Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on July 27, 2008, 12:39:47 AM
-
AP press report. Wow! :O
Stolen liberally (pun intended) from another BBS.
Analysis
By Robert Burns and Robert H. Reid
updated 4:25 p.m. ET, Sat., July. 26, 2008
BAGHDAD - The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.
Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.
Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.
That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had.
The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.
A lull in violence?
Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.
This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told The Associated Press this past week there are early indications that senior leaders of al-Qaida may be considering shifting their main focus from Iraq to the war in Afghanistan.
Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq's future......
it continues....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25863695/
This was perhaps the most significant passage. It may or may not be accurate, but it's somewhat surprising coming from the AP...
"Very clearly, the insurgency is in no position to overthrow the government or, really, even to challenge it," Crocker said. "It's actually almost in no position to try to confront it. By and large, what's left of the insurgency is just trying to hang on."
"Off to Iran
Shiite militias, notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, have lost their power bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. An important step was the routing of Shiite extremists in the Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring — now a quiet though not fully secure district.
Al-Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still talking of a comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support among a Shiite population weary of war and no longer as terrified of Sunni extremists as they were two years ago."
-
And this was done in spite of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha trying desperately to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Who's dumber, that trio of defeatism or those who voted for them?
-
And this was done in spite of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha trying desperately to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Who's dumber, that trio of defeatism or those who voted for them?
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1242/1356147370_95b0e2cea6_o.jpg)
-
I suspect our 'success' is due in equal parts to the media generated perception of progress and the successful adaption by the military of it's new mission.
occupation/population control
The military has now been adapted to a mission that should make every American cringe.... sealing urban areas, kicking down doors and collecting weapons.
(http://jgimg.sv.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=*&Date=20080619&Category=API&ArtNo=806190838&Ref=AR&AvisData=JG&MaxW=450)
...a role not particularly well suited to hunting guerrillas in the pashtun, unfortunately.
-
I actually agree with you Hangtime! I like having guns/weapons and Im proud to live in a country where I can own one even an automatic like my Thompson. None of my guns are going to stop a tank or anything but its fun to shoot when I can and its not like I can depose the despot Obama but it does bother me to think we are kicking down doors and taking weapons from people that may actually need them to defend themselves from terrorists.
-
I actually agree with you Hangtime! I like having guns/weapons and Im proud to live in a country where I can own one even an automatic like my Thompson. None of my guns are going to stop a tank or anything but its fun to shoot when I can and its not like I can depose the despot Obama but it does bother me to think we are kicking down doors and taking weapons from people that may actually need them to defend themselves from terrorists.
I couldn't disagree more. When youre walking down the street, in what is essentially an enemy nation, (When there are MANY people trying to kill you, its an enemy state) and you can ONLY kill the bad guys, not innocent civilians, how do you tell friend from foe if EVERYONE has a gun?!? Remove the guns from EVERYONE. Or start carpet bombing. Im personally more fond of the latter, but sadly its just too unrealistic.
-
Okay but consider what happens when our future despot takes office and brings the troops home. Now no one in the country has weapons Iran marches in and starts shooting anyone with anything more than an 8th grade education and then everything is back where it started.
-
Okay but consider what happens when our future despot takes office and brings the troops home. Now no one in the country has weapons Iran marches in and starts shooting anyone with anything more than an 8th grade education and then everything is back where it started.
Carpet bombing anyone? lol. Theres no real winning over there. It was stupid to get into it, and now we are stuck picking up the peices. There is no "victory". There is only a lack of "defeat".
-
Great job USA!
Fiscal Responsibility (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/07/report-iraq-war.html)
Freedom of the Press (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/middleeast/26censor.html?ref=world)
-
I couldn't disagree more. When youre walking down the street, in what is essentially an enemy nation, (When there are MANY people trying to kill you, its an enemy state) and you can ONLY kill the bad guys, not innocent civilians, how do you tell friend from foe if EVERYONE has a gun?!? Remove the guns from EVERYONE. Or start carpet bombing. Im personally more fond of the latter, but sadly its just too unrealistic.
Care to explain why the United States Military should be trained for or tasked with population control? Dealing with civil unrest? Functioning as a police force in a foreign country?
Care to give me a reason why a father of 3, armed to protect himself, his family and meager possessions from violent militias in the employ of a 'religious leader' with beliefs or social agenda different than is own should be summarily disarmed... and then abandoned to his own devices in the midst of what amounts to a civil war?
... and while the Military strips the weapons from both sides, guess who will be rearmed by the Iranians... and who won't.
Care to tell he how he can, in good faith, consider the people that disarmed him and left him helpless as anything less than the enemy?
We're NOT engendering feelings of goodwill amongst the people we're ostensibly protecting, (and soon to be abandoning) if we're there to subdue them to the will of a 'leader', political or religious, that they neither trust or desire.
I suspect we're the finest recruiters for the jihadists could ever hope for. I know if a Marine kicked in my door; he and the government that put him in that role would have an enemy for life. How could I ever assume anybody would react differently?
If this is 'success', then is it worth the price?
-
C'mon Hang, the ARVN will hold out just fine against Uncle Ho's boys. How about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
-
Was there a change in the laws over in Iraq recently, because last I heard Iraq civilians were allowed to have 1 weapon per household, it was either 1 per household or 1 for every adult male(not sure if it included females) in the house.
-
C'mon Hang, the ARVN will hold out just fine against Uncle Ho's boys. How about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
Kinda poor taste... having served there; left friends there; I'm significantly less than amused by the proposition. But having broached it.. if our esteemed government bothered to keep the promises it made when we left we wouldn't have had to listen to them on the radio dying for lack of air support and resupply when the north invaded after we left.
...just as I suspect we won't be keeping the promises we make when we leave these people to their own devices.
-
Iraq's do not need guns right now, only iraq's who should have guns are police and military, it is the police and military and our job to keep them safe now, once this is established, they're will be a law passed anyone showing or concealing a weapon will be a threat at least enough to shoot.
Keeps us safe, keeps iraq's people safe.
Makes sure anyone with a weapon is ~enemy~
When our boys & gals pull out, if the iraq's wanna pass a bill or such stating 1 Ak or whatever per home, is upto them.
I just hope they don't burn or destroy these guns/ammo, it is just as worthwhile burying them in big boxes in the sand, just in case iraq needs to fight for its security and whatnot, in the future.
"shrugs"
-
I couldnt care less about the gun rights of Iraqi citizens.
All I care about is the safety of our troops.
-
I fantasize about the old days when we hung seditionists. If I was Jack Murtha I would eat a .45 hotdog tomarrow over my treatment of the Haditha Marines for the support of Pelosi.
-
It's difficult for a politician to have EVERY statement be seen as being on both sides of the issue, fortunately, one can always pretend he never said something which later proves to be wrong
Barack Obama’s aides have removed criticism of President Bush’s increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat’s written war plan to reflect changing conditions.
After Bush delivered a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, 2007, announcing his plan, Obama argued it could make the situation worse by taking pressure off Iraqis to find a political solution to the fighting.
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/07/ap_obama_surge_071508/
Thank you General Obama. (Admittedly a worse stance was offered by pres. candidate Joe Biden, (who ALSO opposed the surge) who accepted that it was another un-winnable Vietnam, and wished to slice Iraq into 3 parts, one for each sect--All 3 Iraqi sects were against that
-
Y'know, I think it's rather funny the outrage people on this board express over the thought of taking away guns in THEIR country, yet they have absolutely no problem with--and in fact SUPPORT--taking guns away from innocent civilians in ANOTHER country.
:rolleyes:
-
Okay but consider what happens when our future despot takes office and brings the troops home. Now no one in the country has weapons Iran marches in and starts shooting anyone with anything more than an 8th grade education and then everything is back where it started.
Each household in Iraq is allowed one Kalashnikov.
-
Each household in Iraq is allowed one Kalashnikov.
I want my Kalashnikov!
-
If this is 'success', then is it worth the price?
As long as the authors of these threads never have to serve, then sure, it's worth it- for them.
-
I suspect our 'success' is due in equal parts to the media generated perception of progress and the successful adaption by the military of it's new mission.
occupation/population control
The military has now been adapted to a mission that should make every American cringe.... sealing urban areas, kicking down doors and collecting weapons.
...a role not particularly well suited to hunting guerrillas in the pashtun, unfortunately.
Can anyone ID the weapons in the photo background? It looks to me like an army is having their small arms secured, not simply a civilian population. The comparison to an American city is incongruent.
The idea that half of the success of the surge in Iraq is due only to media perception doesn't make any sense to me.
Anyway, Iraq can't make much political progress untill the fighting and violence is suppressed. It now looks like the Iraqi gubmint is making inroads...
-
I want my Kalashnikov!
If that's the case you better purchase one soon.
-
Why would they want to have former insurgents intergrated intio government jobs? They have held a grudge for hundreds of years..whats a couple gonna do to make them get over it?
-
Why would they want to have former insurgents intergrated intio government jobs? They have held a grudge for hundreds of years..whats a couple gonna do to make them get over it?
I guess it hinges upon whether their grudge is with the U.S. or is it the Sunni/Sh**te thing. We have been hearing for a few years that there wouldn't BE an insurgency if the U.S. would just leave....prolly find out in next couple years
-
Y'know, I think it's rather funny the outrage people on this board express over the thought of taking away guns in THEIR country, yet they have absolutely no problem with--and in fact SUPPORT--taking guns away from innocent civilians in ANOTHER country.
:rolleyes:
Yea, I was thinking the exact same thing..
-
Y'know, I think it's rather funny the outrage people on this board express over the thought of taking away guns in THEIR country, yet they have absolutely no problem with--and in fact SUPPORT--taking guns away from innocent civilians in ANOTHER country.
Yea, I was thinking the exact same thing..
Hmmm. I don't think I would have the slightest problem with our gubmint taking assault rifles, machine guns, RPG's and the like out of US citizens' hands if those in possession are unable to prove ownership or show proper licenses.
-
I couldnt care less about the gun rights of Iraqi citizens.
All I care about is the safety of our troops.
Simple answer to both... get 'em outta there.
...find somebody else to kick down doors and direct traffic in Iraqi cities. American troops would be better used as an army of maneuver, in the field; tasked with taking ground... not policing it.
-
Simple answer to both... get 'em outta there.
...find somebody else to kick down doors and direct traffic in Iraqi cities. American troops would be better used as an army of maneuver, in the field; tasked with taking ground... not policing it.
Oh I agree. The problem with that is if we pull them all out we risk losing far more if we have to go back. I still feel that region is going to be a sight of a major war in the next 10 years. Still, back on topic, its the job of the Iraqis to police. Not our troops, or our allies. Allowing the Iraqi Police forces to disintegrate after our invasion was pretty stupid.
Best of all the Iraqis are best geared towards getting information from prisoners that will save our boys and girls from getting blown to bits in future attacks. Let em use their own methods, its not our business.
Dont expect a complete pull out of American troops from Iraq however. There will be a pull back, and the forces left there will be smaller. The presence of Yank combat troops in the region was part of the reason for attacking Iraq.
-
Hmmm. I don't think I would have the slightest problem with our gubmint taking assault rifles, machine guns, RPG's and the like out of US citizens' hands if those in possession are unable to prove ownership or show proper licenses.
US Troops, disarming Americans?
Perish the thought. Aside from it being a violation of US Code, Title 10, The Posse Comitatus Act of 1807 precludes it.
It's a matter of perspective.... Example: A US Soldier on a Baghdad street, kicking down doors and confiscating weapons is a Hero, doing a distasteful and dangerous job, deemed critical by his lawful commanders.
That same troop, armed and under the same orders in my town would be, by legal default; acting unlawfully. If he made the attempt of home invasion and disarming me and I resisted by force that attempt, then I would be legally protecting my person, family and property.
Since it's likely neither of us would survive to sit in judgment by our peers; it'd be up to prosperity to decide who was right.
-
Oh I agree. The problem with that is if we pull them all out we risk losing far more if we have to go back. I still feel that region is going to be a sight of a major war in the next 10 years. Still, back on topic, its the job of the Iraqis to police. Not our troops, or our allies. Allowing the Iraqi Police forces to disintegrate after our invasion was pretty stupid.
Best of all the Iraqis are best geared towards getting information from prisoners that will save our boys and girls from getting blown to bits in future attacks. Let em use their own methods, its not our business.
Dont expect a complete pull out of American troops from Iraq however. There will be a pull back, and the forces left there will be smaller. The presence of Yank combat troops in the region was part of the reason for attacking Iraq.
Nope.. I don't expect a complete pull-out. Since the Iraqi Air Force has 2 helicopters, a couple of Cessna's and a C-130, I very much doubt the Iraqi Military to aquire the means to defend it's nations sovereignty from any serious attempt by a hostile neighbor state to defend Iraq effectively for a decade or two, at least.
I'd expect American Troops, in a trip-wire role similar to the role we play in Korea and providing full Air Support, Artillery and Armor to assist the Iraqi military in the role of National Defense. That does not mean US Troops kicking down doors and playing street cop in Iraqi cities.
-
US Troops, disarming Americans?
Perish the thought. Aside from it being a violation of US Code, Title 10, The Posse Comitatus Act of 1807 precludes it.
not US Troops. Gubmint. They already regulate the items under discussion, and they already can and do confiscate these items if you are not authorised to have them.
-
Kinda off topic but, I wonder how many black men and women have been killed in the Ghettos since the Iraq war started? I'm assuming alot more than American soldiers were killed. But hey, I never see this on MSNBC or CNN, not on ANY news station to be exact. Until the insurgents actually start fighting en-masse, they shouldn't be saying the war is "lost"
-
April 20, 2007
Harry Reid...
WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is "lost," triggering an angry backlash by Republicans, who said the top Democrat had turned his back on the troops. The bleak assessment - the most pointed yet from Reid - came as the House voted 215-199 to uphold legislation ordering troops out of Iraq next year.
Harry Reid is a disgrace to the United States, and people should boycott Las Vegas until Nevada removes him as US Senator.
-
Until the insurgents actually start fighting en-masse,
Why the hell would they do that? That would just be flat out retarded. Guerilla warfare is MUCH, MUCH more effective.Kinda off topic but, I wonder how many black men and women have been killed in the Ghettos since the Iraq war started?
I'm kind of curious as to why you made this specific to blacks... there are white people who live in the ghetto ya'know.
-
Why the hell would they do that? That would just be flat out retarded. Guerilla warfare is MUCH, MUCH more effective.I'm kind of curious as to why you made this specific to blacks... there are white people who live in the ghetto ya'know.
2 things.
1. They arent strong enough to even shoot at our troops from buildings, they gotta plant bombs that just kill civilians and in turn, the civilians get more pissed off.
2. ANYONE in the Ghetto for that matter :)
-
Why the hell would they do that? That would just be flat out retarded. Guerilla warfare is MUCH, MUCH more effective.
They are cowards. The day they feel empowered enough to fight our armed forces face-to-face in the daylight is the day to say the war is lost.
-
They are cowards. The day they feel empowered enough to fight our armed forces face-to-face in the daylight is the day to say the war is lost.
Propaganda comes in all sizes, shapes, forms.
Would declining to engage a better armed enemy, replete with superior communications, movement, body armor, air support and tanks be 'cowardly' or 'smart'?
Would it not be smarter (more effective) to attack the superior force's logistics, morale, command and control??
Anybody tangoing with a US Army or Marine Corps force in a direct 'combat arms' engagement is doomed to failure.
Learn up on 'asymmetric warfare'.
They have.
-
Propaganda comes in all sizes, shapes, forms.
Would declining to engage a better armed enemy, replete with superior communications, movement, body armor, air support and tanks be 'cowardly' or 'smart'?
Would it not be smarter (more effective) to attack the superior force's logistics, morale, command and control??
Anybody tangoing with a US Army or Marine Corps force in a direct 'combat arms' engagement is doomed to failure.
Learn up on 'asymmetric warfare'.
They have.
I think you missed my whole point. We're on the same side here.
-
Propaganda comes in all sizes, shapes, forms.
Would declining to engage a better armed enemy, replete with superior communications, movement, body armor, air support and tanks be 'cowardly' or 'smart'?
Would it not be smarter (more effective) to attack the superior force's logistics, morale, command and control??
Anybody tangoing with a US Army or Marine Corps force in a direct 'combat arms' engagement is doomed to failure.
Learn up on 'asymmetric warfare'.
They have.
Fat lot of good it did them eh? They still failed, symmetrically, asymmetrically, completely failed. They LOST. Where the hell is Harry Reid in announcing that?
-
They are cowards.
What is cowardly about using good tactics? It's not a game.
-
If the democratic congress works fast, they can still surrender to the terrorists before all their hopes are crushed by a possible good outcome in Iraq.
-
If the democratic congress works fast, they can still surrender to the terrorists before all their hopes are crushed by a possible good outcome in Iraq.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Was there a change in the laws over in Iraq recently, because last I heard Iraq civilians were allowed to have 1 weapon per household, it was either 1 per household or 1 for every adult male(not sure if it included females) in the house.
When I was there it was one ak47 per house hold. There was no regulation on hand guns or non automatic rifles
other than they could not be carried outside the home.
-
When I was there it was one ak47 per house hold. There was no regulation on hand guns or non automatic rifles
other than they could not be carried outside the home.
How long ago were you there? And, I always appreciate first person perspective of those who were there. <S> and thanks for your service.
-
As long as the authors of these threads never have to serve, then sure, it's worth it- for them.
I served. I probably would not have made the same choice to go in but am glad we stuck with it. For the sake of those who did serve and pay a price far beyond what you will ever likely understand, doing so will hopefully make it worth it.
Out of curiosity, what makes you think you have greater authority than the worst of what you accuse others of? Did you ever put yourself on the line? Step up to the plate? What example have you ever made that makes you credible in looking down your nose at others?
-
i say we nuke em and end it faster :D
-BigBOBCH
-
I served. I probably would not have made the same choice to go in but am glad we stuck with it. For the sake of those who did serve and pay a price far beyond what you will ever likely understand, doing so will hopefully make it worth it.
Out of curiosity, what makes you think you have greater authority than the worst of what you accuse others of? Did you ever put yourself on the line? Step up to the plate? What example have you ever made that makes you credible in looking down your nose at others?
Excellent questions and <S> thank you for your service. Awaing Carrel's high horse reply with you. ;)
-
Fat lot of good it did them eh? They still failed, symmetrically, asymmetrically, completely failed. They LOST. Where the hell is Harry Reid in announcing that?
Screw Harry. All his gutless puppet buddies, too.
As to 'they failed'... really? We got a 300 billion a year monkey on our backs. The western economies are faltering. You really didn't think thier objective is a surrender ceremony in a tent pitched at ground zero in manhattan, did yah?
AFAIK, The terrorist objective is destruction of the American way of life. Sure looks looks to me like they're getting the upper hand in that regard.
In my humble opinion, a win for us would be Osama's corpse and the complete dismemberment of the societal system that supported, funded and cheered 'em on. Their relevance and funding comes from opium poppies and oil.
Our system, being corrupt, hasn't the balls or the desire to cut off either.
Unless we get on the program and get that done, they will achieve their objective. We'll be owned outright by foreign interests... if we're not already.
-
Hmmm. I don't think I would have the slightest problem with our gubmint taking assault rifles, machine guns, RPG's and the like out of US citizens' hands if those in possession are unable to prove ownership or show proper licenses.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Says nothing in there about registering your firearms, licensing, or having to show proof of ownership.
-
In my humble opinion, a win for us would be Osama's corpse and the complete dismemberment of the societal system that supported, funded and cheered 'em on.
whole heartedly agreed. Perhaps President Obama will be able to deal the cards.
-
Out of curiosity, what makes you think you have greater authority than the worst of what you accuse others of? Did you ever put yourself on the line? Step up to the plate? What example have you ever made that makes you credible in looking down your nose at others?
1) Authority??? I have an opinion, nothing more.
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) You may call it 'looking down my nose at others" but I don't see it that way- and if some of those "others" had shared my experiences they might not be quite so gung ho, from the authors of pro war threads to the authors of the Iraq war.
But let's not get derailed- in my opinion we should have never gone there in the first place, so the fact we can invade and conquer Iraq (which I don't believe we can) doesn't make our initial actions of 2003 any more legitimate- this recent spouting off by the Republicans that "we are winning the war" is being spewed a few months before the election in an effort to help McCain's election bid. It's the same line of crap that was spewed in the 1968 election- "Victory is just around the corner. Let's vote Republican and stay the course."
It's bull, and I don't buy it.
-
But let's not get derailed- in my opinion we should have never gone there in the first place, so the fact we can invade and conquer Iraq (which I don't believe we can) doesn't make our initial actions of 2003 any more legitimate- this recent spouting off by the Republicans that "we are winning the war" is being spewed a few months before the election in an effort to help McCain's election bid. It's the same line of crap that was spewed in the 1968 election- "Victory is just around the corner. Let's vote Republican and stay the course."
It's bull, and I don't buy it.
enh? Last time I checked, we invaded and won in a matter of weeks. Took us another few months to find saddam.
What we SHOULD have done was packed up & left right then; (yes, left it a bombed out mess as a shining example of consequences for two-bit dictatorships spitting in our eyes) returned to Afghanistan in force & massed the troops on the afgan/paki border and explained the facts of life to Islamabad... "we're goin in to Pastun-land, and we're stayin till we get Osama. When we get him, we're gone.. so help, or have your government and national infrastructure returned to the stone age too."
.. but that's besides the point. Iraq was defeated; government and military replaced. We won, they lost. We're debating an occupation. Occupations are not 'won'... they're successful, or untenable. If turn over internal security to Iraq forces and keep enough troops, air, armor and artillery in place to insure national sovereignty for the new government then the occupation will be 'successful'. If we keep kicking in doors and playing target patrolling streets and getting our troops killed doing that mission then the occupation may become 'untenable'.
-
Hmmm. I don't think I would have the slightest problem with our gubmint taking assault rifles, machine guns, RPG's and the like out of US citizens' hands if those in possession are unable to prove ownership or show proper licenses.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Says nothing in there about registering your firearms, licensing, or having to show proof of ownership.
I know, Bodhi. my post was in the context of the other conversation about our troops helping the Iraqi government get military equipment off the streets. I will strongly support our right to bear arms to the end of my days.
But I obey and observe our federal firearms laws and regulations, which do require registering, licensing etc for certain weapons. thats just the way it is. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is, and has been all my life.
so if I happen to read about police confiscating a full auto machine gun from someone without a proper license, it doesn't bother me. gubmint confiscating rpg's, grenades or stingers, etc don't bother me either.
-
Nope.. I don't expect a complete pull-out. Since the Iraqi Air Force has 2 helicopters, a couple of Cessna's and a C-130, I very much doubt the Iraqi Military to aquire the means to defend it's nations sovereignty from any serious attempt by a hostile neighbor state to defend Iraq effectively for a decade or two, at least.
I'd expect American Troops, in a trip-wire role similar to the role we play in Korea and providing full Air Support, Artillery and Armor to assist the Iraqi military in the role of National Defense. That does not mean US Troops kicking down doors and playing street cop in Iraqi cities.
Yeah I already know your thoughts on the issue. The problem is we were left with two choices, either play cop or Iraq descending ino total anarchy.
Just leaving Iraq would have been the utmost in stupidity. No doubt a political entity far worse then saddam would have emerged.
-
Those are your choices of what you guess might have maybe happened... perhaps.
Let's not stray too far from the reality that if the US had not invaded Iraq, Iraq would still have no weapons of mass destruction, still not be aligned or assisting Al-Qaeda and still not be a threat to any country, including the US.
And let's find out how much you really know about the region and history.
1. Why did Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait?
2. Who was the first to revive the word jihad after hundreds of years of non-use?
3. How did the word 'Al Qaeda' even come into being?
-
Those are your choices of what you guess might have maybe happened... perhaps.
Let's not stray too far from the reality that if the US had not invaded Iraq, Iraq would still have no weapons of mass destruction, still not be aligned or assisting Al-Qaeda and still not be a threat to any country, including the US.
And let's find out how much you really know about the region and history.
1. Why did Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait?
2. Who was the first to revive the word jihad after hundreds of years of non-use?
3. How did the word 'Al Qaeda' even come into being?
Hmmm...I'll take a stab at No. 1. This is from Wiki:
Causes of the conflict
Kuwait was a close ally of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war and functioned as the country’s major port once Basra was shut down by the fighting.[6] However, after the war ended, the friendly relations between the two neighboring Arab countries turned sour due to several economic and diplomatic reasons which finally culminated in an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
[edit] Dispute over the financial debt
Kuwait had heavily funded the 8 year long Iraqi war against Iran. By the time the war ended, Iraq was not in a financial position to repay the $14 billion which it had borrowed from Kuwait to finance its war.[7] Iraq argued that the war had prevented the rise of Iranian influence in the Arab World. However, Kuwait's reluctance to pardon the debt created strains in the relationship between the two Arab countries. During late 1989, several official meetings were held between the Kuwaiti and Iraqi leaders but they were unable to break the deadlock between the two.
[edit] Economic warfare and slant drilling
Iraq tried repaying its debts by raising the prices of oil through OPEC's oil production cuts. However, Kuwait, a member of the OPEC, prevented a global increase in petroleum prices by increasing its own petroleum production, thus lowering the price and preventing recovery of the war-crippled Iraqi economy.[8] This was seen by many in Iraq as an act of aggression, further distancing the countries. The collapse in oil prices had a catastrophic impact on the Iraqi economy. According to former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, "every US$1 drop in the price of a barrel of oil caused a US$1 billion drop in Iraq's annual revenues triggering an acute financial crisis in Baghdad."[9] It was estimated that Iraq lost US$14 billion a year due to Kuwait's oil price strategy.[10]
The Iraqi Government described it as a form of 'economic warfare', which it claimed was aggravated by Kuwait's alleged slant-drilling across the border into Iraq's Rumaila field. The dispute over Rumaila field started in 1960 when an Arab League declaration marked the Iraq-Kuwait border 2 miles north of the southern-most tip of the Rumaila field.[11] During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraqi oil drilling operations in Rumaila declined while Kuwait's operations increased. In 1989, Iraq accused Kuwait of using "advanced drilling techniques" to exploit oil from its share of the Rumaila field. Iraq estimated that US$2.4 billion worth of Iraqi oil was stolen by Kuwait and demanded compensation.[12][13] Kuwait dismissed the accusations as a false Iraqi ploy to justify military action against it.[14] Several Americans firms working in the Rumaila field also dismissed Iraq's slant-drilling claims as a "smokescreen to disguise Iraq's more ambitious intentions".[15]
[edit] Kuwait's lucrative economy
After the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi economy was struggling to recover. Iraq's civil and military debt was higher than its state budget. Most of its ports were destroyed, oil fields mined, and traditional oil customers lost. On the other hand, with its vast oil reserves, Kuwait was regarded as one of the world's wealthiest and most economically stable countries. Despite having a total land area 1/10th of Iraq, Kuwait's coastline was twice as long as Iraq's and its ports were some of the busiest in the Persian Gulf region. The Iraqi government clearly realized that by seizing Kuwait, it would be able to solve most its financial problems and consolidate its regional authority. Due to its relatively small size, Kuwait was seen by Baghdad as an easy target as well as a historically integral part of Iraq separated by British imperialism.
-
And here's a little bit more about it:
Arab nationalism
Though Kuwait's large oil reserves were widely considered to be the main reason behind the Iraqi invasion, the Iraqi government justified its invasion by claiming that Kuwait was a natural part of Iraq carved off due to British imperialism.[16] After signing the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, the United Kingdom split Kuwait and Iraq into two separate emirates. The Iraqi government also argued that the Kuwaiti Emir was a highly unpopular figure among the Kuwaiti populace. By overthrowing the Emir, Iraq claimed that it granted Kuwaitis greater economic and political freedom.[7]
Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman province of Basra, and although its ruling dynasty, the al-Sabah family, had concluded a protectorate agreement in 1899 that assigned responsibility for its foreign affairs to Britain, it did not make any attempt to secede from the Ottoman Empire. For this reason, its borders with Iraq were never clearly defined or mutually agreed. Furthermore, Iraq alleged that the British High Commissioner "drew lines that deliberately constricted Iraq's access to the ocean so that any future Iraqi government would be in no position to threaten Britain's domination of the Gulf".[17]
[edit] Alleged international conspiracy
Saddam Hussein’s decision partly came as a reaction towards the alleged international conspiracy against Iraq which, in his view, was meant to weaken and destabilize the regime. Subtle shifts in the American policy together with the British and American efforts to block the export of dual-use technology to Iraq, a consequence of its nuclear program, were seen by Saddam as part of a concerted effort to build a case against Iraq.[5] In this conspiracy theory, Kuwait was considered an accomplice of the foreign powers. In a memorandum dating from July 1990, the former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz accused Kuwait and the UAE of production beyond their OPEC quotas and claimed that the overproduction was synchronized with the efforts of foreign powers to denigrate Iraq.[18] Tariq argues that the fact that Kuwait refused to negotiate with a dangerous Iraq and risked being invaded by it sustains the theory according to which Kuwait had received tacit support from the U.S. even before the war started.[19] At the same time the Iraqi military intelligence was receiving warnings about Israeli plans to attack Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Saddam was convinced of the existence of a conspiracy and even described it to Wafiq al-Samara’i, deputy director of Iraqi military intelligence as follows:
“America is coordinating with Saudi Arabia and the UAE and Kuwait in a conspiracy against us. They are trying to reduce the price of oil to affect our military industries and our scientific research, to force us to reduce the size of our armed forces....You must expect from another direction an Israeli military air strike, or more than one, to destroy some of our important targets as part of this conspiracy”[20]
Following the invasion, Saddam’s unwillingness to accept a negotiated solution to the Kuwait crisis once again sustains the hypothesis that the fear of Iraq's domestic and economic destabilization was the most important factor which contributed to his invasion decision.[5]
[edit] Diplomatic row
Post Iran-Iraq war and dispute over Rumaila oilfield, the diplomatic relations between Iraq and Kuwait deteriorated dramatically triggering several heated exchanges between Iraqi and Kuwaiti diplomats during various regional and Gulf Cooperation Council summits.
According to Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Piro, Kuwaiti emir Al Sabah told the foreign minister of Iraq during a discussion aimed at resolving some of the conflicts between the two countries that "he would not stop doing what he was doing until he turned every Iraqi woman into a $10 prostitute. And that really sealed it for him [Saddam Hussein], to invade Kuwait".[21]
To me, Rolex, it looks' like some actual problems aggravated by some vicious rhetoric...
-
1. Why did Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait?
2. Who was the first to revive the word jihad after hundreds of years of non-use?
3. How did the word 'Al Qaeda' even come into being?
1. Resources to continue the fight against Iran; wanted to create an Arab League, with himself in control.
2. dunno. Can't ask Gordon of Khartoum; the fella seems to be without a head for some reason. When Israel popped up, 'Jihad' was called for, again; when the Russians invaded Afghanistan.
3. As I recall, CIA & Charlie Wilson created a base of supply and training for 'Afghan freedom fighters'... the origin of the word? Dunno.
hmmmmmmmmm... gee, Rolex; are you tryin to tell us this is our monkey?
LOL! Same logic applies to WWII and Pearl Harbor. Oh, that's right! Yer an expat american, living in Japan!!
My humble apologies, Rolex-san; you are correct. We should totally exterminate islam, or else they will rise again from the ashes, as Japan did; and buy us.
;)
-
Pleas stop posting stuff like this...I think the insurgents must read this BBS.
Boom boom boom boom
There goes some more suicide bombers....women again this time.
-
Pleas stop posting stuff like this...I think the insurgents must read this BBS.
Boom boom boom boom
There goes some more suicide bombers....women again this time.
I would think that they use this BBS as a source of their humor, Curval.
-
Pleas stop posting stuff like this...I think the insurgents must read this BBS.
Boom boom boom boom
There goes some more suicide bombers....women again this time.
LOL.. moslem insurgent women read these boards? AFAIK, females that can read and are of the moslem faith are targets, just like we are. Kinda presses the edge of belief, doncha think?
-
LOL.. moslem insurgent women read these boards? AFAIK, females that can read and are of the moslem faith are targets, just like we are. Kinda presses the edge of belief, doncha think?
Not in America's Iraq. Or, did we go to all of this trouble since 2003, overthrow and install a friendly gov't., And not impose a bill of rights' in their new constitution?
-
what sort of religious islamic fanatacism could compel women, the mothers of all humanity, to explode themselves killing children as a result. Oh my, I almost forgot.......fanatical christian women are just as evil :huh
-
what sort of religious islamic fanatacism could compel women, the mothers of all humanity, to explode themselves killing children as a result. Oh my, I almost forgot.......fanatical christian women are just as evil :huh
I've yet to be blown up by a fanatical Moslem woman.
But rabid christian women have lobbied and helped to pass laws to outlaw assault weapons and make me a criminal for simply spanking my child when he misbehaves' in public. So in that perspective...Let them blow themselves' up. And kick ours' out of public office.
-
What is cowardly about using good tactics? It's not a game.
If it had really been a "Holy-War" like what they try to make it look like now, the time the Americans got into bagdad, the people would be trying to kill them with everything including guns, knives, rocks, bear hands.
The terrorists are so desperate now, they almost never fire at our Troops, they almost never shoot mortars, instead, they try making IED's that kill civilians that piss them off and get the Civilians on the Americans side. Eventually, after enough of their friends, neighbors, relatives get killed by IEDs and Terrorists, the people will start to do something about it. Thats whats happening now. They're sick of it, they want us gone so they wont get attacked but minding their own buisness wont do them anygood. They're taking action now.
-
I've yet to be blown up by a fanatical Moslem woman.
But rabid christian women have lobbied and helped to pass laws to outlaw assault weapons and make me a criminal for simply spanking my child when he misbehaves' in public. So in that perspective...Let them blow themselves' up. And kick ours' out of public office.
Rabid Christians? You're full of toejam. Christianity specifically encourages carrying weapons AND beating children.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
-
I've yet to be blown up by a fanatical Moslem woman.
But rabid christian women have lobbied and helped to pass laws to outlaw assault weapons and make me a criminal for simply spanking my child when he misbehaves' in public. So in that perspective...Let them blow themselves' up. And kick ours' out of public office.
*COUGH* NANCY PELOSI *COUGH*
-
Great job USA!
Fiscal Responsibility (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/07/report-iraq-war.html)
Freedom of the Press (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/middleeast/26censor.html?ref=world)
"(They caution readers that such comparisons are "problematic" given the "difficulties in comparing prices from one vastly different era to another.")"
And what you would pay for a box of Hershey bars now.
Back in the VietNamn era you could probably buy an entire case.
In 1967 the price of a gallon of gas was between $.25 and $.37 a gallon too
::Yawn::
Nice try though
-
Kinda off topic but, I wonder how many black men and women have been killed in the Ghettos since the Iraq war started? I'm assuming alot more than American soldiers were killed. But hey, I never see this on MSNBC or CNN, not on ANY news station to be exact. Until the insurgents actually start fighting en-masse, they shouldn't be saying the war is "lost"
Oh..probably about a thousand just in my ghetto alone. I can remember the wagons being lined up outside the mourge, at 0600 on a summer Sunday morning, unloading the stiffs from the previous nights carnage. This was back when we were transporting all the stiffs. When you add in the car accidents there could be a bakers dozen waiting to unload.
-
Oh..probably about a thousand just in my ghetto alone. I can remember the wagons being lined up outside the mourge, at 0600 on a summer Sunday morning, unloading the stiffs from the previous nights carnage. This was back when we were transporting all the stiffs. When you add in the car accidents there could be a bakers dozen waiting to unload.
This is stuff they should be reporting on.
I guarantee you that in NY alone, there has been twice as many deaths from Gang Violence, theft, robbery, drugs than in the War in Iraq. NBC should be reporting on how these kids are failures like their dads for dropping out of high school just to be on welfare. A black friend of mine got jumped before school ended for passing his end-of-year exams because he was acting too "white" Because he wanted to do good in school, lead a sucessful life and get married and have kids.
There never will be any "peace." They need to learn to get over that "peace" is aquired through superior firepower. Until ALL idiots in the White House can under-stand this, we wont have peace.
-
There never will be any "peace." They need to learn to get over that "peace" is aquired through superior firepower. Until ALL idiots in the White House can under-stand this, we wont have peace.
So peace is what again?
lol
It is sig material.
-
So peace is what again?
lol
It is sig material.
Woa, I just felt like Obama, said a "no" and "yes" at the same time :rofl
I wont edit it out, I'd rather just look like an Idiot :)
-
What the hell are you talking about, Hangtime? Pearl Harbor? I don't understand what you're laughing about or trying to insinuate. I do as much or more than any politician to help the trade deficit with my business. I'll live my life any way I want and resent liberals like you telling me how or where to live.
The answer to number 2 is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Number 3 remains an exercise.
-
If it had really been a "Holy-War" like what they try to make it look like now, the time the Americans got into bagdad, the people would be trying to kill them with everything including guns, knives, rocks, bear hands.
Again, that's just stupid. Throwing everything you have at a wholly superior force in an epic battle will do... nothing, beside get a lot of your own people killed, and increase enemy morale.
However, using guerilla warfare tactics like those employed by the Iraqi insurgency kill enemy soldiers of a numerically greater force, while losing little of your own, and, much more importantly, wear down on enemy morale.
Read up on the Cuban Revolution.
-
But rabid christian women have lobbied and helped to pass laws to outlaw assault weapons and make me a criminal for simply spanking my child when he misbehaves' in public. S
Dude, thats whacked :aok
-
So peace is what again?
lol
It is sig material.
Peace through superior firepower. It really works :D
-
What the hell are you talking about, Hangtime? Pearl Harbor? I don't understand what you're laughing about or trying to insinuate. I do as much or more than any politician to help the trade deficit with my business. I'll live my life any way I want and resent liberals like you telling me how or where to live.
The answer to number 2 is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Number 3 remains an exercise.
"exercise" is what I expected you had tasked us with via your 'three questions'. In answering them, a Zen-Like path to enlightenment seem to appear... Next considering the source, I made I guess....
Looks like I nailed it. ;)
However no offense was intended, Rolex-San... only the enlightenment provided by illuminating the exercise with societal perspective. It is often proposed by those favoring the Japanese Perspective that Pearl Harbor was of our own doing, brought about by the denial of resources the Japanese felt they were entitled to...
Just as those in the Moslem World often purport that 9/11 is own own fault for supporting Israel, assisting Saddam in his efforts against Iran and supplying and training the Afgan Freedom Fighters attempting to throw back the Soviet invaders.
As for calling me a liberal... that's amusing in it's own right. I shall have to tell my wife that an American expat, living in Japan thinks I'm a liberal. I'd love to hear her shocked reaction. Perhaps you could label my disgust at the concept of accepting second-class status and living in and embracing a racist culture 'liberal'... perhaps then, by Japanese standards, I am a liberal.
However, where and how you live is no real concern of mine... it's not my place to judge your decision regarding where you live; or why. It is after all; a free country.... thanks to us. Your indignant reaction? Merely mildly amusing.
-
Peace through superior firepower. It really works :D
Peace through superior firepower sounds like martial law to me.
-
Why do you keep talking about Pearl Harbor as if I have defended the Japanese action in some way, or I have defended the 9-11 attack? That is a rhetorical question. All I have ever said about any conflict or negotiation is that you have to delve into the reasons why people do what they do and what drives them. It doesn't matter whether they are correct or not, it only matters to understand what they think are the issues, true or false.
Since you're going to continue trying to insult me because I make my living outside the US, you can discuss this with yourself.
-
Screw Harry. All his gutless puppet buddies, too.
As to 'they failed'... really? We got a 300 billion a year monkey on our backs. The western economies are faltering. You really didn't think thier objective is a surrender ceremony in a tent pitched at ground zero in manhattan, did yah?
AFAIK, The terrorist objective is destruction of the American way of life. Sure looks looks to me like they're getting the upper hand in that regard.
In my humble opinion, a win for us would be Osama's corpse and the complete dismemberment of the societal system that supported, funded and cheered 'em on. Their relevance and funding comes from opium poppies and oil.
Our system, being corrupt, hasn't the balls or the desire to cut off either.
Unless we get on the program and get that done, they will achieve their objective. We'll be owned outright by foreign interests... if we're not already.
Puppets of who, Hangtime? Harry Reid and his puppies are puppets of who? I don't think its that involved. I think they're just dumb and say the right things to get elected. I think they put personal goals in front of country. I think they're too dumb and cowardly to be a soldier, and would make a poor puppet. Only a fool would use such a weak tool. They're not puppets. They're arrogant dumb people. They mistakingly think they're clever.
What western economies are faltering? Gramm had it right, but you can't win elections by telling the truth. Other than the typical US envy, what is cheering the Jihad? Our system is so expansive (something the the ignorant, backwoods, inbred jihadists fail to comprehend) what parts are corrupted? All of them? Are you serious?
Its western propaganda that this war is even close. The United States is vastly superior to who we are fighting- technologically , patriotically, ideologically, and just plain intelligence. Our only problem is muting our lowest common denominator that perpetuate the media.
-
How long ago were you there? And, I always appreciate first person perspective of those who were there. <S> and thanks for your service.
Sorry just now seeing this. I was there May '03-May '04. I was in Bahgdad at Camp Graceland(no longer exists). I was and still am with the 214th MP Co we were attached to the 89th MP Brigade.
-
Rabid Christians? You're full of poop. Christianity specifically encourages carrying weapons AND beating children.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
Think of the "million-mom march" and you'll see what I'm getting at...
EDIT: I was gonna add Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, but they're both Jewish.
-
What did we win again?
What "war"?
I'm continually amazed that the fine upstanding educated BBS'rs on here don't see the implications of those two questions.
We aren't safer as a country. (which was an implied gain, pre-invasion.)
The real threats in Afghanistan are reconstituted, and throwing us out, physically. We're finding out like the Soviets did, that technology means sht in that country. (Where the people that want to kill us live and work)
Iraqis want us out... yesterday. (No bases, no deals... thank you very much for coming over and playing.)
So, basically it comes down to us saying "we win" for the statement's sake. Yippee for us.
(and the trillion or so we went into debt for it.)
There is nothing involved in this "win" that made it worth one of my good friend's life, and another's left arm. The administration should be brought up on treason and perjury.... and anyone who supported it should bow your heads in shame.