NationStates Jolt Archive

With the surge showing....less than promising results, our administration has turned to its brilliant "plan B".

And what is this plan B you ask? The american military has taken to arming other individuals to fight of Al Qaeda.

And who has the military been arming? While the Sunni insurgents.

Yes, the Sunni insurgents who have been killing us. Yes THOSE insurgents. And what would prompt our military to give weapons to the very organization that has been fueling the civil war that has been hampering our efforts? What security methods have we put in place to ensure our soldiers' safety as we turn high powered weaponry over to the insurgent powers?

We made them promise not to use the weapons on us.

Yes, our military has turned over military technology to a group that has been attacking us, because they crossed their heart and promised to only shoot at Al Qaeda.

You think I'm making this shit up? God I wish I was (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?ref=todayspaper)

There is a tracking device and remotely set explosive in all of those weapons I assume.

I can't even make fun of this, it's so ridiculous.

With the surge showing....less than promising results, our administration has turned to its brilliant "plan B".

And what is this plan B you ask? The american military has taken to arming other individuals to fight of Al Qaeda.

And who has the military been arming? While the Sunni insurgents.

Yes, the Sunni insurgents who have been killing us. Yes THOSE insurgents. And what would prompt our military to give weapons to the very organization that has been fueling the civil war that has been hampering our efforts? What security methods have we put in place to ensure our soldiers' safety as we turn high powered weaponry over to the insurgent powers?

We made them promise not to use the weapons on us.

Yes, our military has turned over military technology to a group that has been attacking us, because they crossed their heart and promised to only shoot at Al Qaeda.

You think I'm making this shit up? God I wish I was (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?ref=todayspaper)

*Captain Obvious walks in*

Captain Obvious: The American government is insane and wasteful!

I can't even make fun of this, it's so ridiculous.

Why was "the world is funny" thread locked? :confused: This here is a fine example of why the top dogs are making life insane.

[satire]
I predict that we'll have mandatory blindfolds in the military, everyone with a high IQ will be forced to play dodgeball using bowling balls to win, and if he fails he doesn't graduate, and every child will have three nukalar missiles especially if they are in unfriendly countries.
[satire/]

We made them promise not to use the weapons on us.
Too funny!!

http://kleymeyer.typepad.com/blog/pics/spy.jpg

Well, they are running out of ideas...

So should any of us reasonably expect USMC Leatherface to show up and lecture us at length about having the gosh-darned temerity to question the decisions of the Military?

Hmm... Kind of like how we gave tanks and stuff to the Soviets during WWII?

Personally I think it's kind of ironic. Al Qaida is hated by EVERYONE now.

And before we consider that we're supporting a civil war, what about those government supported millitias that are going around executing people every night. We do nothing about them.

Hmm... Kind of like how we gave tanks and stuff to the Soviets during WWII?

Personally I think it's kind of ironic. Al Qaida is hated by EVERYONE now.

And before we consider that we're supporting a civil war, what about those government supported millitias that are going around executing people every night. We do nothing about them.

Very slight, ever so unnoticeable difference here:

The Soviets weren't fighting us in WWII. The Sunnis kind of are. So, the enemy of our enemy, is our friend, but if our friend is our enemy, then we make them promise not to use the weapons we gave them against us...

Yeah. Brilliant!

So should any of us reasonably expect USMC Leatherface to show up and lecture us at length about having the gosh-darned temerity to question the decisions of the Military?
Or Deep Kimchi/Remote Observer/Whatever he's named now...

With the surge showing....less than promising results, our administration has turned to its brilliant "plan B".

And what is this plan B you ask? The american military has taken to arming other individuals to fight of Al Qaeda.

And who has the military been arming? While the Sunni insurgents.

Yes, the Sunni insurgents who have been killing us. Yes THOSE insurgents. And what would prompt our military to give weapons to the very organization that has been fueling the civil war that has been hampering our efforts? What security methods have we put in place to ensure our soldiers' safety as we turn high powered weaponry over to the insurgent powers?

We made them promise not to use the weapons on us.

Yes, our military has turned over military technology to a group that has been attacking us, because they crossed their heart and promised to only shoot at Al Qaeda.

You think I'm making this shit up? God I wish I was (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?ref=todayspaper)

I was just reading about this the other day...complete idiocy.

Another article...

Y'see, our leaders have finally figured out that there's this Sunni/Shia split in Islam. I mean that literally: they've just figured out that there IS a split. Bush didn't even know about it, according to some Iraqi exiles who talked to him before the invasion. Well, all it took to get the Administration's attention focused like a laser beam on the Sunni/Shia family feud was a mere three years of chaos, half a million mangled Iraqi bodies, and two zillion IEDs. Minds like steel traps, these guys. Or lead fishing weights anyway - soft and heavy.

So now they're thinking - real, real slow - "Duh, Shia too strong now. Huh! Us better give lotta billion dollars to...duh, to other guy who no like Shia!"

Link - http://www.exile.ru/2007-March-06/war_nerd.html



To those who have been paying attention, this is not news...this is a travesty.

Sure in the short term the US-armed Sunni militias will help when given these weapons to drive out al-Quida, those bloodthirsty tactics have assured NO ONE likes them, but in the long term it would be responsibly assumed that when Al-Quida is no longer a threat they will turn their weapons on the US troops.

With the surge showing....less than promising results, our administration has turned to its brilliant "plan B".

And what is this plan B you ask? The american military has taken to arming other individuals to fight of Al Qaeda.

And who has the military been arming? While the Sunni insurgents.

Yes, the Sunni insurgents who have been killing us. Yes THOSE insurgents. And what would prompt our military to give weapons to the very organization that has been fueling the civil war that has been hampering our efforts? What security methods have we put in place to ensure our soldiers' safety as we turn high powered weaponry over to the insurgent powers?

We made them promise not to use the weapons on us.

Yes, our military has turned over military technology to a group that has been attacking us, because they crossed their heart and promised to only shoot at Al Qaeda.

You think I'm making this shit up? God I wish I was (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?ref=todayspaper)

Theres nothing new about this. We armed Osama against the Soviets, the Iraqis against the Iranians, etc. One could even say this should have been expected.

Sure in the short term the US-armed Sunni militias will help when given these weapons to drive out al-Quida, those bloodthirsty tactics have assured NO ONE likes them, but in the long term it would be responsibly assumed that when Al-Quida is no longer a threat they will turn their weapons on the US troops.

Such as when we armed the Afghanis in the 1980's to fight the Soviets? Government officials do seems to have quite the short memory, don't they?

Theres nothing new about this. We armed Osama against the Soviets, the Iraqis against the Iranians, etc. One could even say this should have been expected.

Look how great both of those situations worked out...

I would hope that they'd maybe learn from their mistake...but then I forgot who we're dealing with here...

Look how great both of those situations worked out...

I would hope that they'd maybe learn from their mistake...but then I forgot who we're dealing with here...

I'm not saying it was the correct course of action, but it is what I would expect the government to do in such a situation.

I'm not saying it was the correct course of action, but it is what I would expect the government to do in such a situation.

And 20 years down the line, when some American landmark goes boom, American's will ask themselves, "why do they hate our freedoms?" and pretend those weapons were plucked from AK-47 trees or some such nonsense.

And 20 years down the line, when some American landmark goes boom, American's will ask themselves, "why do they hate our freedoms?" and pretend those weapons were plucked from AK-47 trees or some such nonsense.

Weapons we sold to the Muhajadeen were used in 9/11? Or were you implying something else?

I'm not saying it was the correct course of action, but it is what I would expect the government to do in such a situation.

Seeing that this situation is a direct result of that kind of action, I'd expect maybe some sort...ah hell, they are that fucking stupid.

Judging from this, I'd say the conclusion is obvious.
If you're a dictator with a lack of funds, or an idealistic militant group short of weapons, first start fighting the USA, then turn on some obnoxious minority you want to get rid of anyway, providing it has an anti-US stance, and the USA will give you all the weapons you want. :p

Weapons we sold to the Muhajadeen were used in 9/11? Or were you implying something else?

Something else. I'm fairly certain it wasn't a Stinger missile that hit the Pentagon after all.

But as a result of helping the Muhajadeen, the US planted the seeds for the Taliban.

I'm seeing the same happening 20 years down the line.

Something else. I'm fairly certain it wasn't a Stinger missile that hit the Pentagon after all.

But as a result of helping the Muhajadeen, the US planted the seeds for the Taliban.



Are you saying that the US should not have helped the Mujahadeen against the Soviets?

You do realize that the Soviets killed more civilians in Afghanistan alone then Al-Quaeda during it's entire career?

I'm confident this is a sure fire plan that won't bit the world in the arse in a few years/hours time

think positive people!!!

This work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan

This work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan

Gah, repeated so it's in the proper place.

Are you saying that the US should not have helped the Mujahadeen against the Soviets?

You do realize that the Soviets killed more civilians in Afghanistan alone then Al-Quaeda during it's entire career?

What's your source on that?

and why are these smilies so violent?

The US should be arming people against them.:mp5::sniper:

Just admit the fact, we've screwed up Iraq big time. We should just leave before we get ourselves in trouble and bring in the UN Peacekeepers.

Just admit the fact, we've screwed up Iraq big time. We should just leave before we get ourselves in trouble and bring in the UN Peacekeepers.


Yeah, those have such a goooooooooood record.

Wait.

Yeah, those have such a goooooooooood record.

Wait.

Well, we think we've made a civil war on sunnis and shittes, and we're supporting the sunnis by giving them weapons. I doubt there's al-Qaeda in Iraq, just a bunch of hardcore street gangs funded by Iran, they even admit they did. I think we're making a bigger problem.

This is the EXACT opposite of what we should do! We need to disarm the populace, not arm them! I think we need to disarm the population if Iraq and Afghanistan. Any civilian seen with a gun should be shot.

This is the EXACT opposite of what we should do! We need to disarm the populace, not arm them! I think we need to disarm the population if Iraq and Afghanistan. Any civilian seen with a gun should be shot.

Yeah, massive executions of anybody with a gun... wait, isn't this what the Nazis did in the Ukraine?

Um, quick question... isn't it the Sunni insurgents that are doing most of the killing in Iraq right now?

I mean, for fuck's sake.

Are you saying that the US should not have helped the Mujahadeen against the Soviets?

I, for one, say that we should not have helped the Mujahadeen.

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan for a number of reasons. One of them being a thorn in our own side...Iran. The Soviet Union was concerned that the popular uprising seen in the 1979 revolution might spread to Muslims in their Central Asian republics, and the invasion of Afghanistan was partly to ensure containment of Iran.

Given all the issues surrounding Iran since 79, I'm surpised we didn't just keep our fucking mouths shut.

Instead, after the Soviet Union whacked the hornets nest...we gave the hornets guns. :(

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan for a number of reasons. One of them being a thorn in our own side...Iran. The Soviet Union was concerned that the popular uprising seen in the 1979 revolution might spread to Muslims in their Central Asian republics, and the invasion of Afghanistan was partly to ensure containment of Iran.


Actually a lot of Soviets at the time - not just the common men deceived by propaganda, but generals, marshals, decisionmakers - thought they needed to strengthen one branch of Afghani communists against another for fear of US domination of the region.

The Americans, wisely, gave weapons to the Afghani (not just the future AQ idiots, all the Afghani anti-soviets, some of whom were secular and atheist) - which bled the Soviet Union in resources, money, and morale, and contributed to it's collapse.

America: 1
Soviet Union: 0.

Or Deep Kimchi/Remote Observer/Whatever he's named now...


Buzz!

Wrong! USMC is completely different from RO/DK. Not only is his posting style completely different, he's intelligent and backs up his points with real evidence.

Unlike RO/DK who just picks up any old article saying someone suspects this certain muslim group/UN authority/european government and immediately declares them guilty of whatever crime they're suspected of.

In conclusion, you're being stupidly harsh against USMC just because he happens to be Pro-war.

We should just leave before we get ourselves in trouble and bring in the UN Peacekeepers.

Because that always solves the problem :rolleyes:

I fail to see how the UN could create a worse strategy than this frankly stupendously idiotic idea.

THey could, I don't know... bomb hospitals? Rape children? :eek:

Because that always solves the problem :rolleyes:

I fail to see how the UN could create a worse strategy than this frankly stupendously idiotic idea.

Hmm maybe they hand out food aid to warlords who then hold it over the populations heads to keep power, and then we can have a bonafide endless war on our hands.:mp5:

Very slight, ever so unnoticeable difference here:

The Soviets weren't fighting us in WWII. The Sunnis kind of are. So, the enemy of our enemy, is our friend, but if our friend is our enemy, then we make them promise not to use the weapons we gave them against us...

Yeah. Brilliant!

You do realize that Hitler and Stalin were orginally planning to carve up the world between the two right? And that even on the same day of the invasion Russia had been shipping Oil, coal, Grain, and Iron into German held Poland? If hitler hadn't backstabbed him we'd be speaking either German or Russian.

Okay, seriously... alluding to the help we gave the mujahedin really isn't enough to explain this strategy. We're talking about giving weapons to people who are killing our enemy and us. That's just a little different from the Soviet-Afghan War.

Because that always solves the problem :rolleyes:

Well last time I checked, they do have a good record in keeping the peace in post-conflict countries.

And don't bother hollering "Wht abot Rwanda and Srebinica lolz!11!"

Peacekeeping was still in it's infancy during Rwanda, as well as the Balkans, where there wasn't any peace to keep. Back in those days, the UN Peacekeepers where supposed to solve conflicts between nations, not civil war factions.

However, even with the new inter-state methods of the modern UN Peacekeepers, Iraq may be too big a job. UN troops would have been a good idea in 2003/04, when there was a minimum of insurgents.

Well last time I checked, they do have a good record in keeping the peace in post-conflict countries.


Iraq is not anywhere near post-conflict.
There are three wars going on right now inside of Iraq. If the US abandons their war , that leaves two that need to be fought out.

Well last time I checked, they do have a good record in keeping the peace in post-conflict countries.


Such as?


And don't bother hollering "Wht abot Rwanda and Srebinica lolz!11!"

Okay: What about the Congo, Lebanon 1978, Eritrea, East Timor?

Are you saying that the US should not have helped the Mujahadeen against the Soviets?

You do realize that the Soviets killed more civilians in Afghanistan alone then Al-Quaeda during it's entire career?

US help tends to be half assed and self serving. That's all I'm going to say.

US help tends to be half assed and self serving. That's all I'm going to say.

Nothing wrong with self-serving.

THey could, I don't know... bomb hospitals? Rape children? :eek:

US bombs and soldiers have done enough of that thank you very much.

Nothing wrong with self-serving.

Tell yourself that when someone is self-serving themselves to your wallet.

Actually a lot of Soviets at the time - not just the common men deceived by propaganda, but generals, marshals, decisionmakers - thought they needed to strengthen one branch of Afghani communists against another for fear of US domination of the region.

The Americans, wisely, gave weapons to the Afghani (not just the future AQ idiots, all the Afghani anti-soviets, some of whom were secular and atheist) - which bled the Soviet Union in resources, money, and morale, and contributed to it's collapse.

America: 1
Soviet Union: 0.

I think, given that people like Osama Bin-Laden were part of the mujahadeen funded by the US to fight the USSR, the tally is more like Soviet Union: 0, United States: 0.

US bombs and soldiers have done enough of that thank you very much.

So the best thing you can say about UN peacekeepers is that they're not going to be worse?

Iraq is not anywhere near post-conflict.
There are three wars going on right now inside of Iraq. If the US abandons their war , that leaves two that need to be fought out.

Exactly. The post-conflict atmosphere that was ripe for UN peacekeepers has disappeared once more.

The US and it's Coalition partners in 2003 had won an astounding victory over Saddam. Now came the time for nation-building, the United Nations forte. What did they do? They set up the corrupt CPA. Fired the entire Iraqi Army. Fired the government bureacracy. Ignored munitions dumps. Allowed looters to run rampant (entire government departments were stripped bare). The executive leadership were entirely ignorant of Sunni/Shia split, and failed to take pre-emptive action against it. Oh, but they did secure the Oil ministry.

And when the Iraqi army they had just dismissed became the Insurgency( Oh yeah, they let them keep thier AK's BTW), the CPA dismissed it like a little infection. Then it festered, and festered and grew larger. Then the US decided to rig up elections. The occupying power in Iraq set up it's elections.

It's not hard to believe that many Iraqi's were incredibly dubious as to the new governments intentions. The US would hardly allow a government that would stonewall them in any way gain power.

And so, the insurgency that the Neocons in the US government and the CPA had dismissed as nothing, something that would simply dissolve once the Iraqi's had had thier dose of democracy pills, grew and grew.

Then came the sectarian death squads, the assassinations, the car-bombings etc that we've came to despair on our television screens almost everyday.

You may ask, "Well how do you know the UN wouldn't have messed it up just like this?"

Just look at recent UN nation-building in Africa, and East Timor.

The UN is impartial, so elections set up by thier provisional administrations are seen as much more legitimate and less corrupt.

Any UN peacekeeping force in Iraq would probably have been made up of Muslims from Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan. UN officials were much more aware of sectarian attitudes in Iraq. They'd have taken pre-emptive action to seperate violent Shia and Sunni groups.

The UN could have handled the situation much better than the Coalition if it had been allowed to in 2003/04.

Exactly. The post-conflict atmosphere that was ripe for UN peacekeepers has disappeared once more.

The US and it's Coalition partners in 2003 had won an astounding victory over Saddam. Now came the time for nation-building, the United Nations forte. What did they do? They set up the corrupt CPA. Fired the entire Iraqi Army. Fired the government bureacracy. Ignored munitions dumps. Allowed looters to run rampant (entire government departments were stripped bare). The executive leadership were entirely ignorant of Sunni/Shia split, and failed to take pre-emptive action against it. Oh, but they did secure the Oil ministry.

And when the Iraqi army they had just dismissed became the Insurgency( Oh yeah, they let them keep thier AK's BTW), the CPA dismissed it like a little infection. Then it festered, and festered and grew larger. Then the US decided to rig up elections. The occupying power in Iraq set up it's elections.

It's not hard to believe that many Iraqi's were incredibly dubious as to the new governments intentions. The US would hardly allow a government that would stonewall them in any way gain power.

And so, the insurgency that the Neocons in the US government and the CPA had dismissed as nothing, something that would simply dissolve once the Iraqi's had had thier dose of democracy pills, grew and grew.

Then came the sectarian death squads, the assassinations, the car-bombings etc that we've came to despair on our television screens almost everyday.

You may ask, "Well how do you know the UN wouldn't have messed it up just like this?"

Just look at recent UN nation-building in Africa, and East Timor.

The UN is impartial, so elections set up by thier provisional administrations are seen as much more legitimate and less corrupt.

Any UN peacekeeping force in Iraq would probably have been made up of Muslims from Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan. UN officials were much more aware of sectarian attitudes in Iraq. They'd have taken pre-emptive action to seperate violent Shia and Sunni groups.

The UN could have handled the situation much better than the Coalition if it had been allowed to in 2003/04.
You have got to be fucking kidding me. The first thing the insurgents did when the UN set up in Iraq was suicide car bomb the UN building :rolleyes:

UN Peacekeepers in Iraq are a stupid idea.

UN missions can work when all sides in a given conflict want peace, but don't trust each other (See: Cyprus, for examples. Bunch of others I'm too lazy to look up). When this is the case, the UN jumping in and preventing any friction between the conflict parties works perfectly well.

When even one conflict party does want to continue, nothing in the word can ensure peace.

As Iraq does definitely have conflict parties desiring continued combat, well... The UN would change nothing.

Now, as for giving support to Sunni groups to get them to shoot Al Quaeda forces...

Well, what's so bad about it? Yes, of course they've shot at their shiite neighbors and the US forces, too. And? The ones getting the guns have apparently decided that Al Quaeda is pissing them off more than the former two.

Now, lets face it - there are lots of guns in Iraq. A stupid amount of guns, in fact. These people would get their guns, anyway, if not from the US, then from someone else. The US giving them the support they need to fight the one party in the conflict that cares not only about Iraq, but about the US at large actually gives them a chance to, well, improve relations, to make them (Mildly) dependent on them - not to mention that the US' public relations are helped, too. It's no longer the enemy of all muslims, or of all sunni - it's just the enemy of a bunch of militant fuckheads who would would like to introduce a theocracy of proportions that makes the majority of Iraqis vomit.

That these people shot at US soldiers is inconsequential - combatants shoot at each other in war, that's part of the job. No hard feelings, if possible. Getting them to stop shooting at US soldiers, and making them shoot at the US' enemies is rather preferable to being shot by them, no? Doing that beats hunting them down and continuing to spend munitions and lives on them by an order of magnitude, minimum.

Really. Unless you're of the 'They did once shoot at us, therefore we must NEVER NEGOTIATE AND HUNT THEM ALL DOWN!' persuation, it's actually a pretty good idea. Yes, they might indeed turn their guns against the US again, in the future. But they'd do that regardless of whether they get US support or not (In fact, they're more likely to do so if not), and in the meantime, having them shoot Al Quaeda operatives makes things quite a bit easier for the US - not only from a material standpoint, but also from a propaganda point of view - Al Quaeda is not supported by its aleged brethren, but shot at by their former allies. That's bound to hurt recruitment.

Such as?



Okay: What about the Congo, Lebanon 1978, Eritrea, East Timor?

As far as I know, UNTAET was a success. UNMEE is still ongoing. UNIFIL is currently doing a good job in Lebanon. It precipitated the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon before a regional war could escalate, and it allowed Lebanon to secure it's own borders.

I can't quite remember about the Congo UN mission. Care to remind me what they did wrong there?

You have got to be fucking kidding me. The first thing the insurgents did when the UN set up in Iraq was suicide car bomb the UN building :rolleyes:

They have bombed the Coalition Green Zone as well. What's your point? You think I believe the insurgent leaders would have applauded the UN as they rolled in with their white vehicles and blue helmets? Of course there would have been problems with bombings.

As far as I know, UNTAET was a success. UNMEE is still ongoing. UNIFIL is currently doing a good job in Lebanon.
It precipitated the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon before a regional war could escalate, and it allowed Lebanon to secure it's own borders.

I mean the one in 1978. The one that was supposed to 'oversee Israeli withdrawal'.

Of course it took nearly 30 years for ISrael to withdraw the first time around.

op

1) All weapons are serial numbered and the users are finger printed.

2) We can't fight them forever. We're eventually going to have to start working together and this is an excellent first step. You've somehow spun good news into bad with an extreme lacking in understanding and by listening to propaganda.

3) Al-Qaeda is our number 2 strategic interest in the country and it would be very nice to see them gone once and for all.

I mean the one in 1978. The one that was supposed to 'oversee Israeli withdrawal'.

Of course it took nearly 30 years for ISrael to withdraw the first time around.

Unfortunately, the early UNFIL operation was indeed hampered by the IDF and Hezbollah. But not only did Israel eventually withdraw, the UN was instrumental in providing humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese and granting protection to civilians. They provided medical treatment, and rebuilt roads, evacuated Lebanese and foreign nationals from settlements. It operated a de-mining program. It operated as an independant news source for the conflict. You can't say that it was a complete failure.

3) Al-Qaeda is our number 2 strategic interest in the country and it would be very nice to see them gone once and for all.

What's the number 1 strategic interest then?

What's the number 1 strategic interest then?

*cough* oil *cough*

Excuse me, nasty chest infection there...

Unfortunately, the early UNFIL operation was indeed hampered by the IDF and Hezbollah. But not only did Israel eventually withdraw, the UN was instrumental in providing humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese and granting protection to civilians. They provided medical treatment, and rebuilt roads, evacuated Lebanese and foreign nationals from settlements. It operated a de-mining program. It operated as an independant news source for the conflict. You can't say that it was a complete failure.

It failed to complete it's main objective. Ergo fail, lose, and Windows NT.

It failed to complete it's main objective. Ergo fail, lose, and Windows NT.

Yes it did. Israel withdrew, and Lebanon reclaimed it's formerly occupied territory.

With the surge showing....less than promising results, our administration has turned to its brilliant "plan B".

And what is this plan B you ask? The american military has taken to arming other individuals to fight of Al Qaeda.

And who has the military been arming? While the Sunni insurgents.

Yes, the Sunni insurgents who have been killing us. Yes THOSE insurgents. And what would prompt our military to give weapons to the very organization that has been fueling the civil war that has been hampering our efforts? What security methods have we put in place to ensure our soldiers' safety as we turn high powered weaponry over to the insurgent powers?

We made them promise not to use the weapons on us.

Yes, our military has turned over military technology to a group that has been attacking us, because they crossed their heart and promised to only shoot at Al Qaeda.

You think I'm making this shit up? God I wish I was (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?ref=todayspaper)

why wouldn't they do this? it's not like it's come back at them when they've done it before... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahadeen#Mujahideen_of_Afghanistan)

Hmm... Kind of like how we gave tanks and stuff to the Soviets during WWII?

Personally I think it's kind of ironic. Al Qaida is hated by EVERYONE now.

And before we consider that we're supporting a civil war, what about those government supported millitias that are going around executing people every night. We do nothing about them.

We also gave rocket propelled grenades to the people who were to become al qaeda. The difference however is that in those two examples we were giving weapons to groups who were then our allies and became our enemies later.

Actually a lot of Soviets at the time - not just the common men deceived by propaganda, but generals, marshals, decisionmakers - thought they needed to strengthen one branch of Afghani communists against another for fear of US domination of the region.

The Americans, wisely, gave weapons to the Afghani (not just the future AQ idiots, all the Afghani anti-soviets, some of whom were secular and atheist) - which bled the Soviet Union in resources, money, and morale, and contributed to it's collapse.

America: 1
Soviet Union: 0.

You'll notice that I said Iran was one of the reasons. ;)

Given the way things played out over the last few of decades, I'd say it works out more along the lines of...

America: 0
Soviet Union: -1

...but that's just me.

So the best thing you can say about UN peacekeepers is that they're not going to be worse?

I can say that UN peacekeepers are also better at keeping the peace than say, the US. Of course this only works when the majority want peace. Like say, early after the invasion? I think I can safely say they'd have done a much better job than the mess the US made with their political intolerance and general stupidity.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. The first thing the insurgents did when the UN set up in Iraq was suicide car bomb the UN building :rolleyes:

And when do you suppose that was mmm? Was it when Baghdad had just fallen? No? Perhaps it was when Iraqis started looting stuff? No? Or maybe it was just before the Iraqi Army was dismissed? Also no?

The UN was only allowed to involve itself after everything had gone FUBAR.

That's all well and good but hes saying the UN wouldn't be hated so much and would be seen as impartial so they wouldn't get attacked as often :confused:

That's all well and good but hes saying the UN wouldn't be hated so much and would be seen as impartial so they wouldn't get attacked as often :confused:

Well, that's supposed to be the point of UN peacekeepers, they're impartial. Depending on the country, troops are recruited from nations that are neutral to the specific conflict. Muslim troops from Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh would probably be the preferred option, since those countries have no particular agenda in Iraq.

1) All weapons are serial numbered and the users are finger printed.

2) We can't fight them forever. We're eventually going to have to start working together and this is an excellent first step. You've somehow spun good news into bad with an extreme lacking in understanding and by listening to propaganda.

3) Al-Qaeda is our number 2 strategic interest in the country and it would be very nice to see them gone once and for all.

Interesting. The sectarian violence is getting worse and you call that....progress? Al Quada should have been and always should be our #1 strategic interest. It's exactly the problem of taking our eye off the ball to go into Iraq that got us into the mess in the first place. Working together with who? We help one side and the other side bombs a mosque. Then the side we're helping bombs five (taken from actual current events). Please tell me how increased sectarian violence is helping? And Sir, the surge is shit. Not only should we have went in with more troops the surge should have been much bigger. Instead the CinC goes in with half assed planning and ideas and we wind up for F'd than before. Makes me think "play is again Sam."

With the surge showing....less than promising results, our administration has turned to its brilliant "plan B".

And what is this plan B you ask? The american military has taken to arming other individuals to fight of Al Qaeda.

And who has the military been arming? While the Sunni insurgents.

Yes, the Sunni insurgents who have been killing us. Yes THOSE insurgents. And what would prompt our military to give weapons to the very organization that has been fueling the civil war that has been hampering our efforts? What security methods have we put in place to ensure our soldiers' safety as we turn high powered weaponry over to the insurgent powers?

We made them promise not to use the weapons on us.

Yes, our military has turned over military technology to a group that has been attacking us, because they crossed their heart and promised to only shoot at Al Qaeda.

You think I'm making this shit up? God I wish I was (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?ref=todayspaper)

Anyone who has been in Anbar province knows that there are Sunnis whom we have armed who have most definitely shot at and killed Al-Qaeda - not just promised.

They've been using the weapons to kill al-Qaeda, and not us. Got a problem with that?

Plan B, sounds like Plan F, as in we are totally ...

Plan B, sounds like Plan F, as in we are totally ...

It is foolish to promise that a "surge" will instantly solve the problem in Iraq.

Any plan - and I mean any plan - that promises to solve the problems in Iraq has to, by nature, be a decades-long plan.

It's even more foolish to believe that any plan could solve the Iraq problem in a few months. Pretty damned stupid.

It is foolish to promise that a "surge" will instantly solve the problem in Iraq.

Any plan - and I mean any plan - that promises to solve the problems in Iraq has to, by nature, be a decades-long plan.

It's even more foolish to believe that any plan could solve the Iraq problem in a few months. Pretty damned stupid.

Know what's even stupider? Letting the situation get to this point in the first place. This is what happens when you try and fight a war on the cheap with a bunch of brainless chimps planning it. Go big or go home.

Soon the sunnis will backstab us and they'll arm the shiite militia to kill off the sunnis. :mp5:

I think people are over inflating the idea a little. It may be risky, but it is very pragmatic. The sunnis are not stupid, they are not like Al Qaida who declares the west their mortal enemy, they understand that it's in their interests to co-operate with NATO to attack Al Qaida, because they both ultimately seek the same goal, peace in Iraq. I'm not saying it's a great idea, but it's not the worst idea ever.

Know what's even stupider? Letting the situation get to this point in the first place. This is what happens when you try and fight a war on the cheap with a bunch of brainless chimps planning it. Go big or go home.

No, this is what happens when you engage in nationbuilding.

Armies aren't good at nationbuilding.

An army designed over the decades from the ground up to fight major conventional wars cannot be instantly turned into an army designed to do counterinsurgency and nationbuilding.

No matter how many troops you send from that Army, or how much money you throw at it.

The war was most definitely not "fought on the cheap". It's been hundreds of billions of dollars - and in the initial invasion, the military did exactly what it was designed to do - because that was the kind of thing it was good at (invade, blow the government off the map, and declare victory). It is not, can not, and will not be a counterinsurgency force.

Spending more money wouldn't make an iota of difference.

Read the principles of AirLand Battle, and how our military was designed around it for decades, and you'll realize that our best strategy would have been to do what we did in the First Gulf War - win quickly, defeat Saddam, and GO HOME IMMEDIATELY.

No, this is what happens when you engage in nationbuilding.

Armies aren't good at nationbuilding.

An army designed over the decades from the ground up to fight major conventional wars cannot be instantly turned into an army designed to do counterinsurgency and nationbuilding.

No matter how many troops you send from that Army, or how much money you throw at it.

The war was most definitely not "fought on the cheap". It's been hundreds of billions of dollars - and in the initial invasion, the military did exactly what it was designed to do - because that was the kind of thing it was good at (invade, blow the government off the map, and declare victory). It is not, can not, and will not be a counterinsurgency force.

Spending more money wouldn't make an iota of difference.

Read the principles of AirLand Battle, and how our military was designed around it for decades, and you'll realize that our best strategy would have been to do what we did in the First Gulf War - win quickly, defeat Saddam, and GO HOME IMMEDIATELY.

We've thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at it since our initial fuckup that's to be sure, but starting out they took a minimalist approach. Not enough troops to secure Baghdad, let alone the entire country. Then we went and dismissed the entire Iraqi army and most of their government in a misguided attempt to root out Saddam's supporters. It's been a cock up from the word Go and they keep throwing money and men at the problem hoping it'll magically be fixed. It's been a lost cause for years now.

Iraq should of been a slam dunk war. Get in, kick ass, secure the place and then pull out within a year or two. Instead we've got Vietnam-lite.

At this point I'm at a loss as to how we're meant to fix the problem. I mean short of instituting a draft and sending a few million troops over there. Start up a nice little police state, disarm everyone and then over the next decade start to relax and withdraw.

We've thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at it since our initial fuckup that's to be sure, but starting out they took a minimalist approach. Not enough troops to secure Baghdad, let alone the entire country. Then we went and dismissed the entire Iraqi army and most of their government in a misguided attempt to root out Saddam's supporters. It's been a cock up from the word Go and they keep throwing money and men at the problem hoping it'll magically be fixed. It's been a lost cause for years now.

Iraq should of been a slam dunk war. Get in, kick ass, secure the place and then pull out within a year or two. Instead we've got Vietnam-lite.

At this point I'm at a loss as to how we're meant to fix the problem. I mean short of instituting a draft and sending a few million troops over there. Start up a nice little police state, disarm everyone and then over the next decade start to relax and withdraw.

Since the drawdown of the 1990s, we've never had enough troops to "secure the country".

We sent more than enough troops to destroy the Iraqi Army, put the Baath government out of power, and be done with what our Army could actually do.

We shouldn't have stayed more than a month.

I'll say it again - you seem to not listen:

Our troops are trained to fight AirLand Battle, not counterinsurgency.

Retraining them, requipping them, and reorienting our military to counterinsurgency would probably take 10 to 20 years.

Adding draftees at this point would be pointless.

Interesting. The sectarian violence is getting worse and you call that....progress? Al Quada should have been and always should be our #1 strategic interest. It's exactly the problem of taking our eye off the ball to go into Iraq that got us into the mess in the first place. Working together with who? We help one side and the other side bombs a mosque. Then the side we're helping bombs five (taken from actual current events). Please tell me how increased sectarian violence is helping? And Sir, the surge is shit. Not only should we have went in with more troops the surge should have been much bigger. Instead the CinC goes in with half assed planning and ideas and we wind up for F'd than before. Makes me think "play is again Sam."

Sunnis vs Al Qaeda is not sectarian violence. You are getting all of your propaganda mixed up in your head.

On the grand scale, Al Qaeda is not our #1 priority. Maybe our #1 emotional priority, but not strategic.

What's the number 1 strategic interest then?

Oil tied with containing the situation to only one country. They both go hand in hand.

Oil tied with containing the situation to only one country. They both go hand in hand.

Naw, I think the main reason to go to war with Iraq was to establish ties with a strong ally in the Middle East, since we lost Iran in 1980 when the Ayatollah came to power. I think the reasoning is that if we "liberate" a whole country, they'd be our friend. Oops.

Who cares about oil anyway, in 50 years there will be a demand for fresh water. Yay Great Lakes.

Naw, I think the main reason to go to war with Iraq was to establish ties with a strong ally in the Middle East, since we lost Iran in 1980 when the Ayatollah came to power. I think the reasoning is that if we "liberate" a whole country, they'd be our friend. Oops.

Who cares about oil anyway, in 50 years there will be a demand for fresh water. Yay Great Lakes.

We already had Saudi Arabia, Israel and Pakistan to a certain extent.

Look at the Oil crisis of the 70s. It is not a good idea to leave one of our most important resources in the hands of our enemies.

We already had Saudi Arabia, Israel and Pakistan to a certain extent.

Look at the Oil crisis of the 70s. It is not a good idea to leave one of our most important resources in the hands of our enemies.

No, I said major ally. Hence the bold faced letters.

Saudi Arabia - I would trust them even less than the Russians.

Pakistan - I don't think they like us too much.

Israel - They can't exactly assert there power without getting involved in a military conflict.

I just don't believe anyone would be stupid enough to declare war on a country only to take their oil.

Then again...

No, I said major ally. Hence the bold faced letters.
You said strong but I'll let it go.
Saudi Arabia - I would trust them even less than the Russians.

Pakistan - I don't think they like us too much.

Israel - They can't exactly assert there power without getting involved in a military conflict.
Saudi- They've been good to us so far
Pakistan- They provided the hammer for the hammer and anvil strat and they do allow us to conduct aerial attacks in their country
Israel- But they can assert their power, no?
I just don't believe anyone would be stupid enough to declare war on a country only to take their oil.

Then again...
We don't want to take it, we want to make it secure by having a friend in control. As I stated. Our views really aren't different at all.

[QUOTE=Dobbsworld;12767838]So should any of us reasonably expect USMC Leatherface to show up and lecture us at length about having the gosh-darned temerity to question the decisions of the Military?

1) All weapons are serial numbered and the users are finger printed.

2) We can't fight them forever. We're eventually going to have to start working together and this is an excellent first step. You've somehow spun good news into bad with an extreme lacking in understanding and by listening to propaganda.

3) Al-Qaeda is our number 2 strategic interest in the country and it would be very nice to see them gone once and for all.

no, not really very surprising....

I love the argument, the weapons are serial numbered and the users finger printed.

So the fuck what? Is the fact that we know the serial number of the gun that killed our soldiers make them any less dead?

I have grave concerns if our best security methods on this entire thing can be defeated with a metal file and a pair of gloves.

[QUOTE]I love the argument, the weapons are serial numbered and the users finger printed.

So the fuck what? Is the fact that we know the serial number of the gun that killed our soldiers make them any less dead?

I have grave concerns if our best security methods on this entire thing can be defeated with a metal file and a pair of gloves.

Wait, wait, wait let me get this straight. You want us to kill every Sunni? B/c that's what we would have to do if we didn't ally with them against a common enemy. They are finally working with us and their gov't instead of against it. And you think that that is a bad thing. At least they aren't as thick headed as you are. Then we'd be a whole new level of fucked.

Wait, wait, wait let me get this straight. You want us to kill every Sunni?

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[QUOTE=Neo Art;12769382]

Wait, wait, wait let me get this straight. You want us to kill every Sunni? B/c that's what we would have to do if we didn't ally with them against a common enemy. They are finally working with us and their gov't instead of against it. And you think that that is a bad thing. At least they aren't as thick headed as you are. Then we'd be a whole new level of fucked.

Are you insane? This is the equivalent of ridding your house of a poisonous snake by releasing another poisonous snake.. and then not expecting it to bite you.

I mean, the insurgents are not "working with us" just because we gave them guns. They are using the guns we gave them to take out #1 on their Groups of People That Must Die List. Who do you think is next on that list?

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

So you really think that having our former enemy come to our side is a bad thing. I'm done here. NS obviously has their head way too far up its ass.

So you really think that having our former enemy come to our side is a bad thing. I'm done here. NS obviously has their head way too far up its head.

Interesting take on it.

So you really think that having our former enemy come to our side is a bad thing. I'm done here. NS obviously has their head way too far up its head.

Your post only has three sentences and not one of them makes an ounce of sense.

At least they're all hilarious.

So you really think that having our former enemy come to our side is a bad thing. I'm done here. NS obviously has their head way too far up its head.

No, a former enemy brought to our side is a great thing.

That being said, your position that a "cross my heart and promise really really hard not to shoot at you" somehow, magically erases the last five years of conflict and mystically transforms a group that has been shooting at us from the beginning into a former enemy, and that former enemy is former because, well gosh gee it's just not nice to break a promise, is so ascinine in the extreme as to beg the belief how anyone even remotely approaching human intellect can consider it valid.

"hey guys, we'll forgive the fact that you've been killing us the last five years, here's an RPG" does not suddenly transform an enemy into a former enemy

No, a former enemy brought to our side is a great thing.

That being said, your position that a "cross my heart and promise really really hard not to shoot at you" somehow, magically erases the last five years of conflict and mystically transforms a group that has been shooting at us from the beginning into a former enemy, and that former enemy is former because, well gosh gee it's just not nice to break a promise, is so ascinine in the extreme as to beg the belief how anyone even remotely approaching human intellect can consider it valid.

"hey guys, we'll forgive the fact that you've been killing us the last five years, here's an RPG" does not suddenly transform an enemy into a former enemy

It's not like it happened overnight, they've slowly gotten fed up with Al-Qaeda. We happen to hate Al-Qaeda also. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We are now friends. It's really quite simple. And so far, it's been working. But don't let reality get in the way of your baseless theories.

Your post only has three sentences and not one of them makes an ounce of sense.

At least they're all hilarious.

Come back to me when I know who the fuck you are.

Come back to me when I know who the fuck you are.

OK.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We are now friends. It's really quite simple.

Yup, that simple. See? *poof* just like that, animosity gone. They don't like Al Qaeda, we don't like Al Qaeda, we're friends! Nope, nothing more complicated to old standing rivalries, age old conflicts, complex political structures, movivating interests, shifting alliances, and rivalries extending 1000 years. it's just that simple!

We don't like the same people. We be BFF now! Just like the mujahideen.

Wait....fuck.

And so far, it's been working. But don't let reality get in the way of your baseless theories.

Yup, we've had a resounding week of success.

Yup, that simple. See? *poof* just like that, animosity gone. They don't like Al Qaeda, we don't like Al Qaeda, we're friends! Nope, nothing more complicated to old standing rivalries, age old conflicts, complex political structures, movivating interests, shifting alliances, and rivalries extending 1000 years. it's just that simple!

We don't like the same people. We be BFF now! Just like the mujahideen.

Wait....fuck.
Again, this has been happening for a year now. They are fed up with Al-Qaeda and are ready to play by the rules.


Yup, we've had a resounding week of success.
Once you have studied thoroughly what has been happening in Anbar for the past year you can come back to me.

Because it worked so well from the late 70s to the mid-90s and again in the 2000's in Afghanistan, right?

Sunnis vs Al Qaeda is not sectarian violence. You are getting all of your propaganda mixed up in your head.

On the grand scale, Al Qaeda is not our #1 priority. Maybe our #1 emotional priority, but not strategic.

Sir perhaps you missed the news today so I'll fill you in. In response to a bombing of a Shia Mosque earlier in the week the Shias have blown up five mosques including a very important one just yesterday. Quell that tone if you don't know the current information and dare not call it propaganda. Is that what you are calling the events on the ground now? They may not be using the weapons to kill us as much now but killing each other is better? I may just lose the respect I once had for you. Further, Al Quada attacked us on 9/11 so that damn well makes them priority #1. Someone forgot that when they decided to take the war to Iraq. Not naming names or anything.

Sir perhaps you missed the news today so I'll fill you in. In response to a bombing of a Shia Mosque earlier in the week the Shias have blown up five mosques including a very important one just yesterday. Quell that tone if you don't know the current information and dare not call it propaganda. Is that what you are calling the events on the ground now? They may not be using the weapons to kill us as much now but killing each other is better? I may just lose the respect I once had for you. Further, Al Quada attacked us on 9/11 so that damn well makes them priority #1. Someone forgot that when they decided to take the war to Iraq. Not naming names or anything.
9/11 happened, it's unfortunate. But that doesn't mean that we drop all of the countries needs for a vendetta.

The attack was carried out by Al-Qaeda, not sunni militias aided by us. And here is a quote from an article about a Patraeus interview:
* Anbar province. This area in the heart of the Sunni Triangle has been held up by the U.S. military as a model for Iraq. “The progress in Anbar has actually been breathtaking,” Petraeus says.

Commanders credit much of the success to the U.S. military’s decision to arm, train and organize Sunni provincial militias that have turned against al-Qaida militants operating in the area.

“If you’ve got folks who say, ‘Hey, this is my hometown, and I’m tired of the violence and if you simply train and equip me, I’ll protect my hometown.’ We ought to jump on that like a duck on a June bug,” says Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division.

But I'm sure that Neo Art knows better than the men on the ground.

Because it worked so well from the late 70s to the mid-90s and again in the 2000's in Afghanistan, right?

Yes, it did. We fought OEF by supporting militias. And we swept the Taleban overwhelmingly. There was no turning against us by the militias.

So should any of us reasonably expect USMC Leatherface to show up and lecture us at length about having the gosh-darned temerity to question the decisions of the Military?
Or Deep Kimchi/Remote Observer/Whatever he's named now...
1) All weapons are serial numbered and the users are finger printed.

2) We can't fight them forever. We're eventually going to have to start working together and this is an excellent first step. You've somehow spun good news into bad with an extreme lacking in understanding and by listening to propaganda.

3) Al-Qaeda is our number 2 strategic interest in the country and it would be very nice to see them gone once and for all.

And to think, it took him/them twelve hours to start wagging his/their finger(s) about. I guess it's hard to be quick on the draw when you're too busy getting your marching orders from the blogosphere.

and we have seen how well the enemy of my enemy is my friend has played out in history.

After all, look right here

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/roosef3/index.jpg

Look at President Roosevelt all buddy buddy with good ole' Uncle Joe

And hey?

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0303a/rummy2.jpg

who is that fellow in the green with the moustache that Rumsfeld is shaking hands with? Obviously a great friend of the United States.

Twenty-five bodies found in Baghdad
• Video shows execution of 14 hostages
• Nine Sunni mosques attacked after Al-Askariya Mosque bombing in Samarra
• Thousands take to streets to protest latest attack on sacred Shiite shrine
Adjust font size:
Decrease fontDecrease font
Enlarge fontEnlarge font

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Attackers struck nine Sunni mosques in Baghdad and south of the Iraqi capital in the aftermath of Wednesday's bombing of Al-Askariya Mosque -- a major Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra, police said Thursday.

Baghdad authorities also reported finding 25 bodies in the city of people believed killed in sectarian violence.

Four people died in sectarian fighting in the southern Iraqi city of Basra.

Elsewhere, thousands across Iraq staged angry but peaceful demonstrations protesting the second bombing at the shrine, which also was struck and badly damaged in a February 2006 attack -- a major event that spawned widespread sectarian violence and population displacement in the country.

The latest attack, which destroyed two minarets at Askariya, sparked calls from officials across the globe and in the Salaheddin province city of Samarra for unity and calm.

"You are sons and grandsons of the two greatest imams who ever lived," said Salaheddin Gov. Hamed Hamoud Shekti in a public announcement Thursday from the Askariya Mosque. "Please stop the sabotage and destruction, and work on the aims and goals of the city."

Shekti, whose remarks were passed along in a U.S. military news release, was referring to the tombs of the 10th and 11th Shiite imams at the Askariya shrine. Those historic figures are Ali al-Hadi and his son Hassan al-Askari, who both died in the ninth century.

"We must condemn the bad actions of terrorists, and the sons of all tribes must come together and forgive each other," Shekti said. "We need to work for reconciliation. ... Shia and Sunni must work together for Iraq."

Much of the violence since Wednesday's strike came despite curfews and vehicle bans imposed in Baghdad and other regions. (Interactive: More on why the mosque is revered)

Basra police said the bombing sparked fighting between Sunnis and Shiites in the predominantly Shiite city Wednesday night, leaving four people dead and wounding six others.

Violence was directed at Sunni mosques in Baghdad and two provinces south of the capital -- Basra and Babil.

Hilla police said five mosques have been bombed in Babil province, three on Thursday and two on Wednesday.

In Basra, gunmen on Wednesday night attacked Al-Othman Sunni mosque with rocket-propelled grenades and destroyed its minaret.

Three other Sunni mosques in Basra were attacked by small-arms fire, causing minor damage.

Iraq's Interior Ministry and local police reported protests by Shiite demonstrators in about a dozen cities.

Thousands of angry Shiites on Thursday protested the bombing in eastern Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood.

The protesters carried banners, Iraqi flags and pictures of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his father. Al-Sadr has called for three days of mourning to mark the destruction of the two minarets at the Askariya shrine.

"We demand of our Sunni brothers help us rebuild Askariya Shrine," one of the banners said.

Shouting "No, no for the devil" and "Yes, yes for unity," the crowd marched to al-Sadr's office.

Shiite demonstrations also were reported in Najaf, Kut and cities in Babil province, including Hilla.

Hundreds of Sunni and Shiite protesters peacefully took to the streets in Basra. They condemned the Samarra bombing and called for unity.

One U.S. military official said authorities have evidence Wednesday's bombing was an inside job.

The U.S. military said a commander and 12 police offers responsible for security at the time of the attack were arrested.

Authorities believe Sunni insurgents hit the mosque. There were no official reports of casualties in the attack. (Watch the aftermath of the blast Video)

Wednesday's strike started with fighting between gunmen and Iraqi National Police guarding the site.

Somehow, insurgents got into the site and detonated explosives around the remaining two minarets of the mosque, police in Samarra said.
Execution of 14 shown on video

A video showing the execution of 14 Iraqi security force members has appeared on the Internet.

The Islamic State of Iraq, a militant coalition that includes al Qaeda in Iraq, shows the execution of people who appeared in a hostage video this week.

The militants had promised to execute the men in three days if their demands to the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki weren't met.

The men are shown blindfolded and kneeling, and a single masked gunman executes them one at a time at point-blank range with a pistol.

At the end of the clip, the gunman is shown reloading and beginning to make a second pass to ensure all are dead.

The video appears to be produced by Al Farqan Production Co., the entity that usually handles such tasks for militants.

The militants' demands included releasing Sunni women from Iraqi Interior Ministry prisons and handing over inmates involved in rapes and killings.

CNN can't confirm the authenticity of the video.

CNN's Mohammed Tawfeeq, Saad Abedine, Octavia Nasr and Caroline Faraj contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/14/iraq.main/index.html

Snip

Yeah, I'm aware of the happenings. In fact, I made a thread about it yesterday. However, it has no pertinence to the issue of turning enemies into friends.

If this is really how you think, I never want to hear a single one of you question de-baathification again.

now, let's play a game, shall we? I call this game "what happens next?"

let's say this plan is actually a success, best case scenario. The Sunnis take their weapons and use them against Al Qaeda, nobody turns on the United States, and the joint coalition suceededs in ridding Iraq from Al Qaeda. Hurray! Mission Accomplished, again.

However, now there is no enemy for the Sunnis to have as their own enemy. Now we have the Sunnis, no longer fighting Al Qaeda. Now we have no firm central government and unregulated, decentralized Sunni militias who really REALLY hate the shi'ites and have for centuries, and are really not to fond of us either.

Oh, and thanks to our recent efforts, they're now armed to the teeth.

So now, for 1000 points, what happens next?

You are an idiot.

did rightwingnews.com tell you to say that?

9/11 happened, it's unfortunate. But that doesn't mean that we drop all of the countries needs for a vendetta.

The attack was carried out by Al-Qaeda, not sunni militias aided by us. And here is a quote from an article about a Patraeus interview:


But I'm sure that Neo Art knows better than the men on the ground.

Ahh, for a vendetta you say. Like "he tried to kill my daddy?" Perhaps you should realize where the real vendetta is being fought. The war on terror is a war against radical Islam, correct? Iraq was one of the least radical places in the Middle East before we invaded. Al Qaeda is the #1 priority as they are the ones who have been attacking us for years. When did Iraq ever attack us? The need of this country is to combat radical Islam and that never existed in Iraq, so remind me why we went? WMD, no Saddam was evil, no mushroom clouds, oh no, it's freedom, I'm really serious this time. Sir, how do you buy this line of bullshit anymore?

Ahh, for a vendetta you say. Like "he tried to kill my daddy?" Perhaps you should realize where the real vendetta is being fought. The war on terror is a war against radical Islam, correct? Iraq was one of the least radical places in the Middle East before we invaded. Al Qaeda is the #1 priority as they are the ones who have been attacking us for years. When did Iraq ever attack us? The need of this country is to combat radical Islam and that never existed in Iraq, so remind me why we went? WMD, no Saddam was evil, no mushroom clouds, oh no, it's freedom, I'm really serious this time. Sir, how do you buy this line of bullshit anymore?

Is Al-Qaeda in control of any U.S. interests? No? Let's move on.

*Iraq attacked our aircraft several times

Going was a mistake. I have never supported going there. But that really doesn't have an impact on what we do now.

You are an idiot.

No, I'm a SubGenius. There are a number of differences, not the least of which is that I can pull the wool over my own eyes, thanks all the same. you go right ahead and continue allowing others to perform that service for you, if that's how you prefer to live your life.

Just don't expect anyone else to subscribe to your preferred, pigeonholed point-of-view.

now, let's play a game, shall we? I call this game "what happens next?"

let's say this plan is actually a success, best case scenario. The Sunnis take their weapons and use them against Al Qaeda, nobody turns on the United States, and the joint coalition suceededs in ridding Iraq from Al Qaeda. Hurray! Mission Accomplished, again.

However, now there is no enemy for the Sunnis to have as their own enemy. Now we have the Sunnis, no longer fighting Al Qaeda. Now we have no firm central government and unregulated, decentralized Sunni militias who really REALLY hate the shi'ites and have for centuries, and are really not to fond of us either.

Oh, and thanks to our recent efforts, they're now armed to the teeth.

So now, for 1000 points, what happens next?

"What is Full scale civil war, Alex?" Oh wait, we really don't have to wait for that to happen. and that's my final point as it's time for me to leave. Take care all.

The fact is this is a serious situation that requires serious thought. There is a grave risk that the Sunni militias, using the weapons we gave them, will turn them on us. There is also a grave risk, that once the Taliban is gone, that whatever small peace we have brokered with these groups will dissolve.

These are serious questions, and they need serious answers. And we haven’t seen them. Not a one. No assurances. No discussion of what will happen if. No method of minimizing this risk.

All we get is USMC screaming about how foolish we are for dare assuming our enemy MIGHT actually…keep being our enemy, despite the fact that we both have another enemy in common. All we get is a foaming at the mouth mantra, repeated ad nausium of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, ignoring our old friends of Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. All we get is “well it hasn’t happened yet!”

I’m sorry USMC, but these are serious questions, and you have totally, utterly, and completely failed to address them. These are serious questions, and they need serious answers, and you are woefully under equipped to come up with them. And if our military, in all its brilliance and strategy can come up with is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend, just like Stalin, Hussein and Bin Laden” then we have problems.

These are serious questions, and they need serious answers. And this administration has failed.

However, now there is no enemy for the Sunnis to have as their own enemy. Now we have the Sunnis, no longer fighting Al Qaeda. Now we have no firm central government and unregulated, decentralized Sunni militias who really REALLY hate the shi'ites and have for centuries, and are really not to fond of us either.
The reason that they are doing this is because they are fed up with the violence. Why would they start it again if they hate it?

The fact is this is a serious situation that requires serious thought. There is a grave risk that the Sunni militias, using the weapons we gave them, will turn them on us. There is also a grave risk, that once the Taliban is gone, that whatever small peace we have brokered with these groups will dissolve.
They would attack us if we didn't as we would be their enemy, not their friend. You logic is basically why do the best thing to succeed when there is a chance of failure and returning to status quo.


All we get is USMC screaming about how foolish we are for dare assuming our enemy MIGHT actually…keep being our enemy, despite the fact that we both have another enemy in common. All we get is a foaming at the mouth mantra, repeated ad nausium of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, ignoring our old friends of Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. All we get is “well it hasn’t happened yet!”
And then it is status quo. The worst thing that can happen is nothing. The best thing that can happen is success. Why not do it?

The reason that they are doing this is because they are fed up with the violence. Why would they start it again if they hate it?

Bullshit, total and utter bullshit. They're tired of the killing so they're willing to kill to end it?

They're not "tired" of anything. They don't like Al Qaeda, so they want to kill them. you think after 1000 years of conflict it's just suddenly going to stop, just like that, magically?

stupidity bordering on insanity that is.

No, I'm a SubGenius. There are a number of differences, not the least of which is that I can pull the wool over my own eyes, thanks all the same. you go right ahead and continue allowing others to perform that service for you, if that's how you prefer to live your life.

Just don't expect anyone else to subscribe to your preferred, pigeonholed point-of-view.

So I assume that you are all for de-baathification as it is essentially what you are calling for.

Bullshit, total and utter bullshit. They're tired of the killing so they're willing to kill to end it?

They're not "tired" of anything. They don't like Al Qaeda, so they want to kill them. you think after 1000 years of conflict it's just suddenly going to stop, just like that, magically?

stupidity bordering on insanity that is.

They don't like Al Qaeda b/c they are causing the violence and causing their family members death and poverty. The way that you stop them is by killing them. There is nothing illogical about that.

They would attack us if we didn't as we would be their enemy, not their friend. You logic is basically why do the best thing to succeed when there is a chance of failure and returning to status quo.

And then it is status quo. The worst thing that can happen is nothing. The best thing that can happen is success. Why not do it?

there's one teensy tiny little problem with your "logic". It's not quite status quo if it goes back to violence against us and the Shi'ites. Do you know why?

Care to take a guess?

Any clue?

maybe, just maybe...it's because we gave them weapons. So this time when they "go back to being our enemy" and killing us, and the Shi'ites, they'll be doing it with brand spanking new, state of the art american technology, not aging soviet era Ak 47s.

there's one teensy tiny little problem with your "logic". It's not quite status quo if it goes back to violence against us and the Shi'ites. Do you know why?

Care to take a guess?

Any clue?

maybe, just maybe...it's because we gave them weapons. So this time when they "go back to being our enemy" and killing us, and the Shi'ites, they'll be doing it with brand spanking new, state of the art american technology, not aging soviet era Ak 47s.
If you knew what the fuck you were talking about you'd know that we are giving them Ak's and more importantly we are coordinating attacks with them rather than against them.

If you knew what the fuck you were talking about you'd know that we are giving them Ak's

Yeah, newer ones than what they have, and more of them. It's not "status quo" after your own efforts have made your enemy significantly more powerful.

and more importantly we are coordinating attacks with them rather than against them.

Um....so? I mean really, so the fuck what? Great we're coordinating attacks with them. And when those coordinated attacks end, what the fuck do you think will happen? They'll just....give the guns back?

You think that when all is said and done they're just going to turn their swords to plowshares and give it up? Are you that fucking naive?

Yes, it did. We fought OEF by supporting militias. And we swept the Taleban overwhelmingly. There was no turning against us by the militias.
Errr... you are aware that they had a civil war which is what led to the Taliban getting into power because anyone who was anyone had either an M14 or AKM lying around and was willing to use it, right?

The issue, for me at least, is that when the US leaves, there are going to be issues with weapons getting into the wrong hands etc.

Although the militias might well be going along with it now, I don't think that'll be true when the US leaves Iraq and Afghanistan, unless you're going to get an international presence there basically forever (a snowball's chance in hell of that happening to be honest).

So for the time being, I can see why it's being done (I still disagree with it, mind), it's just that in the medium to long term, there is going to be a group of haves and have-nots with money and weapons about. Always causes problems.

maybe, just maybe...it's because we gave them weapons. So this time when they "go back to being our enemy" and killing us, and the Shi'ites, they'll be doing it with brand spanking new, state of the art american technology, not aging soviet era Ak 47s.
Err... they're hardly getting M4A1s and a bunch of Strykers and Abrams', as well as mass artillery support and told to kill everything that moves.

It'll be more "have you AKs back, we'll keep hold of the mortars, RPDs and RPGs and might lend you help with them if shit goes wrong badly".

Err... they're hardly getting M4A1s and a bunch of Strykers and Abrams', as well as mass artillery support and told to kill everything that moves.

It'll be more "have you AKs back, we'll keep hold of the mortars, RPDs and RPGs and might lend you help with them if shit goes wrong badly".

regardless of WHAT we give them, we ARE making them more powerful, yes?

regardless of WHAT we give them, we ARE making them more powerful, yes?
Absolutely, and I don't actually agree with that, I just felt it was necessary to point out that they're not getting tanks, artillery and state of the art kit.

The issue, for me at least, is that when the US leaves, there are going to be issues with weapons getting into the wrong hands etc.
Every house in both of those countries is armed. That isn't a concern.


So for the time being, I can see why it's being done (I still disagree with it, mind), it's just that in the medium to long term, there is going to be a group of haves and have-nots with money and weapons about. Always causes problems.
We can't fight forever. There has to be a point where amnesty is offered and we can all come together. This is that point.

Yeah, newer ones than what they have, and more of them. It's not "status quo" after your own efforts have made your enemy significantly more powerful.
No, not significantly. The main purpose of arming them is so that we are on the same page when conducting operations and as an act of kindness. Further building trust and support.


Um....so? I mean really, so the fuck what? Great we're coordinating attacks with them. And when those coordinated attacks end, what the fuck do you think will happen? They'll just....give the guns back?
Once they have eliminated Al-Qaeda, they will not have a reason to fight. They will want peace.

Every house in both of those countries is armed. That isn't a concern.

If they are already so armed why do we need to give them more?

You are an idiot.

I love these brilliant arguments you give out. Really, they floor me with their erudition and the obvious hard work and thought put into them.

No, not significantly. The main purpose of arming them is so that we are on the same page when conducting operations and as an act of kindness. Further building trust and support.



Once they have eliminated Al-Qaeda, they will not have a reason to fight. They will want peace.

Yeah, because that line of reasoning worked so incredibly well when we armed the Afghanis against the Soviets.

And I'm sure they will completely stop fighting the Shiites, regardless of the fact that their hostilities have been going on for hundreds of years.

Yeah, that is completely plausible. It's not like this has backfired on us in the past. :rolleyes:

Once they have eliminated Al-Qaeda, they will not have a reason to fight. They will want peace.

You know, I heard this before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen#Mujahideen_of_Afghanistan).

Where have I heard this before... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit)

The idea that ancient enemies are just going to sit down and play nice because after 100 years NOW they want peace is the height of stupidity.

In the last...50 years, every single utterance of "when this is over, things will calm down, they will want peace" has been truly, utterly, and spectacularly wrong.

Every action this administration has taken in this war has been truly, utterly, and spectacularly wrong.

What reason should I believe an administration is right THIS TIME, despite decades of historical precident suggesting otherwise?

Give me one good reason I should actually believe that 1000 years of violence is just going to...stop?

If they are already so armed why do we need to give them more?

It seems to be working in Anbar province - this solution that you deride. They need more ammunition, and more rifles.

It's not like a sword that you can resharpen.

I love these brilliant arguments you give out. Really, they floor me with their erudition and the obvious hard work and thought put into them.

He attacked my personally, i attacked him personally.

They need more ammunition, and more rifles.

then you disagree with the statement of:

Every house in both of those countries is armed. That isn't a concern.

You know, I heard this before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen#Mujahideen_of_Afghanistan).

Where have I heard this before... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit)

The idea that ancient enemies are just going to sit down and play nice because after 100 years NOW they want peace is the height of stupidity.

In the last...50 years, every single utterance of "when this is over, things will calm down, they will want peace" has been truly, utterly, and spectacularly wrong.

Every action this administration has taken in this war has been truly, utterly, and spectacularly wrong.

What reason should I believe an administration is right THIS TIME, despite decades of historical precident suggesting otherwise?

Give me one good reason I should actually believe that 1000 years of violence is just going to...stop?

Why? B/c it's working
* Anbar province. This area in the heart of the Sunni Triangle has been held up by the U.S. military as a model for Iraq. “The progress in Anbar has actually been breathtaking,” Petraeus says.

Commanders credit much of the success to the U.S. military’s decision to arm, train and organize Sunni provincial militias that have turned against al-Qaida militants operating in the area.

“If you’ve got folks who say, ‘Hey, this is my hometown, and I’m tired of the violence and if you simply train and equip me, I’ll protect my hometown.’ We ought to jump on that like a duck on a June bug,” says Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division.

He attacked my personally, i attacked him personally.

The difference between the two of you, however, is that he's right.

Why? B/c it's working

Where have I heard THAT before...

http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/m/C/mission_accomplished.jpg

oh yeah...

And once again, you miss the problem by a mile. the Sunnis might not be fighting the Shi'ites there NOW because they're busy fighting Al Qaeda.

And what happens when Al Qaeda is gone? This doesn't demonstrate anything, this doesn't prove anything. The fact that a group is too busy killing enemy A to kill enemy B does not, in ANY WAY show that they won't go BACK to killing enemy B once enemy A is gone.

And you don't have one single solitary shred of support for your claim that they wont. And, in fact, history is against you.

Give me one good reason I should actually believe that 1000 years of violence is just going to...stop?

The Magic of Jebus, of course. The AMAZING JEBUS! Watch him turn water into wine with the pass of hand! How will this loaf of bread feed a thousand? With the Magic of AMAZING JEBUS of course! Next he will make a quarter magically appear behind your ear!

See the AMAZING JEBUS at the Majestic this Friday! Tickets on sale now.

Why? B/c it's working

And a few years down the line, it backfires in our face. Such as history has taught us.

And a few years down the line, it backfires in our face. Such as history has taught us.

but you see, THIS time it's different. This won't be like our good friend Saddam Hussein who helped us against Iran, or our good friend Osama bin Laden who helped us against the Soviets, or our good friend Joseph Stalin who helped us against the Nazis, or Israel's good friend Arafat in the 2000 camp david accords.

This time, they just want peace. They won't go back to violence. They wont use our weapons against us. They won't devolve back into centuries old conflict once the immediate situation is over.

Don't you see, this time it's different! This time they pinky swore!

but you see, THIS time it's different. This won't be like our good friend Saddam Hussein who helped us against Iran, or our good friend Osama bin Laden who helped us against the Soviets, or our good friend Joseph Stalin who helped us against the Nazis, or Israel's good friend Arafat in the 2000 camp david accords.

This time, they just want peace. They won't go back to violence. They wont use our weapons against us. They won't devolve back into centuries old conflict once the immediate situation is over.

Don't you see, this time it's different! This time they pinky swore!

All thanks to the Magical Powers of the Amazing Jebus?

And what happens when Al Qaeda is gone? This doesn't demonstrate anything, this doesn't prove anything. The fact that a group is too busy killing enemy A to kill enemy B does not, in ANY WAY show that they won't go BACK to killing enemy B once enemy A is gone.
If they are part of the same gov't and army, they won't attack each other. And if they do, it's not because of this.
And you don't have one single solitary shred of support for your claim that they wont. And, in fact, history is against you.

History is not against me. Look at Germany or Japan. Their people were tired of war. So they didn't resist occupation.

He attacked my personally, i attacked him personally.

I don't care who started it. Go sit in the corner until you can behave like a big third grader.

And what of this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12769417&postcount=88) comment? The post you responded to wasn't "attacking your personally," but you felt compelled nonetheless to blurt out how your opponent must be "thick headed." And here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12769455&postcount=91) when you now went on an emo-rant about how all NS has it's "head up its ass."

Seems like it doesn't matter who takes the first "attack" on your "person," the first things out of your mouth when your arguments fail are little more than RAWR, BOK SMASH! Complete with stomping-of-feet and shaking-of-fist.

Like I said, I love it. You marginalize yourself and your pro-war views when you argue in this fashion.

And a few years down the line, it backfires in our face. Such as history has taught us.

Then we would simply return to status quo. Nothing lost, nothing gained.

History is not against me. Look at Germany or Japan. Their people were tired of war. So they didn't resist occupation.

what the fuck? neither Germany nor Japan just decided to give up. Berlin was shelled into oblivion and Japan had two nuclear bombs dropped on it.

Neither Germany nor Japan decided to just quit, they were horrifically beaten first, with no chance of victory.

Perhaps you missed that detail?

Then we would simply return to status quo. Nothing lost, nothing gained.

Oh, we will gain something indeed.

We gain an enemy that is significantly better armed than it was previously.

All thanks to the Magical Powers of the Amazing Jebus?

and the wisdom of our fearless leader.

If they are part of the same gov't and army, they won't attack each other. And if they do, it's not because of this.


Well, considering that the two groups are pretty much in a constant state of violence and hostility for longer than any of have been alive, and even longer than any current Nation has existed, I'm going to give this a negatory, my friend. Violence not escalating after they have taken care of Al Queda is about as possible, as say, me chopping off my left foot, throwing it into orbit around Jupiter, whilst drinking Chai Tea in Alabama. Now, I like my left foot, I'm not strong enough to throw it out of earth's gravitational pull, I hate Chai Tea, and wouldn't be caught dead in Alabama. But it's possible, I suppose, no matter how incredibly unlikely.


History is not against me. Look at Germany or Japan. Their people were tired of war. So they didn't resist occupation.

Of course this is not due to the fact that these were actually nations, whose armies had been completely destroyed decimated in battle, and their figure heads were removed from their power, thus completely destroying their morale and willingness to fight. Of course not.

Then we would simply return to status quo. Nothing lost, nothing gained.

And how, pray tell, do you suggest we go about doing this?

what the fuck? neither Germany nor Japan just decided to give up. Berlin was shelled into oblivion and Japan had two nuclear bombs dropped on it.

Neither Germany nor Japan decided to just quit, they were horrifically beaten first, with no chance of victory.

Perhaps you missed that detail?

Oh, get out of here with your "facts". "Facts" are just a liberal lie.

Oh, we will gain something indeed.

We gain an enemy that is significantly better armed than it was previously.

You don't want to do the only thing that will possibly get us victory b/c of a slight chance of failure. That is why some men are made to make tough decisions and some to criticize those men. And no, they will not be significantly better armed as we will know who everyone of them is due to fingerprinting.

You don't want to do the only thing that will possibly get us victory b/c of a slight chance of failure.

If this were the ONLY thing we could do and the chance was slight I would accept it.

Neither of those are remotely true. It's a horrible plan that is doomed to failure.

And you know, I seem to recall you saying the same things about the surge. This will not bring victory, it will not bring a stable Iraq. At BEST it will make an Iraq where one violent militant group is replaced by another violent militant group. nothing more.

That is why some men are made to make tough decisions

No, some people are made to make the GOOD decisions. We could use a few of those.

And no, they will not be significantly better armed as we will know who everyone of them is due to fingerprinting.

Um, so? Does the fact that we have the fingerprints of the guy with the gun change the fact that he has a gun? Does it change the fact that he can give that gun to someone else?

You know what, we know the name of the guy who planned 9/11 too. A lot of good that's done us.

Well, considering that the two groups are pretty much in a constant state of violence and hostility for longer than any of have been alive, and even longer than any current Nation has existed, I'm going to give this a negatory, my friend.
This is in Anbar. Sectarian violence is not a concern there.


Of course this is not due to the fact that these were actually nations, whose armies had been completely destroyed decimated in battle, and their figure heads were removed from their power, thus completely destroying their morale and willingness to fight. Of course not.
Army decimated, check
figure heads removed, check

Army decimated, check
figure heads removed, check

The teeny tiny difference? In Germany and Japan it was the leaders who were prompting the military action.

Not the ones who were holding back the tide of a civil war.

Little bit different there. But by all means keep going, your silliness is amusing. What really gets me laughing is that your entrance and inanity was predicted a day in advance.

If this were the ONLY thing we could do and the chance was slight I would accept it.
We can't kill every Sunni, we have to team up with them eventually. There is no time like the present.


And you know, I seem to recall you saying the same things about the surge. This will not bring victory, it will not bring a stable Iraq. At BEST it will make an Iraq where one violent militant group is replaced by another violent militant group. nothing more.
The surge hasn't even been fully implemented yet.


Um, so? Does the fact that we have the fingerprints of the guy with the gun change the fact that he has a gun? Does it change the fact that he can give that gun to someone else?
So every person that we give a gun to is an insurgent out of the fight. That sounds like a victory to me.

The teeny tiny difference? In Germany and Japan it was the leaders who were prompting the military action.

Not the ones who were holding back the tide of a civil war.

Little bit different there. But by all means keep going, your silliness is amusing. What really gets me laughing is that your entrance and inanity was predicted a day in advance.

No, their tribal leaders are who were prompting military action. And now they are prompting cooperation.

This is in Anbar. Sectarian violence is not a concern there.


And yet this is a plan which involves expanding into other areas. :/ Yeah. And people can't move around. They are completely stationary.


Army decimated, check
figure heads removed, check

Different story all together. A nation is far different than a militant group, which is far harder to quell. You completely missed the point, as well. The point is, in the case of Germany and Japan, we destroyed their armies, as well removed their figure heads. In the terms of militant groups, there is always a new figure head, and in actuality often times fighting them only increases their rate of recruitment, especially when they are based in civilian populations. Arming said groups, and trusting that they won't use their weapons against a group of people that they have been fighting for centuries, is just asinine beyond all belief.

No, their tribal leaders are who were prompting military action. And now they are prompting cooperation.

sure they are, I'm sure they'll say whatever it takes to get us to hand over weapons they'll later shoot us with.

As I said, only a blatant fool would consider this "peace" anything more than a temporary alliance of interests, if not a down right lie.

No, their tribal leaders are who were prompting military action. And now they are prompting cooperation.

Only to fight a common enemy. That doesn't mean they like us, or what we are doing, nor does it mean that they are going to forget about their age-old enemies. They are simply cooperating with us to take out the larger, more immediate threat. That does not mean that in the future that they will stop fighting those people they have been fighting for around a millenia is idiotic, and completely ignoring the reality of the situation.

So every person that we give a gun to is an insurgent out of the fight. That sounds like a victory to me.

....the fuck? How does having hte fingerprints of somebody prevent them from turning the gun we gave him on us later?

sure they are, I'm sure they'll say whatever it takes to get us to hand over weapons they'll later shoot us with.

As I said, only a blatant fool would consider this "peace" anything more than a temporary alliance of interests, if not a down right lie.

It's the finger printing where the brilliance of the plan comes into play. The major problem that we have now is IDing insurgents. We capture plenty but then we have to release them without evidence. If we have fingerprints on every insurgent, if they turn on us, we will quickly be able to round them up.

Only to fight a common enemy. That doesn't mean they like us, or what we are doing, nor does it mean that they are going to forget about their age-old enemies. They are simply cooperating with us to take out the larger, more immediate threat. That does not mean that in the future that they will stop fighting those people they have been fighting for around a millenia is idiotic, and completely ignoring the reality of the situation.

I believe this is the 3rd time, there is next to no sectarian fighting in Anbar. It is not an issue.

It's the finger printing where the brilliance of the plan comes into play. The major problem that we have now is IDing insurgents. We capture plenty but then we have to release them without evidence. If we have fingerprints on every insurgent, if they turn on us, we will quickly be able to round them up.

Problem is finding them first, of course. Because they can't go into hiding.

Problem is finding them first, of course. Because they can't go into hiding.

If they are in hiding, they are not attacking us. Again, through the use of raids we will be able to round them up. Believe me.

It's the finger printing where the brilliance of the plan comes into play. The major problem that we have now is IDing insurgents. We capture plenty but then we have to release them without evidence. If we have fingerprints on every insurgent, if they turn on us, we will quickly be able to round them up.

oh I see, so are capturing people we think are insurgents but having no evidence we have to let them go, but if we capture people who we have fingerprints with...what? We have their fingerprints, we still have no evidence that they actually DID anything against us.

And if we did have evidence against them, why the hell would we need their fingerprints?

If we catch a guy with a smoking gun, what fucking difference does it make that we have his finger prints?

Your definition of "brilliance" is lacking.

Problem is finding them first, of course. Because they can't go into hiding.

or, I dont know...give the guns to someone else who isn't fingerprinted.

If they are in hiding, they are not attacking us. Again, through the use of raids we will be able to round them up. Believe me.

So, they can't attack us, then go into hiding.

Honestly, do you think that people are immobile objects, that can't move from a 5-foot radius?

I believe this is the 3rd time, there is next to no sectarian fighting in Anbar. It is not an issue.

and when one of those sunnis with our brand new guns decides to take a trip to somewhere that is NOT Anbar?

There's no sectarian fighting at the bottom of the ocean either. Unfortunatly the Iraqi civil war isn't at the bottom of the ocean. nor is it restricted to Anbar.

oh I see, so are capturing people we think are insurgents but having no evidence we have to let them go, but if we capture people who we have fingerprints with...what? We have their fingerprints, we still have no evidence that they actually DID anything against us.
If a group states that it is turning against the U.S., it's a safe bet that all of it's members are now guilty of being AIF forces.
And if we did have evidence against them, why the hell would we need their fingerprints?
That's the point, it's hard to get that evidence.

oh I see, so are capturing people we think are insurgents but having no evidence we have to let them go, but if we capture people who we have fingerprints with...what? We have their fingerprints, we still have no evidence that they actually DID anything against us.

And if we did have evidence against them, why the hell would we need their fingerprints?

If we catch a guy with a smoking gun, what fucking difference does it make that we have his finger prints?

Your definition of "brilliance" is lacking.

Indeed. Fingerprints don't stop people from using the weapons, they only stop show who had the gun. I'm not seeing where fingerprints would actually stop people from using the weapons against us.

and when one of those sunnis with our brand new guns decides to take a trip to somewhere that is NOT Anbar?
These groups are home-based. That is their sole advantage. Al-Qaeda is the only real group that moves about.
There's no sectarian fighting at the bottom of the ocean either. Unfortunatly the Iraqi civil war isn't at the bottom of the ocean. nor is it restricted to Anbar.

We're not arming fish, that analogy doesn't make any sense at all.

If a group states that it is turning against the U.S., it's a safe bet that all of it's members are now guilty of being AIF forces.

Ahh, so guilt by association is evidence now? So our solution is to give people guns, track who they are, and if people they're associated with start attacking us, just round up people who know them.

Yeah, that won't make the situation worse AT ALL.

We're not arming fish, that analogy doesn't make any sense at all.

Quite right, we're arming people. And people are far more mobile than fish.

Ahh, so guilt by association is evidence now? So our solution is to give people guns, track who they are, and if people they're associated with start attacking us, just round up people who know them.

Yeah, that won't make the situation worse AT ALL.

It's now people who know them, it's them. And no, it won't make it worse. It's a win-win. Either we get an ally or we can quickly take care of the enemy. But once they realize that attacking us would be futile, they'll be our ally for good.

Quite right, we're arming people. And people are far more mobile than fish.

Your analogy still has no relevance at all and my answer (which you didn't respond to) still stands.

Edit: I think that it is funny that we have exactly the same # of posts.

*cough* oil *cough*

Excuse me, nasty chest infection there...

*GASP* (http://babyalien.ytmnd.com/) :eek:

Brilliant :rolleyes:

Once they have eliminated Al-Qaeda, they will not have a reason to fight. They will want peace.
+
You are an idiot.

So do the two of you need a room?
:rolleyes:

We already had Saudi Arabia, Israel and Pakistan to a certain extent.Saudi Arabia being filled with oil sheiks financing more mujahedin than I care counting, of course, and Pakistan being infamous for supplying the Taliban with most everything they needed.

An ally in the region who happens not to casually fund regimes that make Saddam's Iraq look like a human rights paradise, or assorted organisations happy to blow everything american in sight (And not in a good way) is a pretty good idea, and would've allowed the US to, lets say, drop the Saudis off its 'To be supported' list.

Oil is certainly a reason - nobody fights wars without looking at his or her checkbook -, but it's certainly not the only one.

Because it worked so well from the late 70s to the mid-90s and again in the 2000's in Afghanistan, right?Yes actually, it did. The material support of the US went to what'd later form the northern alliance, and was, by and large, not used (At least, not first hand used) against the US. The Taliban, who actually hosted the rook-taking person the US happens to have disagreements with, were funded and supported by Pakistan - the best they got from the US was 'Well, lets ignore their Human Rights abuses for the moment, at least they're beating up the warlords. Maybe they'll grow up one day.'

By and large, the US support to the Mujahedin (Sp?) was indeed used against the soviets, not against the US - the groups who'd later turn against the US (Al Quaeda being the first among them) were generally funded by Saudi Billionaires.

Besides, you're still ignoring the point raised by both me and USMC Leathernecks2 - so what if they'll later turn against the US again? What is preferable? Having them shoot at the US' enemies for the time being, reducing casualties for the US and building up a chance of them not switching enemies once that's done, or having them continue to shoot at the US right now, keeping casualties as high up as possible, and keeping the number of enemy combatants one has to deal with similarly high? Note (Again...) that they'll get their weapons regardless of whether they'll cooperate with Al Quaeda or the US - both have the financial resources to provide everything they could want.

It's not really a tough choice to make, ya'know.

and we have seen how well the enemy of my enemy is my friend has played out in history.

After all, look right here

<Snipped pictures of Stalin and Saddam>... and? At the time these temporary alliances were forged, they - well, the one with the Soviets, anyway - proved to be exceedingly useful, significantly reducing the amount of blood the US had to pay to achive its goals. I don't really get your problem there - you want everyone to look into the future, and to sacrifice their people en masse in order to not engage in temporary alliances that might break up at some point in the future, when their usefulness is expended?

That's kinda stupid. Rather like saying 'Okay, boys. We could ally with some of the locals, here, and make your job easier for the time being, but I think it's better when you, Joe, Jack, and William, go shoot them and die in the process of doing so, because by damn, we're not going to cooperate with the sandniggers just because they happen to shoot the same people we shoot!'

I believe someone may have already linked it, but Jon Stewart summed this up nicely.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/14/the-daily-show-arming-the-sunnis-or-the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend/

USMC, it appears you do not fully grasp the situation and what we are actually doing.

Here it is:

The homegrown, Iraqi, Sunni insurgents and the mixed foreign Al-Qaeda insurgents have been killing Americans, foreigners, Shiites, etc, in Iraq for the past four years now. Following me so far?

Now, the Sunni insurgents, who have been killing us along with Al-Qaeda are fighting Al-Qaeda... I believe the disagreement is actually about tactics, Al-Qaeda kills indiscriminately, Shiite and Sunni, while the insurgents are a bit more precise in who they target.

So we are currently giving Insurgents, who previously were killing Americans until they got into a temporary disagreement with Al-Qaeda, lots and lots of weapons.

Once the insurgents wail sufficiently on Al-Qaeda-or if the two sides work out the disagreements-what do you think the Sunni Insurgents are going to do?

Go right back to killing Americans, thats what... and with the weapons we gave them to fight Al-Qaeda with!

Does it make sense now?