is evident by more troops coming home then those going.) but we won't leave until the Government is stable. when the stability of the Government is assured, then it becomes a new ball game. perhaps a base there? perhaps not. who's to say... except the Iraqis.

whoa there johnny

The name's not Johnny and they're freedom fighters.



would you care to quote a source for that?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1425022,00.html
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/krwashbureau/20050420/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_galloway_column_wa_1




better question; how many of your "freedom fighters" care how many Iraqis die?

No, a more stupid question. Neither side cares much about civilian deaths.

No, a more stupid question. Neither side cares much about civilian deaths.

sure, thats why we used our massive fire-power to crush all resistance in urban areas and secure the country in a matter of hours

No, a more stupid question. Neither side cares much about civilian deaths.

Actually, we care quite a lot about not only minimizing civilian casualties, but preventing them outright. As a US soldier in Iraq, I can say that our Rules of Engagement are VERY STRICT in laying out that a hostile force has to attack us first before we fight back; and even then, we use the least possible force in retaliation to protect the innocent.

The bit about using Iraqi police to minimize the American casualties is great coming from somone who wants us out of Iraq. Believe me, every single one of the Americans in Iraq would be much, much happier in the US. We all abslutely want to turn Iraq over and go home. And THAT is why we are training and starting to use the Iraqi Police and the Iraqi Army - because they are the ones who are ulltimately going to be in charge of the safety and security of the Iraqis, and only by letting them start to run their own country can we ever hope to pull out of this mess.

And, for the record, I have never met an Iraqi who calls the insurgents 'Freedom Fighters,' including the insurgents who we have captured.

if fire fighters fight fire, then what do freedom fighters fight?
Cute, but the obvious answer is that "freedom fighters" fight for "freedom".

1} The bit about using Iraqi police to minimize the American casualties is great coming from somone who wants us out of Iraq.

2) And, for the record, I have never met an Iraqi who calls the insurgents 'Freedom Fighters,' including the insurgents who we have captured.[/QUOTE]

1) I don't want the coalition forces out of Iraq. I want them to stay until they've cleaned up their shit.

2) You may well have not have met an Iraqi prepared to call insurgents freedom fighters. You think they would say that to an American or Brit?

Cute, but the obvious answer is that "freedom fighters" fight for "freedom".


Indeed.


'The Middle East....it is ALL about OIL!!'

2) You may well have not have met an Iraqi prepared to call insurgents freedom fighters. You think they would say that to an American or Brit?

seeing as how they've been captured and are going to spend the rest of the war in a detainment camp I wouldn't think they would have anything to loose

The Middle East....it is ALL about OIL!!'

if this was all about oil all W would have had to do was walk into the SC and utter three magic words "lift the sanctions". then we would have gotten even more oil because none of the inforstructure would have been damaged and we wouldn't have had to pay for this war both in money and blood



put that in your pipe and smoke it

if this was all about oil all W would have had to do was walk into the SC and utter three magic words "lift the sanctions". then we would have gotten even more oil because none of the inforstructure would have been damaged and we wouldn't have had to pay for this war both in money and blood

put that in your pipe and smoke it
Actually, it is about the US securing future oil supplies by militarily controlling sections of the Middle East, which at the moment means Iraq and Afghanistan. Stay tuned for Iran.

Actually, it is about the US securing future oil supplies.

that couldn't have been accomplished by just lifting the sanctions why?

that couldn't have been accomplished by just lifting the sanctions why?
Perhaps a little understanding about what happened in the 70's when OPEC caused the price of crude oil to soar, which caused economic chaos in the western world.

Oil / Black Gold / Texas T (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/oil.htm)

Perhaps a little understanding about what happened in the 70's when OPEC caused the price of crude oil to soar, which caused economic chaos in the western world.

saddamist Iraq was dependant on the outside world to a ridiculous extent and he was greedy as hell, theres no way he wouldn't have sold

[QUOTE=Globes R Us]
I don't want the coalition forces out of Iraq. I want them to stay until they've cleaned up their shit.
QUOTE]

Training and using Iraqi Police IS cleaning up our shit. We'll never win this war by killing or demoralizing all the enemy; it isn't that kind of war. The sign of a victory in this war will actually be a full retreat. And the next big step on the path out of Iraq is preparing them to run their own country.
Training them dosen't mean 'hiding behind them' as you seem to imply in your last post. We still go out on missions with them. When they get shot at, we get shot at. We fight along side them and medevac them like our own when they get hit.
On another topic - about the "Iraq War = Oil" thing. There is probably truth there - not that GWB and Dick Cheney were ever going to swoop down on Iraq with empty oil barrels and funnels, but there is no doubt that one of the interests that the West has in a free and democratic Iraq is the possibility of a stable and humanitarian regime we could do buisiness with. Oil does more than run cars - it runs the economy. Since everything is shipped by truck, plane or freighter, gas prices have a serious and direct impact on the price of everything, and if prices rise, people suffer.
Regardless, however, of the reasons for coming (and I am sure most of us can agree that the WMD stuff was bunk), the truth is we have done far more good than harm. I'm not sure if that comes across in the news - some places, notably Baghdad, are still worse off than when we invaded, but mostly because they are a focus for the insurgency. Most of the country, and most of the people, are happy to have us here. Even the folks who want us out (and I have been told, to my face, that we should go home) don't want us out because we have done them harm, but just because they want to take control themselves (and more power to 'em! I'm ready to go home.) I've never done my own random sample, but there is no doubt in my mind that most of the villagers and Sheiks and Imams that we talk to want us here for a good while to come. People are still in poverty here, but we hear over and over that compared to where they were three years ago, they are rich now. More important still, they are not afraid of the police or the army, they are not forced to bribe the government, they are free to move about the country, even to leave if they want, and, for the first time in a long time, they have hope that things will get better.
Iraq isn't all roses and sunshine; way too many people have died here, Iraqis and Coalition Forces alike, to be happy about. And I still am not sure if the reasons the government gave the public for coming were good enough to warrant an invasion.
But the people here are sure glad we came when we did.

if this was all about oil all W would have had to do was walk into the SC and utter three magic words "lift the sanctions". then we would have gotten even more oil because none of the inforstructure would have been damaged and we wouldn't have had to pay for this war both in money and blood



put that in your pipe and smoke it

Control of oil and a base from which to abuse and bully other oil producers.

Is your pipe big enough for that?

Training and using Iraqi Police IS cleaning up our shit. We'll never win this war by killing or demoralizing all the enemy; it isn't that kind of war. The sign of a victory in this war will actually be a full retreat. And the next big step on the path out of Iraq is preparing them to run their own country.
Training them dosen't mean 'hiding behind them' as you seem to imply in your last post. We still go out on missions with them. When they get shot at, we get shot at. We fight along side them and medevac them like our own when they get hit.
On another topic - about the "Iraq War = Oil" thing. There is probably truth there - not that GWB and Dick Cheney were ever going to swoop down on Iraq with empty oil barrels and funnels, but there is no doubt that one of the interests that the West has in a free and democratic Iraq is the possibility of a stable and humanitarian regime we could do buisiness with. Oil does more than run cars - it runs the economy. Since everything is shipped by truck, plane or freighter, gas prices have a serious and direct impact on the price of everything, and if prices rise, people suffer.
Regardless, however, of the reasons for coming (and I am sure most of us can agree that the WMD stuff was bunk), the truth is we have done far more good than harm. I'm not sure if that comes across in the news - some places, notably Baghdad, are still worse off than when we invaded, but mostly because they are a focus for the insurgency. Most of the country, and most of the people, are happy to have us here. Even the folks who want us out (and I have been told, to my face, that we should go home) don't want us out because we have done them harm, but just because they want to take control themselves (and more power to 'em! I'm ready to go home.) I've never done my own random sample, but there is no doubt in my mind that most of the villagers and Sheiks and Imams that we talk to want us here for a good while to come. People are still in poverty here, but we hear over and over that compared to where they were three years ago, they are rich now. More important still, they are not afraid of the police or the army, they are not forced to bribe the government, they are free to move about the country, even to leave if they want, and, for the first time in a long time, they have hope that things will get better.
Iraq isn't all roses and sunshine; way too many people have died here, Iraqis and Coalition Forces alike, to be happy about. And I still am not sure if the reasons the government gave the public for coming were good enough to warrant an invasion.
But the people here are sure glad we came when we did.[/QUOTE]

. We'll never win this war by killing or demoralizing all the enemy; it isn't that kind of war.
Not all eh? Only the 100,000 so far and the vile abuse of prisoners and detention of people with no access to legal representation.

Training them dosen't mean 'hiding behind them' as you seem to imply in your last post.
No, we need to train them to get the hell out. And it's not me that says the American killed ratio has fallen since introducing Iraqi to 'police', it's the US brass.

On another topic - about the "Iraq War = Oil" thing. There is probably truth there - not that GWB and Dick Cheney were ever going to swoop down on Iraq with empty oil barrels and funnels, but there is no doubt that one of the interests that the West has in a free and democratic Iraq is the possibility of a stable and humanitarian regime we could do buisiness with.
You think so? The election after next may very well produce a Muslim clerical government. That will bring neither democracy as we know it nor a stable supply of oil.

the truth is we have done far more good than harm.
I'm sure you mean that in good heart but it's seriously open for debate. Sadaam would have taken a bloody long time to murder 100,000 people. The reputation in Iraq from the ordinary people for the people of the West has never been lower. More insurgents / freedom fighters and butchering terrorists are in Iraq now than before the invasion.

And I still am not sure if the reasons the government gave the public for coming were good enough to warrant an invasion.
But the people here are sure glad we came when we did
Everyone must surely know by now that the WMD question was false, so what was the reason? It wasn't honorable that's for sure. You're right that initially the people were glad we invaded and stuffed the evil Sadaam but not now, most want us out. They see no future for their security while we're there.

A question that needs to be ask is that happens to the terrorists/freedomfighters (or that ever you want to call them) then the USA pull out? Even if there atacks in Iraq are stopped, there will still be a quit a few left. Most will probably just go home, but some and ecpecially the foreign ones will probably find some other places to do battle.

Yes, I think the US HAS to stay. It kinda dug a pit going into Iraq. I think the UN, preferably Muslims should take over to make it less being Iraq vs USA.

If they leave now a new dictatorship will arise.

But how will they get the soldiers for Iran then?

This new tactic is unsustainable. It would very well work if they had a large base of support, but there is no evidence of that. In fact, some of the signs point to the contrary.
On top of that, the insurgency seems to be getting more and more poorly organized. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was regarded as a de facto leader for a long time, but now his group has lost control of the various groups.
If one is interested in knowing the future of the insurgency, the answer lays in Afghanistan, as the Taliban used similar tactics. Once, they were a major threat. Now, it is small, and what is left is divided. The main combat issue is now a handful of small conflicts in clans or tribes, but nothing like the Taliban. Such will probably be the fate of Iraq's insurgency. It is petering out, and in a few years, it will moderate into a Northern Ireland style conflict, which is much more manageble.

zarqawi was nothing but a figurehead, something that the yanks used to boost troop morale by saying that some ONE person was behind it. but now that al-Qaim has been liberated, largely by the efforts of al-qaeda and jaish al-islami, the yanks have had to forfeit their lie and admit that mujahadeen command is much more diverse than 1 man, ie, in al-falluja alone durnig the second battle of the clans(the battle of falluja to the yanks) there were more than 250 commanders, with up to 75 men under their control each.

and if you think that resistance is dying, youre wrong. it is improving. mujahideen are staying in positian and fighting strategically instead of runnig straight to the lines and getting gunned down. also, like the americans are, the resistance groups are exchanging troops between different cities to combat american insurgency. eg, prior to the yanks sealing off al-qaim, more than 2000 fighters relocated their from falluja, mosul and ramadi to assist their borthers and sisters in fending off the american aggressors.
it is not dying out when they improve their tactics.

One thing to keep in mind: Are religious zealots blowing up sunni and shiites for kicks, or are the sunni blowing up the shiites and vice-versa?

The change in tactics occurred after Fallujah. Insurgents were trying the Viet Cong tactic of "hold onto the belt buckle" - get close enough to US infantry so they can't use fire support.

Unfortunately, they found out that US body armor is essentially rifle proof - you need large explosions to cause significant US casualties. In a man on man small arms encounter, the unarmored insurgents are massacred to a man while inflicting proportionately few casualties.

To compare, the Israelis in combat with Hezbollah lost 10 Israelis soldiers killed for every Hezbollah in close combat. We're killing 28 insurgents for every 1 US soldier lost in close combat. Quite the other way around, and they really know it.

They can't inflict enough casualties to make the war as unpopular as the Vietnam War was - the VC killed 6111 US soldiers per year - the insurgents in Iraq can't manage more than 1/10th that number in actual combat deaths.

So they use roadside bombs - which usually end up killing more civilians than US troops. And they shoot at civilians who can't shoot back.

It makes them unpopular to do this. Outside of the Sunni areas, the insurgents have little or no support - in the Kurdish areas and some Shia areas, being identified as a Sunni insurgent is a quick way to die.

Control of oil and a base from which to abuse and bully other oil producers.

#1 -for the oil, again, all we had to do was life the sanctions

#2 - we already had and still do have bases all over the middle east; Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE why would we need another one?

Unfortunately, they found out that US body armor is essentially rifle proof - you need large explosions to cause significant US casualties. In a man on man small arms encounter, the unarmored insurgents are massacred to a man while inflicting proportionately few casualties.

To compare, the Israelis in combat with Hezbollah lost 10 Israelis soldiers killed for every Hezbollah in close combat. We're killing 28 insurgents for every 1 US soldier lost in close combat. Quite the other way around, and they really know it.

if you listen to the american reporting.
the americans fail to mention the number of their merceneries(not the ING, but the south americans that they recruit in return for citizenship in their foreign legion). more than 3000 bodies wearing US unifroms have been discovered either dumped into rivers or buried in mass graves.
during tnhe first battel of falluja, more than 120 americans were killed by mujahideen using bayonets and spears. a bit of kevlar doesnt stop a 5kg trident at point blank

if you listen to the american reporting.
the americans fail to mention the number of their merceneries(not the ING, but the south americans that they recruit in return for citizenship in their foreign legion). more than 3000 bodies wearing US unifroms have been discovered either dumped into rivers or buried in mass graves.
during tnhe first battel of falluja, more than 120 americans were killed by mujahideen using bayonets and spears. a bit of kevlar doesnt stop a 5kg trident at point blank

South American mercenaries?

I've met people who fought at Fallujah. Read the After Action Report, which I posted here on this forum. You're quite ignorant about what body armor is worn today - it's not kevlar. No one is going to put anything through a titanium/ceramic plate.

It's not American reporting I'm getting my information from. Try fighting with any weapon you choose at close range - if you're not wearing any armor, and your opponent is wearing rifle-proof armor over his vital areas, you have little chance to kill him, short of setting off a large explosive in the room with you. On the other hand, he has a very good chance of killing you.

The official casualty ratio is 28 to 1, in favor of the Americans. You'll notice that after that, the insurgents have avoided engaging US troops in small arms fights - they might set off car bombs, or fire a few RPGs here and there, but they avoid a stand-up fight, because it means being surrounded and killed.

Actually, we care quite a lot about not only minimizing civilian casualties, but preventing them outright. As a US soldier in Iraq, I can say that our Rules of Engagement are VERY STRICT in laying out that a hostile force has to attack us first before we fight back; and even then, we use the least possible force in retaliation to protect the innocent.

The bit about using Iraqi police to minimize the American casualties is great coming from somone who wants us out of Iraq. Believe me, every single one of the Americans in Iraq would be much, much happier in the US. We all abslutely want to turn Iraq over and go home. And THAT is why we are training and starting to use the Iraqi Police and the Iraqi Army - because they are the ones who are ulltimately going to be in charge of the safety and security of the Iraqis, and only by letting them start to run their own country can we ever hope to pull out of this mess.

And, for the record, I have never met an Iraqi who calls the insurgents 'Freedom Fighters,' including the insurgents who we have captured.
Great post! Enough of this vietnam-era junk about the US massacring civilians. The insurgents are doing a fine job of that without our help.

Actually, it is about the US securing future oil supplies by militarily controlling sections of the Middle East, which at the moment means Iraq and Afghanistan. Stay tuned for Iran.
Er, sorry to burst your bubble but there is NO oil in Afghanistan. Not even natural gas.

yep, we're there for oil (makes exaggerated masturbating motion with hand...)

if the kill ratio is 28 to 1, that would mean we've killed something like 40,000 insurgents (or does that include Iraqis killed during the war... before we were just going after insurgents?), right?

if you listen to the american reporting.
the americans fail to mention the number of their merceneries(not the ING, but the south americans that they recruit in return for citizenship in their foreign legion). more than 3000 bodies wearing US unifroms have been discovered either dumped into rivers or buried in mass graves.
during tnhe first battel of falluja, more than 120 americans were killed by mujahideen using bayonets and spears. a bit of kevlar doesnt stop a 5kg trident at point blank
Yeah well they didn't tell you about the aliens fighting in Iraq, did they? About 300 aliens with six arms each and laser eyes are fighting against the US, burning holes in tanks. Along with rank upon rank of Samurai with magical swords that cut right through kevlar AND titaniam-ceramic.

Did I mention that they're all impervious to bullets? Oh wait, it doesn't matter. Contrary to American propaganda, US soldiers are not even equipped with guns. The government has issued them crossbows because America is actually pathetic. :D

Ehem... what I mean is, show me the source for your information so I can ridicule it as the conspiracy site it is sure to be.

if the kill ratio is 28 to 1, that would mean we've killed something like 40,000 insurgents (or does that include Iraqis killed during the war... before we were just going after insurgents?), right?
The 28:1 ratio was describing close combat. Most American deaths come from stuff like helicopter crashes or suicide bombs. I don't know the number of Americans killed in close combat, but it's much smaller than the total number killed, to be sure.