The Iraq thread 4

[redpride 0]

I say if these people are going to preach the politics of 21st century USA then at least they should show some integrity to not mask themselves behind this concept of "freedom and democracy" when clearly these things even don't exist in the USA for starters.

Even Hitler never preached about invading nations of Europe in the name of "freedom & Democracy".

What's this world coming too?

[hoz 0]

I merge the Iraq resistance fighters thread with this one.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Like many others I have been giving this thread a rest while the troop surge has been in effect in the hope it would perhaps have a chance to improve things.

So far it is obvious to one and all it has not but we must give it until September to be sure.

The main problem is though that the troops are now seeming tired out.

I come to this conclusion from the many interviews of the troops in Iraq and returning from there. The recent channel4 news article I saw shows the problems most graphically.

I have linked to the news article but please be aware the link [ Watch the report ] to the documentary video on this page by the embedded journalist is extremely harrowing both in its content and in the testimony by the US troops of Apache company.

http://www.channel4.com/news....02#fold

Like the troops I think the whole strategy of this war has been very badly handled.

The strategy of a war is the responsibility of the political leaders.

I was also shocked to hear that the generals have only recently been allowed to war-game the exit strategies, most especially those for worst case evacuation of our troops, the very plan that should have been in run though tens of times before we even considered planning an invasion. Any fool can get themselves in the crapper but any real leader has plans to get you out of it.

So despite all Donald Rumsfeld's promises no Exit Strategy was ever planned. The lesson that every officer from General down to the lowest lieutenant in Vietnam said was the most important lesson to learn from that mess.

It seems that George Bush Junior and all his crowd have really stuffed our troops.

If things are not better by September then those political heads must role. Even those who have left power must be brought to book and indicted.

Sadly walker

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

The strategy of a war is the responsibility of the political leaders.

Are you sure?  

Wouldn't you rather leave the strategy of war to the military?

Sure the politicians give limitations and guidelines. But I do believe that a lesson that should have been learned from Vietnam is that politicians don't make good tactical decisions.  Politicians are good at making and negotiating Wars, but not fighting them.

Sadly we claimed that we had learned that lesson but it seems otherwise.

[sander 14]

Hi,

The strategy of war should indeed not be best left to the military. Warfare in general for is for states a continuation of politics with the employment of additional means. War by states is not conducted for purposes solely defined by a military group (e.g. to accrue honour as it might be in a warrior society). Therefore politicians have an essential role in defining strategy by setting the aims and limitations within which those aims are to be achieved. This is not just limited to what is variously termed grand strategy or political strategy (concerned with long term aims, which can exceed the level of a particular war), but that of strategy in the narrower sense (concerned with a particular war's aims) as well. The military 's role in a democratic state is to advise on strategy and to implement it, not to define it on its own. War should serve politics and not vice versa.

Regards,

Sander

[USMC NEEDER 0]

say to bush just stop murders

in iraq

for us soldiers (some have family children ...) and are american

that break my heart everyday i see u smart people sending ur soldiers to death for .........

We are in Iraq for a reason... a good reason actually. Remember 9/11? well its our pay-back to all terrorists and we are also freeing Iraq thanks to president bush.

So we arent sending our troops over there just to get murdered for no reason, we do have a reason.... a good one too.

[sniperuk02 0]

Remember 9/11? well its our pay-back to all terrorists

I thought that was why America went into Afghanistan..not Iraq.

I thought it was about some WMDs that they still havent found...

[USMC NEEDER 0]

Ok.... THE Al-Qaeda MOVED to Iraq, now they are moving to Iran.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]We are in Iraq for a reason... a good reason actually. Remember 9/11? well its our pay-back to all terrorists and we are also freeing Iraq thanks to president bush.

Problem is, by now much more civillians got killed than "terrorists".

And sorry, but if you are one of those who still think that Iraq was involved with 9/11 it wouldn´t hurt if you read some serious papers first...

Quote[/b] ]Ok.... THE Al-Qaeda MOVED to Iraq, now they are moving to Iran.

Yes they moved to Iraq after the US invaded and dismissed all border guards, cool huh ?

Actually the US are supporters of terrorism if you see it this way. They invited AQ to Iraq and they happily came to have a good time. Apart from that only a little fraction of Iraqi resistance is AQ, most of them are local fighters who simply want to drive the invaders out of the country.

Quote[/b] ]now they are moving to Iran.

Sure...

That has to be the reason why the US reopened direct talks with Iran.

Man, read some news please.

[Krabsworth 0]

Ok.... THE Al-Qaeda MOVED to Iraq, now they are moving to Iran.

wow you are so painfully misinformed it is really painful, just wow.

Iran and Al Queda are essentially enemies because Iran is Shi'a and Al Queda is Sunni.

Al Queda never moved to Iraq. Its not like Al Queda is some group of guys who travel everywhere together like conventional fighters.

Iran just gives its weapons to the Shi'a sects in Iraq that it wants to supports. In my opinion they have every right to.

Quote[/b] ]Man, read some news please.

I would not recommend reading or listening to any American news source for the right look at what is happening in Iraq. They are the ones painting this picture that Iran is shipping truckloads of IEDs, Ak's, and the nukes its making to the big Al Queda building in the middle of Iraq.

More fault needs to be put on Saudi Arabia for everything than Iran. It is their money that is killing alot of people. Money our oil hungry government gives to them.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

I heard an interesting idea being bounced around today.  I thought about it and it seemed to make sense, so I'll let you guys ponder it or tear it to shreds.

The concept rests on that 26 provinces in Iraq are basiclly "under control" or at least free of wide-spread violence.  Much of the US troop surge has concentrated on the 2 that are not.

So, why not yank US troops out (or at least limit exposure)  of these 2 provinces and let the Iraqi forces do the dirty work and pour it on with US support.

This would reduce casualties from IED's and force the Iraqi forces to sheet or get off the pot.

Ok, this is a rather simplistic answer.  So have at it.

[simba 0]

^ this is a dangerous idea.

Rebels will move to follow US troops wherever they go, iraqis want their country not a part of it.

it starts like that and at the end US forces will only protect strategic points (petrol, airports, puppet gov,...).

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

^ this is a dangerous idea.

Rebels will move to follow US troops wherever they go, iraqis want their country not a part of it.

it starts like that and at the end US forces will only protect strategic points (petrol, airports, puppet gov,...).

Hmm good point simba.  That leaves 2 options.  The current one that nobody seems to be happy with, or a complete pull out.

I don't know if a complete withdrawl is your view, but it's not looking like a part of the plan.  Not with a 600 million dollar embassy and a new super base that makes Ramstein Air Base look teeny.

All this talk about timetables for withdrawl and meeting benchmarks, didn't seem to effect the real long term vision.

[Marinecqc 0]

^ this is a dangerous idea.

Rebels will move to follow US troops wherever they go, iraqis want their country not a part of it.

it starts like that and at the end US forces will only protect strategic points (petrol, airports, puppet gov,...).

Hmm good point simba.  That leaves 2 options.  The current one that nobody seems to be happy with, or a complete pull out.

I don't know if a complete withdrawl is your view, but it's not looking like a part of the plan.  Not with a 600 million dollar embassy and a new super base that makes Ramstein Air Base look teeny.

All this talk about timetables for withdrawl and meeting benchmarks, didn't seem to effect the real long term vision.

Let's face fact's here, if we pull out then terrorists will be on american soil. You wouldn't like that now would you?

[Lamont 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Let's face fact's here, if we pull out then terrorists will be on american soil. You wouldn't like that now would you?

You've been watching too much FOX kid

[Major Fubar 0]

Lets keep it civil before I need to lock this thread and start handing out perm bans again.

[wex-q 0]

Well, if that would happen, which is seemingly what many Iraqies wish is, I do not think it would keep as calm as it is right now.

It would be fun saying "Told you so" to all people in the west that opposes the US Forces in Iraq and other crisis areas though...

[Lamont 0]

Quote[/b] ]I do not think it would keep as calm as it is right now.

Its not calm at all now. Why don't you go there and see for yourself?

About 60 civilians getting killed each day, about 4 US soldiers getting blown to pieces. At least 5 times as much Iraqi soldiers.

Getting only 1 hour of electricity a day. Bombs going out every few hours.

Is that your definition of calm? I suppose some Americans have a very disoriented view of the world.

[wex-q 0]

Pull the americans out and you will pull the little, but existant, calm they have brought.

You watch to much TV probably, the media portrays the US Forces as just something medelling (sp?) in the conflict.

So, if the US cannot help the Iraqi army and police to restore order, and supply them with gear themselfes cannot afford, how in the world are they going to keep the order?

I'm not saying it's calm at all, also, english is not my first language, so what I meant with "as calm as it is right now", was the little peace that the US forces together with iraqi forces and police have restored and held.

If the US - which has the right protection, has the right organization, has the right number of soldiers - leave, what will the army and police left there with lowgrade armoring that protects you against 9mm when terrorists shoots wild with AKs?

And you took me as an american, which I belive is for the loss of the view from all sides of the conflict.

I've seen endless un-angeled documentaries about conflicts in the middleeast, especially in Iraq (and the Gaza-strip fights, nvm that). If you know both sides, you will understand - even if not full to perfection - that the US Forces are doing all in their power to restore order in this conflict.

Now, if you are complaining so much, why don't you just simply form up a much better strategy which would bring peace to this conflict?

Sending flowers to both sides isn't going to make them friends, so sadly, we will send bullets at both sides :/

Quote[/b] ]about 4 US soldiers getting blown to pieces.

And who is to blame for that? The US Forces? Ehrm, no, they didn't place IEDs, and they aren't trying to do anything particular against those who place them.

Sadly, they are brainswashes, so not much to reason with them, except facing them in a battle to death (life's a bitch)

Quote[/b] ]About 60 civilians getting killed each day

Are the US Forces killing them?

How would it go on if the US Forces left? The terrorists would angle their attacks at the iraqi police and army, leading to probably even more deaths, since without any presence of US Forces with their feared weapons (sounds a bit patriotic, but you get my point), it's free to do anything.

The police don't have proper gear to protect themselves, whilst terrorists has AKs with AP-bullets, RPGs, grenades, homemade bombs and so forth..

Quote[/b] ]Why don't you go there and see for yourself?

Only 16 yet, but I am on my way, just for your information.

No offence meant, but what have you done to help anything in Iraq?

[Lamont 0]

Quote[/b] ]Pull the americans out and you will pull the little, but existant, calm they have brought.

You watch to much TV probably, the media portrays the US Forces as just something medelling (sp?) in the conflict.

So, if the US cannot help the Iraqi army and police to restore order, and supply them with gear themselfes cannot afford, how in the world are they going to keep the order?

Wrong kid. We heard the same thing in Vietnam and it didn't happen. And stick it in your brain that most of the insurgents in Iraq are not terrorists. They are doing what any citizen of a respectful nation would do if invaded.

Yes the Iraqi puppet government will fall, but there will be stability after that. The only reason there is no stability is because of the US.

Quote[/b] ]

I'm not saying it's calm at all, also, english is not my first language, so what I meant with "as calm as it is right now", was the little peace that the US forces together with iraqi forces and police have restored and held.

If the US - which has the right protection, has the right organization, has the right number of soldiers - leave, what will the army and police left there with lowgrade armoring that protects you against 9mm when terrorists shoots wild with AKs?

And you took me as an american, which I belive is for the loss of the view from all sides of the conflict.

I've seen endless un-angeled documentaries about conflicts in the middleeast, especially in Iraq (and the Gaza-strip fights, nvm that). If you know both sides, you will understand - even if not full to perfection - that the US Forces are doing all in their power to restore order in this conflict.

Now, if you are complaining so much, why don't you just simply form up a much better strategy which would bring peace to this conflict?

Sending flowers to both sides isn't going to make them friends, so sadly, we will send bullets at both sides :/

Thats not true. You are very miss informed. Thats exactly what they want you to believe. Its sad some people buy it. The US is the reason Jihadis are there, and the US is the reason all the instability is there. As long as the US is there, there will be no peace. You can never win a war against an insurgency supported by the local population.

Quote[/b] ]And who is to blame for that? The US Forces? Ehrm, no, they didn't place IEDs, and they aren't trying to do anything particular against those who place them.

Sadly, they are brainswashes, so not much to reason with them, except facing them in a battle to death (life's a bitch)

Fighting against the invaders is brainwashed? They are fighting against US influence in the region. They do not want a puppet government controlled by the US and they do not want their oil fields to be controlled by US corporations. In other words, they do not want to be slaves on the land of their forefathers. If that is not a good reason to fight and die for, I don't know what is.

Quote[/b] ]

Are the US Forces killing them?

How would it go on if the US Forces left? The terrorists would angle their attacks at the iraqi police and army, leading to probably even more deaths, since without any presence of US Forces with their feared weapons (sounds a bit patriotic, but you get my point), it's free to do anything.

The police don't have proper gear to protect themselves, whilst terrorists has AKs with AP-bullets, RPGs, grenades, homemade bombs and so forth..

US forces are killing a lot of civilians. Ever heard of the terrorism act that they call "collateral damage"? Or not denying. Go to liveleak.com and read the guardian. There are many documented cases of crimes committed by the US government and US troops in Iraq. Yes, some by the government. Read the guardian and see.

Quote[/b] ]Only 16 yet, but I am on my way, just for your information.

No offence meant, but what have you done to help anything in Iraq?

No surprise, you think like one too. I bet you all in the world that in 4 years from now, you will take an about turn and change your miss guided opinion. When you do that, you think of what I said here today.

The biggest thing I did to support Iraq is by not supporting oppression and giving in to them. And that is the biggest thing any individual can do.

Have a nice day

[Hoot1988 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don't know if a complete withdrawl is your view, but it's not looking like a part of the plan. Not with a 600 million dollar embassy and a new super base that makes Ramstein Air Base look teeny.

Not sure about the Americans but the British plan is not to completely pull out for the next 30+years. The British plan is that all of the forces bar a battalion sized group of maybe 250-750 troops will remain for personnel training, local forces training and the option to have a forward military base there. will probably end up as a small base within Iraq itself with no airfield as we have them in Qatar anyway.

Im sure this is the same in the American case as well. not sure on the exact numbers that are their but im guessing with the troop surge its around 50,000-75,000. probably have a 1000-5000 sized contingent their for the foreseeable future. even when the war is effectively "won". hell WWII ended 60 years ago and there are still thousands of US troops their. its just another staging ground against a potential aggressor eg. Syria, Iran

not sure what that 600million dollar embassy is for though, i don't understand that really

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Quote[/b] ]Pull the americans out and you will pull the little, but existant, calm they have brought.

You watch to much TV probably, the media portrays the US Forces as just something medelling (sp?) in the conflict.

So, if the US cannot help the Iraqi army and police to restore order, and supply them with gear themselfes cannot afford, how in the world are they going to keep the order?

Wrong kid.  We heard the same thing in Vietnam and it didn't happen.  And stick it in your brain that most of the insurgents in Iraq are not terrorists.  They are doing what any citizen of a respectful nation would do if invaded.  

Yes the Iraqi puppet government will fall, but there will be stability after that.  The only reason there is no stability is because of the US.

It's best not to quote history when you don't know history.

The fact is that when the Americans pulled out of Vietnam, tens of thousands were imprisioned and executed. Doctors, teachers and those that "collaberated with Americans" were sent to reeducation camps or simply shot.

Following that came the international humanitarian crisis as millions attempted to flee the country, the invasion of Cambodia to fight the Khmer Rouge (which is responsible itself for the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million people), and a breif run-in with the Chinese.

You call that stability?

Stability did come in the mid-80's when Vietnam adopted a semi free-market which capitalized on their cheap labor.

Marinecqc, I actually agree with you. I'm not sure about the actual motives of creating a "perminant" presence in Iraq, but I do think our presence has that effect. The 600 million dollar embassy is due to its size. It is a completely self-contained city, and would have to be looking at the climate in the country.

The embassy and the "superbase" show that the military and State Dept. are under the assumption that Iraq is a LONG term project. However I would not completely rule out a sudden reversal of plans. Though even with a Democrat in the White House, I think people would be suprised to see that they would become complicit in the plan as well.

[baddo 0]

Well this whole Operation Iraqi "Freedom" is just propaganda in my opinion and not a realistic setting to happen.

Propaganda from the year 1939: The Soviet Union will "free" Finland and its citizens, who want to actually be part of the Soviet Union, or so the Soviets said. Result of this "freedom" operation for the Soviet Union: official death count for them after the three month operation is ~127,000, wounded ~265,000 (for Finland ~27,000 dead and ~40,000 wounded, source for the numbers Wikipedia.org). I thank my grandparents every single day that no "freedom" was brought to the citizens of my country as a result of this Soviet "freedom" operation.

Soviet ignorance and incompetence were important factors in the Finnish success during the war. The attackers were not expecting much resistance; General Kirill Meretskov estimated it would take only 10 to 12 days for his 26 well equipped 14,000 man divisions to reach Helsinki. Their propaganda had been so convincing that it was felt that the Finns would be waving flags and welcoming the Red Army with open arms.

I see this quote speaking about the Winter War having similarities to how the Operation Iraqi Freedom went (it is still unfinished even though G.W.B. already declared victory). Strong resistance was not expected, war would be quickly over and the Iraqi people would be delighted. Not one of those expectations have realized in Iraq.

It might be a whole lot different kind of setting in modern-day Iraq, but the basics are the same. A foreign, not welcome army steps into the soil of a smaller country and the people of the smaller country defend their soil with every kind of weapon they can produce ("sticks and stones", "improvised" devices of all sorts) and the moment when the fighting stops is when the bigger one, the invader, gives up and gets the hell out of there.

I don't accept terrorism. I gave USA a lot of compassion and support on 9/11/2001. Like many others here in my country, I cried when I saw what happened in New York. I still do if I see the videos, the horrible memories of 9/11 are so strong. The events of 9/11/2001 definitely had an effect on me as a person. I give absolutely zero compassion for people who fight against civilians and don't take it on against an army.

But I understand very well if someone wants to drive foreign soldiers, who were not invited, out from their country by any means possible. That's what I would do and you would do it too. I am sure you would definitely not like it if in such a situation you were called a terrorist. That would make you even more angry, I am sure of that. And then you would fight back even harder.

I wonder if the average people in the USA are able to look at the war in Iraq from this point-of-view? Or do the average USA people just believe whatever their politicians and media tell them.

[Lamont 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's best not to quote history when you don't know history.

The fact is that when the Americans pulled out of Vietnam, tens of thousands were imprisioned and executed. Doctors, teachers and those that "collaberated with Americans" were sent to reeducation camps or simply shot.

Following that came the international humanitarian crisis as millions attempted to flee the country, the invasion of Cambodia to fight the Khmer Rouge (which is responsible itself for the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million people), and a breif run-in with the Chinese.

You call that stability?

Stability did come in the mid-80's when Vietnam adopted a semi free-market which capitalized on their cheap labor.

Its better not to be a smart ass when you don't know much. Of course collaborators were imprisoned, of course there were executions. Those were happening in communist countries by default. Political prisoners imprisoned, etc.

We were told that all the dominos will fall and all hell will break lose. All the region will turn communism and millions will die. Well that didn't happen now did it? So my point still stands.

The scenario that we were told to what really happened is very different. Same with Iraq at the moment. So sorry if you didn't read right.

[wex-q 0]

Lamont

Where are you from?