Oh no sir. Ask anyone who has been there. Most insurgents are not iraqi at all.pierro wrote:
Al-Q as the focus of Iraq policy is a bit like the insurgents planning to focus their attacks on Azerbaijan in Iraq...who else could possibly be there?
Poll
Is this productive or counterproductive
| Productive | 50% | 50% - 12 | ||||
| Counter-Productive | 50% | 50% - 12 | ||||
| Total: 24 | ||||||
I know what I saw with my own two eyes, and so have some others on this board. Nice link btw.pierro wrote:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html
"AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters, comprising 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency."
-enough said
Here is an AP article. pay no attention to the website. Search the AP if you want.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/a … ts_070523/
Seventy percent of insurgents fighting in Iraq come from Gulf countries via Syria where they are provided with forged passports, an Iraqi intelligence officer alleged in a published report Wednesday.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/a … ts_070523/
Seventy percent of insurgents fighting in Iraq come from Gulf countries via Syria where they are provided with forged passports, an Iraqi intelligence officer alleged in a published report Wednesday.
Last edited by usmarine (2008-04-11 21:35:27)
Pierro, lemme get this straight. You want to pull the troops out of Iraq and throw them into Darfur where they will, in general, still be a peace keeping force....mmmhmm.
I agree. Most of the "insurgants" fell into 3 catagories. 1) Part of Saddams "Special Forces," who donned civilian clothes during the war, and spread out to cause havok. These wore out even before I left Iraq in late '03. 2) Foreign jihadists. People from nations other than Iraq, (Syria, Iran, Jordan, Yemmin, Saudi Arabia, etc) coming to Iraq to kill the Infedel. 3) Poor saps. These guys were dumb locals who were bribed or forced to do something ("I will give you $100 if you take this rifle and fire it at the american convoy" or "Drive through that american roadblock or I will kill your wife and sons, and rape your daughters" or "Sit in this building and press this button when there is an american vehicle at the corner. Do this and I will get your cousin that job he needs." I know from personal experience that all 3 of those tactics were used). Of course, if the poor local sap gets shot and killed, then it is no great shakes for the "insurgancy" and the western press just keeps the insurgant count up.usmarine wrote:
I know what I saw with my own two eyes, and so have some others on this board. Nice link btw.pierro wrote:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html
"AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters, comprising 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency."
-enough said
agree.pierro wrote:
-While I cannot dispute the source, I can dispute the implications...insurgents from other countries will have arrived specifically because the United States was in the region and because of actions taken in Iraq...further fighting will enflame them more, more enter and there's a viscious circle.
But, will you agree with me that if other arab nations wouldn't allow these guys to pass freely into Iraq, and allow us to build the schools and infrastructure, that country would be much better right now? I mean, it ain't like we are not trying.
That national review hit piece (along with the echo chamber) has been thoroughly de-bunked. No good liberal was ever a Clinton fan, he did his own share of terrorist creation and massacred plenty of Arabs through the policies he supported (mostly through his fetish for cutting off medication via embargos and bombing pharma factories on flimsy intel). The Bush admin needed something to deflect from their total incompetence and failures before 9/11, which are demonstrable and verified, so "blame Clinton" becomes some sort of standard fall-back.usmarine wrote:
misspeaking is me saying "Jordan or Egypt" when it really was Sudan. That is misspeaking. What he did was not a mistake...other than he admitted it.
The economy sucks...Clinton's fault.
9/11 happpened........Clinton's fault.
N.Korea has nukes....Clinton's fault.
NKOTB is making come-back tour....Clinton's fault.
All of these are demonstrably false, like the other great right-wing legends of the profane Christmas ornaments or the Clintons stealing silverware and flatware on their way out of the Whitehouse.
Don't believe every chain letter you read.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp
I also found this one, that brings up a lot of its own questions - what the hell was going on in the Reagan years? War on Drugs?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp
1. 'If you jump off a high bridge, you're probably going to die,' is a bit of an oversimplification, but it doesn't make it any less probable.pierro wrote:
"Cutting military funds after WW1 was a great idea too. I mean, how could there possibly be another..."
That's a bit of an oversimplification and I'll try to describe why: Hitler was able to achieve prominence and eventually take control of Germany because of the poor economic situation (brought about by reparations, poor trade policies, a lack of worldwide market controls etc...), imagine how much easier it would have been for him (he almost didn't achieve power) if countries had invested money throughout the 20's in cutting edge military technology like biplanes or cavalry (I am exaggerating but I hope you get the point) as it would have led to less trade which would have hurt the economies throughout the war. The early losses in Europe were due to relative pacifism among the European allies eg the phony war (the other extreme of what we have today), not because they didn't build up their military but because they had cold feet. Ironically the one country that did invest in the military, was France...you know how well that turned out. The idea of a major nation like Germany trying something like that in a nuclear age is ludicrous
"very simple but lacking content. If Iraq had been handled properly during the 90's, then things may be different"
And if Afghanistan had been handled properly in the 80s...
2. Contemplating alternate history such as accelerated military technological research between WWI and WWII would make good material for a novel, but you can't really know for sure how it would've turned out. Perhaps we would've obliterated all life on earth, or perhaps the combat aspect of the WWII would've ended early after the exchange or threat thereof of nuclear weapons and proceeded economically. Perhaps Germany wouldn't have even fallen under the thrall of the Nazi Party. All shots in the dark.
3. Civilian technology often parallels military technology. Look at the internet. With more efficient forms of travel, international trade may have increased.
4. The early losses of WWII can indeed be blamed in some part on European pacifism, but it's hard to deny that the time it took to rebuild military industrial momentum resulted in additional deaths. I'm sure the Soviets would've loved to have more rifles on the eastern front...
5. France did invest in military, but with the hindsight of WWI. The Maginot Line was a catastrophic failure. It can be argued that if France had diverted their military spending into something a bit more...mobile, things may have turned out differently.
6. Jumping back to the alternate history bit, it may have been the Allies who wouldn't dare to try anything, had Germany got their paws on 'the bomb' first. The nuclear age did change the way war is perceived, to understate things a bit. But if you notice, the bomb hasn't ended war, as some thought it would. Nor had the Gatling gun. At the same time, you'd have to be mad to withdraw from the game of technological escalation and expect to remain a world power.
7. And the Middle East back when it was partitioned by western powers. Wonderful thing, hindsight.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-11 21:50:20)
This looks like it's going back to the OP. Again... Do you guys really think our staying in Iraq is going to change things in the long run? What makes you think that things won't just fall apart again once we leave? We have to leave in the next few years at the very most (unless we're going with the 100 year plan), so how is it even possible for us to install something that won't disintegrate after our departure?
1. Understood to begin with.pierro wrote:
Unnamednewbie:
1. -I see your point, the oversimpification remark was more style then substance
2. - I am not contemplating alternate history I am pointing out that political extremes (invariably authoritarian) thrive the most in cases of economic collapse and poverty, something increased investment in arms would have brought about as it would have taken money away from trade
3. -You are correct in that sense, but a further discussion on the issue should probably occur here: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=98581
4. -Actually, the war could have been prevented outright if the western nations hadn’t continually backed down earlier (most notably in Checkslovackia), it was about not looking like a whimp thats it... also if the Soviets had more rifles, that means they would have advanced further, that means the eastern bloc would have been larger, overall bad
5. -Actually, France was evenly matched with Germany, they had more tanks etc… That was just a quick example its not something that should be over analyzed
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France”
”6. -I want to talk as much about alternate history as you do, so lets just stay off the topic, suffice it to say that there have been less wars now then anytime in history (again you can find a discussion on that issue in greater depth here: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=98581
-I would have to agree with your earlier statements about the virtues of R&D, maintenance training etc…
2. "[...] imagine how much easier it would have been for him [...]" certainly sounds like exploratory alternate history. Just the same as "what if Kennedy wasn't assassinated" or "what if Nixon didn't support the idea of the EPA." "What if Jim Henson had directed the new Lord of the Rings films?"
3. Tagged for another night.
4. You're one of the few people who notice that. As an armchair historian, I have to agree with Patton's belief that the war should have been carried through to put an end to Stalin's regime.
5. Restatement: the Maginot Line was a resource sink that didn't really live up to its cost. I believe it's a reasonable to say that France may have turned out differently had time not been wasted on that, but it certainly wasn't the only fulcrum.
6. Edit: Alternate history seems to be just as off topic there as here. But to self-quote from that thread: "Technological advances are beside the point. While mankind competes for resources, there will be war, and in order to survive war, you need a [well-equipped and well-trained] military."
/consciousness @ 18 hours spent wrangling pressure hoses.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-11 22:40:05)
Bill was playing golf!pierro wrote:
1) Why don't you lay off the ad-hominem attacks- disagreeing with you is not the only qualifications for being a douche
2) Why don't you choose an unbiased news service instead of the poster-child news source of conservatism...oh right, no balanced news service would cover that because the claim that he gave him up is blatantly false
Here is a fact check, I'll highlight a couple of excerpts: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/d … nce_1.html
"President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa (the guy making the offer) had ever made such an offer."
-If you read the article in full you'll find that Erwa himself said he made the offer, but he should be considered about as reliable an individual as Ahmed Chalabi
Try reading Richard Clarke, he has more experience in counter-terrorism then anybody on the planet
-When it comes to enemies being created...one can say that there were no threatening enemies in Iraq before we came in, Al Quaeda was despised and there was no link between the two. Al Quaeda is responsible for a slim minority of attacks on our troops (something like 2%) in Iraq, so by going in, we didn't stop a real enemy, because there wasn't one there and brought the country, as well as the entire arab world against us...you decide whether we created more enemies then we stopped by going in
Better we kill them there then here.
Imagine if they were instead bombing Malls and blowing up Elementary School buses in your home town instead?
No don't get me wrong, I don't like innocent Iraqis dying as much as the next guy...its just that part of the world has been fighting like this for eons. They have right themselves...Islam needs a reformation.
Imagine if they were instead bombing Malls and blowing up Elementary School buses in your home town instead?
No don't get me wrong, I don't like innocent Iraqis dying as much as the next guy...its just that part of the world has been fighting like this for eons. They have right themselves...Islam needs a reformation.
Getting back to the OP, who really thinks operations of this type are likely to be useful?
Two 'possible' insurgents killed.
One soldier killed, three wounded, another wounded later.
According to the coalition, 4 women, 2 girls, one baby killed in the process.
According to the locals, 16 civilians dead.
After five years is it really necessary to call in airstrikes and use 40mm cannon and a bomb on residential areas to kill just two suspected insurgents? We seem to have made no real progress in tactics.
Two 'possible' insurgents killed.
One soldier killed, three wounded, another wounded later.
According to the coalition, 4 women, 2 girls, one baby killed in the process.
According to the locals, 16 civilians dead.
After five years is it really necessary to call in airstrikes and use 40mm cannon and a bomb on residential areas to kill just two suspected insurgents? We seem to have made no real progress in tactics.
This is put foward regularly, I'm not aware of any significant upheaval in the area - apart from that provoked by the west.just that part of the world has been fighting like this for eons
You'll get used to usmarine eventually -its SOP to attack the author, not the postPierro wrote:
Why don't you lay off the ad-hominem attacks- disagreeing with you is not the only qualifications for being a douche
Fuck Israel
The SAS surrounded the house and then used a tanoy system & interpreter to call out to the occupants? I LOL'd.. oh yeah they threw a "percussion" grenade? I LOL'd some more...
I'll glady kill any Nazi, or any Islamic Terrorist, or any fucking Yank that comes in here preaching that we're being taken over. Because they're all the same.
I've had enough of this shit.
I've had enough of this shit.
Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-04-12 04:26:51)
I already answered your question. He mentioned clinton and started comparing. Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass.Dilbert_X wrote:
You'll get used to usmarine eventually -its SOP to attack the author, not the post
If you understand our reaction to getting our own buildings blown up, then you should also understand that, because we've created a perfect environment for terror in Iraq, there will simply be more death and destruction in Iraq as time goes on. As long as there is death and destruction, there will be enough hate present for people to continue joining any of the various sides of terror. Some of these terror groups will continue to try and attack us on our own soil, regardless of whether we stay in Iraq.Harmor wrote:
Better we kill them there then here.
Imagine if they were instead bombing Malls and blowing up Elementary School buses in your home town instead?
No don't get me wrong, I don't like innocent Iraqis dying as much as the next guy...its just that part of the world has been fighting like this for eons. They have right themselves...Islam needs a reformation.
Just because there hasn't been a successful attack on own soil lately does not mean that being in Iraq prevents them from trying. We're not made aware of all attacks that are thwarted, so there's no telling how many have tried to kill us here in the last few years. All that is certain is that we've successfully prevented attacks so far.
What makes you think that, totally unprecedented scenario, is what would happen?Harmor wrote:
Better we kill them there then here.
Imagine if they were instead bombing Malls and blowing up Elementary School buses in your home town instead?
No don't get me wrong, I don't like innocent Iraqis dying as much as the next guy...its just that part of the world has been fighting like this for eons. They have right themselves...Islam needs a reformation.
More Americans have died in Iraq over the past few years than have died over the past century as a result of Islamic terrorism. All the evidence, suggests that were the US troops not in Iraq, the America death rate at the hands of Islamic extremists would be substantially lower.
Just because there has been one rather successful attack on the US by Islamic extremists is no reason to act illogically over the issue. The whole "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here" argument is emotive and not based on any sort of reason.
Hmmm...In about 8 years we had two attacks on the WTC, one naval ship attacked, two US emabassies bombed and hundreds killed, and a military housing area in Saudi. In about 6 1/2 years since all that ended, there has be NO attacks like that outside of the warzones. Now, you may not like to hear that, but those are facts.Bertster7 wrote:
The whole "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here" argument is emotive and not based on any sort of reason.
It's true, why would they attack America when they can attack them outside their own homes. Although, it doesn't really work like that. Because we've been attacked even though we have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq (although it's because, we have troops in Afghan and Iraq). I'm not quite sure why the U.S hasn't been attacked, either it's pure luck or the fact that they're still planning something. Because it does seem odd that after everything that has been said, at most there's only been a couple of foiled attemps in the US.
Fuck If I know.
Just count yourself lucky, I guess
Fuck If I know.
Just count yourself lucky, I guess
Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-04-12 09:21:14)
US US US US US US US US US I am only talking about the US.pierro wrote:
“In about 6 1/2 years since all that ended, there has be NO attacks like that outside of the warzones.”
Terrorists haven’t launched attacks like those in the last 6.5 years?
Bali bombings
Madrid bombings
London bombings
And that’s just off the top of my head and is not even counting all the attacks on the green zone
-Now, you may not like to hear that, but those are facts.
- It sounds like you are trying to selectively define a terrorist attack is, so that military deaths are not counted, categorizing what a terrorist attack is, so that it works in your favor (as you will likely say "well american allies don't count" afterwards). There has been a far greater cost in both lives and cash when it comes to the war then in any other terrorist attack and you should at the very least acknowledge that.
Bali has shit to do with Iraq.
no successful attacks...usmarine wrote:
Hmmm...In about 8 years we had two attacks on the WTC, one naval ship attacked, two US emabassies bombed and hundreds killed, and a military housing area in Saudi. In about 6 1/2 years since all that ended, there has be NO attacks like that outside of the warzones. Now, you may not like to hear that, but those are facts.Bertster7 wrote:
The whole "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here" argument is emotive and not based on any sort of reason.
Our staying in Iraq has little to do with our ability to defuse attacks here. It just means our intelligence agencies are getting better at thwarting attacks now. The fact that we haven't been successfully attacked in the last few years on our own soil would actually be a better way of supporting the Patriot Act than of the Iraq occupation.
if you say so. glad you work at the cia.
Geography and immigration may well play a part. We accept a lot more immigrants into our country than you do, but most of our immigrants come from Latin America. Most of your immigrants come from the Islamic World. Statistically speaking, terrorism is more prevalent among Pakistanis than Mexicans. Also, Muslims have to travel a lot less of a distance to enter the U.K. than to enter America.Mek-Izzle wrote:
It's true, why would they attack America when they can attack them outside their own homes. Although, it doesn't really work like that. Because we've been attacked even though we have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq (although it's because, we have troops in Afghan and Iraq). I'm not quite sure why the U.S hasn't been attacked, either it's pure luck or the fact that they're still planning something. Because it does seem odd that after everything that has been said, at most there's only been a couple of foiled attemps in the US.
Fuck If I know.
Just count yourself lucky, I guess
Again, I'm not saying all Muslims are terrorists, I'm just pointing out what statistics imply.
If you want a qualified source, ask FEOS. He might support what I've said here. I don't know. I just know he works for the Pentagon.usmarine wrote:
if you say so. glad you work at the cia.