NationStates Jolt Archive

Remember a week or so ago when Dicky-boy pulled that opinion out of his hind sphincter that the insurgency was in it's last throes?

Now, it seems to me that if you are going to make statements like that, you might want to... oh, I dunno, ask the fucking guys who are getting shot at every fucking day of the week?

Because according to General Abizaid (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld_iraq_7;_ylt=AhoR0LGxYsYmUbDVPGiC9TtsbEwB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl), who - unlike some - aparently belives that Congress deserves to be informed with those pesky little things that we call "facts", it seems in actual fact that "its strength (is) basically undiminished from six months ago", and that he "believe(s) there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago."

Of course, we all pretty much knew that right? The fact that the body-count has been going UP in recent months rather than down was a rather obvious fucking clue.



So naturally people have tried to ask exactly what Dicky-boy was smoking when he made his ludicrous fucking statement. People including, ohhhh, say - the press.

That led to this hilarious exchange (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000963211) at the White House just a few short days ago:



Q Scott, is the insurgency in Iraq in its 'last throes'?
McCLELLAN: Terry, you have a desperate group of terrorists in Iraq that are doing everything they can to try to derail the transition to democracy. The Iraqi people have made it clear that they want a free and democratic and peaceful future. And that's why we're doing everything we can, along with other countries, to support the Iraqi people as they move forward....

Q But the insurgency is in its last throes?

McCLELLAN: The Vice President talked about that the other day -- you have a desperate group of terrorists who recognize how high the stakes are in Iraq. A free Iraq will be a significant blow to their ambitions.

Q But they're killing more Americans, they're killing more Iraqis. That's the last throes?

McCLELLAN: Innocent -- I say innocent civilians. And it doesn't take a lot of people to cause mass damage when you're willing to strap a bomb onto yourself, get in a car and go and attack innocent civilians. That's the kind of people that we're dealing with. That's what I say when we're talking about a determined enemy.

Q Right. What is the evidence that the insurgency is in its last throes?

McCLELLAN: I think I just explained to you the desperation of terrorists and their tactics.

Q What's the evidence on the ground that it's being extinguished?

McCLELLAN: Terry, we're making great progress to defeat the terrorist and regime elements. You're seeing Iraqis now playing more of a role in addressing the security threats that they face. They're working side by side with our coalition forces. They're working on their own. There are a lot of special forces in Iraq that are taking the battle to the enemy in Iraq. And so this is a period when they are in a desperate mode.

Q Well, I'm just wondering what the metric is for measuring the defeat of the insurgency.

McCLELLAN: Well, you can go back and look at the Vice President's remarks. I think he talked about it.

Q Yes. Is there any idea how long a 'last throe' lasts for?

McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve....




I sure don't envy Scott his job these days....

It could be argued that the insurgency is in it's last throes. It's failed to get support from the civilian population, It's antagonized the civilian population by attacking the infrastructure they depend on (the recent rocket attack on Baghdad's water supply) and by setting off bombs that kill Iraqi civilians at a much higher rate than US troops. It's proved to the Iraqi people that it can't put serious pressure on the US, only make the regular guy's life miserable. Civilians have been passing information to Iraqi police and military about terrorist cells, some groups of terrorists are even informing on others.

It looks to me like the insurgency is close to falling appart.

I sure don't envy Scott his job these days....
That clip is so going on the Daily Show

Remember the Tet Offensive? In reality, the US was winning the Vietnam War but the sheer psychological effect of this attack resulted in our defeat. A similar situation will likely play out in Iraq, with the desparate insurgents lauching an all or nothing strike to try and break our resolve.

Remember the Tet Offensive? In reality, the US was winning the Vietnam War but the sheer psychological effect of this attack resulted in our defeat. A similar situation will likely play out in Iraq, with the desparate insurgents lauching an all or nothing strike to try and break our resolve.
The difference is that the Vietnamese had greater numbers, better trained troops, and the gap in weapons technology wasn't as wide. If the Insurgents tried a "Tet offensive" they would only succeed in getting themselves exterminated.

The difference is that the Vietnamese had greater numbers, better trained troops, and the gap in weapons technology wasn't as wide. If the Insurgents tried a "Tet offensive" they would only succeed in getting themselves exterminated.

But then again, they have a stronger religious motivational force and utilize terrorist tactics far more effectively. Plus, they are better in urban combat than the Vietnamese.

But then again, they have a stronger religious motivational force and utilize terrorist tactics far more effectively. Plus, they are better in urban combat than the Vietnamese.
Not really. The insurgents haven't won any firefights vs. coalition troops (to my knowledge). That's why they've stuck to suicide bombings, car bombings and IEDs on the roadside. Remember Fallujiah? The insurgents in the city were massacred. The insurgents haven't been able to move beyond terrorist tactics, and such tactics can't be used to capture and hold territory. Only to harass the enemy and the civilian population. Really the insurgency is a joke. All they're accomplishing is to make life difficult for the average Iraqi civilian. They might hope that the average Iraqi will then either be intimidated into joining or helping the insurgency, but that won't happen. More and more Iraqi civilians are informing on the insurgents instead.

It could be argued that the insurgency is in it's last throes.

And it could be argued that the moon is a giant fucking marshmallow put there by the Great Candy God. Which is to say that anything could be argued.



It looks to me like the insurgency is close to falling appart.


Yeah, well, I'll keep trusting more from actual people on the ground such as the good General than I will anonymous voices on a message board - or, for that matter, the vice president.

You know - The Russians kept hoping (and reassuring it's citizens) that the insurgency in Afghanistan would fall apart too.......

And it could be argued that the moon is a giant fucking marshmallow put there by the Great Candy God. Which is to say that anything could be argued.






Yeah, well, I'll keep trusting more from actual people on the ground such as the good General than I will anonymous voices on a message board - or, for that matter, the vice president.

You know - The Russians kept hoping (and reassuring it's citizens) that the insurgency in Afghanistan would fall apart too.......

Beleive what you want to beleive. I've offered my analysis of the situation based on news that I've read and heard. I may very well be wrong, but it looks like the insurgency is dying to me.

Beleive what you want to beleive. I've offered my analysis of the situation based on news that I've read and heard. I may very well be wrong, but it looks like the insurgency is dying to me.
Despite how it is painted by the American right, the media is pretty damn generous to the administration

Ihatevacations']Despite how it is painted by the American right, the media is pretty damn generous to the administration
Yeah, I agree completely. I read news from various sources, liberal, conservative, and psychotic.

Not really. The insurgents haven't won any firefights vs. coalition troops (to my knowledge). That's why they've stuck to suicide bombings, car bombings and IEDs on the roadside. Remember Fallujiah? The insurgents in the city were massacred. The insurgents haven't been able to move beyond terrorist tactics, and such tactics can't be used to capture and hold territory. Only to harass the enemy and the civilian population. Really the insurgency is a joke. All they're accomplishing is to make life difficult for the average Iraqi civilian. They might hope that the average Iraqi will then either be intimidated into joining or helping the insurgency, but that won't happen. More and more Iraqi civilians are informing on the insurgents instead.
The insurgents already hold the territory, as far as control is concerned. Most of Iraq is a security nightmare--even the Green Zone in aghdad is subject to occasional attack. The coalition forces can go into an area and pacify it temporarily, but the second they leave, the insurgents come back into power.

But even if they didn't hold a tactical advantage, the main point to realize is that the insurgents don't need to hold territory. They're on their home ground--all they have to do is make it untenable for the coalition to stay, and they're doing that quite effectively, I'd say. Nearly 60% of Americans polled say that the war wasn't worth it and want to hear some talk about when the soldiers are coming home. Army enlistment is down and has been for the last 4 months in a row, and Guard and Reserve units are doing worse.

Fact is, no matter how "Five Deferments" Cheney wants to spin it, the insurgents are winning, and they're getting stronger, not weaker.

Beleive what you want to beleive. I've offered my analysis of the situation based on news that I've read and heard. I may very well be wrong, but it looks like the insurgency is dying to me.

Just curious, but is the continued deaths of almost 3 soldiers per day that convinces you? Or is the continued coordinated attacks and assassinations of highly-placed Iraqis?

On th bright side, at least the CIA shares your optimism (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-06-22T193543Z_01_N22703390_RTRIDST_0_INTERNATIONAL-SECURITY-IRAQ-CIA-DC.XML)

The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, officials said on Wednesday.

A classified report from the U.S. spy agency says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of skills, from car bombings and assassinations to coordinated conventional attacks on police and military targets, officials said.



Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..... I guess not.

The insurgents already hold the territory, as far as control is concerned. Most of Iraq is a security nightmare--even the Green Zone in aghdad is subject to occasional attack. The coalition forces can go into an area and pacify it temporarily, but the second they leave, the insurgents come back into power.

But even if they didn't hold a tactical advantage, the main point to realize is that the insurgents don't need to hold territory. They're on their home ground--all they have to do is make it untenable for the coalition to stay, and they're doing that quite effectively, I'd say. Nearly 60% of Americans polled say that the war wasn't worth it and want to hear some talk about when the soldiers are coming home. Army enlistment is down and has been for the last 4 months in a row, and Guard and Reserve units are doing worse.

Fact is, no matter how "Five Deferments" Cheney wants to spin it, the insurgents are winning, and they're getting stronger, not weaker.
Since Iraqi security forces and police are being tipped off by civilians tired of the insurgency's attacks on infrastructure and common folks, since the insurgents are on the verge of fighting themselves (the bathist elements don't like the Al Quaeda zealots because of the ill-will they're generating among civilians), the insurgency is actually on the verge of dying. We just need to hold out a while longer.

Just curious, but is the continued deaths of almost 3 soldiers per day that convinces you? Or is the continued coordinated attacks and assassinations of highly-placed Iraqis?

On th bright side, at least the CIA shares your optimism (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-06-22T193543Z_01_N22703390_RTRIDST_0_INTERNATIONAL-SECURITY-IRAQ-CIA-DC.XML)




Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..... I guess not.
3 soldiers per day? That's the best the insurgency can do?
And you think they're winning?

The attacks aren't too well coordinated. Almost all the attacks are IEDs, car bombs, and suicide bombs because actual firefights tend to end with the insurgents massacred.

Maybe I'm missing a couple of news stories. I don't remember any Iraqi government officials being assasinated in the last couple of months.

I've heard about the CIA report. It doesn't matter. The number of insurgents who will gain that hands-on experience and survive will number in the hundreds, not very many from where I stand. Also, if Iraq becomes a democratic ally and denies them support, The USA makes it harder for them to operate on it's soil, and Europe does the same, where will they strike? Saudi Arabia? Good! I don't like the Saudis anyway.

With the current assholes in the white house we're doomed! Fucking doomed I tell ya! :headbang:

Firstly, we must define the difference between insurgency and terrorism. The insurgency is mainly composed of native iraqis and a very small amount of foreigners who fight against various troops only, and not innocent iraqi civilians. The terrorists are those who are mass murdering iraqi civilians as well a taking out the occasional soldier. The former group has been relatively quiescent towards US and iraqi forces recently and has in fact been attacking the latter. The latter however is still strong because Syria is basically giving them indirect support. So Cheney's comments are correct, then insurgency is dying off. There are, however, as many terrorists as ever.

Firstly, we must define the difference between insurgency and terrorism. The insurgency is mainly composed of native iraqis and a very small amount of foreigners who fight against various troops only, and not innocent iraqi civilians. The terrorists are those who are mass murdering iraqi civilians as well a taking out the occasional soldier. The former group has been relatively quiescent towards US and iraqi forces recently and has in fact been attacking the latter. The latter however is still strong because Syria is basically giving them indirect support. So Cheney's comments are correct, then insurgency is dying off. There are, however, as many terrorists as ever.

So why do people group insurgents with terrorist than?

[QUOTE=Leperous monkeyballs]Just curious, but is the continued deaths of almost 3 soldiers per day that convinces you? Or is the continued coordinated attacks and assassinations of highly-placed Iraqis?

The US Army lost an average of 250 soldiers per day during WW2, I think that might have just been for Europe I'll have to check my source later. So 3 soldiers per day ain't that bad, so just shut your uninformed fucking mouth you fucking pot smoking teenager. Right now it doesn't matter what your opinion is of Bush or the reasons for going to war, all that matters is that you support the soldiers of the coalition and the Iraqis. So stop fucking bitching about how we are losing the war, why don't you instead start fucking talking about how the fucking insurgents are ruining Iraq? Jesus fucking Buddha can't you be positive for a change?

One more thing.....Jesus fucking Allah, can't you stop swearing in all your posts Leperous? Jesus fucking Cruise, those things under 18 use this forum so watch your fucking mouth.

250 per day...in WWII? The big multination war against a trained, organized and armed fighting force? That is your comparison to support yourself? Oh boy..

3 soldiers per day? That's the best the insurgency can do?
And you think they're winning?


Well, that is up from previous months, and they have also been going harder after the IRaqis as they recognize that they are softer targets.


The attacks aren't too well coordinated. Almost all the attacks are IEDs, car bombs, and suicide bombs because actual firefights tend to end with the insurgents massacred.

Maybe I'm missing a couple of news stories. I don't remember any Iraqi government officials being assasinated in the last couple of months.



Really?

Yesterday it was a judge who was a candidate to tbe on the committee to draft the new Iraqi Constitution (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/22/africa/web.0622iraq.php) who got nailed.

And they also nailed a convoy (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=871968) of officials from the Ministry of the interior.

The day before? It was Anwar Haji Othman, (http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20050621-052011-5943r.htm) the director general of internal security in the region of Shahrazouz in Iraq's Kurdistan.

Last week? besides the 50+ regular Iraqi soldiers killed they also got
Brig. Gen. Naseh Mohie al-Deen, his son and driver Oqba, and Lt. Col. Khalid Ahmed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5076779,00.html) - senior officers in Kirkuk's anti-terrorist squad.

I'd go back over "the past few months", but the list would just be too damn long.... however far from being "uncoordinated" clearly they are still regularly able to get intel on who to attack, and where to do it.


Oh yeah, and did you miss the fact that they took over another city? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1508573,00.html)

The US Army lost an average of 250 soldiers per day during WW2, I think that might have just been for Europe I'll have to check my source later. So 3 soldiers per day ain't that bad, so just shut your uninformed fucking mouth you fucking pot smoking teenager. Right now it doesn't matter what your opinion is of Bush or the reasons for going to war, all that matters is that you support the soldiers of the coalition and the Iraqis. So stop fucking bitching about how we are losing the war, why don't you instead start fucking talking about how the fucking insurgents are ruining Iraq? Jesus fucking Buddha can't you be positive for a change?

One more thing.....Jesus fucking Allah, can't you stop swearing in all your posts Leperous? Jesus fucking Cruise, those things under 18 use this forum so watch your fucking mouth.

*yawn*

Yeah, the fact that the death toll remains steady month after fucking month means..... that your winning?

Oh, and just for the record - how many fine men have to die per day before YOU care? And which of the fucking widows and parents do YOU walk up to and say: "hey - it's not that damn bad. If this were WWII youd have so many more in your shoes to commiserate with?"

Whatever else, accusing me of NOT CARING when clearly I find their deaths more tragic than you is pretty fucking sad.




As to my language, it is entirely within the TOS. Don't like that? complain to the owner of this place. However do NOT excpect me to moderate my tone just because YOU can't hack it.


And boy are you way the fuck off on my age or smoking habits! lmfao!!!

If the Insurgents tried a "Tet offensive" they would only succeed in getting themselves exterminated.
What do you think happened to the Vietnamese during the Tet offensive. They died in attrocious numbers. Why it was effective psychologically is that it proved the administration had no idea what it was doing in Vietnam. They had been saying, "The war is won, the war is won, it won't be long." And then Tet. While it was a brilliant tactical victory for the US forces, it was an incalcuable strategic defeat for the politicians. The US fought Vietnam War with one hand tied behind it's back and a number of unbelievably bad strategic descisions (and never lost a battle) which despite Rumsfeld's presense during and opposition to that debacle do bare some resemblance to current descisions made by this administration. If the insurgents did manage to pull off an operation such as the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit after what the administration has said, the republicans would be hung on the party line. The only way they could save themselves would be to cut themselves free. No small feat for the insurgents to pull off, particularly now. But, if it's something they can muster, it would prey upon the same political vulnerability as Tet, a vulernability created entirely out of lies put forth as truth by the administration. I should be clear, it absolutely would end in tactical defeat for the insurgancy, a defeat which would greatly diminish their ability (such as it is). But sometimes, you can steal a game by sacrificing your queen.

Beleive what you want to beleive. I've offered my analysis of the situation based on news that I've read and heard. I may very well be wrong, but it looks like the insurgency is dying to me.
Yeah, it looks as if the insurgents are running out of gas?

CIA says Iraq is now a terrorist training ground (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-06-22T193543Z_01_N22703390_RTRIDST_0_INTERNATIONAL-SECURITY-IRAQ-CIA-DC.XML)

The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, officials said on Wednesday.
A classified report from the U.S. spy agency says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of skills, from car bombings and assassinations to coordinated conventional attacks on police and military targets, officials said.

Once the insurgency ends, Islamic militants are likely to disperse as highly organized battle-hardened combatants capable of operating throughout the Arab-speaking world and in other regions including Europe.

Fighters leaving Iraq would primarily pose a challenge for their countries of origin including Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

But the May report, which has been widely circulated in the intelligence community, also cites a potential threat to the United States.

So you would rather take Cheney's word for the insurgency being in its' "last throes", rather than the leading commander who has to deal with the reality?

The top American military commander in the Persian Gulf disputed a contention by Vice President Dick Cheney that the Iraqi insurgency was in its “last throes” and told Congress on Thursday that its strength was basically undiminished from six months ago.

Furthermore, Gen. John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago.”

Since only 41% of Americans now approve of the way the Iraq War is going, it is time for the spin doctors to get to work and grind out some positive propaganda?

[QUOTE=Leperous monkeyballs]Just curious, but is the continued deaths of almost 3 soldiers per day that convinces you? Or is the continued coordinated attacks and assassinations of highly-placed Iraqis?

The US Army lost an average of 250 soldiers per day during WW2, I think that might have just been for Europe I'll have to check my source later. So 3 soldiers per day ain't that bad, so just shut your uninformed fucking mouth you fucking pot smoking teenager. Right now it doesn't matter what your opinion is of Bush or the reasons for going to war, all that matters is that you support the soldiers of the coalition and the Iraqis. So stop fucking bitching about how we are losing the war, why don't you instead start fucking talking about how the fucking insurgents are ruining Iraq? Jesus fucking Buddha can't you be positive for a change?

One more thing.....Jesus fucking Allah, can't you stop swearing in all your posts Leperous? Jesus fucking Cruise, those things under 18 use this forum so watch your fucking mouth.
Such a wonderful display of urbanity. :eek:

I take it that you are not religious or have some twisted religious fantasies?

:D And it could be argued that the moon is a giant fucking marshmallow put there by the Great Candy God. Which is to say that anything could be argued.


I wish

Just curious, but is the continued deaths of almost 3 soldiers per day that convinces you? Or is the continued coordinated attacks and assassinations of highly-placed Iraqis?

The US Army lost an average of 250 soldiers per day during WW2, I think that might have just been for Europe I'll have to check my source later. So 3 soldiers per day ain't that bad, so just shut your uninformed fucking mouth you fucking pot smoking teenager. Right now it doesn't matter what your opinion is of Bush or the reasons for going to war, all that matters is that you support the soldiers of the coalition and the Iraqis. So stop fucking bitching about how we are losing the war, why don't you instead start fucking talking about how the fucking insurgents are ruining Iraq? Jesus fucking Buddha can't you be positive for a change?

One more thing.....Jesus fucking Allah, can't you stop swearing in all your posts Leperous? Jesus fucking Cruise, those things under 18 use this forum so watch your fucking mouth.Novoga: Official Warning - Flaming and flamebait.

*yawn*

Yeah, the fact that the death toll remains steady month after fucking month means..... that your winning?

Oh, and just for the record - how many fine men have to die per day before YOU care? And which of the fucking widows and parents do YOU walk up to and say: "hey - it's not that damn bad. If this were WWII youd have so many more in your shoes to commiserate with?"

Whatever else, accusing me of NOT CARING when clearly I find their deaths more tragic than you is pretty fucking sad.

As to my language, it is entirely within the TOS. Don't like that? complain to the owner of this place. However do NOT excpect me to moderate my tone just because YOU can't hack it.

And boy are you way the fuck off on my age or smoking habits! lmfao!!!Leperous monkeyballs: Official Warning - Flaming and flamebait.

Given your previous warning for trolling, iForumban, 1 week.

Additionally, it has come to my attention that you have been using foul language excessively on NationStates. While profanity per se is not strictly verboten, your excessive use of it is not acceptable. Given that you have just been forumbanned, any further cases will result in your deletion.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

It could be argued that the insurgency is in it's last throes...
Well, "the insurgency" can't really fall apart, can it? That would imply that it is together in the first place. But it seems to me to be very decentralised.
They don't need massive public support. There'll always be disaffected youths you can strap a bomb to, no matter what the masses think about it.
I don't think the insurgency is ever really going to end. This Iraq is eventually gonna be left on its' own when the Americans leave, and there'll still be bombs going off. And eventually, Shias will blame Sunnis and there'll be civil war.
Then Iraq brakes apart, Kurdistan, Sunni-Iraq and a bunch of Shias that'll eventually join Iran.
But by then we'll be worrying about other regime changes...