The Iraq thread 3

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]w, I put two and two together, and decided that you're pissin' me off. - (Carl, ATHF)

You my friend have clear issues on comprehensing irony.

Read the article I posted,US military officials have drawn the conclusion that TBA characterisations were absurd when implying that US forces are fighting islamic extremsist.jihaadist or whatever.

Ran was simply pointing that out.

Which part do you fail to understand?

[Balschoiw 0]

I bet he even didn´t read the article...

[Joku_ 0]

If resistance in Iraq is so widespread, there's probably no way to stop it anymore. (at least without doing a massive genocide)

So it probably would be best if americans would get out of there and let iraqis clear the mess, theres no point in losing men for nothing. Americans could also occupy couple bases for example in southern iraq at sea and somewhere in desert near bagdad and keep about 20000-30000 soldiers in them. Guerilla attacks shouldn't be a threat to bases in desert if they keep about 10 km safe zone to prevent mortar attacks.

[bn880 5]

It is spiraling up imo. I have a bad feeling.

It's not just me then... I'm getting a bad feeling about threats locally too, for some reason.

[bn880 5]

Americans could also occupy couple bases for example in southern iraq at sea and somewhere in desert near bagdad and keep about 20000-30000 soldiers in them. Guerilla attacks shouldn't be a threat to bases in desert if they keep about 10 km safe zone to prevent mortar attacks.

Yeah but what's the point of hiding even farther from the trouble, why not just leave completely in that particular case...

but stay, enjoy the cuisine and culture.

[Joku_ 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah but what's the point of hiding even farther from the trouble, why not just leave completely in that particular case...

Because if they partially stay there they can control the situation a bit and prevent unwanted governments coming into power. And its also easier to raid terrorist camps. In addition to this, if US kept bases in Iraq, there would be no need for them in Saudi-arabia or Kuwait. This makes my solution very cost-efficient when compared to full occupation.

Btw, they also could occupy oil fields and harbor and fund military operations with oil money.

[ralphwiggum 6]

.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/09/senate.intel.ap/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. intelligence agencies fell victim to false "group think" when assessing Iraq's weapons capabilities and ended up giving the Bush administration overstated or incorrect conclusions before the 2003 invasion, a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report says.

Many factors contributing to those failures are ongoing problems within the U.S. intelligence community which cannot be fixed with more money alone, concluded a bipartisan report released Friday.

The report repeatedly blasts departing CIA Director George Tenet, accusing him of skewing advice to top policy-makers with the CIA's view and elbowing out dissenting views from other intelligence agencies overseen by the State or Defense Departments.

It faulted Tenet for not personally reviewing Bush's 2003 State of the Union address which contained since-discredited references to Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium in Africa.

President Bush's chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, said the committee's report essentially "agrees with what we have said, which is we need to take steps to continue strengthening and reforming our intelligence capabilities so we are prepared to meet the new threats that we face in this day and age."

Tenet has resigned and leaves office Sunday.

Intelligence analysts worked from the assumption that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking to make more, as well as trying to revive a nuclear weapons program.

Instead, investigations after the Iraq invasion have shown that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons program and no biological weapons and only small amounts of chemical weapons have been found.

Analysts ignored or discounted conflicting information because of their assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the report said.

"This 'group think' dynamic led Intelligence Community analysts, collectors and managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs," the report concluded.

Questionable information

Such assumptions also led analysts to inflate snippets of questionable information into broad declarations that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, the report said.

For example, speculation that the presence of one specialized truck could mean an effort to transfer chemical weapons was puffed up into a conclusion that Iraq was actively making chemical weapons, the report said.

Analysts also concluded that Iraq had a mobile biological weapons program based mainly on the since-discredited claims of one Iraqi defector code-named "Curve Ball," it said.

American agents did not have direct access to Curve Ball or his debriefers, but the source's information was expanded into the conclusion that Iraq had an advanced and active biological weapons program, the report said.

The committee's report had been expected to be released last year, but was delayed for months over disputes including internal committee debates about the review's scope and the CIA's initial proposal to classify roughly 40 percent of the report, citing national security.

After negotiations, just under 20 percent will be held back from the public.

[bn880 5]

Btw, they also could occupy oil fields and harbor and fund military operations with oil money.

I think that sums up some things even today.

BTW: preventing "unwanted" governments in a foreign nation is or can be immoral in many ways, and should be agreed upon via an organization like UN.

And, 30K troops would have a very hard time stopping for example a communist regime from taking power, from bases in deserts. Let me rephrase that: it looks like soon shit is going to fly even with ~140 troops there, and with 20K->30K you can only imagine how vastly out-numbered they would be.

We'll see what happens in the next 8-12 months, if my prediction of a spring/summer 2005 withdrawl comes true.

[Scorpio 0]

Hi all,

I don't read this thread nor do I follow what's going on in Iraq right now, but I'd like to ask a question:

Does anyone know or have an idea as to who these people who plant roadside bombs or attack coalition troops come from? Are they Iraqis? Part of Al-Qaeda?

It really doesn't matter to me anymore what's going on in my country. Been fucked over time and time again. I don't think there's any hope of getting this mess cleaned up.

[bn880 5]

Sure, some of them are Mujahideen rebels, they besically are able to get resources/recruit in Iraq. key members can come from as far away as Chechnya, but Mujahideen are everywhere in that region, especially Pakistan AFAIk.

Feel free to correct me.

[denoir 0]

Does anyone know or have an idea as to who these people who plant roadside bombs or attack coalition troops come from? Are they Iraqis? Part of Al-Qaeda?

The beheadings and the attacks on civilians seem to be AQ or AQ spin-offs. The attack on US troops and people working for the new Iraqi government seem to be Iraqis.

As a matter of fact fairly recently one of the Iraqi resistance groups told AQ to get the fuck out of Iraq or that they would pay dearly for killing innocent Iraqis.

There is probably some cooperation at some levels, but in general there seems to be two major camps. One fighting the occupation and the new government and the other one just bent on creating chaos and fear (by killing civilians).

The AQ operations are on a much smaller scale - suicide bombings and the kidnapping and killing of individuals. The resistance on the other hand performs more regular military/guerilla operations against coalition troops (ambushes, mortar attacks, road side bombs etc).

It's fairly unclear who is behind the attacks on the new Iraqi police and Iraqi military recruits. The target and motive is more consistent with the resistance while the methodology is more consistent with AQ.

[HOBOMAN 0]

Btw, they also could occupy oil fields and harbor and fund military operations with oil money.  

I think that sums up some things even today.  

BTW: preventing "unwanted" governments in a foreign nation is or can be immoral in many ways, and should be agreed upon via an organization like UN.

And, 30K troops would have a very hard time stopping for example a communist regime from taking power, from bases in deserts.  Let me rephrase that: it looks like soon shit is going to fly even with ~140 troops there, and with 20K->30K you can only imagine how vastly out-numbered they would be.

We'll see what happens in the next 8-12 months, if my prediction of a spring/summer 2005 withdrawl comes true.  

The Un is powerless and you know that

The UN is only still alive becuase the US gives it a large amounts of cash each year

In addition, the Un has never been able to reconstruct government any country.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hi all,

I don't read this thread nor do I follow what's going on in Iraq right now, but I'd like to ask a question:

Does anyone know or have an idea as to who these people who plant roadside bombs or attack coalition troops come from? Are they Iraqis? Part of Al-Qaeda?

It really doesn't matter to me anymore what's going on in my country. Been fucked over time and time again. I don't think there's any hope of getting this mess cleaned up.

Hello Scorpio.Well it`s a bit more complicated.Some light is shed from THIS article I posted a page ago(or go one page back,it`s a US military inteligence documented report btw).

It asesses that all TBA claims about the Iraqi insurgency were unrealistic,had no actual base creating a distorted view for the sake of propaganda.

There are more then 20,000 Iraqi insurgents and the last thing they want is a Taliban like state,are fighting out of nationalistic sentiment and have alot of support from the population as even polls conducted by the ex-Coallition Provisional Authority shown.

The report also confirms that even many of the car bombings were conducted by Iraqis from the ex-Saddam regime intelligence organisation.

Another clue was from a report about the prisoners released some days ago that draws the conclusion that only 2% are of foreign origins.

That said,granted that are foreign elements in the country but they are implicated in low level attacks such as abducting civillian contractors that have absolutley no protection and some of the suicide attacks.

Denoir in case you haven`t read it I also recomand to you the article a page back it draws some extraordinary conclusions(expected but coming from US intelligence it`s somewhat surprising)

[HOBOMAN 0]

The insurgents do not have any control over the state of iraq. The insurgency is not bad, and was expected.The rebels can not defeat us. We are not leaving until that country is free of liberty hating people like saddam.

[denoir 0]

The Un is powerless and you know that  

The UN is only powerless when the nations that form it, especially those in the Security Council won't let it do its job. The UN is a political forum, not a military power. Nations that respect international law use their military power through the UN - that doesn't mean that the UN has forces of its own.

Quote[/b] ]The UN is only still alive becuase the US gives it a large amounts of cash each year

Eh? The US has the biggest debt to the UN. Europe pays orders of magnitude more both for humanitarian missions as well as keeping the place running.

Quote[/b] ]

In addition, the Un has never been able to reconstruct government any country.

Read up on some history. Or better yet, read some news. To mention a few that have been rebuilt the last couple of years, how about Kosovo, Bosnia or how about East Timor?

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]The insurgents do not have any control over the state of iraq

Then who has control?Allawi needs two choppers hovering in his back and countless bodyguards(I actually posted a picture) to visit an oil field in the desert.

The "handing over of soverignety" was done in a bunker with the greatest secrecy out of fear of attacks.

And I am not only talking about being able to spread fear,they also have strongholds such as Fallujah where this month alone a dozen of Marines died and is fully in control of the insurgents.

Quote[/b] ]The rebels can not defeat us

Tell that to Fallujah.

A clear military victory indeed can not be achieved by the Iraqi fighters but they don`t need to.It`s matter of who can last longer and the support the American population will have torwards this grueling war.

Quote[/b] ]We are not leaving until that country is free of liberty hating people like saddam.

We know,we know they are gelous of your freedom  

Quote[/b] ]The UN is only still alive becuase the US gives it a large amounts of cash each year

Now that`s a keaper,I should put in my sig.It`s that what they teach you over there?

[bucket man 2]

Lol. I think Hoboman is a troll.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Un is powerless and you know that

The UN is only still alive becuase the US gives it a large amounts of cash each year

In addition, the Un has never been able to reconstruct government any country.

You´re talking so much bullshit that I won´t even bother replying to such blatent lack of knowledge.

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]The rebels can not defeat us

Tell that to Fallujah.

A clear military victory indeed can not be achieved by the Iraqi fighters but they don`t need to.It`s matter of who can last longer and the support the American population will have torwards this grueling war.

I have tried to address this falw in logic here before, what does one consider a failure of the Coalition in Iraq? Go back a few pages and you can answer the quiz. (not you quicksanD)

[HOBOMAN 0]

The Un is powerless and you know that  

The UN is only powerless when the nations that form it, especially those in the Security Council won't let it do its job. The UN is a political forum, not a military power. Nations that respect international law use their military power through the UN - that doesn't mean that the UN has forces of its own.

Quote[/b] ]The UN is only still alive becuase the US gives it a large amounts of cash each year

Eh? The US has the biggest debt to the UN. Europe pays orders of magnitude more both for humanitarian missions as well as keeping the place running.

Quote[/b] ]

In addition, the Un has never been able to reconstruct government any country.

Read up on some history. Or better yet, read some news. To mention a few that have been rebuilt the last couple of years, how about Kosovo, Bosnia or how about East Timor?

No they where a complete mess along with somilia

[HOBOMAN 0]

Lol.    I think Hoboman is a troll.

No a hobo dumbass

[HOBOMAN 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Un is powerless and you know that  

The UN is only still alive becuase the US gives it a large amounts of cash each year

In addition, the Un has never been able to reconstruct government any country.

You´re talking so much bullshit that I won´t even bother replying to such blatent lack of knowledge.

Really? And what has europe done to help iraq?

[denoir 0]

Read up on some history. Or better yet, read some news. To mention a few that have been rebuilt the last couple of years, how about Kosovo, Bosnia or how about East Timor?

No they where a complete mess along with somilia

No they are not a complete mess. They have fully working governments. And the UN never was involved in any government building in Somalia. For your own sake, get a bit better informed before you post and make an ass of yourself.

Quote[/b] ]Really? And what has europe done to help iraq?

Not dropping bombs on it and killing 10,000+ civilians is a good start.

[HOBOMAN 0]

Quote[/b] ]The rebels can not defeat us

Tell that to Fallujah.

A clear military victory indeed can not be achieved by the Iraqi fighters but they don`t need to.It`s matter of who can last longer and the support the American population will have torwards this grueling war.

I have tried to address this falw in logic here before, what does one consider a failure of the Coalition in Iraq?  Go back a few pages and you can answer the quiz.   (not you quicksanD)

Falure? Our coalition has not failed. We rebuilt cities, construct hospitals, and re-established educational benifits. Iraq is now their own state, we have not failed.

[bn880 5]

Really? And what has europe done to help iraq?

Were you expecting Europe to counter attack the US to protect Iraq? Or am I misreading your question.