NationStates Jolt Archive

Looks like the pool of recruits for the insurgency was as enthusiastic about fighting as most of the anti-war people over here.

Not saying we're having a blazing success, but it looks like the insurgents were having a hard time keeping it going.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/D8I8NEB80.html

The document also said al-Zarqawi planned to try to destroy the relationship between the United States and its Shiite allies in Iraq.

While the coalition was continuing to suffer human losses, "time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance," the document said.

The document said the insurgency was being hurt by, among other things, the U.S. military's program to train Iraqi security forces, by massive arrests and seizures of weapons, by tightening the militants' financial outlets, and by creating divisions within its ranks.

"Generally speaking and despite the gloomy present situation, we find that the best solution in order to get out of this crisis is to involve the U.S. forces in waging a war against another country or any hostile groups," the document said, as quoted by al-Maliki's office.

According to the summary, insurgents were being weakened by operations against them and by their failure to attract recruits. To give new impetus to the insurgency, they would have to change tactics, it added.

OK great, so now we only have to worry about stopping a theocratic "democracy" from taking over.

Here's a link to the full text. Good reading.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/D8I8LJBG0.html

Here's a link to the full text. Good reading.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/D8I8LJBG0.html
Usually a reorganization or restructuring is a plan to cut your losses and try to pull yourself out of a hole. Sounds like terrorism is no different than business in that respect.

Usually a reorganization or restructuring is a plan to cut your losses and try to pull yourself out of a hole. Sounds like terrorism is no different than business in that respect.
What's funny is that reading it, you get the idea that they want to extricate themselves from Iraq.

That's really telling - when insurgents at the leadership position are talking about withdrawal and cutting their losses.

Lets hear the part again where certain folks shrieked that Zarqawi wasnt really of much importance and he wasnt really the #1 bad guy in Iraq, and blah, blah,blah. :rolleyes:

What's funny is that reading it, you get the idea that they want to extricate themselves from Iraq.

That's really telling - when insurgents at the leadership position are talking about withdrawal and cutting their losses.
This wouldn't send their stock soaring if they were General Motors, that's for sure. Although it may be sending our markets up.

The Democrats are still in denial, by the way. Nancy Pelosi had this to say on the House floor, "The war was "a grotesque mistake. The administration continues to dig a hole. They refuse to come up and see the light." John Murtha has yet to tell us what a miserable failure the efforts have been, but I'm sure he and John Kerry are working on a statement.

This wouldn't send their stock soaring if they were General Motors, that's for sure. Although it may be sending our markets up.

The Democrats are still in denial, by the way. Nancy Pelosi had this to say on the House floor, "The war was "a grotesque mistake. The administration continues to dig a hole. They refuse to come up and see the light." John Murtha has yet to tell us what a miserable failure the efforts have been, but I'm sure he and John Kerry are working on a statement.

Looks like some of the people on NS General are in denial, too. Wouldn't want to read anything that confirms that killing Zarqawi and taking his data drive out of his fetid underwear got positive results.

Looks like the pool of recruits for the insurgency was as enthusiastic about fighting as most of the anti-war people over here.

Not saying we're having a blazing success, but it looks like the insurgents were having a hard time keeping it going.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/D8I8NEB80.html
I dont think that the anti-insurgents are doing well, its another reason the insurgency isent being intense over there

the World Cup

I dont think that the anti-insurgents are doing well, its another reason the insurgency isent being intense over there

the World Cup

Umm... read Zarqawi's notes.

He said the anti-insurgency is doing so well, the insurgency has to think of a way to get out of Iraq and get the US to focus on someone else.

Looks like some of the people on NS General are in denial, too. Wouldn't want to read anything that confirms that killing Zarqawi and taking his data drive out of his fetid underwear got positive results.

Indeed. If this was a negative report, people would be all over it in a heart beat.

Looks like the pool of recruits for the insurgency was as enthusiastic about fighting as most of the anti-war people over here.

Not saying we're having a blazing success, but it looks like the insurgents were having a hard time keeping it going.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/D8I8NEB80.html
You must be gutted that you've probably started a new wave of freedom fighting by killing him, then.

You must be gutted that you've probably started a new wave of freedom fighting by killing him, then.
I guess you missed the wave of sweeping arrest of current members of the insurgency.

It's called decapitation on a wide scale, and it does affect the operations of an insurgency, and forces their lines of communication into the open because they have to reconnect with the organization.

Consider also that 40% of the people called to jihad in Iraq are dead now.

I guess you missed the wave of sweeping arrest of current members of the insurgency.

It's called decapitation on a wide scale, and it does affect the operations of an insurgency, and forces their lines of communication into the open because they have to reconnect with the organization.

Consider also that 40% of the people called to jihad in Iraq are dead now.
The same was said just after the VC launched the Tet Offensive.

Their force actually escalated after they lost about 90,000 soldiers.

We'll just have to see what happens in the future on this one. I think it'll just mean that someone else steps up to the plate and the situation'll continue as it was about a fortnight ago.

The same was said just after the VC launched the Tet Offensive.

Their force actually escalated after they lost about 90,000 soldiers.

We'll just have to see what happens in the future on this one. I think it'll just mean that someone else steps up to the plate and the situation'll continue as it was about a fortnight ago.

There are many things that are not the same when relating the VC to the various resistance groups in Iraq.

The VC were under a tight chain of command, with an excellent communication network. Quite unlike the scattered and disparate insurgency groups, who have a limited communication network by comparison, and no central chain of command - they cooperate or fail to cooperate at will.

Zarqawi said in another document that insurgents really don't have any place to hide - no forest, no mountains. Quite unlike Vietnam. And he complained that even in a city where someone might provide a safe house, there are too many eyes - too many people living around the neighborhood who would be willing to turn them in.

It's different.

Additionally, if people want to come join the jihad, they have to be trained and organized - if we're killing off the mid and high level leadership, that usually stops.

The VC were under a tight chain of command, with an excellent communication network. Quite unlike the scattered and disparate insurgency groups, who have a limited communication network by comparison, and no central chain of command - they cooperate or fail to cooperate at will.
The NLF were quite poorly organised in the first few years. So are, seemingly, the freedom fighters in Iraq.

We will see in five or so years if they get better organised or not.
Zarqawi said in another document that insurgents really don't have any place to hide - no forest, no mountains. Quite unlike Vietnam. And he complained that even in a city where someone might provide a safe house, there are too many eyes - too many people living around the neighborhood who would be willing to turn them in.
And yet there are still thousands of freedom fighters in Iraq. Shocking as this may sound, but al-Zaqawi may have been wrong.
It's different.
And yet, in its own way, similar.
Additionally, if people want to come join the jihad, they have to be trained and organized - if we're killing off the mid and high level leadership, that usually stops.
Or possibly they'll just get better leadership from fresh blood, so to speak.

And Islamic Jihad are not the only group.

Has noone thought of the fact that this mgiht be
a) US or coalition supporter propageanda
b) a false piece of information given by the insurgents

either one is very possible, b more than a

Has noone thought of the fact that this mgiht be
a) US or coalition supporter propageanda
b) a false piece of information given by the insurgents

either one is very possible, b more than a

Or true. Which is also possible.

Something tells me that the US (which so many believe is intent on attacking Iran) would not put into a piece of propaganda the idea that "we should try to get the US to attack Iran and deceive the US about Iran and get the US to blame Iran".

Gee, wouldn't that undercut everything that a lot of people here believe is the greatest desire of the Bush Administration?

I would think that Bush wouldn't appreciate hearing that the news he hears about Iran and its ties to terrorists, nuclear weapons, etc., are all a ruse.

Or true. Which is also possible.
yeah, of course, but that was the first thing that was said, ro assumed

the others were not

Something tells me that the US (which so many believe is intent on attacking Iran) would not put into a piece of propaganda the idea that "we should try to get the US to attack Iran and deceive the US about Iran and get the US to blame Iran".

Gee, wouldn't that undercut everything that a lot of people here believe is the greatest desire of the Bush Administration?

I would think that Bush wouldn't appreciate hearing that the news he hears about Iran and its ties to terrorists, nuclear weapons, etc., are all a ruse.
You would think so, but thinking isn't the great strength of the Bush Administration, by the looks of it.

Something tells me that the US (which so many believe is intent on attacking Iran) would not put into a piece of propaganda the idea that "we should try to get the US to attack Iran and deceive the US about Iran and get the US to blame Iran".

Gee, wouldn't that undercut everything that a lot of people here believe is the greatest desire of the Bush Administration?

I would think that Bush wouldn't appreciate hearing that the news he hears about Iran and its ties to terrorists, nuclear weapons, etc., are all a ruse.
Yeah, but its not eactly the US thats putting this out,
what I said is a possibility, so it might not be the US

and I dont think Bush would mind hearing that Iran has nothing, it be the same as with Iraq

Yeah, but its not eactly the US thats putting this out,
what I said is a possibility, so it might not be the US

and I dont think Bush would mind hearing that Iran has nothing, it be the same as with Iraq
Also, the fact that the other material that this is purportedly from is being used successfully to catch or kill over 100 more tells me that the info is good.

Also, the fact that the other material that this is purportedly from is being used successfully to catch or kill over 100 more tells me that the info is good.
yeah, its quite easy to add information onto other info,

and then theres the possibility that they already had that info, and added it to this

and then again, it mgiht be a ruse by the insurgents

The NLF were quite poorly organised in the first few years. So are, seemingly, the freedom fighters in Iraq.

The other difference is logistics. Zarqawi complains of having his funds and sources of weapons cut off.

Logistics was never a problem for the VC - they received huge amounts of supplies from the North.

Interesting that Al Qaeda is so interested in a war between the US and Iran. Also notice that several of their bullet points on how to achieve this are exactly what we've been hearing from Washington. Anyone feeling used yet?

yeah, of course, but that was the first thing that was said, ro assumed

the others were not
Hey, that kind of logic is frowned upon around here because it implies the US isn't right. :rolleyes:

Interesting that Al Qaeda is so interested in a war between the US and Iran. Also notice that several of their bullet points on how to achieve this are exactly what we've been hearing from Washington. Anyone feeling used yet?
Yes, and anyone with a brain who saw how Zarqawi was killing Shias in the night with an eye to starting a civil war could see that was what he wanted to do.

The other difference is logistics. Zarqawi complains of having his funds and sources of weapons cut off.

Logistics was never a problem for the VC - they received huge amounts of supplies from the North.
Not entirely true.

They were well supplied at most points, but when China and the USSR disagreed, nothing got through.

If it's Iran and Syria funding and arming him, then the situation might be very similar.

Not entirely true.

They were well supplied at most points, but when China and the USSR disagreed, nothing got through.

If it's Iran and Syria funding and arming him, then the situation might be very similar.

I have the feeling that Iran is not supplying him. Also, considering the open terrain that must be crossed to deliver arms, etc., it's harder. He probably has to make do with what they can scrounge from what was left of Saddam's arsenal (which is large, but not something with an indefinite shelf life in the desert).

I have the feeling that Iran is not supplying him. Also, considering the open terrain that must be crossed to deliver arms, etc., it's harder. He probably has to make do with what they can scrounge from what was left of Saddam's arsenal (which is large, but not something with an indefinite shelf life in the desert).
It's a fairly large border.

And I'm sure that the resistance will take US weapons.

Hey, that kind of logic is frowned upon around here because it implies the US isn't right. :rolleyes:
heh

It's a fairly large border.

And I'm sure that the resistance will take US weapons.

So far, the casualty rate inflicted by the insurgents is a fraction of the rate inflicted by the VC (on US troops). The primary method of attack is the IED - and there are very few opportunities to capture weapons.

Engaging in outright combat is suicidal for insurgents, as they lack both the firepower and the advanced body armor. To inflict casualties in any significant numbers during an engagement, they have to use rocket propelled grenades or IEDs. Rifles just don't do to US soldiers what they did in the Vietnam War - the standard IBA armor is impervious to rifle fire for the chest, abdomen, and back.

So far, the casualty rate inflicted by the insurgents is a fraction of the rate inflicted by the VC (on US troops). The primary method of attack is the IED - and there are very few opportunities to capture weapons.
Are you sure?

They've been there for 3 ish years - how were casualties in 1965?

I imagine not that bad.
Engaging in outright combat is suicidal for insurgents, as they lack both the firepower and the advanced body armor. To inflict casualties in any significant numbers during an engagement, they have to use rocket propelled grenades or IEDs. Rifles just don't do to US soldiers what they did in the Vietnam War - the standard IBA armor is impervious to rifle fire for the chest, abdomen, and back.
But not to the legs or other extremeties.

But not to the legs or other extremeties.

It's very hard to get a shot off at someone's extremities.

Is the document legit or are we taking the governments word on it?

Is the document legit or are we taking the governments word on it?
Have a guess!

Who were being supplied by China and the USSR all the North needed was warm bodies everything else was a handout. But according to Giap if the B-52's had free rain on the North they would have folded. Vietnam was in our grasp and we lacked the will.


I looks like they had high hopes for Iran

3. The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side, either after the fall of Iran or during the battles


The other difference is logistics. Zarqawi complains of having his funds and sources of weapons cut off.

Logistics was never a problem for the VC - they received huge amounts of supplies from the North.

Are you sure?

They've been there for 3 ish years - how were casualties in 1965?

I imagine not that bad.



Our first combat troops landed in Vietnam in March '65. There was a ratcheting-up of troop levels in Vietnam from that point, versus a slow ratcheting down since the initial invasion of Iraq.

"Mission accomplished" yet?

So far, the casualty rate inflicted by the insurgents is a fraction of the rate inflicted by the VC (on US troops). The primary method of attack is the IED - and there are very few opportunities to capture weapons.

Engaging in outright combat is suicidal for insurgents, as they lack both the firepower and the advanced body armor. To inflict casualties in any significant numbers during an engagement, they have to use rocket propelled grenades or IEDs. Rifles just don't do to US soldiers what they did in the Vietnam War - the standard IBA armor is impervious to rifle fire for the chest, abdomen, and back.

So far, 2,723 coalition troops have died (DOES NOT COUNT MERCENARIES)
I dont know how many in the first three years of vietnam

and I dont know how much it is proportionally, maybe someone could shed some light on this

Also, for guerrilla, Vietnam is a much better enviroment than Iraq. Desne Jungle vs Open Desert

So far, 2,723 coalition troops have died (DOES NOT COUNT MERCENARIES)
I dont know how many in the first three years of vietnam

and I dont know how much it is proportionally, maybe someone could shed some light on this

Also, for guerrilla, Vietnam is a much better enviroment than Iraq. Desne Jungle vs Open Desert
First three years of Vietnam were really French. After Dien Bien Phu, the French pulled out and the U.S. took over. Up until 1965, the role was "advisory". There were about 16000 troops in country as of 1963. From '63 to '64, Johnson escalated the war, bringing the troop total to about 500,000. I haven't found anywhere that the death toll has been reported for those early years, but I'm sure some diligent searching would turn it up.

Look for your self http://thewall-usa.com/stats/


1863 kia in 1965

Are you sure?

They've been there for 3 ish years - how were casualties in 1965?

I imagine not that bad.

But not to the legs or other extremeties.

Mr Murtha has weighed in on the current situation in Iraq. "Stay and we'll pay," countered Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., who criticized "the failed policy of this administration" and lamented the lives lost, billions of dollars spent and the bruised U.S. image since the war started. "It's time to redeploy and be ready." he said.

I wonder if Zarqawi thought the Administration policy was failing, as a half ton of high explosives came through the roof?

So far, 2,723 coalition troops have died (DOES NOT COUNT MERCENARIES)
I dont know how many in the first three years of vietnam

and I dont know how much it is proportionally, maybe someone could shed some light on this

Also, for guerrilla, Vietnam is a much better enviroment than Iraq. Desne Jungle vs Open Desert
55,000 dead for the roughly ten years of the Vietnam War.

We're at 2500 for three years.

Big difference.

Also, consider that unless a country like Iran becomes involved directly, no group of insurgents has the power to take control of the country - much less perform a "Tet" style global attack.

What might be scary for the insurgents (Sunni) who are out there is wondering whether their names and addresses and cell phone numbers were in Zarqawi's data store. For a few weeks, their going to be running and hiding.

Also, for guerrilla, Vietnam is a much better enviroment than Iraq. Desne Jungle vs Open Desert


Well, to be honest, very little of the fighting occurs in the open desert. Most of the fighting occurs in built up areas or in the wooded areas near the rivers. Such as these.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/tuebor/TREES.jpg

Well, to be honest, very little of the fighting occurs in the open desert. Most of the fighting occurs in built up areas or in the wooded areas near the rivers. Such as these.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/tuebor/TREES.jpg

Who cares ..as soon as the IRAQI people voted...all 12 million of them they were doomed...without the support of the people an insurgency is doomed...once the Sunni's decided to become part of the governement the hold outs days were numbered...am I the only one that can look at the day the head FORIEGN terrorist was killed and the formation of the last parts of a unified government and see the point ?

Get real they are doomed as the dodo .

Who cares ..as soon as the IRAQI people voted...all 12 million of them they were doomed...without the support of the people an insurgency is doomed...once the Sunni's decided to become part of the governement the hold outs days were numbered...am I the only one that can look at the day the head FORIEGN terrorist was killed and the formation of the last parts of a unified government and see the point ?

Get real they are doomed as the dodo .

Wow, you read a whole lot more into my post than was actually there.

What I was actually saying was that Iraqi geography isn't just open desert, and that very little fighting occurs in the open desert. I didn't say anything about the insurgency's chances against the US or anything. Or did you just feel like having a rant?