Reality is a bitch isn't it....M.O.A.B wrote:
That's because everyone would bitch and moan if they did it that way wouldn't they?CameronPoe wrote:
Why hasn't it then? lolM.O.A.B wrote:
Conventional warfare could easily wipe out a guerilla insurgency.
Strangely a lot of people don't get the reality of warfare. You want rid of that insurgency soon, waste the whole area. The most realistic way of doing it.CameronPoe wrote:
Reality is a bitch isn't it....M.O.A.B wrote:
That's because everyone would bitch and moan if they did it that way wouldn't they?CameronPoe wrote:
Why hasn't it then? lol
It would defeat the whole point of being there. We're not terrorists. We're not Russian/Chinese cunts with no regard for life. The reason we're fighting these guys is because they're fucked up and we're not, and we don't like them because of what they do. Now if we just dropped the ball and ended up being just as fucked up as them, then what would be the point of going there in the first place?M.O.A.B wrote:
Strangely a lot of people don't get the reality of warfare. You want rid of that insurgency soon, waste the whole area. The most realistic way of doing it.CameronPoe wrote:
Reality is a bitch isn't it....M.O.A.B wrote:
That's because everyone would bitch and moan if they did it that way wouldn't they?
lol. You have a lot to learn. The beauty of guerilla warfare is that you can't tell who or where the enemy is. What were you gonna do - 'waste' the whole of Northern Ireland? roflM.O.A.B wrote:
Strangely a lot of people don't get the reality of warfare. You want rid of that insurgency soon, waste the whole area. The most realistic way of doing it.
What have I got to learn? I'm simply pointing out that guerilla warfare is defeatable, you said it wasn't.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. You have a lot to learn. The beauty of guerilla warfare is that you can't tell who or where the enemy is. What were you gonna do - 'waste' the whole of Northern Ireland? roflM.O.A.B wrote:
Strangely a lot of people don't get the reality of warfare. You want rid of that insurgency soon, waste the whole area. The most realistic way of doing it.
It is scenario specific but where popular support is behind the guerillas or where the guerillas cannot be readily identified it is almost impossible.M.O.A.B wrote:
What have I got to learn? I'm simply pointing out that guerilla warfare is defeatable, you said it wasn't.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. You have a lot to learn. The beauty of guerilla warfare is that you can't tell who or where the enemy is. What were you gonna do - 'waste' the whole of Northern Ireland? roflM.O.A.B wrote:
Strangely a lot of people don't get the reality of warfare. You want rid of that insurgency soon, waste the whole area. The most realistic way of doing it.
Your solution to the situation in Northern Ireland would have been for Britain to destroy everything and kill everyone...including all the loyalists who consider themselves British? Hmmm.M.O.A.B wrote:
What have I got to learn? I'm simply pointing out that guerilla warfare is defeatable, you said it wasn't.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. You have a lot to learn. The beauty of guerilla warfare is that you can't tell who or where the enemy is. What were you gonna do - 'waste' the whole of Northern Ireland? roflM.O.A.B wrote:
Strangely a lot of people don't get the reality of warfare. You want rid of that insurgency soon, waste the whole area. The most realistic way of doing it.
You really kicked guerilla warfare's ass in Vietnam.
Absolutely - how can you destroy a target when none is presented? Granted, this impasse assumes a certain compassion for human life and insufficient drive TO infact waste all of, say, Northern Ireland.CameronPoe wrote:
It is scenario specific but where popular support is behind the guerillas or where the guerillas cannot be readily identified it is almost impossible.
I don't see the entire population of Iraq behind these guerillas, that's the way the media paints it.CameronPoe wrote:
It is scenario specific but where popular support is behind the guerillas or where the guerillas cannot be readily identified it is almost impossible.M.O.A.B wrote:
What have I got to learn? I'm simply pointing out that guerilla warfare is defeatable, you said it wasn't.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. You have a lot to learn. The beauty of guerilla warfare is that you can't tell who or where the enemy is. What were you gonna do - 'waste' the whole of Northern Ireland? rofl
Tell me when a guerrilla army has been defeated by convention warfare or from carpet bombing the whole country ala Cambodia/Vietnam?M.O.A.B wrote:
What have I got to learn? I'm simply pointing out that guerilla warfare is defeatable, you said it wasn't.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. You have a lot to learn. The beauty of guerilla warfare is that you can't tell who or where the enemy is. What were you gonna do - 'waste' the whole of Northern Ireland? roflM.O.A.B wrote:
Strangely a lot of people don't get the reality of warfare. You want rid of that insurgency soon, waste the whole area. The most realistic way of doing it.
Well a significant proportion of them are. Moqtada Al Sadr is a pivotal figure in Iraqi politics. I'd wager that a majority want the US out - if you join Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani and Moqtada Al Sadrs support to that of the ex-Ba'athists you are bound to have a majority.M.O.A.B wrote:
I don't see the entire population of Iraq behind these guerillas, that's the way the media paints it.
Man talk about making things up as you see fit. First of all, I did not say to bomb everything, I said this 'You want rid of that insurgency soon, waste the whole area.' I fail to see where I said 'let's waste the whole area'. As it seems so difficult for people to read things properly I'll type it again, if you want to be rid of the insurgency quickly (which for some reason you guys think can be done overnight) you would have to completely destroy everything.Braddock wrote:
Your solution to the situation in Northern Ireland would have been for Britain to destroy everything and kill everyone...including all the loyalists who consider themselves British? Hmmm.M.O.A.B wrote:
What have I got to learn? I'm simply pointing out that guerilla warfare is defeatable, you said it wasn't.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. You have a lot to learn. The beauty of guerilla warfare is that you can't tell who or where the enemy is. What were you gonna do - 'waste' the whole of Northern Ireland? rofl
You really kicked guerilla warfare's ass in Vietnam.
Also again the misinformed events of Vietnam, take a note, military action won on all fronts, political didn't, it was also the fact the NV broke the peace treaty after the US left. Read up on the raids in the jungles on the VC by Special Forces, I'll give you a good starting point the, Aussie SAS, go find their kill ratio.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-04-14 08:24:53)
Vietnam war: 16 years, resulting in defeat.M.O.A.B wrote:
If you want to be rid of the insurgency quickly (which for some reason you guys think can be done overnight) you would have to completely destroy everything.
Herein lies the flaw in your reasoning. Wars of choice like Iraq and Vietnam are lost and won on the basis of politics, not kill ratios. You can't befriend or win favour with a group of people by firing metallic objects at them at high velocity.M.O.A.B wrote:
Also again the misinformed events of Vietnam, take a note, military action won on all fronts, political didn't, it was also the fact the NV broke the peace treaty after the US left. Read up on the raids in the jungles on the VC by Special Forces, I'll give you a good starting point the, Aussie SAS, go find their kill ratio.
Northern Ireland: 800 years, nothing changed. Same story really.CameronPoe wrote:
Vietnam war: 16 years, resulting in defeat.M.O.A.B wrote:
If you want to be rid of the insurgency quickly (which for some reason you guys think can be done overnight) you would have to completely destroy everything.
Funny how half the country also known as South Vietnam was behind the US and SV forces. Go read up on the Green Berets helping the Montagnards medically. Unlike the terrorist and insurgents forces on Iraq, coalition armies operate hospitals in which they care for civilians and sometimes wounded enemy combatants, doubt the other side does that. They also distribute food and water supplies, help construct infrastructure, schools, police stations, train police and security officers and they've generally given the average Iraqi a better prospect of life. I believe they now have the choice to vote for who controls their country, didn't have that before did they.CameronPoe wrote:
Herein lies the flaw in your reasoning. Wars of choice like Iraq and Vietnam are lost and won on the basis of politics, not kill ratios. You can't befriend or win favour with a group of people by firing metallic objects at them at high velocity.M.O.A.B wrote:
Also again the misinformed events of Vietnam, take a note, military action won on all fronts, political didn't, it was also the fact the NV broke the peace treaty after the US left. Read up on the raids in the jungles on the VC by Special Forces, I'll give you a good starting point the, Aussie SAS, go find their kill ratio.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-04-14 08:49:27)
lol. Where do I live? The Republic of Ireland. That's right. Are we even in the commonwealth? No. Care to revise your erroneous 'nothing changed' comment.M.O.A.B wrote:
Northern Ireland: 800 years, nothing changed. Same story really.
The point is that they shouldn't be there. Do you think any Iraqi trusts the US? Gimme a break. They're 'Big Satan' to Israel's 'Little Satan', remember? A couple of sticky plasters ain't gonna change that! The fact of the matter is that they know fine well why the west are there: to get control of their oil. It ain't rocket science. If I was a Muslim I would never accept a western nation foisting their politics and their societal norms on me, just as I would never accept a Muslim nation coming to 'rebuild' my home nation and 'Muslimise' me.M.O.A.B wrote:
Funny how half the country also known as South Vietnam was behind the US and SV forces. Go read up on the Green Berets helping the Montagnards medically. Unlike the terrorist and insurgents forces on Iraq, coalition armies operate hospitals in which they care for civilians and sometimes wounded enemy combatants, doubt the other side does that. They also distribute food and water supplies, help construct infrastructure, schools, police stations, train police and security officers and they've generally given the average Iraqi a better prospect of life. I believe they now have the choice to vote for who controls their country, didn't have that before did they.
PS The quality of life that Iraqis have right now is markedly worse than under Saddam. Unless you regards concrete shield walls dividing communities as 'progress'...
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-14 08:57:46)
I know you didn't actually say bomb everything in relation to N.I. but the point I was trying to make is that it's easy to say "Just waste everything" but few situations ever allow for that.M.O.A.B wrote:
Man talk about making things up as you see fit. First of all, I did not say to bomb everything, I said this 'You want rid of that insurgency soon, waste the whole area.' I fail to see where I said 'let's waste the whole area'. As it seems so difficult for people to read things properly I'll type it again, if you want to be rid of the insurgency quickly (which for some reason you guys think can be done overnight) you would have to completely destroy everything.
Haven't we seen that before? And that was part of the cold war ... so maybe THIS means a NEW cold war?! EEEEEeeeee!! This IS going well after all!!!CameronPoe wrote:
PS The quality of life that Iraqis have right now is markedly worse than under Saddam. Unless you regards concrete shield walls dividing communities as 'progress'...
Ok, I'll be Reagan - who wants to be Gorbachev?
Yeah it's not one country, trying to get it that way I believe was the main goal.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. Where do I live? The Republic of Ireland. That's right. Are we even in the commonwealth? No. Care to revise your erroneous 'nothing changed' comment.M.O.A.B wrote:
Northern Ireland: 800 years, nothing changed. Same story really.
Droves of people aren't been taken away by Saddam's secret police and executed. Go and ask some of the soldier's who have been there as well, according to GS, he hasn't seen anything regarding tankers transporting Iraqi oil. Yes I do believe a lot of Iraqis trust the US and coalition forces, why else would some of them help identify the location of an IED? Or work, train with US and coalition forces to fight the militia groups?CameronPoe wrote:
The point is that they shouldn't be there. Do you think any Iraqi trusts the US? Gimme a break. They're 'Big Satan' to Israel's 'Little Satan', remember? A couple of sticky plasters ain't gonna change that! The fact of the matter is that they know fine well why the west are there: to get control of their oil. It ain't rocket science. If I was a Muslim I would never accept a western nation foisting their politics and their societal norms on me, just as I would never accept a Muslim nation coming to 'rebuild' my home nation and 'Muslimise' me.M.O.A.B wrote:
Funny how half the country also known as South Vietnam was behind the US and SV forces. Go read up on the Green Berets helping the Montagnards medically. Unlike the terrorist and insurgents forces on Iraq, coalition armies operate hospitals in which they care for civilians and sometimes wounded enemy combatants, doubt the other side does that. They also distribute food and water supplies, help construct infrastructure, schools, police stations, train police and security officers and they've generally given the average Iraqi a better prospect of life. I believe they now have the choice to vote for who controls their country, didn't have that before did they.
PS The quality of life that Iraqis have right now is markedly worse than under Saddam. Unless you regards concrete shield walls dividing communities as 'progress'...
I'll be Khrushchev, nobody likes GorbachevPuckMercury wrote:
Haven't we seen that before? And that was part of the cold war ... so maybe THIS means a NEW cold war?! EEEEEeeeee!! This IS going well after all!!!CameronPoe wrote:
PS The quality of life that Iraqis have right now is markedly worse than under Saddam. Unless you regards concrete shield walls dividing communities as 'progress'...
Ok, I'll be Reagan - who wants to be Gorbachev?
lol, need that bit from Naked Gun where he wipes the mark off his head.S.Lythberg wrote:
I'll be Khrushchev, nobody likes GorbachevPuckMercury wrote:
Haven't we seen that before? And that was part of the cold war ... so maybe THIS means a NEW cold war?! EEEEEeeeee!! This IS going well after all!!!CameronPoe wrote:
PS The quality of life that Iraqis have right now is markedly worse than under Saddam. Unless you regards concrete shield walls dividing communities as 'progress'...
Ok, I'll be Reagan - who wants to be Gorbachev?
Twenty years time it will be! Rock on! The Brits conceded themselves that they could not defeat the IRA.M.O.A.B wrote:
Yeah it's not one country, trying to get it that way I believe was the main goal.
You are incredibly naive if you think the west are there out of the 'goodness of their hearts'. There is no way the west is spending the billions it's spending on Iraq out of the 'goodness of their hearts' when there are plenty of domestic problems to deal with at home. Establishing a base in the heart of 'Oil-land' - the middle east - effectively wrests control away from anyone else, be they China, Russia or Iran who might threaten or monopolise supplies while we stand on the precipice of peak oil. It's quite simple really.M.O.A.B wrote:
Droves of people aren't been taken away by Saddam's secret police and executed. Go and ask some of the soldier's who have been there as well, according to GS, he hasn't seen anything regarding tankers transporting Iraqi oil. Yes I do believe a lot of Iraqis trust the US and coalition forces, why else would some of them help identify the location of an IED? Or work, train with US and coalition forces to fight the militia groups?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7346634.stm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ … 6797D5.htm
Let's assess the Ireland versus Britain battle shall we...Britain started off the battle with full control over Ireland. The IRB began an organised campaign of guerilla warfare and forced the British into a position where they relinquish control of 26 of the 32 counties. That's hardly a poster boy example of how conventional warfare can crush guerilla warfare is it?M.O.A.B wrote:
Yeah it's not one country, trying to get it that way I believe was the main goal.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. Where do I live? The Republic of Ireland. That's right. Are we even in the commonwealth? No. Care to revise your erroneous 'nothing changed' comment.M.O.A.B wrote:
Northern Ireland: 800 years, nothing changed. Same story really.
The Iraq war sends out the equivalent message to the superpowers in relation to the impending oil crisis that Nagasaki and Hiroshima sent out to the Soviet Empire in the cold war era..."we mean business".CameronPoe wrote:
Twenty years time it will be! Rock on! The Brits conceded themselves that they could not defeat the IRA.M.O.A.B wrote:
Yeah it's not one country, trying to get it that way I believe was the main goal.You are incredibly naive if you think the west are there out of the 'goodness of their hearts'. There is no way the west is spending the billions it's spending on Iraq out of the 'goodness of their hearts' when there are plenty of domestic problems to deal with at home. Establishing a base in the heart of 'Oil-land' - the middle east - effectively wrests control away from anyone else, be they China, Russia or Iran who might threaten or monopolise supplies while we stand on the precipice of peak oil. It's quite simple really.M.O.A.B wrote:
Droves of people aren't been taken away by Saddam's secret police and executed. Go and ask some of the soldier's who have been there as well, according to GS, he hasn't seen anything regarding tankers transporting Iraqi oil. Yes I do believe a lot of Iraqis trust the US and coalition forces, why else would some of them help identify the location of an IED? Or work, train with US and coalition forces to fight the militia groups?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7346634.stm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ … 6797D5.htm
quite literally speaking....Braddock wrote:
The Iraq war sends out the equivalent message to the superpowers in relation to the impending oil crisis that Nagasaki and Hiroshima sent out to the Soviet Empire in the cold war era..."we mean business".CameronPoe wrote:
Twenty years time it will be! Rock on! The Brits conceded themselves that they could not defeat the IRA.M.O.A.B wrote:
Yeah it's not one country, trying to get it that way I believe was the main goal.You are incredibly naive if you think the west are there out of the 'goodness of their hearts'. There is no way the west is spending the billions it's spending on Iraq out of the 'goodness of their hearts' when there are plenty of domestic problems to deal with at home. Establishing a base in the heart of 'Oil-land' - the middle east - effectively wrests control away from anyone else, be they China, Russia or Iran who might threaten or monopolise supplies while we stand on the precipice of peak oil. It's quite simple really.M.O.A.B wrote:
Droves of people aren't been taken away by Saddam's secret police and executed. Go and ask some of the soldier's who have been there as well, according to GS, he hasn't seen anything regarding tankers transporting Iraqi oil. Yes I do believe a lot of Iraqis trust the US and coalition forces, why else would some of them help identify the location of an IED? Or work, train with US and coalition forces to fight the militia groups?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7346634.stm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ … 6797D5.htm
Neither is it one that guerilla warfare can take full control.Braddock wrote:
Let's assess the Ireland versus Britain battle shall we...Britain started off the battle with full control over Ireland. The IRB began an organised campaign of guerilla warfare and forced the British into a position where they relinquish control of 26 of the 32 counties. That's hardly a poster boy example of how conventional warfare can crush guerilla warfare is it?M.O.A.B wrote:
Yeah it's not one country, trying to get it that way I believe was the main goal.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. Where do I live? The Republic of Ireland. That's right. Are we even in the commonwealth? No. Care to revise your erroneous 'nothing changed' comment.
Right so if that area of the world is gonna dry up of oil soon, and the US has access to oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, why go through all the trouble of invading a country simply for that? I doubt the Russians really give a shit about the oil there, they've got Siberia which literally floats on the stuff. Not to mention they're not exactly the Cold War enemy any more, if they wanted some of the oil that the West is 'raping from the ME' they could sign up a deal with it. If they also just wanted the oil why get involved in the towns and cities? Why not jsut hold up around the oil wells and defend them? People are also quite 'naive' if they think it was just about oil.Braddock wrote:
The Iraq war sends out the equivalent message to the superpowers in relation to the impending oil crisis that Nagasaki and Hiroshima sent out to the Soviet Empire in the cold war era..."we mean business".CameronPoe wrote:
Twenty years time it will be! Rock on! The Brits conceded themselves that they could not defeat the IRA.M.O.A.B wrote:
Yeah it's not one country, trying to get it that way I believe was the main goal.You are incredibly naive if you think the west are there out of the 'goodness of their hearts'. There is no way the west is spending the billions it's spending on Iraq out of the 'goodness of their hearts' when there are plenty of domestic problems to deal with at home. Establishing a base in the heart of 'Oil-land' - the middle east - effectively wrests control away from anyone else, be they China, Russia or Iran who might threaten or monopolise supplies while we stand on the precipice of peak oil. It's quite simple really.M.O.A.B wrote:
Droves of people aren't been taken away by Saddam's secret police and executed. Go and ask some of the soldier's who have been there as well, according to GS, he hasn't seen anything regarding tankers transporting Iraqi oil. Yes I do believe a lot of Iraqis trust the US and coalition forces, why else would some of them help identify the location of an IED? Or work, train with US and coalition forces to fight the militia groups?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7346634.stm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ … 6797D5.htm