NationStates Jolt Archive

Their diabolical plans to get Shites and Sunnis into a civil war with each other isn't working, and neither are their plans to get the Shites mad at the US. Ohh the fun of being between a rock and a harder place!


This forum needs a devilish smiley, because that's what would be appropriate right now.





Papers show 'gloomy' state of insurgency By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 15, 5:52 PM ET



BAGHDAD, Iraq - A blueprint for trying to start a war between the United States and Iran was among a "huge treasure" of documents found in the hideout of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraqi officials said Thursday. The document, purporting to reflect al-Qaida policy and its cooperation with groups loyal to ousted President Saddam Hussein, also appear to show that the insurgency in Iraq was weakening.

ADVERTISEMENT

The al-Qaida in Iraq document was translated and released by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie. There was no way to independently confirm the authenticity of the information attributed to al-Qaida.

Although the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the document was found in al-Zarqawi's hideout following a June 7 airstrike that killed him, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said the document had in fact been found in a previous raid as part of an ongoing three-week operation to track al-Zarqawi.

"We can verify that this information did come off some kind of computer asset that was at a safe location," he said. "This was prior to the al-Zarqawi safe house."

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.

"We mean specifically attempting to escalate the tension between America and Iran, and American and the Shiite in Iraq," it quoted the documents as saying, especially among moderate followers of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq.

"Creating disputes between America and them could hinder the U.S. cooperation with them, and subsequently weaken this kind of alliance between Shiites and the Americans," it said, adding that "the best solution is to get America involved in a war against another country and this would bring benefits."

They included "opening a new front" for the U.S. military and releasing some of the "pressure exerted on the resistance."

It pointed to clashes in 2004 between U.S. forces and followers of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army militia as evidence of the benefits of such a strategy. Al-Sadr and his growing followers are among the fiercest advocates of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

It said the "results obtained during the struggle between U.S. army and al-Mahdi army is an example of the benefits to be gained by such struggle."

Al-Maliki's office said the document provides "the broad guidelines of the program of the Saddamists and the takfiris inside al-Zarqawi's group."

"Takfiri" is a reference to an extremist ideology that urges Muslims to kill anyone they consider an infidel, even fellow Muslims. It is the ideology that many Iraqis, especially in the Shiite community, use to describe al-Zarqawi and his followers.

The language contained in the document was different from the vocabulary used by al-Qaida statements posted on the Web. For example, it does not refer to the Americans as "Crusaders" nor use the term "rejectionists" to allude to Shiites.

Much of what is in the statement from al-Rubaie echoes results that the U.S. military and the Iraqi government say they are seeking. It also appears to reinforce American and Iraqi arguments that al-Qaida in Iraq and its operatives are a group of imported extremists bent on killing innocent civilians.

Al-Qaida in Iraq has been blamed for thousands of deaths, hundreds of bombings, kidnappings and assassinations in the past three years. Al-Qaida in Iraq's own hatred of the Shiites is well-documented and al-Zarqawi has repeatedly called on Sunnis to rise up and kill them.

We have known this for years...;)

We have known this for years...;)

Me too...I just can't hold it in.

I think their goal if initiating a war between the US and Iran is uniquely clever. Some sort of masquerade would almost seem to be what they want.

Well it would kill a WHOLE bunch of Shiites....and since he was a Sunni...you gotta wonder..

Insurgency is failing huh? Someone tell these folks (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C16%5Cstory_16-6-2006_pg7_43). :rolleyes:

Uh, no. Killing and disrupting the plans of one man in a cell based insurgency doesn’t destroy said insurgency.

Uh, no. Killing and disrupting the plans of one man in a cell based insurgency doesn’t destroy said insurgency.

Raiding and killing his followers on 60+ raids in the few days after never works. Yep...


And finding out that the insurgency is failing? Priceless.

The insurgency has been "failing," "in its last throes," etc. since about March 2003.

You guys are slow..............:D


BAGHDAD, Iraq – American and Iraqi forces have carried out 452 raids since last week's killing of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and 104 insurgents were killed during those actions, the U.S. military said Thursday.
Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said the raids were carried out nationwide and led to the discovery of 28 significant arms caches.



He said 255 of the raids were joint operations, while 143 were carried out by Iraqi forces alone. The raids also resulted in the captures of 759 “anti-Iraqi elements.”
Iraqi police reported more violence near where al-Zarqawi was killed June 7 by a U.S. airstrike. Gunmen shot and killed 10 Shiites on Thursday after pulling them off a bus in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.

The 10 men – nine workers at the city's industrial area and the driver – were between the ages of 20 and 45 and were heading back to their homes, a police officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

The workers include three brothers and six other relatives. The gunmen sped away in two black

DM claiming that the insurgency is failing, based on an article talking about the goals of al queda in iraq?

Its so inane, I'm actually almost surprised.

DM claiming that the insurgency is failing, based on an article talking about the goals of al queda in iraq?

Its so inane, I'm actually almost surprised.

Read the post above you man. C'mon...

459 raids. I was off by 400. Dang, I'm old, jewish, and pretty stupid with numbers :D

I think their goal if initiating a war between the US and Iran is uniquely clever. Some sort of masquerade would almost seem to be what they want.

I agree. Good thing they got a hold of those papers because it might have worked. This should make the US a little more cautious when accusing Iran of things.

The terrorists have not succeeded in any of their aims, nor have they prevented the Coalition achieving any of its aims, ergo the terrorists are failing.

Or can one succeed without accomplishing any of one's aims, nor preventing one's enemies accomplishing their's?

Hey, what a coincidence!
This thread was posted almost exactly a year and a month to the day that Cheney said the insurgency was in it's 'last throes'.

Hey, what a coincidence!
This thread was posted almost exactly a year and a month to the day that Cheney said the insurgency was in it's 'last throes'.

Aw, c'mon. He's had like 8 heart attacks now. His sense of scale is a bit off! ;)

The insurgency has been "failing," "in its last throes," etc. since about March 2003.

The Confederacy was losing the Civil War after Gettsyburg and Vicksburg in 1863. All the same there were still confederate fighters in 1868 more than three years after Lee's surrender. That did not alter the fact that starting in 1863 the Confederacy was failing and in its last throes. Dead snakes thrash around for a long time after their death (hence the phrase "last throes") but that does not alter the fact that the "insurgency" is indeed a dead snake. :)

edit: Kinda sucks for anyone who was betting either their honor or their political fortunes on the Insurgency winning, don't it? ;)

The terrorists have not succeeded in any of their aims, nor have they prevented the Coalition achieving any of its aims, ergo the terrorists are failing.

Or can one succeed without accomplishing any of one's aims, nor preventing one's enemies accomplishing their's?
And what exactly has the coalition succeeded in doing? Putting together a government with no influence outside its own meeing rooms? Wow--that's a fucking accomplishment. :rolleyes:

Ok, see the thing is, the Insurgency in Iraq is fucking stupid. They could've kicked america out of Iraq earlier in the war, but its too late now becuase Iraq has a new government and a good army. Their biggest problem was the car bombings and the suicide bombings. See the thing is, in a Guerrila war, everything depends on support of the people, and the Insurgents used terrorist tactics by blowing up the people. The people, didnt like that, so they turned to the US and New Iraqi Government. So they got support of the people and began to win. The insurgents are just fucking dumb. They tried to terrorise the people into supporting them, you cant do that, people will fight back or not cooperate with you if you act like that. Ironically those suicide bombings which were the hardest thing to stop are also the thing bringing down the insurgency. If they would've fought with and for the Iraqis and made it look like the US was here to opress them and they were liberating and helping them, then they would've had a better chance. Then they could've been supported and moved through Iraq by way of the people. but no, they fucked it up and got fucked up by the US and deserve it for being so fucking dumb. they are Ammatures.:headbang: Now the vietcong however, they knew how to operate a guerrila war.

The insurgency has no real power. Sure, they can set up carbombs and all that, and its sad that people die. However, when the best the insurgency can do is kill regular citizens, but cannot touch the higher level officials, its a dying insurgency.

And what exactly has the coalition succeeded in doing? Putting together a government with no influence outside its own meeing rooms? Wow--that's a fucking accomplishment.

Nonsense.

Now the vietcong however, they knew how to operate a guerrila war.

They lost, the North Vietnamese Army won the war in a conventional invasion.

Why do you call them Shites? What do you have against them?

Oh, and gloat when the insurgency has failed, not while it is failing.

Because he makes spelling mistakes? It is not unheard of around here.

The insurgency has no real power. Sure, they can set up carbombs and all that, and its sad that people die. However, when the best the insurgency can do is kill regular citizens, but cannot touch the higher level officials, its a dying insurgency.
Try again (http://www.google.com/search?hs=gqQ&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=iraq+insurgents+assassinate+government+officials&btnG=Search)

Nonsense.

So what have they done outside of that? Most other benchmarks of success are below invasion levels. Tell me, o wise one, what the coalition has accomplished other than putting together a paper government.

Nonsense and propoganda are cheap, on both sides. When the killings of U.S. soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and officials have stopped, then you may tell me that the insurgency is dead. In the meantime, perhaps the supporters of our continued involvement in Iraq would do better to spend their time working to win the war rather than trying to convince the public that they are winning it when the game is still afoot.

I'm happy we're proving the whiney leftists wrong (again).

"Wahhh, wahhh! We're losing, we're losing! We should pull out!"

No, we're not losing. You just want us to lose.

As for progress in Iraq? Dead terrorists. Democracy. New infrastructure. 'Nuff said....Now onto Iran...

Now the vietcong however, they knew how to operate a guerrila war.

No if you want to model your guerrila war after any one model it after the chinese communist overthrow. Mao really knew what he was doing.The only reason that the viet cong didn't suffer the same was they they had jungle instead of desert and US technology wasn't as good as it is today.

Try again (http://www.google.com/search?hs=gqQ&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=iraq+insurgents+assassinate+government+officials&btnG=Search)

Thanks for the Google search, let's see what it reveals. ^_^

1. Sundry "scholarly" articles. Doubtless the usual uninformed blather but it might be fun to come back to them sometime. :)

2. CNN post from *Nov. 1, 2004*. Hm. I wonder what month and year it
is currently, don't you? :confused:

3. *May 8, 2005* article that mentions Al Zubudyi was *thinking* about assassinating government officials. And what a mighty insurgency it is when such a high poobah mucketymuck among the terrorists *thinks* about assassination, is it not? BTW, what is the current date again? @_@

4. A report from 2005 about what happened in *mid-2003*. If I at all remembered the current date doubtless I would detect a pattern here. :)

5. A wiki article on the insurgency. And articles like that never get changed for political reasons, right? :p

6. A Newsweek rumor about Special Forces as quoted by MSNBC.

7. An OpEd from Hill News dated *April 27, 2005*. Almost as current as item#3. :eek: If only I remembered the date doubtless I would have a better idea of what this says about the insurgency's current level of health. @_@

8. A Manchester Guardian Timeline dated *Feb. 1, 2004 to Dec. 1, 2004*. Now for some reason I'm having a hard time remembering today's date but since some of these Google articles mention the year 2005 I'm pretty sure that such a timeline says little about the current health of the "Insurgency".

9. An article about the assasination of Ali Radi al-Hayadar on *January 4, 2005*. Ooooo! By the standards of *this* google search that certainly counts as recent news, doesn't it? :)

10. A Heritege Foundation report talking about the battle of Fallujah in *October 15, 2004*.

So these were the top 10 results of your google search and presumably represent the height and sum of *recent* insurgent activity since they were at the top of this search and you presented this search as evidence that the Insurgency is still alive. And what is the date today? Oh yeah, *now* I remember! It's *June 16, 2006*! In other words, your evidence that the Insurgency is supposed to still be alive doesn't go closer to the present than 13 months ago. What a powerful and healthy insurgency that is! :D

But don't worry, I'm sure it's still as healthy as al-Zatqawi. ;)

Thanks for the Google search, let's see what it reveals. ^_^

1. Sundry "scholarly" articles. Doubtless the usual uninformed blather but it might be fun to come back to them sometime. :)

2. CNN post from *Nov. 1, 2004*. Hm. I wonder what month and year it
is currently, don't you? :confused:

3. *May 8, 2005* article that mentions Al Zubudyi was *thinking* about assassinating government officials. And what a mighty insurgency it is when such a high poobah mucketymuck among the terrorists *thinks* about assassination, is it not? BTW, what is the current date again? @_@

4. A report from 2005 about what happened in *mid-2003*. If I at all remembered the current date doubtless I would detect a pattern here. :)

5. A wiki article on the insurgency. And articles like that never get changed for political reasons, right? :p

6. A Newsweek rumor about Special Forces as quoted by MSNBC.

7. An OpEd from Hill News dated *April 27, 2005*. Almost as current as item#3. :eek: If only I remembered the date doubtless I would have a better idea of what this says about the insurgency's current level of health. @_@

8. A Manchester Guardian Timeline dated *Feb. 1, 2004 to Dec. 1, 2004*. Now for some reason I'm having a hard time remembering today's date but since some of these Google articles mention the year 2005 I'm pretty sure that such a timeline says little about the current health of the "Insurgency".

9. An article about the assasination of Ali Radi al-Hayadar on *January 4, 2005*. Ooooo! By the standards of *this* google search that certainly counts as recent news, doesn't it? :)

10. A Heritege Foundation report talking about the battle of Fallujah in *October 15, 2004*.

So these were the top 10 results of your google search and presumably represent the height and sum of *recent* insurgent activity since they were at the top of this search and you presented this search as evidence that the Insurgency is still alive. And what is the date today? Oh yeah, *now* I remember! It's *June 16, 2006*! In other words, your evidence that the Insurgency is supposed to still be alive doesn't go closer to the present than 13 months ago. What a powerful and healthy insurgency that is! :D

But don't worry, I'm sure it's still as healthy as al-Zatqawi. ;)
Please excuse my interruption of this argument, but I must call you for the excessive and unnecessary ad hominem attacks. Your debate style is flawed, spread more with ego-flaunting and crushing the other person than in actual debating. I do not have the facts to decide either way in this case and I do not intend to. I do suggest, however, that you try debating in a much nicer fashion. You'll find relations with people here much easier on you for that.
(This is friendly advice, by the way. Please do not misconstrue my tone.)

The insurgency is failing, because Shias outnumber Sunnis about 3:1.

Let it go on, let it go on.
It is the Sunnis that pay the price, and that serves them well.

I'm happy we're proving the whiney leftists wrong (again).

"Wahhh, wahhh! We're losing, we're losing! We should pull out!"

No, we're not losing. You just want us to lose.

As for progress in Iraq? Dead terrorists. Democracy. New infrastructure. 'Nuff said....Now onto Iran...

I'm happy when the leftists actually prove you right wing idiots wrong, but the stupidity of your argument doesn't sink in so you never know that you have lost. It's golden. :D

Sorry but, our progress in Iraq is the equivilent of someone using a bucket to throw out water on the Titanic. Dead terrorists also means dead innocents and dead US servicemen. Dead people is never progress. Especially when the supposed point was for peace and stability. Secondly, I have yet to see any Democracy in Iraq. Voting is only a small part of Democracy. I have yet to see debate about issues concerning Iraq by it's government. Third, a new infrastructure would bring our stability. Iraq's infastructure is jello, not concrete. And last, we ARE losing. Reports now say that we have spent a TRILLION fucking dollars and we have nothing to gain from this.

It scares me that idiots like you are in charge of the world's most powerful nation, and there's nothing I can do about it.

Please tell me how you can stop a suicide bomber?? Impossible. The insurgency in Iraq will never be stopped with a gun it will be stopped by the Iraqis forming a government and restoring order themselfs. If America left in the morning there would be less voilence gurranteed.

-The insurgents would believe they had won even though they had lost

-There would be a stable democratic government in power with a well trained army and police force

-Insurgents would not be able to recruit people by telling them to fight against the great enemy america because they wouldnt be in their country.

-No american soldiers would be harmed because they would be gone

-Diplomatic relations between America and basicly everywhere would improve

- GWs Approval rating would go up

- America wouldnt be wasting billions on the military for nothing while


What are the reasons for staying??

The hated english tried to subdue an "insurgency" through violence and torture for 800 years and it didn't work. Oliver Cromwell with his famous phrase "nits breed lice" instructing his soldiers to kill children. The Black & Tans psuedo mercenary/criminal torture squads roamed the countryside imposing 'order' which lead to an ever more organised and determined group of resistance fighters more rooted in the community. That was in Ireland, a small country which couldn't possibly hope to resist the most powerful empire in the world.

2,500 dead US soldiers, so far. They fought for money in a war about money. They just obey orders, orders to murder, orders to torture. Like the Phillipines, like Cuba, like Vietnam.

America is full with fear filled spineless types who can be bought with money and cowed by authority. The assumption that the rest of the world behaves like that has always been incorrect. Look at Cuba bravely resisting the illegal attempts of the US to turn it back into a whorehouse full of gangsters despite the poverty enforced on its people by the illegal US blockade.

So long as american troops murder women and children in Iraq they'll be getting their heads and limbs blown off in retribution. The second the US troops desert their allies as they did in Vietnam the "government troops" will desert or be killed. The insurgency isn't likely to be as nice as the Vietnamese just imprisoning traitors.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5598930054847637875&q=jesse+iraq&pr=goog-sl
Have a nice day

The hated english tried to subdue an "insurgency" through violence and torture for 800 years and it didn't work. Oliver Cromwell with his famous phrase "nits breed lice" instructing his soldiers to kill children. The Black & Tans psuedo mercenary/criminal torture squads roamed the countryside imposing 'order' which lead to an ever more organised and determined group of resistance fighters more rooted in the community. That was in Ireland, a small country which couldn't possibly hope to resist the most powerful empire in the world.

2,500 dead US soldiers, so far. They fought for money in a war about money. They just obey orders, orders to murder, orders to torture. Like the Phillipines, like Cuba, like Vietnam.

America is full with fear filled spineless types who can be bought with money and cowed by authority. The assumption that the rest of the world behaves like that has always been incorrect. Look at Cuba bravely resisting the illegal attempts of the US to turn it back into a whorehouse full of gangsters despite the poverty enforced on its people by the illegal US blockade.

So long as american troops murder women and children in Iraq they'll be getting their heads and limbs blown off in retribution. The second the US troops desert their allies as they did in Vietnam the "government troops" will desert or be killed. The insurgency isn't likely to be as nice as the Vietnamese just imprisoning traitors.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5598930054847637875&q=jesse+iraq&pr=goog-sl
Have a nice day


2.500 dead americans.
250.000 dead iraqis?


Have a nice day!

Please excuse my interruption of this argument, but I must call you for the excessive and unnecessary ad hominem attacks. Your debate style is flawed, spread more with ego-flaunting and crushing the other person than in actual debating. I do not have the facts to decide either way in this case and I do not intend to. I do suggest, however, that you try debating in a much nicer fashion. You'll find relations with people here much easier on you for that.
(This is friendly advice, by the way. Please do not misconstrue my tone.)

Uh, with all due respect just what part of my arguement are you calling *ad hominem*? Sarcastic yes, upon occasion I do like to lay it on thick so that my point comes across, but "ad hominem"? o_O

I do appreciate the advice but the first thing I learned when I came to this forum is that debates tend to be bareknuckles on the part of the Left (As they do tend to be elsewhere) and it's either adapt or die.

If you doubt me then permit me to ask you what part of Istenbul's "I'm happy when the leftists actually prove you rightwing idiots wrong, but the stupidity of your arguement doesn't sink in so you never know that you have lost." seemed nicer to you? Are you really going to tell me that such an opening was free of excessive and unnecessary ad hominem attacks? This time I am not trying to be sarcastic so much as curious about whether there might not be the selective vision (Not unlike Piro vision and Largo vision) I occasionally encounter from people who have argued as you have done in the past who saw no problem with leftists talking any old way they wanted to in arguing with their opponents but were always ready to show a delicate concern that about the niceties of debate where the tender feelings of the Left were concerned at the hands of the Right.

So forgive me if my occasional bout of cynicism moves me to ask: Is your concern for courtesy in debate universal or does it merely extend in one particular direction? Will people like Istenbul hear from you as well? If not. then do not be surprised if I take your kind advice with a grain of salt and debate in the spirit that I must. I do try to match courtesy for courtesy when I encounter it in an opponent but please don't expect me to go by Marquis of Queensbury rules when I go against somebody who I know won't observe them.

Uh, with all due respect just what part of my arguement are you calling *ad hominem*? Sarcastic yes, upon occasion I do like to lay it on thick so that my point comes across, but "ad hominem"? o_O

I do appreciate the advice but the first thing I learned when I came to this forum is that debates tend to be bareknuckles on the part of the Left (As they do tend to be elsewhere) and it's either adapt or die.

If you doubt me then permit me to ask you what part of Istenbul's "I'm happy when the leftists actually prove you rightwing idiots wrong, but the stupidity of your arguement doesn't sink in so you never know that you have lost." seemed nicer to you? Are you really going to tell me that such an opening was free of excessive and unnecessary ad hominem attacks? This time I am not trying to be sarcastic so much as curious about whether there might not be the selective vision (Not unlike Piro vision and Largo vision) I occasionally encounter from people who have argued as you have done in the past who saw no problem with leftists talking any old way they wanted to in arguing with their opponents but were always ready to show a delicate concern that about the niceties of debate where the tender feelings of the Left were concerned at the hands of the Right.

So forgive me if my occasional bout of cynicism moves me to ask: Is your concern for courtesy in debate universal or does it merely extend in one particular direction? Will people like Istenbul hear from you as well? If not. then do not be surprised if I take your kind advice with a grain of salt and debate in the spirit that I must. I do try to match courtesy for courtesy when I encounter it in an opponent but please don't expect me to go by Marquis of Queensbury rules when I go against somebody who I know won't observe them.
Of course it's universal. I merely spoke to the one I noticed first. I haven't returned to the thread till now, so I did not realize he posted what he did.

So, I say to you all: debate the debate, not each other. Please. No need to make things personal. Making things personal is a sign that your argument is flawed in some manner and is therefore inferior to the other person's argument, so you thusly resort to personal attacks to prevent the other person from noticing. I, therefore, urge all not to resort to that. For *insert diety of your choice here* sake, if you've lost an argument, admit it! It's not that hard to do! Sheesh.

The hated english tried to subdue an "insurgency" through violence and torture for 800 years and it didn't work. Oliver Cromwell with his famous phrase "nits breed lice" instructing his soldiers to kill children. The Black & Tans psuedo mercenary/criminal torture squads roamed the countryside imposing 'order' which lead to an ever more organised and determined group of resistance fighters more rooted in the community. That was in Ireland, a small country which couldn't possibly hope to resist the most powerful empire in the world.

2,500 dead US soldiers, so far. They fought for money in a war about money. They just obey orders, orders to murder, orders to torture. Like the Phillipines, like Cuba, like Vietnam.

America is full with fear filled spineless types who can be bought with money and cowed by authority. The assumption that the rest of the world behaves like that has always been incorrect. Look at Cuba bravely resisting the illegal attempts of the US to turn it back into a whorehouse full of gangsters despite the poverty enforced on its people by the illegal US blockade.

So long as american troops murder women and children in Iraq they'll be getting their heads and limbs blown off in retribution. The second the US troops desert their allies as they did in Vietnam the "government troops" will desert or be killed. The insurgency isn't likely to be as nice as the Vietnamese just imprisoning traitors.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5598930054847637875&q=jesse+iraq&pr=goog-sl
Have a nice day


Well said, and well written. Well done.

There are Iraqi Nationalist Insurgents, Iraqi Sunni Islamic Nationalist Insurgents, Iraqi Shia Insurgents and what is called 'Al-Qaeda'.

3 out of 4 of those groups wanted Zarqawi's head on a plate, for his killing of Iraqis, rather than the occupation forces, the fourth 'Al-Qaeda' welcomed his death as a martyrdom, an inspiration for all their members to follow, to die in battle.

Indeed, there have been reports from the past year that Iraqi Nationalist Insurgents and Iraqi Sunni Islamic Nationalist Insurgents and Iraqi Shia Islamic Insurgents had been involved in fierce and bloody gunbattles with 'Al-Qaeda' because 'Al-Qaeda's killing of Iraqi civillians, and that Al-Qaeda have been killing Sunni Clerics who support the Iraqi insurgency but not Al-Q and have spoken out against them, sparking the clashes.

An Iraqi insurgent group said they celebrated whenever they heard US troops had killed any Al-Q.

There are rumours going round the Iraqi Resistance gave Zarqawi's whereabouts to the US.

They possibly could have done this via talking to Jordan, who said they provided the intelligence.

Perhaps the Iraqi Resistance infiltrated Al-Qaeda, and wanted to give them a good shafting for their slaying of Iraqi civillians and giving the genuine resistance a bad name. Let the US Military take him out.

Throw in a $20 million reward, (which will do nicely, thankyou very much, you can get some nice weaponry with $20 million hmm?) and Al-Zarqawi finds 500lb bombs dropping on his head.

With reports of US Military atrocities and lack of sensitivity in general to the Iraqi population, inconstant water and electricity supplies three years on from the invasion, an Shia dominated Iraqi government having power only within it's Green Zone, Al Zarqawi out of the frame, the insurgency, on the contrary to what some may want, will only get stronger and stronger with dissatisfaction and anger.

Thanks, Kyronea! ;)

Moving on...


Please tell me how you can stop a suicide bomber?? /QUOTE]

By shooting him down before he gets too close. Kamekaze fighters are nothing new. Quite frankly, the Japanese did it better. :)




[QUOTE=Coolderry]The insurgency in Iraq will never be stopped with a gun it will be stopped by the Iraqis forming a government and restoring order themselfs.??

That part has already happened. That's what the elections with the purple fingers were about. That's why the "insurgency" is dead even though the fools involved don't know it yet.

Keep in mind, those insurgents who are not Al Qaeda are leftover Baathists and Baathism is pretty much the last remnant of the Nazi movement. I doubt there would be a lessening of violence if we were to withdraw and if they think they'd won they would only be encouraged to kill more civilians which is pretty much what they were doing under Saddam. It might be easier for Europe to close its eyes to the violence but the violence their sort does would not go away. I have no doubt the day will come when our troops leave but for now the Iraqis prefer we stay and until they are ready to defend themselves against their external enemies (The Baathists of Syria and the Mullahs of Iran) it is better if we heed their wishes in that regard.

Please note that with the ability to cut off:
-water
-electricity
-sanitation
-food,
the US is well positioned to strangle the insurgency to death whenever it fancies doing so.

Please note that with the ability to cut off:
-water
-electricity
-sanitation
-food,
the US is well positioned to strangle the insurgency to death whenever it fancies doing so.

If you replace 'insurgency' with 'entire population of Iraq' then you're absolutely correct.

Aside from that, I agree with "The State of It". Please folks. Stop confusing 'The Insurgency' with Al Qaeda and start seeing it as a collection of individuals, all of whom have their own motivations and targets for violence. One man's machine gunning of a bus is another man's 150mm shell detonated under a Bradley.

As for the whole thing winding down because Zarqawi's dead, or whatever,today's news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5086326.stm) tells otherwise and will do so, I suspect, for quite a while to come.

If you replace 'insurgency' with 'entire population of Iraq' then you're absolutely correct.

Aside from that, I agree with "The State of It". Please folks. Stop confusing 'The Insurgency' with Al Qaeda and start seeing it as a collection of individuals, all of whom have their own motivations and targets for violence. One man's machine gunning of a bus is another man's 150mm shell detonated under a Bradley.

As for the whole thing winding down because Zarqawi's dead, or whatever,today's news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5086326.stm) tells otherwise and will do so, I suspect, for quite a while to come.

It depends on how you understand insurgency.

If you define insurgency as OBL and friends, the game is up already.

If you define insurgency as every Iraqi ( armed or not ) who dislikes having armed foreigners around, then the boer-paradigma can be applied to strangle the opposition.

All other definitions fall somewhere in between.

Please note that with the ability to cut off:
-water
-electricity
-sanitation
-food,
the US is well positioned to strangle the insurgency to death whenever it fancies doing so.

Yeah they've just been playing some really clever game you don't quite grasp the rules of, but any day now...

Try looking at the google video I posted to learn what the rangers do under orders.

Yeah they've just been playing some really clever game you don't quite grasp the rules of, but any day now...

Try looking at the google video I posted to learn what the rangers do under orders.

Why bother?
I've known the Americans long enough to know that they are wobblers who are slow to employ the Mongol Option.

Read the post above you man. C'mon...

459 raids. I was off by 400. Dang, I'm old, jewish, and pretty stupid with numbers :D
Well, at least you're Jewish. :D

Hey, what a coincidence!
This thread was posted almost exactly a year and a month to the day that Cheney said the insurgency was in it's 'last throes'.
A whole YEAR??? OMG! WTF, over???

How long did WWII last, from start to finish? How long did Vietnam last, start to finish? How long was the frackking Cold War?

Not everything can be fitted into the requisite Hollyweird hour-long programming timeslot, young dweeb.

The Confederacy was losing the Civil War after Gettsyburg and Vicksburg in 1863. All the same there were still confederate fighters in 1868 more than three years after Lee's surrender. That did not alter the fact that starting in 1863 the Confederacy was failing and in its last throes. Dead snakes thrash around for a long time after their death (hence the phrase "last throes") but that does not alter the fact that the "insurgency" is indeed a dead snake. :)
Shhhh! They're use to TV programming. Don't scare them with reality! ;)

Why bother?
I've known the Americans long enough to know that they are wobblers who are slow to employ the Mongol Option.

Now darling you can't just make up your own words to "win" your arguments.
I see you don't bother with facts or information either. It's pretty hard to describe you without being ad hominium.

Hey how about that, you're the banner ad hominium.

Now the vietcong however, they knew how to operate a guerrila war.
Not in my District they didn't. :D

Now darling you can't just make up your own words to "win" your arguments.
I see you don't bother with facts or information either. It's pretty hard to describe you without being ad hominium.

Hey how about that, you're the banner ad hominium.

*pokes*
Are the Americans using the Mongol Option, or not?
If they are using it, how come there's still anyone with a gun but no uniform still left alive?

Those "documents" shown in the first post look very, very made up to me. Is there any proof that they actually are written by some insurgents and not Iraqi Ministery of Propaganda or the US Army?

Please note that with the ability to cut off:
-water
-electricity
-sanitation
-food,
the US is well positioned to strangle the insurgency to death whenever it fancies doing so.

Please note that with the ability to cut off:

-water
-electricity
-sanitation
-food

The US is well positioned to be subject to a mass uprising by the Iraqi population and receive a major violation of it's rectum, ( a civillisation is three square meals away from a Revolution) and a Iraqi insurgency 1000, 100,000 increase in intensity, not to mention the international community will all condemn the US, and diplomatic ties may be servered.

Not to mention it's inhumane, the US would be inviting it's troops in Iraq, it's citizens in muslim countries to be slaughtered on a large scale.

In other words, the US would be well and truly buggered beyond your comprehension, and comparisions between the US and the most vile regimes in history would begin to gain more and more ground, with the reviled history that would go with it as future generations would review it.

2,500 dead US soldiers, so far. They fought for money in a war about money. They just obey orders, orders to murder, orders to torture. Like the Phillipines, like Cuba, like Vietnam.

America is full with fear filled spineless types who can be bought with money and cowed by authority. The assumption that the rest of the world behaves like that has always been incorrect. Look at Cuba bravely resisting the illegal attempts of the US to turn it back into a whorehouse full of gangsters despite the poverty enforced on its people by the illegal US blockade.

So long as american troops murder women and children in Iraq they'll be getting their heads and limbs blown off in retribution. The second the US troops desert their allies as they did in Vietnam the "government troops" will desert or be killed. The insurgency isn't likely to be as nice as the Vietnamese just imprisoning traitors.
You, sir, are an ass of the first order. I have no idea who you are, or whose puppet you are, but you are definitely one of the least informed people it has ever been my extreme displeasure to encounter on here. You do NOT want to get into a debate with me over any of this, especially Vietnam, about which you are so woefully misinformed that even your phraseology smells like shit. Where you there? No? Then STFU!

Please note that with the ability to cut off:

-water
-electricity
-sanitation
-food

The US is well positioned to be subject to a mass uprising by the Iraqi population and receive a major violation of it's rectum, ( a civillisation is three square meals away from a Revolution) and a Iraqi insurgency 1000, 100,000 increase in intensity, not to mention the international community will all condemn the US, and diplomatic ties may be servered.

Not to mention it's inhumane, the US would be inviting it's troops in Iraq, it's citizens in muslim countries to be slaughtered on a large scale.

In other words, the US would be well and truly buggered beyond your comprehension, and comparisions between the US and the most vile regimes in history would begin to gain more and more ground, with the reviled history that would go with it as future generations would review it.


How many americans can be killed by the citizens of muslim countries?
How many citizens of muslim countries can be killed by americans?

Historically, the Americans pretty much wiped out all of the Native Americans ( apart from a few remnants in US-controlled Reservations ) without any of the dire consequences your model would seem to predict.

You, sir, are an ass of the first order. I have no idea who you are, or whose puppet you are, but you are definitely one of the least informed people it has ever been my extreme displeasure to encounter on here. You do NOT want to get into a debate with me over any of this, especially Vietnam, about which you are so woefully misinformed that even your phraseology smells like shit. Where you there? No? Then STFU!
You're a dick.

You, sir, are an ass of the first order. I have no idea who you are, or whose puppet you are, but you are definitely one of the least informed people it has ever been my extreme displeasure to encounter on here. You do NOT want to get into a debate with me over any of this, especially Vietnam, about which you are so woefully misinformed that even your phraseology smells like shit. Where you there? No? Then STFU!

Haahaha haaaa ohh you crack me up little man.
Where you there, who where he who haaa, semperit tyres.

Haahaha haaaa ohh you crack me up little man.
Where you there, who where he who haaa, semperit tyres.
*Raises eyebrow*

Was that English?

If you define insurgency as every Iraqi ( armed or not ) who dislikes having armed foreigners around, then the boer-paradigma can be applied to strangle the opposition.


Forgive my naiveity, but what exactly is the "boer-paradigma"? If you're referring (and I hope to God you're not) to the British policies of scorched earth and concentration camps in the second Boer War, then I fail to see how it can be applied to modern-day Iraq under the occupying power's aegis of 'nation building'.

Also, I think you may have misunderstood the intent of my post. My main point (inferred, not stated - testament to my idiocy) is that 'insurgent' is a term used by Westerners to catagorise an intensely complex system of events and motivations for thousands of different people. It's a catch-all term that, ironically, fails to catch anything useful for our understanding of current events in Iraq.

A whole YEAR??? OMG! WTF, over???

How long did WWII last, from start to finish? How long did Vietnam last, start to finish? How long was the frackking Cold War?

Not everything can be fitted into the requisite Hollyweird hour-long programming timeslot, young dweeb.
Apples and oranges, Eutrusca, but faulty logic never stopped you before. But let's look at your first, most egregious mistake.

US involvement in WWII began in December 1941 and was ended in 1945. Rebuilding took longer, but combat activities were, for all intents and purposes, over after that, especially in comparison to the previous mobilization of men under arms. That's 3 1/2 years. We began major combat operations in Iraq in March 2003. It is now June 2006, nearly as long as we were involved in WW II, and not even the most optimistic person expects the insurgency will calm down any time soon.

I see no need to go into the Cold War, as that comparison is even more ludicrous, but I find your comparison to Vietnam most apt. How'd that one end again? You ought to know, what with your vast experience in that particular field.

How'd that one end again? You ought to know, what with your vast experience in that particular field.
His vast experience of being a dick? Of soft-pedalling human suffering? Which?

How many americans can be killed by the citizens of muslim countries?

Is this a guessing game you wish to play? Do you want to see? Do you really?


How many citizens of muslim countries can be killed by americans?

Well, the US has made a good start...do you want to see how many more before you reap the whirlwind?


Historically, the Americans pretty much wiped out all of the Native Americans ( apart from a few remnants in US-controlled Reservations ) without any of the dire consequences your model would seem to predict.


Because the US did that within it's own drawn borders or expanding borders without media coverage.

I'm talking about what you're proposing, the US commiting atrocities in Iraq and elsewhere and I explaining the repurcussions, Iraq is a different country to the US and what it did on it's claimed territory, now with all the media coverage to go with it (There was'nt any CNN on the scene when the Native Americans got literally wiped out) so that the whole world see what the US is doing (ie starving a population) as proposed.

Starving 'the natives' is not that acceptable to the world anymore. It ain't to the 'natives' either, or people as they are otherwise known.

1. Forgive my naiveity, but what exactly is the "boer-paradigma"? If you're referring (and I hope to God you're not) to the British policies of scorched earth and concentration camps in the second Boer War, 2. then I fail to see how it can be applied to modern-day Iraq under the occupying power's aegis of 'nation building'.

3. Also, I think you may have misunderstood the intent of my post. My main point (inferred, not stated - testament to my idiocy) is that 'insurgent' is a term used by Westerners to catagorise an intensely complex system of events and motivations for thousands of different people. It's a catch-all term that, ironically, fails to catch anything useful for our understanding of current events in Iraq.

1. I do refer to that.
The possibility exists, and fits with the american approach to warfare.

2. The justification seems to shift every day. For all we know, the next version might be something as inane as protecting godknowswhat from the evil of grass-production in Iraq.

3. Ah, yes, you are quite right.
There are a number of definitions of insurgency.
I gave 2 extreme versions - and consider them both solvable from a US point of view. ( The loosest one being every Iraqi who dislikes armed foreigners ( all of 'em, I suspect ), armed or not as an insurgent. The narrowest being OBL and friends only. )
I suggest ( and think ) that any reasonable definition lies in between - and can be solved as well.

The Americans have a tendency to be dim - but they don't stay dim forever.

Is this a guessing game you wish to play? Do you want to see? Do you really?



Well, the US has made a good start...do you want to see how many more before you reap the whirlwind?




Because the US did that within it's own drawn borders or expanding borders without media coverage.

I'm talking about what you're proposing, the US commiting atrocities in Iraq and elsewhere and I explaining the repurcussions, Iraq is a different country to the US and what it did on it's claimed territory, now with all the media coverage to go with it (There was'nt any CNN on the scene when the Native Americans got literally wiped out) so that the whole world see what the US is doing (ie starving a population) as proposed.

Starving 'the natives' is not that acceptable to the world anymore. It ain't to the 'natives' either, or people as they are otherwise known.

Do you think THEY wanna play?
Do you wanna?

Which part of a choice between 'total submission' or 'Sodom and Gommorra' is too difficult to understand?

Face facts: The Americans haven't cared one whit about foreign opposition.
Face facts: the Americans can control media by simply shutting satelites down.
Read: war reporting for dummies. ( that Times-chap wrote it. ) Reporting is impossible without active help from the occupying power.

Personally, I think it has everything to do with Eut's vast experience of saying inflammatory things and then running away.

Do you think THEY wanna play?

The US Administration? I would not put it past them, would you?


Do you wanna?

I don't fancy World War 3...


Which part of a choice between 'total submission' or 'Sodom and Gommorra' is too difficult to understand?

The part that says neither will work, and neither will happen without repurcussions.


Face facts: The Americans haven't cared one whit about foreign opposition.


You don't say...


Face facts: the Americans can control media by simply shutting satelites down.


Face facts: People would smell a rat if Sats went down.


Read: war reporting for dummies. ( that Times-chap wrote it. )
Reporting is impossible without active help from the occupying power.

Wrong.

Read: Testament of the survivor and eyewitness and whistleblower (It's common throughout history). There will always be those. And with Sats being shut down at the time, the rat would smell a little bit more.

You're a dick.
So sue me, dick.

Personally, I think it has everything to do with Eut's vast experience of saying inflammatory things and then running away.
According to your definition of "inflammatory?" That would mean that reality is "inflammatory." Get a grip.

The insurgency is failing? A bit to early to speculate. Must wait and see how it turns out.

Haahaha haaaa ohh you crack me up little man.
Where you there, who where he who haaa, semperit tyres.
DO try to at least make a gesture in the direction of comprehendable posts.

US involvement in WWII began in December 1941 and was ended in 1945.

It began long before that. Any lobotomised drunkard can tell you that.

It is now June 2006, nearly as long as we were involved in WW II, and not even the most optimistic person expects the insurgency will calm down any time soon.

That is not the point. The terrorists have goals, they want the US out, and they wish to set up a new dictatorial state. They are nowhere near that, and not even the most optimistic person expects that they ever will.

I find your comparison to Vietnam most apt. How'd that one end again?

It ended when the North Vietnamese Army, in a quite conventional campaign, invaded and conquered the South. The VC had been beaten, and the NVA would have been had the US Congress allowed Nixon to give support to the South.

DO try to at least make a gesture in the direction of comprehendable posts.

I was quoting you kiddo, "You where not there". BTW I don't need to have been in Vietnam to understand it, comes with having an IQ a burden you don't have to shoulder.

Imagine being proud of invading a country without cause and killing civilians. So much so that you pretend to have been in the army and defend a cowards war fought by idiots against farmers. Which the us still lost. Boys I can tell you we had a right good laugh at that one.

Forrest Lee Horn, Sr. ( B.S.B.A.M.A. )
CPT, INF, USA ( Retired/Disabled ) Vietnam, SEP67-SEP69

Well your made up credentials impress me I can tell you. Probably disabled when one of your cooking pots boiled over onto your foot.

In america there is no I in team and there is no u in honour.

I was quoting you kiddo, "You where not there". BTW I don't need to have been in Vietnam to understand it, comes with having an IQ a burden you don't have to shoulder.
I don't think it's controversial to say that people who have been in a war situation understand what it feels like more than people who haven't.

Imagine being proud of invading a country without cause and killing civilians. So much so that you pretend to have been in the army and defend a cowards war fought by idiots against farmers. Which the us still lost. Boys I can tell you we had a right good laugh at that one.
It is possible to defend your country and believe it is doing as well as it can with a bad hand without being 'proud of killing people'. Every nation makes mistakes and these are always obvious in hindsight; only a fool would claim to know it all in advance.

Eut can also be proud of his own personal service without even touching on the ethics of a wider war. There will be thousands of individual stories in any conflict.

Forrest Lee Horn, Sr. ( B.S.B.A.M.A. )
CPT, INF, USA ( Retired/Disabled ) Vietnam, SEP67-SEP69

Well your made up credentials impress me I can tell you. Probably disabled when one of your cooking pots boiled over onto your foot.
I doubt Eut gives a flying monkeys whether you believe his service or not. :)

In america there is no I in team and there is no u in honour.
There is no 'I' in team anywhere in the world. I'm not sure what the absence of 'u' has to do with anything. If you're going to try and look clever, at least come up with lines that make sense.

There is no 'I' in team anywhere in the world. I'm not sure what the absence of 'u' has to do with anything. If you're going to try and look clever, at least come up with lines that make sense.

Yawn. Don't respond to my posts again. You don't understand them.

I'll explain this one for you. If there is no I in team, that means a team is not an individual, it's a grouping of people a "team" if you will. Most McDonalds employees can grasp that one, the fact that you can't would indicate subnormal language skills. As a corollary of the "I in team" notion, there is no "u" or "you" in honour in America. This is derived from the fact that Americans can't even spell honour, they leave the u out. So it's a cunning way of saying "u" (that is to say "you") have no honour.

Now off for your nap and when you wake up get one of your American masters to explain this and pat you on the head.

I've never come across an attack poodle before.

Yawn. Don't respond to my posts again. You don't understand them.
When one is making posts of such alarming stupidity, even the worlds greatest geniuses would struggle to understand their point.

I'll explain this one for you. If there is no I in team, that means a team is not an individual, it's a grouping of people a "team" if you will. Most McDonalds employees can grasp that one,
Ah, you're a McDonalds employee? That explains it all.

the fact that you can't would indicate subnormal language skills. As a corollary of the "I in team" notion, there is no "u" or "you" in honour in America. This is derived from the fact that Americans can't even spell honour, they leave the u out. So it's a cunning way of saying "u" (that is to say "you") have no honour.
You take a language high ground while saying 'u=you'. What are you, 12?

Now off for your nap and when you wake up get one of your American masters to explain this and pat you on the head.

I've never come across an attack poodle before.
I shall call my birdwatching friend. I've just seen the first Great Tit of summer.

When one is making posts of such alarming stupidity, even the worlds greatese geniuses would struggle to understand their point.


You and your goatse birdwatching friends can do what you like. I don't mind. Now shoo, go on you little scamp.

You and your goatse birdwatching friends can do what you like. I don't mind. Now shoo, go on you little scamp.
Awe, a little battle scarred are we? Jumped in with nothing to add but name calling and petty insults and people actually stood up to you?

You have the intellegence, wit and articulation of a playground bully. We shall make you a special NationStates General 'Dunce' hat, which you can put on when you go and sit in the corner.

IMHO, the Zarqawi notes indicate that the insurgents are so drained that they are thinking of exit strategies.

Wow, who would have known that insurgents can get tired, exhausted, out of supply, and grow to dislike being hunted like animals.

Or that an insurgency in a place with no natural cover would be a bad place to try guerilla warfare.

One reading of the problems long ago in Aden, and the British experience there could tell you that it's only a matter of time before an insurgency gets its ass kicked in such a place.

I shall call my birdwatching friend. I've just seen the first Great Tit of summer.

Ahhh yes a real booby ..:D

Or that an insurgency in a place with no natural cover would be a bad place to try guerilla warfare.


Except that they're mostly fighting (re. bombing) in cities and towns, not the open desert. In which case, there's more cover than a jungle. I urge about 60% of the people posting to read the marine's MOUT manual. You can download it off Emule if you fancy. It gives a pretty sound reason why the 'insurgency' wil continue to flourish as long as people percieve reasons for taking part in it.

Hey, what a coincidence!
This thread was posted almost exactly a year and a month to the day that Cheney said the insurgency was in it's 'last throes'.


Cheyney is still alive ? Or is he a cyborg ?

If you define insurgency as any group or groups trying to uproot the new Iraqi government (which is the way I think the US admin sees it) then yes they are failing. Iraq has a new government and an ever increasing police force. Whether or not people will always oppose the occupation or new government doesn't matter at all because as soon as they can handle killing "insurgents" themselves, our military is out of there and all they will have is our support from outside of the borders.

So I see progress. Our goal is to leave Iraqis with a stable and strong government, not kill everybody who doesn't want us there.

Except that they're mostly fighting (re. bombing) in cities and towns, not the open desert. In which case, there's more cover than a jungle. I urge about 60% of the people posting to read the marine's MOUT manual. You can download it off Emule if you fancy. It gives a pretty sound reason why the 'insurgency' wil continue to flourish as long as people percieve reasons for taking part in it.
Zarqawi's document says that the problem with hiding in the cities is that while you may have a safe house, the streets are full of informants.

Not quite as safe as a tunnel in the jungles of Vietnam.

Awe, a little battle scarred are we? Jumped in with nothing to add but name calling and petty insults and people actually stood up to you?

You have the intellegence, wit and articulation of a playground bully. We shall make you a special NationStates General 'Dunce' hat, which you can put on when you go and sit in the corner.

You haven't the ability to judge me. Your use of the term "We" is interesting though. I've found that sycophants tend to cluster around a mod or self appointed grandee of a forum, acting as narc or informant. That'd be you as your "dunce hat" remark is not really indicative of leadership material. On a battleground or even a playground you're a type who uses rules to try to achieve your aims.

questions to nilbudcom:

are you happy that 9-11 occurred? I'm not trying to correlate what happened then to the Iraq war, but just your stance on Americans. You seem to despise us quite a bit.

what... did i kill this thread?

what... did i kill this thread?
No, but nilbud did.

No, but nilbud did.
i wonder who's puppet he is... if he is one. he's kinda like the anti-un abassador.

Silly question.

It's not my likes and dislikes are the problem. It's invasions. America has invaded a lot of countries, people don't like that. I remember America boycotting the Olympics because Russia invaded Iraq, yet now the world is meant to cheer America on as it invades country after country. Seems a tad inconsistent. Do you think it makes a difference if your family is killed by Russians or Americans.

Silly question.

It's not my likes and dislikes are the problem. It's invasions. America has invaded a lot of countries, people don't like that. I remember America boycotting the Olympics because Russia invaded Iraq, yet now the world is meant to cheer America on as it invades country after country. Seems a tad inconsistent. Do you think it makes a difference if your family is killed by Russians or Americans.

Ummmm... when did the Russians invade Iraq?

Silly question.

It's not my likes and dislikes are the problem. It's invasions. America has invaded a lot of countries, people don't like that. I remember America boycotting the Olympics because Russia invaded Iraq, yet now the world is meant to cheer America on as it invades country after country. Seems a tad inconsistent. Do you think it makes a difference if your family is killed by Russians or Americans.
nice dodge of the question....

So you feel that America went into Afghanistan unjustly?

Silly question.

It's not my likes and dislikes are the problem. It's invasions. America has invaded a lot of countries, people don't like that. I remember America boycotting the Olympics because Russia invaded Iraq, yet now the world is meant to cheer America on as it invades country after country. Seems a tad inconsistent. Do you think it makes a difference if your family is killed by Russians or Americans.

Yes, the US shouldn't have partnered with the Allies, and invaded Germany in WW II... bad idea, that. I mean, heck, we were helping the Russians invade Germany, and where's the sense in that? We're just abetting an evil invasion...

Exactly <*strokes chin*>. Ahh, Afghanistan then, one of those places to the north east west and south of Baghdad. Rocky fixed 'em, even with their big helicopters.

Yeah my bad. You'll note I didn't go back and edit my original post though, that'd be revisionism.

I remember America boycotting the Olympics because Russia invaded Iraq,

Russia invaded Afghanistan, Iraq had been their ally all along.

In any case, unlike Iraq, there was absolutely no moral, or legal case for the Russians invading Afghanistan.

WWII wasn't about oil. Hitler invaded Poland as I recall, after annexing some chunks of other countries. Iraq isn't even a profitable war. What a double bummer. Invade for profit and make a loss, now that's just bad business. What kind of a commie war is that?

Russia invaded Afghanistan, Iraq had been their ally all along.

In any case, unlike Iraq, there was absolutely no moral, or legal case for the Russians invading Afghanistan.

There was no real reason to go to war in Iraq, either. We went to find WMDs, WMDs that don't exist. Nevertheless, we left a democratic elected government, unlike the USSR, which no doubt intended to expand its authoritarian dicatorship.

The lesser of two evils I suppose...what a waste of a post.

WWII wasn't about oil.

Sack your teachers. Stalingrad and the entire North African campaign was about oil. Churchill was terrified of the U-boats because they were targetting freighters coming from the mediterranean carrying.....? And in WW1, where were the first British regiments deployed? That's right. Basra.

Virtually 80-90% of the wars in the previous one and a half hundred years have been over energy supplies, or access thereof. Not pointing the finger at any countries in particular, everyones at it for good reasons.

Sack your teachers. Stalingrad and the entire North African campaign was about oil. Churchill was terrified of the U-boats because they were targetting freighters coming from the mediterranean carrying.....? And in WW1, where were the first British regiments deployed? That's right. Basra.

Virtually 80-90% of the wars in the previous one and a half hundred years have been over energy supplies, or access thereof. Not pointing the finger at any countries in particular, everyones at it for good reasons.

The whole US-Japan thing was about access to oil.

We went to find WMDs, WMDs that don't exist.

Had you even bothered to read the Congressional Resolution authorising military action against Iraq, you would find that this wasn't the only cause, and anyway, Iraq was in material breach regarding WMD, and the Duelfer Report proved that Iraq intended to resume "business as usual" as soon as the heat was off.

The whole US-Japan thing was about access to oil.

Only as a secondary cause. Oil access would not have come up if the US had not opposed Japan's genocidal war in China, and cut off trade.

Only as a secondary cause. Oil access would not have come up if the US had not opposed Japan's genocidal war in China, and cut off trade.

That forced Japan to attack, far earlier than they had anticipated.

Silly question.

It's not my likes and dislikes are the problem. It's invasions. America has invaded a lot of countries, people don't like that. I remember America boycotting the Olympics because Russia invaded Iraq, yet now the world is meant to cheer America on as it invades country after country. Seems a tad inconsistent. Do you think it makes a difference if your family is killed by Russians or Americans.

It was Aghanistan...But I don't blame you for getting the two confused. Americans invade lots and lots (...and lots and lots and lots) of places. In fact, 1 in 11 countries in the world has been invaded by the US.

Did you see that guy talking about "unjust" invasions, what a wheeze. I love the notion of god botherers at war, clash of the figments of imagination. Who Would Jesus Destroy? Allah the compassionate, the merciful, wants you dead. Why can't all the fundamentalists on both sides be conscripted and sent to build homes for the poor. Then the rest of the world could get on with being human instead of patriotic like a barking dog.

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle – be Thou near them! With them – in spirit – we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with hurricanes of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."
Dictated by Mark Twain [Samuel Clemens] in 1904 in advance of his death in 1910

Did you see that guy talking about "unjust" invasions, what a wheeze. I love the notion of god botherers at war, clash of the figments of imagination. Who Would Jesus Destroy? Allah the compassionate, the merciful, wants you dead. Why can't all the fundamentalists on both sides be conscripted and sent to build homes for the poor. Then the rest of the world could get on with being human instead of patriotic like a barking dog.

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle – be Thou near them! With them – in spirit – we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with hurricanes of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."
Dictated by Mark Twain [Samuel Clemens] in 1904 in advance of his death in 1910
what crack are you smoking? So you think all wars shouldn't have happened? Go ahead and let germany take over europe and the liike?

*edit*
you do nothing but avoid questions.

There was no real reason to go to war in Iraq, either. We went to find WMDs, WMDs that don't exist. Nevertheless, we left a democratic elected government, unlike the USSR, which no doubt intended to expand its authoritarian dicatorship.

The lesser of two evils I suppose...what a waste of a post.
I think you'll find that the USSR went into Afghanistan after the government of Afghanistan asked them to do so.

And how can you know the intentions of the USSR?

what crack are you smoking? So you think all wars shouldn't have happened? Go ahead and let germany take over europe and the liike?

*edit*
you do nothing but avoid questions.

Questions like
Are you glad 911 happened?
Was Americas invasion of Afghanistan unjust?
Yeah, I avoided them.

Not smoking crack, just sipping a cup of coffee and smoking a nice smoke.

"So you think all wars shouldn't have happened?"

Absolutely, at last a statement attributed to me which I have no problem endorsing. Ghandi got the english out of India (after they'd nicked everything worth more than a rupee). Nelson Mandella got the whitey out of power by not quite setting off a bomb.

I think you'll find that the USSR went into Afghanistan after the government of Afghanistan asked them to do so.

The government installed by ... the USSR.

...

"So you think all wars shouldn't have happened?"

Absolutely, at last a statement attributed to me which I have no problem endorsing. ...

I would like your opinions on WWII and how the German occupation could have been stopped w/o war.

I would like your opinions on WWII and how the German occupation could have been stopped w/o war.

According to Howard Zinn, mass civil strike action. It would have worked too.

According to Howard Zinn, mass civil strike action. It would have worked too.
Well, there would have been quite a few strikers shot against the wall until the Germans tired of it.

Considering that the Germans were the first (and to date, the best) country to apply industrial methods to execution, that might be millions of people later.

That's a lot of bloodshed.

According to Howard Zinn, mass civil strike action. It would have worked too.

The key words in this phrase are "According to Howard Zinn,". He has been known to get it wrong.:rolleyes:

According to Howard Zinn, mass civil strike action. It would have worked too.
BAH HA HA HA HA HA HAA!!!!!!!!11
And who would be doing the striking?
The Germans were happy with the way things were.
Foreigners striking? The Nazis would just have shot them.
They didn't care if a couple million Poles more get killed.

I would like your opinions on WWII and how the German occupation could have been stopped w/o war.

My opinion on WWII. It was so long ago that the only people who remember it are ancient droolers. They used horses and carts, there were no ICBMs. All sides were civilised enough to not use chemical warfare, unlike Churchill gassing the Kurds with the Sopwith Camels.

The German occupation could have been rewritten as the reestablishment of the Prussian empire without too much difficulty.

Great sig! Don't forget Dan Daly he won 2 also. Although for sheer Badassedness John Basilone.

Now darling you can't just make up your own words to "win" your arguments.
I see you don't bother with facts or information either. It's pretty hard to describe you without being ad hominium.

Hey how about that, you're the banner ad hominium.

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=2187

The Republicans would never have given those medals.

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=2187

The Republicans would never have given those medals.
What makes you think so?

Handing out Medals is what every President does.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2002/n07082002_200207083.html

You haven't the ability to judge me. Your use of the term "We" is interesting though. I've found that sycophants tend to cluster around a mod or self appointed grandee of a forum, acting as narc or informant.
If Eut saw you calling him a 'self appointed grandee of the forum', I believe I can accurately predict his response as 'ROFLMAO!'

Sycophants suck up to people with power. Eut has none; he isn't a mod. I gain nothing from defending him, except standing up for the right thing. So try again, my young friend.

That'd be you as your "dunce hat" remark is not really indicative of leadership material.
What, may I ask, am I trying to lead? This isn't a forum of 'leaders', it is a forum of people debating and arguing. I believe you should give up the amateur-psychology; you're really bad at it.

On a battleground or even a playground you're a type who uses rules to try to achieve your aims.
Are you a puppet of someone I've reported to the Mods before? It would seem that you do not use rules to achieve your aims; you think you are above them. Pride comes before the fall.

As I've said already, this is a private internet forum of people who want to discuss and debate; it is not the floor of the Commons. I assure you that my 'aims' in life are not so limited as reaching the top of the NSG 'tree'. I follow the rules on this forum because they exist for a reason; as anyone can see from your comments, if you do not have some boundaries in debate it decends into petty name calling.

It is clear to anyone who reads this thread that you have nothing intellegent to add to this topic, and so you try to hide your inadequacy behind cheap insults. Perhaps you should run along now, young fellow, and come back when you've grown up.

I don't think it's controversial to say that people who have been in a war situation understand what it feels like more than people who haven't.


It is possible to defend your country and believe it is doing as well as it can with a bad hand without being 'proud of killing people'. Every nation makes mistakes and these are always obvious in hindsight; only a fool would claim to know it all in advance.

Eut can also be proud of his own personal service without even touching on the ethics of a wider war. There will be thousands of individual stories in any conflict.


I doubt Eut gives a flying monkeys whether you believe his service or not. :)


There is no 'I' in team anywhere in the world. I'm not sure what the absence of 'u' has to do with anything. If you're going to try and look clever, at least come up with lines that make sense.
ROFLMFAO!!!! :D

Please note that with the ability to cut off:
-water
-electricity
-sanitation
-food,
the US is well positioned to strangle the insurgency to death whenever it fancies doing so.
I imagine that most insurgents have prepared for such an eventuality. Cutting off these things would have little impact on them, but would only punish civvies.

Historically, the Americans pretty much wiped out all of the Native Americans ( apart from a few remnants in US-controlled Reservations ) without any of the dire consequences your model would seem to predict.
Very different. Back then the US was an isolationist third-rate power. Now the US is a globalist superpower. Big difference. Their actions were not scrutinised back then. In addition, the civilised world now has much higher human rights standards than they did in the 19th century.

Sycophants suck up to people with power. Eut has none; he isn't a mod. I gain nothing from defending him, except standing up for the right thing. So try again, my young friend.

Eutrusca has repeatedly used these fora to soft-sell militarism to impressionable youngsters, to the extent you'd think Vietnam was a Boy Scout Jamboree. In his own way, he attempts to exert influence - and that is power. You defend him, you defend a mindset that I personally find so objectionable that I have no interest in interacting with you further. You'd be better off standing up to change the lightbulb over the bathroom sink. At least you'd be accomplishing something.

Eutrusca has repeatedly used these fora to soft-sell militarism to impressionable youngsters, to the extent you'd think Vietnam was a Boy Scout Jamboree. In his own way, he attempts to exert influence - and that is power. You defend him, you defend a mindset that I personally find so objectionable that I have no interest in interacting with you further. You'd be better off standing up to change the lightbulb over the bathroom sink. At least you'd be accomplishing something.

Well, I sell militarism (if your nation is capable of it) but only the hard-sell.

You're either able to do the hard things, or you're not. It's not the boy scouts, and winning often boils down to your ability to do what your opponents will not.

Eutrusca has repeatedly used these fora to soft-sell militarism to impressionable youngsters, to the extent you'd think Vietnam was a Boy Scout Jamboree. In his own way, he attempts to exert influence - and that is power. You defend him, you defend a mindset that I personally find so objectionable that I have no interest in interacting with you further. You'd be better off standing up to change the lightbulb over the bathroom sink. At least you'd be accomplishing something.
Ah. Was it your puppet then?

I find many people say things I disagree with, but I will still stand up for their right to say it in a reasonable way. Debate should be about reason and logic, not about name calling and insults. When the truth in most matters lies somewhere in the middle of two poles, you need to hear both sides of the argument to come as close as possible to that truth.

I do happen to like Eut, but I would defend anyone on this forum if they were being unreasonably attacked, including you. If that offends you so much you no longer wish to talk to me, then I can't stop you. I can't say I'm delighted you feel that way, but you can't please all of the people all of time.

Well, I sell militarism (if your nation is capable of it) but only the hard-sell.

You're either able to do the hard things, or you're not. It's not the boy scouts, and winning often boils down to your ability to do what your opponents will not.
Stow it, hard-sell. I'm not buying, and you already know that. So why bother commenting?

Ah. Was it your puppet then?
No, I've been at work all day, creating high-end products for tasteless Americans with too much money and too little sense.
I find many people say things I disagree with, but I will still stand up for their right to say it in a reasonable way. Debate should be about reason and logic, not about name calling and insults. When the truth in most matters lies somewhere in the middle of two poles, you need to hear both sides of the argument to come as close as possible to that truth.
I've heard all I care to from that hateful, loathesome old man. I shudder to think that any young gullible Yanks may have made fateful decisions based in part on his misrepresentations of militarism-as-viable-career-choice.
I do happen to like Eut, but I would defend anyone on this forum if they were being unreasonably attacked, including you. If that offends you so much you no longer wish to talk to me, then I can't stop you. I can't say I'm delighted you feel that way, but you can't please all of the people all of time.Suits me fine. Defend him all you like; I won't be a party to your attempts to legitimize his activities here.

I imagine that most insurgents have prepared for such an eventuality. Cutting off these things would have little impact on them, but would only punish civvies.

Well, you can *imagine* but in truth these "insurgents" have been a pretty inept bunch from start to finish. For my own part I rather doubt that any of these jihadis have as much competance as it would take to turn cream into butter. Sorry, but the insurgents remain nothing more than a dying snake. And that is A Good Thing! :D



Very different. Back then the US was an isolationist third-rate power. Now the US is a globalist superpower. Big difference. Their actions were not scrutinised back then. In addition, the civilised world now has much higher human rights standards than they did in the 19th century.

With all due respect, *no* difference. Human nature is an eternal thing. People who invoke the calender to try to dismiss something they don't want to think about with a wave of their hand are only kidding themselves whether they know it or not. Quite frankly, if you think the civilized world would do anything but cheer come back after an additional provocation or two and see what things look like. Certain parts of it will have gone from being Europe to Eurabia and certain parts will have become more militant. What we do in Iraq may make the difference in keeping that from coming to pass.

Stow it, hard-sell. I'm not buying, and you already know that. So why bother commenting?
I know you're not buying. But there are other customers.

I know you're not buying. But there are other customers.
At least you don't target high-school students. I'll give you that much.

A whole YEAR??? OMG! WTF, over???

How long did Vietnam last, start to finish?
Not everything can be fitted into the requisite Hollyweird hour-long programming timeslot, young dweeb.

Vietnam evidently lasted too long as the US left, "mission unaccomplished". Not that anyone was too sure precisely what the mission was. Btw - whats the mission in Iraq?


Not in my District they didn't..

And that made no difference whatsover, evidently.

Our goal is to leave Iraqis with a stable and strong government, not kill everybody who doesn't want us there...

You'd be amazed the number of people who don't believe any of that. I'd imagine that the US would love to leave a stable, strong Government, run by one man....a harsh man who could be relyed on, who would know ultimately who the master was. A sort of Saddam-lite.

According to Howard Zinn, mass civil strike action. It would have worked too.
..

I fear Mr Zinn has the Germans of that era confused with other peoples who may have given a fuck. They would have slaughtered all before them.

You'd be amazed the number of people who don't believe any of that. I'd imagine that the US would love to leave a stable, strong Government, run by one man....a harsh man who could be relyed on, who would know ultimately who the master was. A sort of Saddam-lite.


haha. The truth is that even if our government doesn't want to leave, unrest from the public and the constant nagging from the democrats should make them do it anyway. I personally believe that the US admin knows the single best option is to leave after they can support themselves. Staying longer means losing more money and support. Leaving too soon would result in a country far worse than when Saddam was in control.

I was quoting you kiddo, "You where not there". BTW I don't need to have been in Vietnam to understand it, comes with having an IQ a burden you don't have to shoulder.

Imagine being proud of invading a country without cause and killing civilians. So much so that you pretend to have been in the army and defend a cowards war fought by idiots against farmers. Which the us still lost. Boys I can tell you we had a right good laugh at that one.

Forrest Lee Horn, Sr. ( B.S.B.A.M.A. )
CPT, INF, USA ( Retired/Disabled ) Vietnam, SEP67-SEP69

Well your made up credentials impress me I can tell you. Probably disabled when one of your cooking pots boiled over onto your foot.

In america there is no I in team and there is no u in honour.

And with a whopping 16 posts, there is no cred in your words.

And with a whopping 16 posts, there is no cred in your words.
Like you're one to talk, Markreich.

If Eut saw you calling him a 'self appointed grandee of the forum', I believe I can accurately predict his response as 'ROFLMAO!'
I don't care what his response can be predicted to be, I don't care that you predict it. You're a sycophant who knows his job, likes the taste.

Sycophants suck up to people with power. Eut has none; he isn't a mod. I gain nothing from defending him, except standing up for the right thing. So try again, my young friend.
You wouldn't know the right thing if it slapped the shit out of you. I'm neither young nor friends with your type.

someone I've reported to the Mods before? It would seem that you do not use rules to achieve your aims; you think you are above them. Pride comes before the fall.
I knew you were a narc, there's the smell of it off you. I think you'll find it's Summer comes before the Fall, you see Fall means Autumn in American.

Then you troll on about private forum, rules being there for a reason, you dare not question etc. Well hey, I'm a member of this private forum now and I find you an irritant. Find a rule about that and throw yourself out of here, there's a good chap.

As to the insurgancy failing, only if you watch Fox or Sky. Americans are dying for Haliburton profits. The entire Arab and Muslim world is being forced to mobilize against an imminent threat. How is that going to workout better for America?

PS Oh look markreich has something to say. That kind of logic allows Mark to feel special. Everyone look at Mark and tell him how good he is. Good boy Mark.

At least you don't target high-school students. I'll give you that much.
No, but you'll agree there are a few on here who would sell their souls to me.

No, but you'll agree there are a few on here who would sell their souls to me.
Too true. But as you well know, not every soul is worth buying...

Like you're one to talk, Markreich.

Oh? What ever do you mean?

EDIT: Surely you are not accusing me of puppetry. And further still, you're not saying that I have no cred simply because you don't often agree with me.

Too true. But as you well know, not every soul is worth buying...

Agreed. But it's usually the idealists who are the best converts.

2.500 dead americans.
250.000 dead iraqis?


Have a nice day!

In all that mass of dead iraqis, how many dead insurgents?
I wish the title of this thread were actually true. When I believe friends and relatives are dying in a pointless cause, I'd like to be proven wrong.
Unfortunately, a is a, and reality isn't right-wing idiot platitudes.

Oh? What ever do you mean?
You figure it out, you rocket scientist, you.

You figure it out, you rocket scientist, you.

Ah. While I was just editing my prior posting.

Dobbs, I don't know what's the deal but if you're looking for a fight, look elsewhere. We've already established that we rarely agree, and I see no reason to throw barbs at you for no particular reason.

Now, if you're complaining about me posting in defense of E... then I suggest you reconsider your desire to deride folks you don't agree with.

Which part of a choice between 'total submission' or 'Sodom and Gommorra' is too difficult to understand?

Slavery or death. Could get the same answer in Iraq it would get in America, "Okay, let's see how many of the fuckers I can take with me!"

I doubt Eut gives a flying monkeys whether you believe his service or not. :)

Like most right-wingers, Eut probably doesn't give a, "flying monkeys," about reality either. It doesn't mean anyone, "gives a flying monkeys," about his supposed, 'experience.'

“anti-Iraqi elements.”

how descriptive :rolleyes:

In any case, unlike Iraq, there was absolutely no moral, or legal case for the Russians invading Afghanistan.

There was a moral or legal case for the US to invade Iraq?:rolleyes:

Like most right-wingers, Eut probably doesn't give a, "flying monkeys," about reality either. It doesn't mean anyone, "gives a flying monkeys," about his supposed, 'experience.'
It doesn't mean everyone doesn't, either.

Ah, yes, anti-Iraqi elements, gosh, yes, we need to ensure that anti-Iraqi elements are destroyed before we can have mission accomplished, good job our chums in the Iraqi Police run death squads to hurry this along!

The insurgency is so diverse that while 'we' beat one part another is winning. A majority of the insurgents just want the occupiers out, as far as I can tell from the articles, books, and such that I've read and seen. So, if they leave, not only have those insurgents won, but they'll stop fighting... possibly.

However, if you wish to believe that the occupiers are winning, go ahead. All I can see is bloody stalemate and horrific violence which never had to happen and is being needlessly prolonged.

You're either able to do the hard things, or you're not. It's not the boy scouts, and winning often boils down to your ability to do what your opponents will not.

That's why we won WW2? The willingness to be more callously inhuman than the Nazis? My grampa would spank your ass for saying that kind of crap!

All I can see is bloody stalemate and horrific violence which never had to happen and is being needlessly prolonged.

And if Saddam's history of violence shows, if he had stayed in power, there would have been bloody stalemate and horrific violence in the region which never had to happen and would be needlessly prolonged.

Except that the violence would be against his neighbors.

And if Saddam's history of violence shows, if he had stayed in power, there would have been bloody stalemate and horrific violence in the region which never had to happen and would be needlessly prolonged.

Except that the violence would be against his neighbors.

Yes. And with the full knowledge and understanding of the USA. However, given that we killed more Iraqis between 1991-2003 than the Iran-Iraq war killed (Estimated: 500,000 Iraqis under 5 y.o killed by bombing and sanctions in 1991-2003, 1,000,000 Iraqis over 5 killed between 1991-2003 and 650,000 killed in the Iran-Iraq war), and that our levels of horrific violence far, far, far outstrip the levels of any tinpot dictatorship - I'd have to say that I would much rather have seen Iraqis overthrow Saddam themselves, as would have eventually happened, rather than the USAF and RAF bombing them for 12 years followed by an illegal invasion, producing yet more deaths...

Ho well, maybe we won't repeat the mistake with Iran...

Yes. And with the full knowledge and understanding of the USA. However, given that we killed more Iraqis between 1991-2003 than the Iran-Iraq war killed (Estimated: 500,000 Iraqis under 5 y.o killed by bombing and sanctions in 1991-2003, 1,000,000 Iraqis over 5 killed between 1991-2003 and 650,000 killed in the Iran-Iraq war), and that our levels of horrific violence far, far, far outstrip the levels of any tinpot dictatorship - I'd have to say that I would much rather have seen Iraqis overthrow Saddam themselves, as would have eventually happened, rather than the USAF and RAF bombing them for 12 years followed by an illegal invasion, producing yet more deaths...

Ho well, maybe we won't repeat the mistake with Iran...
Millions of Iranians wre killed in the Iran-Iraq war. Don't forget to count them. And the Kuwaitis killed in the 1991 Gulf War.

Millions of Iranians wre killed in the Iran-Iraq war. Don't forget to count them. And the Kuwaitis killed in the 1991 Gulf War.

Woa, are you implying a nation is responsible for the civilians it kills in a war?

PS: Don't you love how the New Shiite Iraqui goverment is becoming so friendly with the Old Shiite Iranian goverment? Aww the romance :D


PPS: Yea, big hit on the insurgency! Intel rocks, someone should be given a medal. And I ain't being sarcastic.

Highest estimate of Iranian military casualties I can find is 950,000, primarily thanks to happy-clappy "let's human-wave attack prepared defences, kiddies!"

Highest estimate of total Iranian casualties is 1.5 million.

The Iran-Iraq war was yet another pointless war, but it was their pointless bloody war. We've been interfering in the middle east for over a hundred years (remember RAF Habbinyeh? It's now an American base...) and we should leave well alone, damn it.

Had we not invaded in 2003, the region would be safer, 2,300 US troops would be alive, as would 120,000 Iraqis, Al Qaeda (wouldn't be) in Iraq, and in all probability Madrid and London wouldn't've been blown up.

Ah. While I was just editing my prior posting.

Dobbs, I don't know what's the deal but if you're looking for a fight, look elsewhere. We've already established that we rarely agree, and I see no reason to throw barbs at you for no particular reason.

Now, if you're complaining about me posting in defense of E... then I suggest you reconsider your desire to deride folks you don't agree with.
You didn't post in defence of _, you derided another poster for having credibility issues. I didn't think you had much of a leg to stand on in that respect.

Sorry.

Their diabolical plans to get Shites and Sunnis into a civil war with each other isn't working, and neither are their plans to get the Shites mad at the US. Ohh the fun of being between a rock and a harder place!


This forum needs a devilish smiley, because that's what would be appropriate right now.





Papers show 'gloomy' state of insurgency By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 15, 5:52 PM ET



BAGHDAD, Iraq - A blueprint for trying to start a war between the United States and Iran was among a "huge treasure" of documents found in the hideout of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraqi officials said Thursday. The document, purporting to reflect al-Qaida policy and its cooperation with groups loyal to ousted President Saddam Hussein, also appear to show that the insurgency in Iraq was weakening.

ADVERTISEMENT

The al-Qaida in Iraq document was translated and released by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie. There was no way to independently confirm the authenticity of the information attributed to al-Qaida.

Although the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the document was found in al-Zarqawi's hideout following a June 7 airstrike that killed him, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said the document had in fact been found in a previous raid as part of an ongoing three-week operation to track al-Zarqawi.

"We can verify that this information did come off some kind of computer asset that was at a safe location," he said. "This was prior to the al-Zarqawi safe house."

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.

"We mean specifically attempting to escalate the tension between America and Iran, and American and the Shiite in Iraq," it quoted the documents as saying, especially among moderate followers of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq.

"Creating disputes between America and them could hinder the U.S. cooperation with them, and subsequently weaken this kind of alliance between Shiites and the Americans," it said, adding that "the best solution is to get America involved in a war against another country and this would bring benefits."

They included "opening a new front" for the U.S. military and releasing some of the "pressure exerted on the resistance."

It pointed to clashes in 2004 between U.S. forces and followers of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army militia as evidence of the benefits of such a strategy. Al-Sadr and his growing followers are among the fiercest advocates of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

It said the "results obtained during the struggle between U.S. army and al-Mahdi army is an example of the benefits to be gained by such struggle."

Al-Maliki's office said the document provides "the broad guidelines of the program of the Saddamists and the takfiris inside al-Zarqawi's group."

"Takfiri" is a reference to an extremist ideology that urges Muslims to kill anyone they consider an infidel, even fellow Muslims. It is the ideology that many Iraqis, especially in the Shiite community, use to describe al-Zarqawi and his followers.

The language contained in the document was different from the vocabulary used by al-Qaida statements posted on the Web. For example, it does not refer to the Americans as "Crusaders" nor use the term "rejectionists" to allude to Shiites.

Much of what is in the statement from al-Rubaie echoes results that the U.S. military and the Iraqi government say they are seeking. It also appears to reinforce American and Iraqi arguments that al-Qaida in Iraq and its operatives are a group of imported extremists bent on killing innocent civilians.

Al-Qaida in Iraq has been blamed for thousands of deaths, hundreds of bombings, kidnappings and assassinations in the past three years. Al-Qaida in Iraq's own hatred of the Shiites is well-documented and al-Zarqawi has repeatedly called on Sunnis to rise up and kill them.

last throes, last throes! the apocalypse is upon us!

Don't worry, it's a Long War (tm) so when we 'win' Iraq we'll invent - I mean, intelligence will definitively prove that we have - a new enemy and attack them.

The arms industry is safe yet!

The 'insurgency' or 'resistance' is failing. Failing at what? These are just people who don't want to be ruled by the American empire, or their puppets. That's the mission of the insurgents. How can they fail as long as they don't bow to the Americans, how can they possibly be defeated.

Don't any of the military-industrial cheerleaders here stop to wonder why? Why would anyone go out and plan an attack on American troops, with their tanks and satellites and missiles and bombers and drones and whatever else? Why would they be that angry that they arm themselves with obsolete tech and try to take on the most expensive army in history? There's no profit in it, so why do it.

That's why we won WW2? The willingness to be more callously inhuman than the Nazis? My grampa would spank your ass for saying that kind of crap!
As I recall, we dropped not one, but two atomic bombs on civilian cities in Japan.

Not to mention firebombing major cities in Germany on purpose.

I don't remember Germans firebombing London (yes, London was bombed, but not to the wholesale extent that Hamburg and Dresden sustained). Nor do I remember the Japanese dropping nuclear weapons on US cities.

There's no profit in it, so why do it.

For the cause, for freedom, for Allah, for revenge, for something to do... for all of those rolled into one.

For the cause, for freedom, for Allah, for revenge, for something to do... for all of those rolled into one.

What? Didn't Dear Leader Chairman Bush say that these dirty brown-skinned terrorists hated freedom? So why would they fight occupation and enslavement if they hated freedom?

One man's freedom is another man's secret police, comrade. :p

What? Didn't Dear Leader Chairman Bush say that these dirty brown-skinned terrorists hated freedom? So why would they fight occupation and enslavement if they hated freedom?
We've enslaved someone?

Link, please.

Inmates of US jails who do things like mailbag production, for a start...

Inmates of US jails who do things like mailbag production, for a start...
No, he's saying we enslaved the Iraqis somehow.

Insurgency is failing huh? Someone tell these folks (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C16%5Cstory_16-6-2006_pg7_43). :rolleyes:

just to say that the 27 dead mentioned include insergent dead :)

Well, we may not be enslaving the Iraqis, but we're occupying them and killing them... which is bad enough.

Inmates of US jails who do things like mailbag production, for a start...

I'm pretty liberal, but I see no problem with someone who, having undergone due process and found guilty by a jury of his/her peers, is being forced to work.

Detainees with no tria and no lawyer for years on end, now THAT's another story.

...being forced to work.

That's called slavery, you see, chum. The Romans used to sentence people to slavery too, you know.

Ah, Guantanamo Bay - I'm sorry, that topic of discussion is off-limits, any more references to this vital and totally legal and in no way nasty place will result in a Predator strike against your IP address.

You didn't post in defence of _, you derided another poster for having credibility issues. I didn't think you had much of a leg to stand on in that respect.

Sorry.

Because it was someone's muppet? Please.

Are you talking about me Marky?

You suggest that having thousands of posts on this forum lends credibility to observations one might make and that somehow having few posts on this forum erodes credibility in some way. This is a phenomenon of staggering implications. So a thousand posts in I can look forward to being taken seriously by someone like you, w00t!1

...having thousands of posts on this forum lends credibility to observations one might make and that somehow having few posts on this forum erodes credibility in some way...

Yeh... I never did get that... :confused:

Yeh... I never did get that... :confused:

For the most part, it's legit. People with more posts have interacted with the people on this forum more, and are less likely to spout bullshit than someone who hasn't been chastised for doing so in the past.

I said -less likely-, not to mean impossible. Lord knows it happens. It does happen.

Are you talking about me Marky?

You suggest that having thousands of posts on this forum lends credibility to observations one might make and that somehow having few posts on this forum erodes credibility in some way. This is a phenomenon of staggering implications. So a thousand posts in I can look forward to being taken seriously by someone like you, w00t!1

But, but - isn't post count equal to experience and wisdom?
You just destroyed my whole perception of what is worth heeding and what can be discarded as childish blabber! :eek:

For the most part, it's legit ... are less likely to spout bullshit than someone who hasn't been chastised for doing so in the past.

I said -less likely-, not to mean impossible. Lord knows it happens. It does happen.

Fair enough, but it's always stunk of not-niceness to me... says the poster with less than 50 posts on NS. :p

Dismissing a post based on post-counts is a logical fallacy. It falls into the category of poisoning the well. Same with calling someone a 'puppet' or 'muppet.' Both are forms of attempting to discredit the source rather than actually refuting the argument.

It seems like there has been a recent rise in this tactic lately. Its like a knee-jerk reaction that people make when they start losing the debate to new posters. "OMG, new poster is whooping my ass, gotta try and get out of it... n00b! puppet!"

Dismissing a post based on post-counts is a logical fallacy. It falls into the category of poisoning the well. Same with calling someone a 'puppet' or 'muppet.' Both are forms of attempting to discredit the source rather than actually refuting the argument.

It seems like there has been a recent rise in this tactic lately. Its like a knee-jerk reaction that people make when they start losing the debate to new posters. "OMG, new poster is whooping my ass, gotta try and get out of it... n00b! puppet!"

Unless, of course, a particular poster IS a muppet, puppet or claymation figure.

Dismissing a post based on post-counts is a logical fallacy. It falls into the category of poisoning the well. Same with calling someone a 'puppet' or 'muppet.' Both are forms of attempting to discredit the source rather than actually refuting the argument.

It seems like there has been a recent rise in this tactic lately. Its like a knee-jerk reaction that people make when they start losing the debate to new posters. "OMG, new poster is whooping my ass, gotta try and get out of it... n00b! puppet!"

True, but I do it all the time. I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I know I do it with every person I see on the boards, if not consciously then subconsciously.

Unless, of course, a particular poster IS a muppet, puppet or claymation figure.

It would still be the fallacy of poisoning the well, because you would still be attacking the person rather than the argument. Remember, logic is a science, fallacies are facts. There aren't exceptions to this rule any more than there are exceptions to atomic theory.

Someone could be a puppet, but to respond within the bounds of logic and proper discourse you still need to refute the argument, not attempt to dismiss it on the basis of an attack against the person.

I don't post all that much, I have been around awhile in one form or another. I guess that makes me a puppet.

The 'insurgency' or 'resistance' is failing. Failing at what?.

They have failed at strategy.

They have failed at tactics.

They have failed at logisitics.

They have failed in their morale.

They have failed in their morals.

They have failed at every passage of arms they ever undertook.

They have failed when they destroyed up their own shrines.

They have failed to win the hearts of the Iraqi people.

They have failed to live within their own religion.

They have failed to be human beings.

In consequence they have failed with their lives and now their cause is dust.

Is it any surprise that they are defeated and despised even by those who once cheered for them? :p

They were never anything but scum and villainy and now they are *defeated* scum and villainy. :D

It sucks to be a jihadi! :)

It sucks even more to be a poor and foolish Leftist dhimmi who bet his honor and his political future upon an Insurgent victory. :cool:

Justice is served and I gloat in your face. :D

Next time don't ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer. ^_~

It would still be the fallacy of poisoning the well, because you would still be attacking the person rather than the argument. Remember, logic is a science, fallacies are facts. There aren't exceptions to this rule any more than there are exceptions to atomic theory.

Someone could be a puppet, but to respond within the bounds of logic and proper discourse you still need to refute the argument, not attempt to dismiss it on the basis of an attack against the person.

Sigh. Yes, one can choose to debate the fine points of logic with every voice that pipes up. The thing is, it's more worth my while to not debate made-up personalities.

That's what I love about you adorable conservatubbies. You guys only seem to be able to operate on one set of absolute rules at a time.

They have failed at strategy.

Er... how?

They have failed at tactics.

Again, um, how? A combination of conventional assaults on weaker units such as the ING and Iraqi Police or coalition transport, and especially on mercenaries, together with terrorist actions is classic asymmetric warfare.

They have failed at logisitics.

They have? Wow, they must have no ammunition, explosives, weapons, food, water, or anything else then... odd that they can keep mounting attacks then, really.

They have failed in their morale.

That's just plain wrong.

They have failed in their morals.

Almost certainly, but then so have we, and the Iraqis do have a legitimate right to resist the illegal invasion and occupation of their own country by foriegn powers...

They have failed at every passage of arms they ever undertook.

Tell that to the 20000 - 48100 wounded US troops and the 2,016 KIA... not to mention the dead of the ING, Iraqi Police, British, Polish, and the other 'coalition' forces.

They have failed when they destroyed up their own shrines.

Or have they... some of them stand to gain from those attacks (on the "other side's" shrines by the way). Oh, and it's "destroyed their own" not "destroyed up."

They have failed to win the hearts of the Iraqi people.

They've failed to win the hearts and minds of some of the Iraqis, and won the hearts and minds of other Iraqis.

They have failed to live within their own religion.

We've failed at that too, "thou shalt not kill" is pretty universal. :p

They have failed to be human beings.

What, they're not the children of a man and a woman, they don't have a humanoid body structure, and don't follow the standard makeup of a human being? Good lord, no wonder we've been fighting them so long, they're aliens! :rolleyes:

In consequence they have failed with their lives and now their cause is dust.

Urrrm, debateable, I reckon they'd disagree... and it's certainly not a consequence of those random and mostly erroneous points you spewed forth just then.

Is it any surprise that they are defeated and despised even by those who once cheered for them? :p

They'll be defeated when the shooting stops, chum, not before then. And it looks to me as though a lot of Iraqis still support the insurgency (which is not only Al Qaeda in Iraq...).

They were never anything but scum and villainy and now they are *defeated* scum and villainy. :D

They're still fighting. They may be defeated, but, er, still fighting... call me when the shooting stops for good.

It sucks to be a jihadi! :)

This is a failure to understand the term fully. However, if we assume you mean the Iraqi insurgents, yes, it probably does. I would not like to pit my wits and an AK against the full weight of US firepower.

It sucks even more to be a poor and foolish Leftist dhimmi who bet his honor and his political future upon an Insurgent victory. :cool:

What is a dhimmi? Ooh, I'm leftist, but I've not bet my honour or my political future (don't have one) on an insurgent victory. Who has?

Justice is served and I gloat in your face. :D

It's really not been served, and your gloating wasn't.

Next time don't ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer. ^_~

Next time, don't answer if you can't answer sensibly! [insert stupid anime emoticon here]

What is a dhimmi? Ooh, I'm leftist, but I've not bet my honour or my political future (don't have one) on an insurgent victory. Who has?

It's a cute term that's fashionable amongst the 101st Fighting Keyboarders who subscribe to the Goebbels-Coulter school of demonizing your critics as traitors. It basically means "One who takes Jihadist cock in mouth and up ass willingly." Just the way anyone who questions Israel's policies is automatically a Neo-Nazi Anti-Semite, anyone who suggests that Muslims are humans are automatically labelled "Dhimmi."

just to say that the 27 dead mentioned include insergent dead :)
Just what part of that jackholish post deserved a smiley? Every one of those killed mentioned in that report, regardless of their "side," was a human being, and they deserve better than your jerkoff smartass comments about their deaths.

This is not Vietnam. We were able to rid the world of a master minded terrorist and a brutal dictator. What is wrong with that? The only thing that the insurgents are doing now is using I.E.D.s because they are a bunch of cowards who are fighting for a lost cause. Considering that we are fighting an enemy that cowards and hides, our military is doing a superb job. We have excellent generals, and insurgents are running about of supplies and man power. They are not going to be able to hold up much longer. The Iraq gov. is set up now, we are rebuilding the country, and it will only be a matter of time before Iraq can defend itself. If we leave now, we leave too many innocent civilians without a way of fending off the terrorists. We have to see this through.

The 'insurgency' or 'resistance' is failing. Failing at what?.

These animals do have goals. What they are doing isn't simply random violence, it is directed towards certain strategic and political goals.

Have they achieved any of them?

No.

Now, if a group had not achieved any of its goals, it either is failing, or has failed.

This is not Vietnam. We were able to rid the world of a master minded terrorist and a brutal dictator. What is wrong with that? The only thing that the insurgents are doing now is using I.E.D.s because they are a bunch of cowards who are fighting for a lost cause. Considering that we are fighting an enemy that cowards and hides, our military is doing a superb job. We have excellent generals, and insurgents are running about of supplies and man power. They are not going to be able to hold up much longer. The Iraq gov. is set up now, we are rebuilding the country, and it will only be a matter of time before Iraq can defend itself. If we leave now, we leave too many innocent civilians without a way of fending off the terrorists. We have to see this through.

First of all, calling Al-Zaraqawi a terrorist mastermind is giving too much credit to a small-time crook turned murderous thug who wanted to be a real terrorist boy like Bin-Ladin and company. If anything, getting rid of Al-Zarqawi might end up doing The Original Authentic Al'Qaeda a great favor. A-Z flew in the face of AQ standard operating procedures, targeting Muslims in addition to the coalition forces. And now Bin Ladin is supposed to have hand-picked an Egyptian to take charge of the Iraq franchise. Intelligence analysts agree than when Bin Ladin means business somewhere he picks an Egyptian to handle it.

Second, Saddam Hussein was Uncle Sam's pet dictator for decades starting from his rise to power and the only reason he was targeted was Shrub wanted to show Daddy what he could do. Nevermind that Il Bushe wanted any excuse to go after Iraq even before the Powerball Numbers came up 9-11 for him. He had nothing to do with Al Qaeda at all, and Iraq was not a state sponsor of terrorism like Iran was and is. Like Manuel Noriega, he was another cocksucking toady of the United States who got disposed of when his usefulness was up.

And what you call cowardice strategists could call being smart. Hell, even back in the Revolutionary War the colonists used hit and run guerilla tactics instead of "bravely" facing the superior British Army. While the insurgents don't have a national army to supplement their numbers like the Viet Cong did, the fact that we still have casualties on a daily basis doesn't sound an insurgency is failing one bit.

These animals do have goals. What they are doing isn't simply random violence, it is directed towards certain strategic and political goals.

Have they achieved any of them?

No.

Now, if a group had not achieved any of its goals, it either is failing, or has failed.
Animals? Geez--why don't you just call them sand-niggers and get the racism out there in the open?

As to their goals, it seems to me that they're accomplishing plenty--they've kept the occupying forces off-balance, and kept the "legitimate" government from gaining any real power. At this point, all the insurgency is hoping to accomplish is drawing the fight out until the militarily superior force decides it's not worth the trouble anymore and pulls out--and by that standard, I'd say the insurgency succeeding at a pretty substantial clip.

Animals? Geez--why don't you just call them sand-niggers and get the racism out there in the open?

As to their goals, it seems to me that they're accomplishing plenty--they've kept the occupying forces off-balance, and kept the "legitimate" government from gaining any real power. At this point, all the insurgency is hoping to accomplish is drawing the fight out until the militarily superior force decides it's not worth the trouble anymore and pulls out--and by that standard, I'd say the insurgency succeeding at a pretty substantial clip.

I don't see how they have kept the occupying force "off-balance". Insurgents are killing more Iraqi's than Americans and the legit government has only just started and already has a significant police force. Large enough where Marines can now go out with groups of trained Iraqis. There has been definite progress since Sadaam's regime was taken out.

I don't see how they have kept the occupying force "off-balance". Insurgents are killing more Iraqi's than Americans and the legit government has only just started and already has a significant police force. Large enough where Marines can now go out with groups of trained Iraqis. There has been definite progress since Sadaam's regime was taken out.
Doesn't matter who they're targeting--the idea is to spread instability, and whether they kill Iraqis or coalition forces, they spread instability. And explain to me how the fact that Marines are able to go out with groups of trained Iraqis is an improvement--the Marines are supposed to be able to go wherever the hell they want, according to them. Meanwhile, reporters in the area say they're basically limited to the green zone and their hotels because it's too dangerous for them to leave and go out on their own. Yeah--that's stable.

First of all, calling Al-Zaraqawi a terrorist mastermind is giving too much credit to a small-time crook turned murderous thug who wanted to be a real terrorist boy like Bin-Ladin and company. If anything, getting rid of Al-Zarqawi might end up doing The Original Authentic Al'Qaeda a great favor. A-Z flew in the face of AQ standard operating procedures, targeting Muslims in addition to the coalition forces. And now Bin Ladin is supposed to have hand-picked an Egyptian to take charge of the Iraq franchise. Intelligence analysts agree than when Bin Ladin means business somewhere he picks an Egyptian to handle it.

Second, Saddam Hussein was Uncle Sam's pet dictator for decades starting from his rise to power and the only reason he was targeted was Shrub wanted to show Daddy what he could do. Nevermind that Il Bushe wanted any excuse to go after Iraq even before the Powerball Numbers came up 9-11 for him. He had nothing to do with Al Qaeda at all, and Iraq was not a state sponsor of terrorism like Iran was and is. Like Manuel Noriega, he was another cocksucking toady of the United States who got disposed of when his usefulness was up.

And what you call cowardice strategists could call being smart. Hell, even back in the Revolutionary War the colonists used hit and run guerilla tactics instead of "bravely" facing the superior British Army. While the insurgents don't have a national army to supplement their numbers like the Viet Cong did, the fact that we still have casualties on a daily basis doesn't sound an insurgency is failing one bit.

Al-Zaraqawi was wanted by the C.I.A. and was a very powerful, influential leader for the terrorists. The reason that bush went into Iraq, amongst others, was that Iraq was harboring terrorists and had defiant ties to the terrorists. The president of the united states is briefed by the C.I.A., the N.S.A., and the F.B.I. he has far more inside information than anyone else. What do we know? We only know what we see on the news. We do not have a daily casualty rate, it is not that high. The media only shows stories about when troops are hurt, killed, or missing. The reason they do it is nothing sells like bad news. Saddam was never under the united states’ control, and don’t forget that president clinton also bombed Iraq. It is not just bush who has dealt with Iraq militarily, it is the current and last two presidents. Even clinton has said that Iraq has become a breading ground for terrorists. If we leave Iraq, it is only going to get worse, and the country will be controlled by terrorists. I don’t think that anyone wants that to happen.

Doesn't matter who they're targeting--the idea is to spread instability, and whether they kill Iraqis or coalition forces, they spread instability.

No, that is not the idea, they wish to spread instability to further their political goals. There is no sign that they are, or ever will be, close to achieving any of them.

Meanwhile, reporters in the area say they're basically limited to the green zone and their hotels because it's too dangerous for them to leave and go out on their own. Yeah--that's stable.

What they say and the truth are two different things. You're proving nothing here.

At this point, all the insurgency is hoping to accomplish is drawing the fight out until the militarily superior force decides it's not worth the trouble anymore and pulls out--and by that standard, I'd say the insurgency succeeding at a pretty substantial clip.

No, they aren't succeeding at this at all. I will also remind you that if what you say is their goal, they have been scaling back their goals. That in itself is a sign of failure.

what crack are you smoking? So you think all wars shouldn't have happened? Go ahead and let germany take over europe and the liike?

*edit*
you do nothing but avoid questions.

If 'All' wars shouldn't have happened, and they didn't, then there would have been no german take-over. That would be included in the 'all' part.

HTH! :)

Why does every rightist nutjob assume that just because you have left-wing political leanings you want the insurgency to win? I hope they lose, I just hope they lose with a minimal loss of life on both sides.

No I don't support the war in Iraq, I never did. I hope that the US does mor ethan just kills a bunch of people, trains a police force and says, 'see ya later.'

The only way to end insurgency and institute real domocratic change while minimizing extremism is to try and make changes in the entire society. Young people need to be given real education, jobs, and hope so they don't get lured into throwing their lives away for some religious fanatic or becoming a cold-blooded killer in some militia or other.

How to do that I'm not sure, but to make a real change in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever else we invade next takes more than just a bunch of soldiers in body armor with heavy weapons shooting anyone that looks at them cross-eyed.

No, that is not the idea, they wish to spread instability to further their political goals. There is no sign that they are, or ever will be, close to achieving any of them.
If they haven't been successful to date, then why are more and more Americans stating that the war in Iraq is a failure (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/WaronTerror_Monthly_Update_May.htm)?

Why are Americans less likely to see Bush's handling of Iraq in positive terms?

Also down is confidence in President Bush on the situation in Iraq (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/April%20Dailies/War%20on%20Terror_Monthly_Update.htm). Just 32% now say he is doing a good or excellent job on that front. A month ago, 35% had that level of confidence in him.

And the all important one, why do Americans feel that the US is less safer today than before 9/11?

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of Americans believe the U.S. is safer today than it was before 9/11. Forty-six percent (46%) disagree.

Never mind the fact that terrorism has increased worldwide since the invasion of Iraq.

Iraq invasion spurs terrorism (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/iraq-invasion-spurs-terrorism/2006/04/30/1146335611937.html)

THE US State Department's annual report on global terrorism says that the number of reported terrorist incidents and deaths has increased exponentially in the years since the US invaded Iraq, largely because of Iraq itself.

Still think that the terrorists are not "furthering their political goals?"

What they say and the truth are two different things. You're proving nothing here.
I don't see your post as proving anything, other than your "truth" is not the "truth".

No, they aren't succeeding at this at all. I will also remind you that if what you say is their goal, they have been scaling back their goals. That in itself is a sign of failure.
If they have been scaling back their goals, then something is wrong with this picture?

US fatalities Iraq (http://icasualties.org/oif/US_Chart.aspx)

Animals? Geez--why don't you just call them sand-niggers and get the racism out there in the open?

Oh please, more Leftist allegations of "racism"...

It's perfectly legitemate to call them animals, or even monsters...They kill innocents on-purpose for no reason than to forward their twisted agenda...I'd say they're monsters.

But of course, Leftists would love it if these scumbags won, because it'd prove whatever "point" they thought they had.

We're winning. You're bitter. Get over it.
If 'All' wars shouldn't have happened, and they didn't, then there would have been no german take-over. That would be included in the 'all' part.
War will allways be a part of mankind. Allways has. Allways will. No matter how much we wish it were otherwise....And because of that, the only thing that truly matters, is which side do you support?

I'm proud of my country for supporting the right side in World War 2...And i'm proud of it for supporting the right side after 9/11.

So what if, since I abhor war, I take the stance of supporting no side in war?

Edit: Wow, my spelling got real crappy there.

So what if, since I abhor war, I take the stance of supporting no side in war?

Edit: Wow, my spelling got real crappy there.
Then you don't get a say in who should pull out, where and when, since you choose neither.

I love the term 'pull out' it reminds me of talking about sex when I was a teenager.

"Just make sure he pulls out!" and so forth.

Then you don't get a say in who should pull out, where and when, since you choose neither.
If you really think about it, of course Eris could have a say about troops being recalled?

If they haven't been successful to date, then why are more and more Americans stating that the war in Iraq is a failure?

That doesn't prove that the terrorists have been successful. Merely that some Americans don't like the war, and that was always the case.

And the all important one, why do Americans feel that the US is less safer today than before 9/11?

Again, no proof that the terrorists are accomplishing their aims.

The question isn't relevant.

If they have been scaling back their goals, then something is wrong with this picture?

Their goal is not simply to kill. They have strategic and political goals.

Have they achieved any of these? Are they achieving any of these? Are they even close? Is there any serious prospect that they ever will?

***************************************

If you think the terrorist campaign in Iraq is simply violence, you are not looking at the situation. They have a definite agenda.

The real question is, whne the hell are we going to get some benefit from this war?

I WANT CHEAP GAS AND I WANT IT NOW!

I wonder if I could go make some t-shirts that say, "How many muslims do I gotta kill to get some cheap gas?"

I WANT CHEAP GAS AND I WANT IT NOW!
Try the chili.

Everyone knows that girls do not, pardon the term, 'break wind'

at least not that we'd admit

That doesn't prove that the terrorists have been successful. Merely that some Americans don't like the war, and that was always the case.
That is not true and you know it. After 9/11, Bush had overwhelming support for a war against terrorism. The world was behind the US big time. The invasion of Iraq and the subsequent failures of US initiatives have caused public opinion to go south.

Again, no proof that the terrorists are accomplishing their aims.
Of course it is proof. Current threat level in the US, after 4 and 1/2 years in the war against terror, is ELEVATED (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeland/index.html)!!

No progress there?

The question isn't relevant.
The question is extremely relevant.

Their goal is not simply to kill. They have strategic and political goals.
What exactly are their "strategic and political goals"?

Have they achieved any of these? Are they achieving any of these? Are they even close? Is there any serious prospect that they ever will?
Yes. Yes. Yes, and yes.

If you think the terrorist campaign in Iraq is simply violence, you are not looking at the situation. They have a definite agenda.
What exactly is their agenda?

yeah when the fuck are we gonna get this cheap gas, I dont give a fuck if the war was about oil or what, i wanna fuckin road trip man....:cool:

Hell yeah!

And I'm gonna buy whatever SUV gets the worst gas mileage to roadtrip with!

Yee-haw!

Hell yeah!

And I'm gonna buy whatever SUV gets the worst gas mileage to roadtrip with!

Yee-haw!

HUMVEES only get 3 miles to the gallon, we'll get one of them!:D

Hell yeah!

And I'm gonna buy whatever SUV gets the worst gas mileage to roadtrip with!

Yee-haw!

"Buy our car, or The Terrorists Win."

Bless George Carlin.

Sweet!

After 9/11, Bush had overwhelming support for a war against terrorism. The world was behind the US big time. The invasion of Iraq and the subsequent failures of US initiatives have caused public opinion to go south.

The world was not supportive of the US, they were sympathetic after the US's loss.

Of course it is proof. Current threat level in the US, after 4 and 1/2 years in the war against terror, is ELEVATED!!

So, you're saying their only aim is to pose a threat.

What exactly are their "strategic and political goals"?

They've made their goals quite clear. Why they need to be restated to you is a mystery.

Yes. Yes. Yes, and yes.

Since you claim not to know their goals, you cannot say that they've acomplished them, that they are acomplishing them, that they are close, or that they've any prospect of so doing.

I still want to know, since the insurgents are failing and the mission is accomplished, again-

when do i get my cheap gas?

The question is not relevant to this thread, since the high petrol prices are not the consequence of the Iraq War. They have many causes.

Oh please, more Leftist allegations of "racism"...

It's perfectly legitemate to call them animals, or even monsters...They kill innocents on-purpose for no reason than to forward their twisted agenda...I'd say they're monsters.

But that happens in every war by every side. One sides "innocents" are another sides "collateral damage."

But of course, Leftists would love it if these scumbags won, because it'd prove whatever "point" they thought they had.

I don't know if I've ever heard a "leftist" say they want the insurgency to win.

We're winning. You're bitter. Get over it.

I think the question of "win" or "lose" is ill-defined and widely open for debate. We should always be questioning AND being used to being questioned.

War will allways be a part of mankind.\

How do you know?

Always has.

No, it hasn't.

Always will.

Slavery was once thought to be part of the human condition. I'm sure no one in the 900's thought a democratic society without an overt aristocracy could possibly exist.

No matter how much we wish it were otherwise....And because of that, the only thing that truly matters, is which side do you support?

Good or bad, your Country Uber Alles? That's a rather childish and bleak view.

I'm proud of my country for supporting the right side in World War 2...And i'm proud of it for supporting the right side after 9/11.


If only the real world was that simple...

Slavery was once thought to be part of the human condition. I'm sure no one in the 900's thought a democratic society without an overt aristocracy could possibly exist.

yeah, but did we not use war to achieve such things?

yeah, but did we not use war to achieve such things?
Maybe you did in the States, but the States isn't the rest of the world.

yeah, but did we not use war to achieve such things?

When one has a hammer, everything starts looking like nails.

We HAVE achieved good without war.

Maybe you did in the States, but the States isn't the rest of the world.

well ok, The French Revolution, The Russian Revolution, All the rebellions in Latin America against colonialist Spain, Italy achieve independance from Austria through war, British civil war, Haiti's rebellion against Napoleon, Penninsular war,....I know there is way more but a violent revolution is typically the way a people becomes indepedant from an opressive government, yes there has been peacful ones ie Gahndi's in India, but typically they are bloody and violent, dont go blaming all of the worlds violence on the US. Compared the rest of the world we are actually quite civil.

When one has a hammer, everything starts looking like nails.

We HAVE achieved good without war.

never said we didnt. flowers can make one happy, so can killing ones enemy.

The world was not supportive of the US, they were sympathetic after the US's loss.
I disagree.

So, you're saying their only aim is to pose a threat.
You are being evasive, and not persuasive in your rebuttal. Terrorists blow shit up and yeah, that causes a threat. Terrorism has increased worldwide, so yeah, they are accomplishing their goals. The US invasion of Iraq is helping the terrorists to grow their organization.

They've made their goals quite clear. Why they need to be restated to you is a mystery.

Since you claim not to know their goals, you cannot say that they've acomplished them, that they are acomplishing them, that they are close, or that they've any prospect of so doing.
Obviously you must think their goals are different than what I think they are, and I did not claim to not know what their goals are. You are avoiding the question(s).....what do you think are their "clear" goals?

well ok, The French Revolution, The Russian Revolution, All the rebellions in Latin America against colonialist Spain, Italy achieve independance from Austria through war, British civil war, Haiti's rebellion against Napoleon, Penninsular war,....I know there is way more but a violent revolution is typically the way a people becomes indepedant from an opressive government, yes there has been peacful ones ie Gahndi's in India, but typically they are bloody and violent, dont go blaming all of the worlds violence on the US. Compared the rest of the world we are actually quite civil.
WTF? You evidently didn't understand my single-sentence post. Try again, Brainiac.

WTF? You evidently didn't understand my single-sentence post. Try again, Brainiac.

Submit. Now.

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW06-14-06.jpg

Nah.

You are being evasive,

No, I'm not. The terrorists have been stating their aims for years, both generally and in Iraq specifically. I see little need to restate for your benefit that which has been stated, and restated for years.

In fact, I've given a basic summary of their aims in this thread. If you don't choose to read the thread, don't bother replying.

Terrorists blow shit up and yeah, that causes a threat. Terrorism has increased worldwide, so yeah, they are accomplishing their goals. The US invasion of Iraq is helping the terrorists to grow their organization.

Terrorist organisations are not like businesses, they are not in this to grow their organisations. They have specific political, and/or social aims.

I did not claim to not know what their goals are.

Yes you did. In stating that they are accomplishing their goals, you implicitly claims that you know them. How could you know whether or not they had achieved what they wanted to achieve unless you knew what they wanted to achieve?

Yeah I remember when the criminal dictatorship decided to go to war. At that stage it was to remove Saddam from power because of what he did to the Kurds (beloved Kurds) and the poor downtrodden people of Iraq. The people of Iraq with their secular state, hospitals, universities, TV stations, cheap petrol, and the like. Saddams secret police would whack the odd bunch of malcontents and uppity student types but that's standard Operating Procedure in the region.

Of course now after the US army has bombed evrything flat and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians everything is much better. The people are so glad to be free of Saddam against whom they would not rebel, and so filled with the new western ideals of democracy that they now have the courage to blow the fuck out of any kind of opprerssor. Once the US army is finished providing target practice for these freshly democtratised free people they can withdrawn back to the states and maybe help rebuild New Orleans, or landscape some rich guys estate.

The people of Iraq have learned a valuable lesson. The next time an invading army storms into your country, instead of surrendering or not putting up a fight like the last time, get every old woman and child and arm them to the hilt. Dig in in every garden and sand dune. Fight to the last breath because slavery and death under any tyrant is the worst option, death is infinitely better.

The people of Iran and Pakistan and every free person in the world has learned that lesson. Better to die on your feet than be murdered in the middle of the night by a bunch of frightened crackers who can't even speak your language.

The insurgency appears to be mostly alive in the imagination of oppositional Americans with too much time on their hands.

Quassim sizes power of Iraq & renounces the Baghdad Pact. The US throws a fit & starts assasinating people. CIA hands Saddam the country.
The '79 revolution in Iran removes the corrupt US-financed regime. Saddam & the US throws a fit & the Iraq-Iran war ensues... And Saddam gets the much famed WMD.

Fast forward a bit. Saddam's Iraq is now a fairly stable & comparatively safe country to live in (by local standards back then). Saddam makes the mistake of expanding into Kuwait, against US interests. The US reduces the country to slag, and afterwards introduces sanctions responsible for the deaths of around half a million people - mostly children.
Not satisfied with this UN-backed genocide, the US periodically bombs Iraqi infrastructure, apparently to ensure the population remains utterly powerless & trapped in hell.

Fast forward a bit more. The US wants military supremacy in the region, presumably to ensure their grip on the already dwindling oil resources. All manner of absurd excuses are thought up, but no one outside the US believes them. An illegal invasion, backed by the usual suspects, takes place.
Shortlt thereafter, a couple of hundred thousands are dead & victory is declared. The US reinforces it's presence, the fighting continues, various political puppets are presented & discarded, some tens of thousands more civillians die, civil war breaks out resulting in a monthly deathcount of staggering proportions, and infrastructure - the lifeblood of the arid country - remains a non-priority. Iraq becomes a terrorist breedingground, lending some vague credibility to the US war on terror for the first time since it was declared.

Meanwhile, most of the peoples of the world, along with virtually every relief NGO in existence, condemns the unwarrented, disasterous & illegal aggression against the peoples of Iraq... And 'patriotic' Americans settles in for prolonged fighting to liberate the Iraqi peoples, presumably of their lives, as they've been liberated of everything else they ever had.

End the atrocity. All the king's horses & all the king's men cannot put Iraq together again - unsurprisingly, as we've spend a generation reducing the place to rubble.

But that happens in every war by every side. One sides "innocents" are another sides "collateral damage."


I don't know if I've ever heard a "leftist" say they want the insurgency to win.



I think the question of "win" or "lose" is ill-defined and widely open for debate. We should always be questioning AND being used to being questioned.

\

How do you know?



No, it hasn't.



Slavery was once thought to be part of the human condition. I'm sure no one in the 900's thought a democratic society without an overt aristocracy could possibly exist.



Good or bad, your Country Uber Alles? That's a rather childish and bleak view.




If only the real world was that simple...

I'm sorry but you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing, what point are you trying to make?

Don't you mean Methylchloroisothiazolinone?

Read the post above you man. C'mon...

459 raids. I was off by 400. Dang, I'm old, jewish, and pretty stupid with numbers :D


You're a Jew? That explains so much, like your hatred of Arabs... Thats all it explains by the way.

You're a Jew? That explains so much, like your hatred of Arabs... Thats all it explains by the way.


Ah, so... he hates Arabs cuz he is a Jew.

Nazi or LeftWhinger detected!

No, I'm not. The terrorists have been stating their aims for years, both generally and in Iraq specifically. I see little need to restate for your benefit that which has been stated, and restated for years.

In fact, I've given a basic summary of their aims in this thread. If you don't choose to read the thread, don't bother replying.
I have read the thread and that is why I have been challenging you to back up your claims. So far, you have been unable to do so, and your basic summary, is indeed very basic, and fails to consider that there are two factions to the resistance in Iraq, that being the insurgents and the terrorists. They have one common goal and different collective goals. So far, their combined goals have made it very difficult for the US to obtain its' goals.

Terrorist organisations are not like businesses, they are not in this to grow their organisations. They have specific political, and/or social aims.
What are their "specific" political and/or social aims, and how can they achieve them if they don't "grow their organizations"?

Yes you did. In stating that they are accomplishing their goals, you implicitly claims that you know them. How could you know whether or not they had achieved what they wanted to achieve unless you knew what they wanted to achieve?
More double talk. You made a claim and I challenged you on it and so far, you have not been able to back up your claims. So far, the US invasion of Iraq has failed miserably as a demonstration that the US is winning the war on terror. The fact that worldwide terrorism has increased, speaks volumes about this failure of foreign policy.

It's great if the insurgency if failing. :D I hope this whole thing can end so Iraqis can live good lives in a nice country.

I say we invade saudi arabia next. It could use some democratizing, er... democracyizing? Uhm... yeah, invade them next.

Are you talking about me Marky?

You suggest that having thousands of posts on this forum lends credibility to observations one might make and that somehow having few posts on this forum erodes credibility in some way. This is a phenomenon of staggering implications. So a thousand posts in I can look forward to being taken seriously by someone like you, w00t!1

Sorry, I just can't believe that a 1 day old account that attacks E isn't a muppet.
In general, I am sceptical of ANY post by a user that hasn't been around for at least a month and doesn't have know alter-egos.

No, that is not the idea, they wish to spread instability to further their political goals. There is no sign that they are, or ever will be, close to achieving any of them.What part of stages of conflict don't you understand, kid? This is the period where they create a power vacuum so that they'll be able to step in in the long run, and they've done a pretty good job of that thus far. For an example of an insurgency that is transforming itself (albeit with fits and starts) into a political entity, look at Hamas and Hezbollah. Hezbollah is farther along the path at this time.

What they say and the truth are two different things. You're proving nothing here.This is a weak reply, even by your standards. What have you "proven" about the situation over there that contradicts the words of reporters who say they can't leave the very limited, protected areas because they're likely to be kidnapped or killed?



No, they aren't succeeding at this at all. I will also remind you that if what you say is their goal, they have been scaling back their goals. That in itself is a sign of failure.
Your reply is a sign of a confused mind--you don't really know what you want to say in reply and as a result it comes out as nonsense. Here's your problem--you're looking for bright-line signs of success and failure, looking for individual examples of "proof" that will determine one side is winning and one is losing. The problem for you is that in this sort of situation, you're never going to have that kind of easy answer. What's going on in Iraq is mass chaos, and that's just what the insurgency wants because as long as there's public trust in the ability of a central government to protect them, then the insurgency is in trouble. But right now, that's not the case--the insurgents operate at will and the governmeneet is powerless to stop them.

Hey, I think E sucks too.

Thankfully, its falling out of favor with most teenagers, even ravers.

Oh please, more Leftist allegations of "racism"...

It's perfectly legitemate to call them animals, or even monsters...They kill innocents on-purpose for no reason than to forward their twisted agenda...I'd say they're monsters.

But of course, Leftists would love it if these scumbags won, because it'd prove whatever "point" they thought they had.

We're winning. You're bitter. Get over it.
Not bitter--pissed off. Pissed off because your racist and simplistic world views are fucking up the world. Pissed off because your delusional ideas that you're winning are causing the unnecessary deaths of thousands of human beings and the unnecessary suffering of tens of thousands more.

And no--there is no legitimacy to calling them animals. You dehumanize them so you can assuage what you call a conscience when you applaud the atrocities you commit against them--if they're not human, then you've done nothing bad, in essence. Read some Orwell sometime--especially "Marrakech." He knew your type.

Please tell me how you can stop a suicide bomber?? Impossible. The insurgency in Iraq will never be stopped with a gun it will be stopped by the Iraqis forming a government and restoring order themselfs. If America left in the morning there would be less voilence gurranteed.

-The insurgents would believe they had won even though they had lost

-There would be a stable democratic government in power with a well trained army and police force

-Insurgents would not be able to recruit people by telling them to fight against the great enemy america because they wouldnt be in their country.

-No american soldiers would be harmed because they would be gone

-Diplomatic relations between America and basicly everywhere would improve

- GWs Approval rating would go up

- America wouldnt be wasting billions on the military for nothing while


What are the reasons for staying??
You have got to be kidding me! So you think that a country that was under a brutal dictatorship for the better part of thirty years is going to set up democratic government on their own?

Your first point about the insurgents is not correct. The insurgents would seize this oppurtunity to install an Iran-style Fundamentalist Islamic regime which would oppress its people just like before.

The Iraqi Army and police forces are not going to become "well-trained" without US soldiers and policemen teaching them how to do things right. If you noticed by the way we rolled over the Iraqi Army twice, they are not well-trained or disciplined on their own. They need help, which we can provide.

Insurgents would be able to recruit more people to their cause because they would have won! Every high school football player wants to play for a winning college team, right? It's the same deal here. There recruitment would go up because they won.

This is the one point that I agree with you on. The diplomatic relations would improve with other countries, but not for the right reasons. The only reason the French and the Russian did not want to go into Iraq was because of their business interests in Saddam's Regime. France was selling them planes for oil, Russia sold them military equipment for oil. They saw that they were going to lose business.

GW's approval rating would only go up if he walked on the frickin water, because the Democrats only care that he is Republican, he wouldn't be able to do shit because of the partisan politics.

If you think that it is a waste of money to work for a better Middle East, than you are flat out crazy. It may seem weird, but this is the best Middle East peace plan that has ever been implemented. If Iraqis become free, other Arabs are going to start clamoring for democracy too. Look at the American Revolution. After the US got its independence, France, Greece, and about a dozen other countries had their own democratic revolutions. Freedom is infectious.

It is sad to see that some people do not even care about the men over in Iraq. Talking to the troops, you know that they believe what they are doing is noble and right. They are fighting and dying away from their homes, and your going to tell them that it is a waste of time? This astounds me, that people can forget that we are talking about people, not numbers.

Hey, I think E sucks too.

Thankfully, its falling out of favor with most teenagers, even ravers.

Not where I live, heh...

You have got to be kidding me! So you think that a country that was under a brutal dictatorship for the better part of thirty years is going to set up democratic government on their own?

So many others have in history.

Your first point about the insurgents is not correct. The insurgents would seize this oppurtunity to install an Iran-style Fundamentalist Islamic regime which would oppress its people just like before.

And what if the people want a fundamentalist islamic regime?

The Iraqi Army and police forces are not going to become "well-trained" without US soldiers and policemen teaching them how to do things right. If you noticed by the way we rolled over the Iraqi Army twice, they are not well-trained or disciplined on their own. They need help, which we can provide.

Yes, because this worked so well in vietnam.

Insurgents would be able to recruit more people to their cause because they would have won! Every high school football player wants to play for a winning college team, right? It's the same deal here. There recruitment would go up because they won.

Except there's no other teams to play anymore. Its a really, really bad comparison. People won't join because the insurgency will be pointless then, except for the few that dissolve into gangs/thugs, but most probably wont.

This is the one point that I agree with you on. The diplomatic relations would improve with other countries, but not for the right reasons. The only reason the French and the Russian did not want to go into Iraq was because of their business interests in Saddam's Regime. France was selling them planes for oil, Russia sold them military equipment for oil. They saw that they were going to lose business.

Bullshit. Please post some sources where the French or Russians were proven violating UN resolutions by selling iraq military equipment. Before the invasion, american buisnesses were making more illegal profit from food for oil than any other country in the world.

GW's approval rating would only go up if he walked on the frickin water, because the Democrats only care that he is Republican, he wouldn't be able to do shit because of the partisan politics.

And look at the numbers in his own party. They are falling like a ton of bricks.

If you think that it is a waste of money to work for a better Middle East, than you are flat out crazy. It may seem weird, but this is the best Middle East peace plan that has ever been implemented. If Iraqis become free, other Arabs are going to start clamoring for democracy too. Look at the American Revolution. After the US got its independence, France, Greece, and about a dozen other countries had their own democratic revolutions. Freedom is infectious.

Its worth spending billions/nearly trillions of our money, while there are people starving and homeless here, dying of disease, etc. Its worth thousands of dead americans, tens of thousands of wounded americans, and hundreds of thousands of dead iraqi's. For what? A chance at democracy in iraq.

We would have made the world a much better place by just investing the money, both loans to foreign countries and subsidation to certain sectors of the economy.

It is sad to see that some people do not even care about the men over in Iraq. Talking to the troops, you know that they believe what they are doing is noble and right. They are fighting and dying away from their homes, and your going to tell them that it is a waste of time? This astounds me, that people can forget that we are talking about people, not numbers.

This is the period where they create a power vacuum so that they'll be able to step in in the long run, and they've done a pretty good job of that thus far.

By alienating the population?

The Coalition are already planning to hand over security in some provinces over to the Iraqi Forces.

They have one common goal and different collective goals.

I know, and they aren't achieving them, all they are doing is placing bombs, mostly in civilian areas. They've been plugging away for over three years, and there are already plans in hand to turn security over to Iraqi forces in some provinces.

the insurgents operate at will and the government is powerless to stop them.

Operating at will? http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20060615-0623-iraq.html

143 of those raids were carried out by Iraqis alone.

You made a claim and I challenged you on it and so far, you have not been able to back up your claims. So far, the US invasion of Iraq has failed miserably as a demonstration that the US is winning the war on terror. The fact that worldwide terrorism has increased, speaks volumes about this failure of foreign policy.

None of that (even it were all true) actually proves that the terrorists are winning.

Sorry, I just can't believe that a 1 day old account that attacks E isn't a muppet.
In general, I am sceptical of ANY post by a user that hasn't been around for at least a month and doesn't have know alter-egos.

So you're a bit of a simp then. Your look out not mine. I presume you mean Estrus or whatever that brave american soldier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre) is calling himself when you say E. You'll find the clown attcked me.


The Coalition are already planning to hand over security in some provinces over to the Iraqi Forces.


The Vichy French didn't do too well once the nazis were pushed out of France. The same thing will happen to those Iraqi traitors when the Democrats regain the Whitehouse and pull all American support out of Iraq.

This just proves that Americans can do what they want, when they want, and how they want, and get what they want, and not have to face reprisals, becuase the UN has no capability to stop, or start anything. And because we can kick everyones ass. all the time. :eek:

The Vichy French didn't do too well once the nazis were pushed out of France. The same thing will happen to those Iraqi traitors when the Democrats regain the Whitehouse and pull all American support out of Iraq.

yeah but they were french.

Well that's my point, even the French don't like collaberators.

Hey estrus Hugh Thompson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson%2C_Jr.) is one US soldier type who wasn't all that bad and went to Vietnam.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_hero.html

The Vichy French didn't do too well once the nazis were pushed out of France. The same thing will happen to those Iraqi traitors when the Democrats regain the Whitehouse and pull all American support out of Iraq.

Your entire argument is based on a false premise, i.e. that Iraqis who want to have a say in governing their country are traitors.

The insurgents are the traitors.

Your entire argument is based on a false premise, i.e. that Iraqis who want to have a say in governing their country are traitors.

The insurgents are the traitors.
You know, if your posts on economics didn't already prove that you've got a pathetically simplistic view of the world, these posts finish the job quite ably. Congrats!

To the insurgents, the Iraqi security forces and 'legitimate government' are the traitors, and vice-versa.

Fact remains that the common goal of the insurgency is to boot the occupiers out of Iraq. In addition, the seperate parts of the insurgency have other, different goals. Al Qaeda in Iraq wants to see the Caliphate reborn, the Baathist remnants want a return to power, the Shia militias want an Iran-style country, the Sunni militias want a return to power for them, the Shias and the Sunnis want to kill the Kurds, the Kurds want to stay independent (interesting that the most effective ING units are the Kurdish ones...), then there's the Marsh Arabs who want their own back on the Sunnis and the Baathists, then there's the crooks who kidnap people to order or for profit, the police and army death squads (some of which are bound to be run by the CIA and MI6), the police who are the insurgency, the ING units who shoot at the US and other coalition forces 'by accident', the ING units who attack other ING units, and so on and so forth.

In sum:

The insurgency will be defeated if the fighting stops and they surrender while Iraq is occupied. This is not happening yet.

The insurgency will achieve its common goal if the occupiers leave.

The course which will lead to less deaths is the second one. If the occupiers had actually done things properly, instead of fucking about with vast sums of money and mercenaries, the electricity supply would be good, hospitals would be equipped, streets would not be open sewers, and the Iraqi Army wouldn't have been sacked, providing an insta-insurgency.

We didn't, we doomed the place to a small hell, and our presence exacerbates things. We need to leave, or at least have the UN return to police it in their blue hats.

Yeah, okay then.

Not bitter--pissed off. Pissed off because your racist and simplistic world views are fucking up the world.
Racist?!

Wanting to rid the world of IslamoFascist terrorism is racist? Wanting to help the vast majority of Arabs rid themselves of an evil cult bent on worldwide chaos and genocide is racist? Wanting to keep the world from entering a new dark age of potential nuclear warfare with them is racist?

Pissed off because your delusional ideas that you're winning are causing the unnecessary deaths of thousands of human beings and the unnecessary suffering of tens of thousands more.
We are winning, jackball....Or did'nt you notice all the new Hospitals, Schools, and other essential infrastructure being built in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and you don't think that there would be even more suffering in the world if we let Iran waltz all over the middleeast, rattling their nuclear dildo at any nation that dares oppose them? You also don't think mass worldwide starvation and illness caused by an oil-cutoff by them would'nt make many, many more people suffer? If you really believe that, you are 100% certifiably INSANE.

And no--there is no legitimacy to calling them animals. You dehumanize them so you can assuage what you call a conscience when you applaud the atrocities you commit against them--if they're not human, then you've done nothing bad, in essence.
What atrocities? What the living bloody hell are you blathering about, you insane Commie bastard?

Read some Orwell sometime--especially "Marrakech." He knew your type.
Oh, puh-leeze....If anyone is a racist, its' you...I only want to help the arabs...You only want to do one thing...Hate Jews

You're battier then seven shades of bat-guano.

What? You called me a nazi, basically...So, you know what? Fuck sensible conversation.

Suck my hairy, Arab-lovin' cock, you goddamn little jizzguzzler...Suck it long, hard, and at length.

Whooee, that wasn't simplistic or racist at all.

Whooee, that wasn't simplistic or racist at all.
You're right, it was'nt.