You miss my point. I don't have to go down to the inner city to stop a crime. There are already people there who know the people doing the crime...yet when it's time to man up and get rid of their asses, they lack the spine.
These same people will cry about how evil America is because their house gets blown up, or their family members killed. well, maybe if they stood up to their own and demanded change, things would be different. If their own people take them out, it only proves my point yet again.
If you know what's up and you do nothing, you get what you deserve.
...
What if their demands were, 'Americans, GO HOME'? Like a lot of the Shi'ites are alreasdy calling for? Really... what can we do?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
You miss my point. I don't have to go down to the inner city to stop a crime. There are already people there who know the people doing the crime...yet when it's time to man up and get rid of their asses, they lack the spine.
These same people will cry about how evil America is because their house gets blown up, or their family members killed. well, maybe if they stood up to their own and demanded change, things would be different. If their own people take them out, it only proves my point yet again.
If you know what's up and you do nothing, you get what you deserve.
Apples and oranges...when was the last time that 21 people were kidnapped and shot in the head in the hood? I dont how understand how you can speak for those people in Iraq or even try to comprehend what they're going through?
The Americans leaving won't prevent a civil war ... But that doesn't mean that the Americans should stay.
...
I know... our staying didn't prevent it either. It's a fucking Warzone over there and our military guys are caught in the middle. They can't choose a side or kill them all.
...
You know what would be fucked up?
If that fucking Iraqi Government invites Syrian and/or Iranian Troops in to try to help stop the bloodshed, since the American Military can't.
Man, can you imagine that?
...
The scariest part... I can actually see them doing just that.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
I know... our staying didn't prevent it either. It's a fucking Warzone over there and our military guys are caught in the middle. They can't choose a side or kill them all.
...
You know what would be fucked up?
If that fucking Iraqi Government invites Syrian and/or Iranian Troops in to try to help stop the bloodshed, since the American Military can't.
Man, can you imagine that?
...
The scariest part... I can actually see them doing just that.
Letting people figure things out for themselves for a change doesn't sound too scary to me.
Scary to me is letting the US try and set up some system. They have the worst track record in the world when in comes to propping up gov't's (and incidentally the most attempts). For things that matter anyway, you know the wellbeing of the majority of the people in the country, number of hospitals, number of schools, social services, protection of resources. If you need examples look at Brazil or Central America, or any number of a dozen countries.
the viet cong would disagree. as would the Iraqi resistance.
Only because they don't understand what is happening in Washington, D.C. And it sounds like you get it either. It is D.C. that can't seem to get it right, not the military. The Iraqi armed forces know without a doubt that the U.S. had no trouble with them.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
its that thinking that has us lost in Iraq.. just butchering people in ignorance
No, it is the way war is prosecuted these days that has us lost in Iraq. If we go in, we should go in with VERY clear objectives, adequate number of soldiers and a clearly defined exit strategy. Instead, we have suits in D.C. making poor choices and handcuffing our military.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
the viet cong would disagree. as would the Iraqi resistance.
Absolutely ridiculous comment. The Viet Cong were practically eliminated as a fighting force that is why the NVA stepped up their support manyfold to launch the Tet offensive. That conflict was literally the proving ground for guaging the wills and military technology of the US, NATO and SEATO vs the Communist bloc in the cold war. We pulled out of that region after defeating the Viet Cong and decimating any mobilized NVA. There are millions of people of Vietnamese and Iraqi descent in this country that would disagree with the notion that either conflict was not worth the effort. Whose got the will to win?
No, it is the way war is prosecuted these days that has us lost in Iraq. If we go in, we should go in with VERY clear objectives, adequate number of soldiers and a clearly defined exit strategy. Instead, we have suits in D.C. making poor choices and handcuffing our military.
so you think we should unleash the military might? We haven't quite had our fill of middle eastern blood?
so you think we should unleash the military might? We haven't quite had our fill of middle eastern blood?
I absolutely do NOT think we should unleash the military might of the U.S. I am not and never have been a proponent of our involvement in the Iraq or the Middle East in general. They can all kill themselves for all I care.
But at the same time I'm amazed when people continue to doubt the power of the U.S. military, and their capability. Recognizing its capability is entirely separate from endorsing its use.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
The fact that al-Qaeda is rising in popularity in western Iraq because of
George W's war is just outrageous. What a mess he's gotten us into.
Anbar picture grows clearer, and bleaker
U.S. can’t defeat insurgency in western Iraq, report says
The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.
The Marines recently filed an updated version of that assessment that stood by its conclusions and stated that as of mid-November, the problems in troubled Anbar province have not improved, a senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday. "The fundamental questions of lack of control, growth of the insurgency and criminality" remain the same, the official said.
The Marines' August memo, a copy of which was shared with The Washington Post, is far more bleak than some officials suggested when they described it in late summer. The report describes Iraq's Sunni minority as "embroiled in a daily fight for survival," fearful of "pogroms" by the Shiite majority and increasingly dependent on al-Qaeda in Iraq as its only hope against growing Iranian dominance across the capital.
True or not, the memo says, "from the Sunni perspective, their greatest fears have been realized: Iran controls Baghdad and Anbaris have been marginalized." Moreover, most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability.
Between al-Qaeda's violence, Iran's influence and an expected U.S. drawdown, "the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point" that U.S. and Iraqi troops "are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar," the assessment found. In Anbar province alone, at least 90 U.S. troops have died since Sept. 1.
The Post first reported on the memo's existence in September, as it was being circulated among military and national security officials. Several officials who read the report described its conclusions as grim.
But the contents have not previously been made public. Read as a complete assessment, it paints a stark portrait of a failed province and of the country's Sunnis -- once dominant under Saddam Hussein -- now desperate, fearful and impoverished. They have been increasingly abandoned by religious and political leaders who have been assassinated or who have fled to neighboring countries. And unlike Iraq's Shiite majority, or Kurdish groups in the north, the Sunnis are without oil and other natural resources. The report notes that illicit oil trading is providing millions of dollars to al-Qaeda while "official profits appear to feed Shiite cronyism in Baghdad."
As a result, "the potential for economic revival appears to be nonexistent" in Anbar, the report says. The Iraqi government, dominated by Iranian-backed Shiites, has not paid salaries for Anbar officials and Iraqi forces stationed there. Anbar's resources and its ability to impose order are depicted as limited at best.
‘Throughly corrupted’
"Despite the success of the December elections, nearly all government institutions from the village to provincial levels have disintegrated or have been thoroughly corrupted and infiltrated by Al Qaeda in Iraq," or a smattering of other insurgent groups, the report says.
The five-page report -- written by Col. Peter Devlin, a senior and seasoned military intelligence officer with the Marine Expeditionary Force -- is marked secret, for dissemination to U.S. and allied troops in Iraq only. It does not appear to have been made available to Iraqi national forces fighting alongside Americans.
The report, "State of the Insurgency in Al-Anbar," focuses on conditions in the province that is home to 1.25 million Iraqis, most of whom live in violence-ridden towns such as Fallujah, Haditha, Hit, Qaim and Ramadi.
Devlin wrote that attacks on civilians rose 57 percent between February and August of this year. "Although it is likely that attack levels have peaked, the steady rise in attacks from mid-2003 to 2006 indicates a clear failure to defeat the insurgency in al-Anbar."
Devlin suggested that without the deployment of an additional U.S. military division -- 15,000 to 20,000 troops -- plus billions of dollars in aid to the province, "there is nothing" U.S. troops "can do to influence" the insurgency.
He described al-Qaeda in Iraq as the "dominate organization of influence in al-Anbar," surpassing all other groups, the Iraqi government and U.S. troops "in its ability to control the day-to-day life of the average Sunni."
Al-Qaeda itself, now an "integral part of the social fabric of western Iraq," has become so entrenched, autonomous and financially independent that U.S. forces no longer have the option "for a decapitating strike that would cripple the organization," the report says. That is why, it says, the death of al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al- Zarqawi in June "had so little impact on the structure and capabilities of al-Qaeda," especially in Anbar province.
The senior intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of his work, said yesterday that he largely agrees with Devlin's assessment, except that he thinks it overstates the role of al-Qaeda in the province. "We argue that it is a major element in Anbar, but it is not the largest or most dominant group," he said.
Sunni state?
In a final section of the report, titled "Way Ahead," Devlin outlined several possibilities for bringing stability to the area, including establishing a Sunni state in Anbar, creating a local paramilitary force to protect Sunnis and to offset Iranian influence, shifting local budget controls, and strengthening a committed Iraqi police force that has "proven remarkably resilient in most areas."
Devlin ended the assessment by saying that while violence has surged, the presence of U.S. troops in Anbar has had "a real suppressive effect on the insurgency." He said the suffering of "Anbar's citizens undoubtedly would be far worse now if it was not for the very effective efforts" of U.S. forces.
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Here is a classic example of a liberal with a vested interest in America's defeat.
I get a kick out of people who make it a Democrat/Republican issue. They really have their finger on the pulse of this engagement
Any polititian who's in the pocket of big oil (ALL OF THEM) has a vested interest in the outcome of Iraq.
It does seem that democrats want us to loose so they can point at republicans and say how bad they are and republicans want to win so they can say they won.
but I agree, this shouldnt be left/right - lib/con. there needs to be a bipartisan strategy where we all win. the left, the right, americans, iraqis. the iraq study group is a start.
and politicians arent the only ones with a vested interest in oil. you are, I am, we all are. we NEED oil to survive. people need to admit that.
It does seem that democrats want us to loose so they can point at republicans and say how bad they are and republicans want to win so they can say they won.
but I agree, this shouldnt be left/right - lib/con. there needs to be a bipartisan strategy where we all win. the left, the right, americans, iraqis. the iraq study group is a start.
and politicians arent the only ones with a vested interest in oil. you are, I am, we all are. we NEED oil to survive. people need to admit that.
I agree.. the first step is to fire the asshole standing on the stragegy. It seems dem vs. rep because the asshole is a republican. Get his ass out of there so we can be americans again
Absolutely ridiculous comment. The Viet Cong were practically eliminated as a fighting force that is why the NVA stepped up their support manyfold to launch the Tet offensive. That conflict was literally the proving ground for guaging the wills and military technology of the US, NATO and SEATO vs the Communist bloc in the cold war. We pulled out of that region after defeating the Viet Cong and decimating any mobilized NVA. There are millions of people of Vietnamese and Iraqi descent in this country that would disagree with the notion that either conflict was not worth the effort. Whose got the will to win?
Right, who's got the will to win? often what war comes down too.
The Vietnam war, in terms of the stated objectives, was a vicotry for the US, right, as communism wasn't able to take root in the regio. But that was mainly because the neighboring countries had been reduced to wastelands, namely Cambodia, leaving envoronments ripe for people like Pol Pot to take power...we all know how well that turned out.
But the reality of the situation is the United States cannot eliminate the resistance in Iraq, and could not conquer the guerillas in Vietnam, just naming 2 instances where the greatest army this planet has ever seen was and will be forced to withdraw. I believe it will happen in Iraq through either public protest-if the US citizenry ever gets off its ass-or through political initiative by the government itself. In any case we can be sure the situations could have been solved much more efficiently and with very little or no bloodshed had the US pursued the proper international channels.
...
In the type of warfare... it is a valid comparison.
Revolutionary Fighters did not march on the battlefield and trade volleys with the far superior British Army. To do so would have been idiotic and fatal.
They fought using ambushes and tactics that were not considered to be 'Fair' in those days. When you are faced with much greater forces, you adopt unconventional methods to defeat them... in 1774... refusing to stand in uniform and trade volleys was considered 'cowardice' means by most militaries of the time. So, yeah... the Minutemen fought the better trainned, better equipped British Army using 'chicken-shit' tactics... But... hey... it worked.
Read your History Books.
Yeah tactically speaking they're using guerilla warfare. But what your not grasping here, is they kill more of there own people than coalition forces during these attacks. I've seen IED's take out busses filled with civilians in order to utilize more shrapnnel to take out US troops. Can you compare that to revolutionary fighters. Minutemen didn't take out indifferent innocent civilians to use them as tools for their cause. YOU need to see the difference.
Yeah tactically speaking they're using guerilla warfare. But what your not grasping here, is they kill more of there own people than coalition forces during these attacks. I've seen IED's take out busses filled with civilians in order to utilize more shrapnnel to take out US troops. Can you compare that to revolutionary fighters. Minutemen didn't take out indifferent innocent civilians to use them as tools for their cause. YOU need to see the difference.
...
I was addressing the opinion that the fighters over there were being cowards by not facing US... the U.S. Forces in Iraq. They have adopted unconventional means to fight conventional (superior) forces... just as our forefathers adopted "unfair" methods to defeat conventional British forces.
There is nothing in my statements, comments or opinions that compares American Revolutionaries to Iraqi Insurgents other than their tactical methods of warfare.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
What if their demands were, 'Americans, GO HOME'? Like a lot of the Shi'ites are alreasdy calling for? Really... what can we do?
Hail, Hail!!!
The Americans leaving won't prevent a civil war ... But that doesn't mean that the Americans should stay.
Apples and oranges...when was the last time that 21 people were kidnapped and shot in the head in the hood? I dont how understand how you can speak for those people in Iraq or even try to comprehend what they're going through?
I know... our staying didn't prevent it either. It's a fucking Warzone over there and our military guys are caught in the middle. They can't choose a side or kill them all.
...
You know what would be fucked up?
If that fucking Iraqi Government invites Syrian and/or Iranian Troops in to try to help stop the bloodshed, since the American Military can't.
Man, can you imagine that?
...
The scariest part... I can actually see them doing just that.
Hail, Hail!!!
Letting people figure things out for themselves for a change doesn't sound too scary to me.
Scary to me is letting the US try and set up some system. They have the worst track record in the world when in comes to propping up gov't's (and incidentally the most attempts). For things that matter anyway, you know the wellbeing of the majority of the people in the country, number of hospitals, number of schools, social services, protection of resources. If you need examples look at Brazil or Central America, or any number of a dozen countries.
from my window to yours
the viet cong would disagree. as would the Iraqi resistance.
Only because they don't understand what is happening in Washington, D.C. And it sounds like you get it either. It is D.C. that can't seem to get it right, not the military. The Iraqi armed forces know without a doubt that the U.S. had no trouble with them.
its that thinking that has us lost in Iraq.. just butchering people in ignorance
No, it is the way war is prosecuted these days that has us lost in Iraq. If we go in, we should go in with VERY clear objectives, adequate number of soldiers and a clearly defined exit strategy. Instead, we have suits in D.C. making poor choices and handcuffing our military.
Absolutely ridiculous comment. The Viet Cong were practically eliminated as a fighting force that is why the NVA stepped up their support manyfold to launch the Tet offensive. That conflict was literally the proving ground for guaging the wills and military technology of the US, NATO and SEATO vs the Communist bloc in the cold war. We pulled out of that region after defeating the Viet Cong and decimating any mobilized NVA. There are millions of people of Vietnamese and Iraqi descent in this country that would disagree with the notion that either conflict was not worth the effort. Whose got the will to win?
1998 Seattle 7-21
2000 Seattle 11-06
2003 Seattle Benaroya 10-22
2005 Gorge 9-1
2006 Gorge 7-23
so you think we should unleash the military might? We haven't quite had our fill of middle eastern blood?
I absolutely do NOT think we should unleash the military might of the U.S. I am not and never have been a proponent of our involvement in the Iraq or the Middle East in general. They can all kill themselves for all I care.
But at the same time I'm amazed when people continue to doubt the power of the U.S. military, and their capability. Recognizing its capability is entirely separate from endorsing its use.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Here is a classic example of a liberal with a vested interest in America's defeat.
A liberal Marine Corps?
Gime a break.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Any polititian who's in the pocket of big oil (ALL OF THEM) has a vested interest in the outcome of Iraq.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
It does seem that democrats want us to loose so they can point at republicans and say how bad they are and republicans want to win so they can say they won.
but I agree, this shouldnt be left/right - lib/con. there needs to be a bipartisan strategy where we all win. the left, the right, americans, iraqis. the iraq study group is a start.
and politicians arent the only ones with a vested interest in oil. you are, I am, we all are. we NEED oil to survive. people need to admit that.
I agree.. the first step is to fire the asshole standing on the stragegy. It seems dem vs. rep because the asshole is a republican. Get his ass out of there so we can be americans again
Right, who's got the will to win? often what war comes down too.
The Vietnam war, in terms of the stated objectives, was a vicotry for the US, right, as communism wasn't able to take root in the regio. But that was mainly because the neighboring countries had been reduced to wastelands, namely Cambodia, leaving envoronments ripe for people like Pol Pot to take power...we all know how well that turned out.
But the reality of the situation is the United States cannot eliminate the resistance in Iraq, and could not conquer the guerillas in Vietnam, just naming 2 instances where the greatest army this planet has ever seen was and will be forced to withdraw. I believe it will happen in Iraq through either public protest-if the US citizenry ever gets off its ass-or through political initiative by the government itself. In any case we can be sure the situations could have been solved much more efficiently and with very little or no bloodshed had the US pursued the proper international channels.
I would love to show you a map of the world that truly represents national hegemony...
The US empire is vast...losing a satellite here or there is not an attack on America, jsut allowing a people their right to sovereignty.
Yeah tactically speaking they're using guerilla warfare. But what your not grasping here, is they kill more of there own people than coalition forces during these attacks. I've seen IED's take out busses filled with civilians in order to utilize more shrapnnel to take out US troops. Can you compare that to revolutionary fighters. Minutemen didn't take out indifferent innocent civilians to use them as tools for their cause. YOU need to see the difference.
I was addressing the opinion that the fighters over there were being cowards by not facing US... the U.S. Forces in Iraq. They have adopted unconventional means to fight conventional (superior) forces... just as our forefathers adopted "unfair" methods to defeat conventional British forces.
There is nothing in my statements, comments or opinions that compares American Revolutionaries to Iraqi Insurgents other than their tactical methods of warfare.
Hail, Hail!!!