Author Topic: Iraqi Civil war  (Read 2322 times)

Offline Red Tail 444

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2497
      • http://www.redtail.org
Iraqi Civil war
« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2006, 01:36:28 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
no.  If the Iranian backed mobsters win, we will have blown a massive fortune on a complete failure.  Not only a failure, a 'worse case scenario' for the war planners.  It would be better to have a saddam regime than to make Iran twice as large and 100 times as wealthy.  We went in there to install a pro american, oil friendly regime so as to keep the oil flowing well into the 21st century.  To topple saddam and have iran move in would be the most incompetant military adventure in recorded history.


I am suffering, terribly, from the flu...To me, that first sentence read...in all seriousness:

"If the Iranian backed mobsters win, we will have a massive, blow out furniture sale."

I was thinking, "WTF?"
:t  Yeah, I thinkg I'm calling it a day, and going to bed...

Offline xrtoronto

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4219
Iraqi Civil war
« Reply #46 on: February 28, 2006, 01:45:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
"If the Iranian backed mobsters win, we will have a massive, blow out furniture sale."


Hilarious!!:lol

sorry about you having the flu...it's been many years since I've had the flu but I clearly recall how abjectly miserable it makes us feel

Offline Red Tail 444

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2497
      • http://www.redtail.org
Iraqi Civil war
« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2006, 01:45:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by dmf
Face it every muslim country hates the United states, and wants us out of their country so they can kill us on our land



Just a few of our allies.....


Morocco
Egypt
Jordan (on paper)
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Bangladesh
Thailand
Micronesia
Pakistan
Kenya
Nigeria
Kurdistan
Afghanistan (we liberated them, remember)
Kaz-whatever-istan


and let's not forget out staunch ally in the War on terror, and all 9 of their soldiers committed to the fight in Iraq...














CAMEROON!  

:aok

Offline tedrbr

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
Iraqi Civil war
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2006, 02:24:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Seagoon
Perhaps a reality check might be in order?

Sadaam, whom we are now told it would have been better to keep in power, prevented civil war by brutally enforcing the hegemony of the Sunni minority via genocide, torture, summary executions, chemical weapons and generally making the life of the Kurds and S h i' i tes a living hell. ............... So yes, a civil war was "prevented" but at an appalling cost.


So another dictator. I'll never buy the removal of a brutal dictator as a legitimate reason.  Western and world powers have allowed, and continue to allow brutal governments and geonocide to continue around the world.  The little attrocity in the Sudan, and now spreading to Chad, has accounted for 200,000 to 300,000 deaths and probably several million refugees to date, Actually, the Department of Defence and very little is being done to stop it.  The African Peacekeeping Forces are not up to the task, and it is taking months, if not years, to assemble a UN peacekeeping force for the region, which probably will also be ineffectual.  The world has always had these kinds of governments somewhere..... not a good thing, but I don't see the world's leading governnments actually doing anything constructive about it any time soon.

Quote
After Saddam was removed from power, the Sunni terrorist groups in the country immediately began directing their attacks on the Shi'ites knowing that this would destabilize the nation and make consensus impossible. Their hope of course is to make Iraq ungovernable and force the coalition to withdraw..................... ....
 

The region is not *ready* for democracy.  The culture, the traditons, the competing interests, the religious hatreds, and old feuds and scores to settle..... The tradition is for the strong to seek power by force and hold it by force.  The S h ii te s will listen to their religious leaders before they follow their political leaders.  Everyone there will follow their clan or tribal leaders before their governments.  It's how they prioritize their loyalties.  All through the formation of the government, religeous leaders like Al Sadr have been consolidating thier power and organizing their militias.  When the Iraqi or U.S. Governments wanted to get the people's attention, they would ask al-Sistani to call on the people (which seems to have weakened Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's position among the young firebrands as being too close to the western occupier, his influence has suffered....U.S. went back to that well too many times....).  During the current violence, the story was the Muslim clerics calling for peace and the protection of the shrines from their followers.... the government is weak compared to them.  The last round of elections was wrought with fraud.  Iran is actively seeking to influence the formation of the Iraqi government, and is becoming more successful than the western efforts.

They were not ready as a people, a culture, by tradition, or a nation for democracy. Only western arrogance can believe all the world is prepared to immediately and naturally become a democratic people.  It is a fine ideal, and one that America with its voter turnout history and quality of its politians has yet to achieve fully itself, but not all cultures are quite ready for it.

All we've managed to do is cause the killing of 30,000 to 40,000 Iraqis, actually lower the standard of living and feeling of security for many (Saddam's terror aside, during his rein the people weren't afraid to walk the streets or let their children play outside.....now they are because of the violence, bombings, and kidnappings), and severly destabilize the country.

Quote
Now, we are told that "we shouldn't even be in Iraq" because the problem was in Afghanistan. But most sane people realize that as soon as we leave Afghanistan, the current government will quickly collapse and the nation will once again descend into chaos and endless violence. The unlimited supply of new Taliban and Arab Jihadis who stream over the border from Pakistan, and the almost unlimited funding they receive from Petrodollars, will make that inevitable. Even if we had nabbed Bin Laden or made him a martyr, countless other Bin Ladens are awaiting their turn to be the next contenders.
[/B]

Taliban and Al Qadea fled Afghanistan to primarily Pakistan and Indonesia, and we pursued them to.... Iraq......  Generally there are about 40 countires identified as harboring, supporting, training, and being active centers for various terrorists cells and movements around the world.  Iraq really was not one of them ---- one training camp in the Iraqi north-east used to train people to harrass the Iranians is all that I'm aware of.  Surely we didn't go in to protect Iranians from Iraqis?
The "War of Terror" was used as a pretext to attack Iraq.  Plain and simple.  They saw a region with big oil reserves, access to the Persian Gulf, strategic location for a military presence in the area, and a way to settle an old score.  Totally misread the cultural and societal realities that exist on the ground and what it would all cost.  Now, it has proven to be a drain of resources and manpower, and terrorists cells have adapted around the world and have been given time to evolve and expand while the west has been distracted.

It will come back to haunt us.

Quote
Our stated way of dealing with the problem of Jihad, is to attempt to kill or imprison (and then eventually release) all the active Jihadis, we've been following that approach for decades now, while simultaneously playing Mr. Nice Guy with the forces that produce them. So we kill the members of the terror cell, but we tolerate or encourage the Mosque that encouraged them, the Madrassa that trained them, the Imams that spurred them on, the literature they read, and the countries giving them the money they spent.

Aside from the fact that that approach will never work, it commits us to a "forever war" of attrition. And do we really think we are willing to spend lives for as long as the Jihadis?
But if stamping on them one by one is the best we can come up with, then we'd better stay in Iraq for as long as possible if only to provide a convenient sand-box to which we might attract the newest crops of Jihadis and then kill or capture them. Once we leave, we are back to trying to do that on our own territory, not theirs. And lets face it, once we leave the Dar-El-Islam, and they are able to concentrate on attacking us at home, sooner or later they will pull off an attrocity in the USA of such scale that nothing but massive retaliation will satisfy the public, and which nation are we going to retaliate against?


The muslim faith is growing fast among the poorest people in the world.  In a way its the new communism.  For a guy living in a mud hut, being told that all he has to do is kill himself in service to God to recieve great rewards in heaven must sound like a good deal.  The oil that the west craves comes from these poor countries..... all they see is images of rich societies plundering their own country's resources, and they get nothing from it.  Hating the west is an easy sell.

The Department of Defense has taking to calling this "The Long War" actually.    As long as western nations need oil from the Middle East, this violence will continue to be with us.  And there is no real effort to get away from fossil fuels..... too many entrenched interests in the way things are now.  Something on the order of the Manhatten Project or Apollo Program could break the west free of oil dependance..... but it won't happen.  Even if it did, what would increased poverty among the Middle East result in?  Probably they'd start killing each other as much as trying to kill those in the west.  

By no means have we seen the worst of it yet.

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Iraqi Civil war
« Reply #49 on: February 28, 2006, 05:06:59 PM »
"Released: February 28, 2006
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006



-Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”

-While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy

-Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown

-Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks

-Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation

-Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment "

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075


Wow, the first and third points really caught my eye.

Offline RedTop

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5921
Iraqi Civil war
« Reply #50 on: February 28, 2006, 05:53:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Curval
Every day I read that XX people were killed in a bombing.  Every single day.

If that isn't civil war what the heck is it?


Isreal?
Original Member and Former C.O. 71 sqd. RAF Eagles

Offline Pei

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1903
Iraqi Civil war
« Reply #51 on: February 28, 2006, 05:54:05 PM »
I say we install a brutal fascist strongman as dictator: that should keep all the ethinc and sectarian rivalries under control!

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Iraqi Civil war
« Reply #52 on: February 28, 2006, 06:46:13 PM »
""The region is not *ready* for democracy""


i think thats what king george said in 1776

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Iraqi Civil war
« Reply #53 on: February 28, 2006, 06:49:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Thrawn
"Released: February 28, 2006
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006



-Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”

-While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy

-Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown

-Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks

-Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation

-Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment "

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075


Wow, the first and third points really caught my eye.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060228/pl_afp/usiraqmilitarypoll

An overwhelming majority (85 percent) said the main US mission was "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks."

:huh
sand

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Iraqi Civil war
« Reply #54 on: February 28, 2006, 07:14:48 PM »
""U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006""




ok men, we gonna take a vote, how many of you want to invade France and maybe get killed?

<>
you boosh haters get more silly every day.

Offline RedTop

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5921
Iraqi Civil war
« Reply #55 on: February 28, 2006, 07:40:25 PM »
Get the FRIKIN TOWN DOWN...goon is ready to drop
Original Member and Former C.O. 71 sqd. RAF Eagles

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Iraqi Civil war
« Reply #56 on: February 28, 2006, 08:29:20 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
An overwhelming majority (85 percent) said the main US mission was "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks."

:huh



Yeah sorry, first and fourth.

Offline tedrbr

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
Iraqi Civil war
« Reply #57 on: February 28, 2006, 08:45:12 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Thrawn
"Released: February 28, 2006
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

-Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”

-While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy

-Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
.....................
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Wow, the first and third points really caught my eye.


Majority of soldiers are 18-20 year old kids coming from the low to middle
class American educational system.  Read as: modern geopolitics is probably just a wee bit over their heads.  A large portion of them are very patriotic, as one would expect, and some almost fanatically so.... some even disturbingly so.  So generally they don't question why they are used overseas.  They follow orders as good soldiers are apt to do.  

There is also a whole military cultural thing (not to mention the UCMJ, military protocol, and official and unofficial policies) about not beng publicly critical of the military, leadership, or Commander in Chief while serving in an operation or in while in uniform.  

Any polling of U.S. Troops is going to be heavily skewed by these factors, so I put very little stock in any of them.  They are simply a political or ratings tool..... some flash, no substance.

Of course, you want them confident in their leaders and their mission to keep them focused and keep them alive.  The soldiers just need to hope that their leaders are making the right choices, and if not doing everything to keep them alive and safe, are at least not going to trade their lives too cheaply in the national interests.  

So, when the leaders consistently make bad choices, and the costs are measured in soldiers' lives, it becomes a very sad situaton.  Unfortunately, for many  (but certainly not all) "old salts", this seems to be what has happened or is happening.

-----------------

Insurgency is home grown and make up the majority coallition forces are facing, but the foreign terrorists coming into Iraq from other nations are, even if fewer in number, far more effective.  These ones are more willing to die and kill innocents to achieve their goals.  Someone willing to die is far more dangerous than the one that want to hit you and get away.  So Insurgency is made of Iraqis and many in number, terrorists are few in number but very deadly.

What's even worse, the United States created the insurgency when it fired 400,000 Iraqi soldiers, sailors, and airmen when they took over in 2004.
These are the guys who knew where stuff was hidden, who were trained to kill, who had held the country together by force for decades.....suddenly all unemployed.  They became the core of the Insurgency.  They looted arms rooms and ammo dumps all over the country.  Some turned to organized crime, kidnapping, extortion, theft that have terrorized the civilian population. The former Generals of the Iraqi forces have funded the Insurgency.  

There have been many mistakes made, but handing pink slips to all these men rates as the single, largest, dumbest, mistake by any occupier in history.  many many other problems and mistakes can trace their roots to this blunder.  They should have kept them in uniform, rotated their leadership, locked them down on their bases for retraining, and most of all kept paying them.

Sure, you'd have to root out some troublemakers and break up some cabbals, but it would have been simpler, cheaper, and less disruptive than what we have now.  McAurthur or Patton would *not* have made this mistake.  Anyone who studied the occupation of Germany or Japan at the end of World War II should *not* have made this mistake.  This should have been a no-brainer......

storch

  • Guest
Iraqi Civil war
« Reply #58 on: February 28, 2006, 10:52:38 PM »
unless of course they were to be critical of the CinC and the war then they would be erudite and brilliant young women and men whose opinion is of the utmost value and should be considered.  pardon me but are you a democrat by chance?

Offline VOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
Iraqi Civil war
« Reply #59 on: February 28, 2006, 10:58:05 PM »
Never heard of that poll. Dunno anyone who has heard of it either. Wonder who they polled?

Also, and this may come as a surprise to some of you, so brace yourselves: stupid people join the military, too. They don't *all* get cubicle jobs.