The Iraq thread 4

[Balschoiw 0]

Who needs to discuss with a guy who´se ideals are "kill em all" ?

I guess you got a fair chance to say what you wanted, but you obviously didn´t get further than "kill em all" and "we have to achieve our military goals by any means".

That´s just a stupid attitude that leaves little room for debating.

Wasting your time ? I guess it is just the other way round.

If you are so interested, why don´t you answer the Syria questions I asked you ? Not comfortable ? Not fitting your "kill em all" line ?

I don´t care what you call yourself. I take your words and make up my own opinion as others do here and your words have been pretty clear on where you stand lately. That you now lack words doesn´t surprise me though. That had to be expected.

Euro-commie out.

Quote[/b] ]Any other discussion can be had amongst yourselves

I take your word on that.

[quicksand 0]

FerretFangs I wouldn't care if you were a firm beliver in mystical dwarfs originating from the Andromeda galaxy,it's the content of the posts which I focused on and it was directly to those I and others replyed,so if you can't grasp the ability to discuss your own inflamatory opinions and engage in a debate you have nothing but yourself to blame ,so good riddance to you if all you have to add on this forum is a correction to affirm your atheism.

[FerretFangs 0]

You took me out of context. When I used the phrase "Kill them all," I was referring to foriegn fighters, insurgents forces, and terrorists.

And, of course I'd expect you to take me out of context, to put words in my mouth, and to make me something I'm not. It's necessary for you to demonize those you disagree with in order to make yourself feel better about dehumanizing them.

[Akira 0]

You took me out of context. When I used the phrase "Kill them all," I was referring to foriegn fighters, insurgents forces, and terrorists.

And, of course I'd expect you to take me out of context, to put words in my mouth, and to make me something I'm not. It's necessary for you to demonize those you disagree with in order to make yourself feel better about dehumanizing them.

What you failed to reconcile is your "kill them all" with the fact terrorist hide and live among the populace. How would you go about with your "overwhelming force" when terrorist and insurrgents hide among the civilians you are suppose to protect?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's necessary for you to demonize those you disagree with in order to make yourself feel better about dehumanizing them.

Bullshit !

Do I really need to quote your brainwashed hogwash ?

This is what you wrote :

IN CONTEXT

Quote[/b] ]I'm not fighting the war, like you, I'm just watching it. Whether or not I care about civilian casulties is not important. That we accomplish our military goals, is.

Quote[/b] ]The ENTIRE WORLD would rejoice if it was a Nimitz-class super carrier on the sea floor, even though I'm sure we'd recieve some token condolences for the loss of life. As did you for your sailors.

Quote[/b] ]The real question is Syria. At what point does the Administration draw a line in the sand, and tell Syria that enough is enough? When will we point the stick in Syrias face, and threaten them with the full capabilities that we can bring to bear? It's time to put paid to Syria's support of the insurgency once and for all.

This where our incredible SPECOPS forces should be focused, not just within the borders of Iraq, but if necessary, deep into Syria as well. We should be interdicting, operating proactively, pre-emptively, not just reacting to the next insurgent uprising that pops up along the syrian border.

The kid gloves need to come off. It's time to start the whole-sale slaughter of the insurgent fighters where they come from, BEFORE they cross the border. It's not like we aren't already enemies. Might as well give them the full treatment.

I´m really sorry but we don´t have to be the ones to interpret ANYTHING into your words. They stand clear enough and do tell a story of your person and where you are coming from.

Again, you avoid debating by blasming all others for things you wrote.

What about Syria again ?

In my honest opinion you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about when it comes to Syria.

I also asked you why Syria should be responsible for the guys who leave their country. I´m still waiting for an answer on that. I´m also waiting for an answer on my question why the US failed to reestablish border security to Iraq. They got rid of border control forces in no time and haven´t been able to reestablish them up to this day. Isn´t it the US who should be held accountable ? Why don´t you just transfer your kill-thoughts on them ? They are responsible for it, not Syria. As Syria also had no WMD´s from Iraq.

You gotta be coming up with something better than insults and "I am a victim"-cries. You are no victim. You claimed funny things, explained your "ideals" and now butt out as you find out that you were talking complete bullshit. A grown up acts different.

Are you a grown-up ?

[FerretFangs 0]

In most cases, the civilians realize that to remain in a free fire zone is not healthy. The insurgents could and do kill them, just as often as Coalition troops do. The ones that reamin, could also be directly supporting the insurgents too. At some point one must make a distiction as to who is a civialiian and who is an insurgent. I believe that the civilians actions are what's in question.

Of course, young children shouldn't be fired on. I'm not sure what to do about wolves amongst the sheep.

Perhaps you'd like to share your ideas on the matter?

Basically, and this is what I meant in my previous, horrific Nazi-esque post, if our men are drawing fire from a structure or a land feature like a tree line, overwhelmiong force would be to call in an Spooky to level the target. It doesn't mean nuking a city.

[FerretFangs 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's necessary for you to demonize those you disagree with in order to make yourself feel better about dehumanizing them.

Bullshit !

Do I really need to quote your brainwashed hogwash ?

This is what you wrote :

IN CONTEXT

Quote[/b] ]I'm not fighting the war, like you, I'm just watching it. Whether or not I care about civilian casulties is not important. That we accomplish our military goals, is.

Quote[/b] ]The ENTIRE WORLD would rejoice if it was a Nimitz-class super carrier on the sea floor, even though I'm sure we'd recieve some token condolences for the loss of life. As did you for your sailors.

Quote[/b] ]The real question is Syria. At what point does the Administration draw a line in the sand, and tell Syria that enough is enough? When will we point the stick in Syrias face, and threaten them with the full capabilities that we can bring to bear? It's time to put paid to Syria's support of the insurgency once and for all.

This where our incredible SPECOPS forces should be focused, not just within the borders of Iraq, but if necessary, deep into Syria as well. We should be interdicting, operating proactively, pre-emptively, not just reacting to the next insurgent uprising that pops up along the syrian border.

The kid gloves need to come off. It's time to start the whole-sale slaughter of the insurgent fighters where they come from, BEFORE they cross the border. It's not like we aren't already enemies. Might as well give them the full treatment.

I´m really sorry but we don´t have to be the ones to interpret ANYTHING into your words. They stand clear enough and do tell a story of your person and where you are coming from.

Again, you avoid debating by blasming all others for things you wrote.

What about Syria again ?

In my honest opinion you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about when it comes to Syria.

I also asked you why Syria should be responsible for the guys who leave their country. I´m still waiting for an answer on that. I´m also waiting for an answer on my question why the US failed to reestablish border security to Iraq. They got rid of border control forces in no time and haven´t been able to reestablish them up to this day. Isn´t it the US who should be held accountable ? Why don´t you just transfer your kill-thoughts on them ? They are responsible for it, not Syria. As Syria also had no WMD´s from Iraq.

You gotta be coming up with something better than insults and "I am a victim"-cries. You are no victim. You claimed funny things, explained your "ideals" and now butt out as you find out that you were talking complete bullshit. A grown up acts different.

Are you a grown-up ?

I believe, as do MANy, MANY other people that the Syrian government is directly supporting anti-Iraqi foreign fighters streaming into Iraq from Syrian territory. If they aren't actively stopping it, then they are actively supporting it.

So what did I mean before? Find the insurgent encampments IN SYRIA and take them out. If that means SEAL's, Delta, Det One, etc, so be it. If that means a Tomahawk or B-2 bomber strike, let'em fly.

What's not to understand?

[FW200 0]

So the civilians should just leave everything they worked for behind for you to have your little battlefield? I mean, there are insurgents everywhere so according to your logic, all of the civilians should live somewhere in the desert, after all, that is where it's safe and no military action will happen...

[FerretFangs 0]

I'm sorry, but yes, that's what the civilians should do if there's a firefight taking place in their front yard. That's what they've ALWAYS had to do in war.

What would you do? Sit there and complain about it?

[Donnervogel 0]

So the civilians should just leave everything they worked for behind for you to have your little battlefield? I mean, there are insurgents everywhere so according to your logic, all of the civilians should live somewhere in the desert, after all, that is where it's safe and no military action will happen...

yeah why would it be a problem to leave your property behind and to come back some weeks later to find everything is destroyed because the US army could "unleash it's power". /sarcasm off

[denoir 0]

In most cases, the civilians realize that to remain in a free fire zone is not healthy. The insurgents could and do kill them, just as often as Coalition troops do. The ones that reamin, could also be directly supporting the insurgents too. At some point one must make a distiction as to who is a civialiian and who is an insurgent. I believe that the civilians actions are what's in question.

Of course, young children shouldn't be fired on. I'm not sure what to do about wolves amongst the sheep.

Perhaps you'd like to share your ideas on the matter?

Basically, and this is what I meant in my previous, horrific Nazi-esque post, if our men are drawing fire from a structure or a land feature like a tree line, overwhelmiong force would be to call in an Spooky to level the target. It doesn't mean nuking a city.

That is already what they have been doing. The problem is that the insurgents are so integrated in the civilian urban environment, that you won't get them out any way short of nuking the city. And these guys are all over Iraq, so you'd have to nuke quite a few cities.

Well, there's of course the house-to-house fighting, but that hasn't worked out well so far. There you can always expect more US than insurgent casualties.

[FerretFangs 0]

Once again, without completely useless sarcasm, what would YOU do?

As for me and mine, I'm getting the Hell out. Things are just things.

[FW200 0]

I'm sorry, but yes, that's what the civilians should do if there's a firefight taking place in their front yard. That's what they've ALWAYS had to do in war.

What would you do? Sit there and complain about it?

To be honest ,what I would if someone would come and want me to leave everything behind just so someone can fight there, I'd fight for my piece of land..

I'd pick up arms to defend that what I would have worked for..

It seems I'm not the only one who would do that..

[FerretFangs 0]

In most cases, the civilians realize that to remain in a free fire zone is not healthy. The insurgents could and do kill them, just as often as Coalition troops do. The ones that reamin, could also be directly supporting the insurgents too. At some point one must make a distiction as to who is a civialiian and who is an insurgent. I believe that the civilians actions are what's in question.

Of course, young children shouldn't be fired on. I'm not sure what to do about wolves amongst the sheep.

Perhaps you'd like to share your ideas on the matter?

Basically, and this is what I meant in my previous, horrific Nazi-esque post, if our men are drawing fire from a structure or a land feature like a tree line, overwhelmiong force would be to call in an Spooky to level the target. It doesn't mean nuking a city.

That is already what they have been doing. The problem is that the insurgents are so integrated in the civilian urban environment, that you won't get them out any way short of nuking the city. And these guys are all over Iraq, so you'd have to nuke quite a few cities.

Well, there's of course the house-to-house fighting, but that hasn't worked out well so far. There you can always expect more US than insurgent casualties.

It is frustrating isn't it? The only answer is to do what one must, within reason of course. Whether or not house to house fighting is effective or not, Fallujah was taken down quite quickly, and with relatively few Coaltion casualties. I doubt it could have been accomplshed any better, at any previous time in history by any other nation- with so few relatve casulties.

Not that that is important. What was important was that it was accomplished at all.

[FerretFangs 0]

I'm sorry, but yes, that's what the civilians should do if there's a firefight taking place in their front yard. That's what they've ALWAYS had to do in war.

What would you do? Sit there and complain about it?

To be honest ,what I would if someone would come and want me to leave everything behind just so someone can fight there, I'd fight for my piece of land..

I'd pick up arms to defend that what I would have worked for..

It seems I'm not the only one who would do that..

As a matter of fact, I might do that too, if I'm not worried about getting my family to saftey. And you know what? You and I would both be turned into greasy red stains on the wall for that decision.

Seeing as how I believe in the Coalition's mission in Iraq, I'd can't blame them for killing those insurgents either.

A man makes his decisions and must be willing to live or die as a result of them.

[denoir 0]

It is frustrating isn't it? The only answer is to do what one must, within reason of course. Whether or not house to house fighting is effective or not, Fallujah was taken down quite quickly, and with relatively few Coaltion casualties.

It took them nearly a year to take Fallujah, and there were more coalition casualties than insurgent casualties (and much more civilian casualties). In short, it was a disaster.

Quote[/b] ]I doubt it could have been accomplshed any better, at any previous time in history by any other nation- with so few relatve casulties.

I would put it the other way around. Never in modern wars has such a superior force (superior in numbers, technology, training etc) performed so badly. US forces outnumbered the insurgents five to one and yet there were around only 80-100 insurgent casualties (dead + wounded) while the US suffered around 40 dead and 200 wounded. The civilians of course paid the highest price.

Quote[/b] ]Not that that is important. What was important was that it was accomplished at all.

What exactly was accomplished? That the insurgents focused their forces on a different location? The coalition does that on a monthly basis - and these are guerrillas we're talking about, moving around is part of their basic MO. They got the US to commit large number of troops, they inflicted heavy casualties and moved on. Whose victory do you think Fallujah was?

And on a higher level, we can see today that if anything the insurgency grew stronger (thanks to the popular resentment to the US as a consequence of the civilian casualties).

[FerretFangs 0]

Fallujah was forgotten about for quite some time, until the golvernment was commited to taking it back from the insurgents. Once that decision was made, Fallujah was taken down in weeks.

There are various After Action Reports of the Battle of Fallujah, but I'd suggest this one: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/03/showdown_the_ba.html

Quote[/b] ]FALLUJAH, Iraq (AP) - U.S. military officials said Saturday that American troops had now "occupied" the entire city of Fallujah and there were no more major concentrations of insurgents still fighting after nearly a week of intense urban combat.

A U.S. officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Fallujah was "occupied but not subdued." Artillery and airstrikes also were halted after nightfall to prevent mistaken attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces who had taken up positions throughout the city.

Iraqi officials declared the operation to free Fallujah of militants was "accomplished" but acknowledged the two most wanted figures in the city - Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Sheik Abdullah al-Janabi - had escaped.

U.S. officers said, however, that resistance had not been entirely subdued and that it still could take several days of fighting to clear the final pockets.

The offensive against Fallujah killed at least 24 American troops and an estimated 1,000 insurgents, and rebel attacks elsewhere - especially in the northern city of Mosul - have forced the Americans to shift troops away from Fallujah.

[denoir 0]

Again, what exactly was accomplished? It's not like Iraq has become safer since then, right?

As I see it, the insurgents got it exactly the way they wanted. They forced the US to commit a large force and to fight on the terms of the resistance. The casualties in the end reflected just that.

What the Iraqis saw were a lot of civilian casualties, mostly coming from US bombs and also a TV recording of a US Marine shooting an unarmed wounded man in a Mosque. Overall quite a PR coup for the resistance movement.

[FerretFangs 0]

Well I think we can all agree the the US isn't going to get a fair shake, here, or any where else.

Aside from the Coalition being more proactive, and agressive, such as taking the fight to Syrian TERRORISTS in Syria, they are doing all they can. ( Just so you all realize I'm not talking about Syrian hospitals and child-care centers... )

As to the rest of us, all we can do is sit back and watch history unfold. Personally, I'm hoping that the Iraqis take control of Iraq before much longer, so that my friends and family can come home.

Those of you with an obvious agenda, well, let your conscience be your guide.

[denoir 0]

Of course there is an obvious agenda, and it is to get you (and others of similar opinion) to connect the dots. The point is to make sure that people learn from their mistakes and do not repeat them.

Most of the world warned you against attacking Iraq, citing exactly these kinds of post-war problems. I don't have a solution for the situation now. I have no real idea of how to get out of this hopeless mess. I, and a lot of other people, did however warn you that the war was a bad idea and that there was a great risk of it ending in a disaster for the whole region.

We're not there quite yet, but the direction where things are going seems quite clear.

The agenda is to get those that strongly supported the war to take a realistic look at its consequences, current and possible future so that they don't mindlessly cheer for the next war.

[FerretFangs 0]

And you must be willing to admit, that you could be wrong, too. History will tell. Not a bunch of "fortune tellers" on a wargame forum.

I'm an optimist.

[denoir 0]

Of course, I could be wrong, and things might settle down. Democracy might spread through the Mid East, and Bush may be hailed as the greatest leader and visionary of the century. It's too early to tell.

The point is however exactly that, we're not "fortune tellers". We don't know the end result, but we can easily see that there is a risk of things going to hell. Especially since that seems to be the trend. We have seen that the war was nothing like advertised: there were no WMD, no AQ connections, the invasion force was not met with flowers. Two years later the country is a mess.

Point being, that it was an incredibly irresponsible risk to take, that could have potentially consequences for the entire region and other parts of the world. For such decisions not to be taken lightly there's a system of international checks and balances. The US and its partners ignored it in a most irresponsible manner.

The important thing is to recognize the risk that such a war adventure carries, and also to recognize that should things go badly, it will affect lots of people around the world.

[FerretFangs 0]

And if things do go well, and there are trends in that direction too,

then we can all rejoice.

"Nothing ventured, nothing gained."

Time will tell.

[denoir 0]

Yeah, time will tell, but you have to have a reality check now and then. You can't just hope and expect that everything will suddenly start to work as planned.

[FerretFangs 0]

No, if there hadn't been any successes at all, I'd probably feel differently. But that's not the case.

There IS reason to hope.