Sure do, assuming that the forces aren’t composed of an entirely homogenous group of Shi’a or Sunni or Kurd. It is a mixture with loyalty to their brand of religion and to the tribal affiliations which you spoke of. They have no loyalty to this bullshit Iraqi democracy. We know it’s bullshit so what makes you think they don’t? Purple finger? That’s not ink repub, that’s blood on your hands.
When it is implied that all we have to do is train the Iraqi troops and that they are getting better everyday, we assume that they are going to do the job that they are being trained and in place to do. That is, defend the fledgling pro-Western puppet democracy and stamp out the insurgency, spreading the brotherhood of globalism and democracy throughout the Middle East.
YES or are you one of those who believe that Israel has some sort of magical ability to win wars regardless of who they are up against? They do not–their opponents are just horrible at fighting. Some would argue that they aren’t winning as well as they once did and it is getting harder and harder to defeat their enemy each time out. How did that Lebanon thing work out? Besides, how much could our righteous Western style warfare techniques and weapon systems help?
How are my pearls of wisdom any worse than this? The terrorists/insurgent are not fighting a “terrorist” war, they are fighting what is called an insurgency war or a guerilla war. They hide amongst the population growing in strength, using terror against that population if they have to, striking behind the lines (everywhere is technically enemy territory), eventually growing to the point where they can then engage their enemy on an equal conventional footing. Che really wrote a nice book about this, you should read it.
What I am most afraid of is that we are teaching them discipline and resolve in warfare. You can give them advanced weapon systems and a few advisors but that is not the same as giving them that and the know-how on how to train more forces and how to fight by fighting side by side with them on a daily basis. The Shah of Iran bought high tech weapons like F-14 fighters but how much modernization did the actual grunt receive? I will however concede that throwing money and fighting side by side with us did not help the South Vietnamese but then again, this is a different conflict with many more players.
I’m talking about winning this war. George Bush fucked us up real good on this one. It is not as simple as ideologues on the right make it out to be. GW does suck and I celebrate the catalogue from which this tape comes from. As for you not being a Bush supporter, I have read many of your posts. You could have fooled me! We have a saying where I come from: If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, it’s a duck.
Sure do, assuming that the forces aren’t composed of an entirely homogenous group of Shi’a or Sunni or Kurd. It is a mixture with loyalty to their brand of religion and to the tribal affiliations which you spoke of. They have no loyalty to this bullshit Iraqi democracy. We know it’s bullshit so what makes you think they don’t? Purple finger? That’s not ink repub, that’s blood on your hands.
When it is implied that all we have to do is train the Iraqi troops and that they are getting better everyday, we assume that they are going to do the job that they are being trained and in place to do. That is, defend the fledgling pro-Western puppet democracy and stamp out the insurgency, spreading the brotherhood of globalism and democracy throughout the Middle East.
YES or are you one of those who believe that Israel has some sort of magical ability to win wars regardless of who they are up against? They do not–their opponents are just horrible at fighting. Some would argue that they aren’t winning as well as they once did and it is getting harder and harder to defeat their enemy each time out. How did that Lebanon thing work out? Besides, how much could our righteous Western style warfare techniques and weapon systems help?
How are my pearls of wisdom any worse than this? The terrorists/insurgent are not fighting a “terrorist” war, they are fighting what is called an insurgency war or a guerilla war. They hide amongst the population growing in strength, using terror against that population if they have to, striking behind the lines (everywhere is technically enemy territory), eventually growing to the point where they can then engage their enemy on an equal conventional footing. Che really wrote a nice book about this, you should read it.
What I am most afraid of is that we are teaching them discipline and resolve in warfare. You can give them advanced weapon systems and a few advisors but that is not the same as giving them that and the know-how on how to train more forces and how to fight by fighting side by side with them on a daily basis. The Shah of Iran bought high tech weapons like F-14 fighters but how much modernization did the actual grunt receive? I will however concede that throwing money and fighting side by side with us did not help the South Vietnamese but then again, this is a different conflict with many more players.
I’m talking about winning this war. George Bush fucked us up real good on this one. It is not as simple as ideologues on the right make it out to be. GW does suck and I celebrate the catalogue from which this tape comes from. As for you not being a Bush supporter, I have read many of your posts. You could have fooled me! We have a saying where I come from: If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, it’s a duck.
As I clearly was talking about the right to target occupiers as distinct from terrorist activities I’m ignoring your straw man. Have they the right to fight a guerilla war against occupiers or not?
When the occupiers are killing civilians, bombing wedding parties and flattening cities you have precious little moral high ground to rant from anyway. Neither side should be performing these atrocious acts. And no - the suspicion that a civilian might be up to no good does not give occupiers the right to casually blast them away. And no - that insurgents are in a city does not give them the right to shell and bomb it to rubble. These are just as war crimes as terrorist acts are. Neither are excusable.
So you do support the insurgents when they blow up children. Ok. That’s insane and evil. But, Ok. At least it’s logically consistent with the rest of your views.
That quote has nothing to do with my statement. You are just pulling a random phrase I posted and saying it proves something it clearly does not. I’ll repeat. I have never said or implied that the insurgents are only attacking children. This reamains a staw fantasy of yours.
You know me…always the first to jump up and defend Bushco. Rjung has been trying to pin the closet republican lable on me for years now so I guess I should be used to it.
On of the things in his rant that struck me as funny was the ‘fact’ that I guess (according to The Highwayman anyway) I think the Israel’s military pre-eminence comes from magic or perhaps prayer…or maybe their innate Jewish superiority or something.
I had a long response typed up for him/her last night but after previewing it I ended up just deleting it. For one thing had I posted it I probably would have been banned or at least spanked by a mod. For the other I just didn’t see the point ‘debating’ someone who is obviously that hostile. It’s just not worth my time.
Cites, please. Multiple cites, if you would. Oodles of Google.
So many times in this thread I witness flat-footed statements about the nature and structure of the insurgency, whatever the hell that means. Stated with the calm authority so common when the assertion amounts to pure butt-whistle. “The insurgents are terrorist religious fanatics who dine on babies and tie puppies to their hand grenades.” “The insurgents are patriots nobly resisting infidel occupation.”
I have no idea. Since I modestly recognize my own ignorance, it is not at all difficult to recognize another’s. *You * have no idea.
I hazard a WAG: there must be at least two entirely different components of the “insugurgency”: secular/political and religious fanatic. The painfully obvious fact that they both hate us may be the only point of agreement. I base this assertion on the only clue I’ve got: tactics.
Suicide bombing is characteristic of a religious fanatic who believes that Merciful Og, in Her wisdom, smiles benignly on those who massacre Her children if their theology is correct. Hence, they not only do not fear death, they positively welcome death as a confirmed reservation in Paradise. Secular activists, like the legendary “Baathist dead-enders”, tend to be less willing to use their own ass for a fuse.
But if I were to declare with a straight face that the insurgency was entirely comprised of Amish renegades masquerading as Arabs, could anyone here authoritatively prove otherwise? Do we have any facts at all, rather than bald assertions by persons possessed of an Agenda?
Never said that. In fact, I’ve gone down the list of incidents in a random day in Iraq and deliniated which I consider legitimate resistance actions. The quote you’re responding to alludes to the sabotage of the water supply. And yes, sabotage is a common activity in guerrilla warfare.
And I’ll repeat, you are not only incapable of parsing other’s writing but obviously suffer from the same deficit when it comes to your own. Your WHOLE starting argument – from which you’ve have no choice but to backpedal – was to attempt to classify all of the Iraqi reistance as one monolithic, children murdering, terrorists group.
Looking over all the posts I see the anti Iraq war side’s problem We have several different proposals while the GW supporters merely chant, “Stay the course, stay the course.” without, of course defining ‘the course’ except as a hypothetical democratic Iraq with liberty and justice for all.
I favor getting out quickley even if the books have to be cooked on accomplishments and the state of Iraq’s readiness. Hell, the books were cooked to get us in weren’t they?
Others are of the ‘we broke it we have to fix it’ school. I don’t think GW and his crew are capable of ‘fixing it.’ Maybe nobody is but in any case the mess will be handed on to his successor, military personnel and, of course, the future US taxpapers as the deficit goes merrily on.
Still others favor a dignified withdrawl spaced over a couple or three years whether or not it is fixed. This position is sort of like mine only slower.
And I suppose there is a group who want to have it end but don’t know how to do that. That group probably includes most of the antiwar group who really don’t know how to carry out a withdrawl.
Of course the ‘Stay the course’ folks don’t know how to carry that out to a succesful outcome, but they are at least united.
The US military is not deliberatly targetting civilians. Some civilians, of course, are going to be injured or killed as a result of military action in Iraq. But the US forces have made a serious effort to avoid such casualties. The insurgents in Iraq, meanwhile, have been deliberately targetting civilians and children. Yet, you continue to cheer them on.
This remains a straw man fantasty of yours. I never said or implied that the Iraqi resistance was a monolithic entity. You can keep repeating it, but it is plain to see by anyone reading this thread that you are just making this up.
Language lesson: To say “The Iraqi insurgency is targetting civilians, including children.” is not the same thing as stating “Every member of the Iraqi insurgency in unison and without exception is targetting civilians, including children.” If the examples of civilians and children being victims of the insurgency where scattered or rare, then you might have some kind of point. But this is not the case. Clearly terrorizing civilians and murdering children is a widespread activity of the insurgents. My statement that the insurgents are deliberately killing children is true, despite your best efforts at defending any sympathizing with these murdering terrorists.
Ground troops will be reduced significantly over next few years. Sizable contingent will remain in Iraq for a very long time. Telling fact is nobody is even talking about rebuilding Iraqi Air Force and Navy. US will provide that for much longer.
They deliberately targeted locations where they knew the likelyhood of killing innocent civilians, including children, was high. Acceptable collateral damage is coldly calculated to achieve the mission’s goals. To excuse it by saying they didn’t intentionally target children is just dishonest.
Once more with feeling. Stop fucking conflating the terrorists actions of a few with the legitimate resistance movement in Iraq. This has already been explained to you by at least three posters other than myself:
Now, each and every time this has been pointed out to you, you choose to come back with the same shit:
“I can’t heeeear you!! Killing children! Blah blah and fuckin’ blaaah! USA #1!”
Lovely pom-poms BTW.
And as I said before, you remain incapable of parsing your own fuckin’ posts – for I have just shown you that at least three other posters besides myself have called you out on the same fucking generalization.
While Shock & Awe and razing Fallujah were supposed to have a calming influence on the Iraqi populace. :rolleyes:
Here’s another statement I’d like for you to deal with: The US is directly responsible for MORE civilian deaths than all the resistance groups combined.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
PS-Read Fear Itself’s post vis-a-vis your collateral damage bullshit.
I really don’t see why, since we’ve stuck it out this long, we can’t wait at least until the constitution is ratified and general elections are held. THEN start the chant to leave. But now??? Why now? I think its premature and its puzzling to me the level of rant by some about leaving RIGHT NOW!! I don’t get it when, IIRC, the constitution is supposed to be ratified next month and elections are supposed to be held before the end of the year.
Or until it becomes apparent that’s not going to happen as we’d like.
What with the deadline approaching, a refresher on the interim constitution is in order:
