Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 58
  1. #21  
    I'd like to state the obvious and add that the Sunni's should be accused of kidnappings and killings.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Why is it you would be willing to completely dismiss the U.N.?
    I personally do not dismiss the UN.....just lost a tremendous amount of faith in them for several reasons over the last 10 yrs or so. They have have proven to have limp backbone when it comes to enforcing their own resolutions. Obvious corruption, Oil for Food being a current example....etc...

    I would more than welcome the UN in Iraq. But I would not feel safe trusting the whole job to them. For me, they have lost a lot of trust that must be earned back. They should be integrated with the US taking a slow track of reducing it's participation.
  3.    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    The load of crap is what would be delivered to our metaphorical doorstep if we pull out without accomplishing this mission and thus appear weak (again) to the Islamic fundamentalists who wish us harm.
    "Mission" is still not defined. And your argument about appearing weak to the small % of Islamofacists coming to Iraq to confront the invader is a self feeding one. We will be a target of theirs as long as we are there and we're not going to secure that entire border.


    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I agree that the administration was neglectfully unprepared for the insurgency. That's not terribly relevant now, is it though?
    It's not an insurgency as much as it's a civil war, which the administration was warned about. They were also told they would need far more troops to secure the country. The neo-cons poo-poo's both and ou

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Iraq was (partially) about showing him and his followers that their Somalia calculation was no longer valid.
    By this logic, would you not mean Afghanistan instead of Iraq?
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    I'd like to state the obvious and add that the Sunni's should be accused of kidnappings and killings.
    Um yea, that's a big duh. We're playing the b-side of the circle of violence here.

  5. #25  
    Someone has to defend the USA. Sick of all the babying of terrorists. Stop drinking the koolaid and wake up.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Um yea, that's a big duh. We're playing the b-side of the circle of violence here.

  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Someone has to defend the USA. Sick of all the babying of terrorists. Stop drinking the koolaid and wake up.
    WTF does your statement have to do wih defending the U.S. (position, I assume) ??
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    "Mission" is still not defined. And your argument about appearing weak to the small % of Islamofacists coming to Iraq to confront the invader is a self feeding one.
    My point about weakness wasn't directly related to foreign fighters coming into Iraq - rather attacks on US interests generally. I have clearly defined the mission: to make the coutry safe enough to allow democracy to take root and to train indigenous forces going forward. I've said this several different times. The administration has also said this. You obviously choose not to hear. Yes, I'd like to see things like specifically how many Iraqi troops are enough, but that's a metric, not a goal. The mission is complete when the goals are attained.
    We will be a target of theirs as long as we are there and we're not going to secure that entire border.
    We are a target of theirs regardless of where we are. Would you rather they try and attack armed US Marines or New York investment bankers?
    It's not an insurgency as much as it's a civil war, which the administration was warned about. They were also told they would need far more troops to secure the country. The neo-cons poo-poo's both and ou
    You need at least two sides to have a civil war. Where are the Shia insurgent fighters? Isolated cases of rogue police officers don't count.
    By this logic, would you not mean Afghanistan instead of Iraq?
    Both, actually. Afghanistan because of the direct link to 9/11. Iraq because of the unfinished business post 1991 war. Hussein had been thumbing his nose at us (and the U.N.) for 12 years. He was becoming increasingly desperate (but no more cooperative) due to the long years of sanctions. This made him more, not less, likely to be receptive to like-minded enemies of America and the West.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    mythical "foreign fighters"
    To say foriegn fighters are mythical within the terrorist insurgency in Iraq is just as niave as saying that all of the terrorists and insurgents are foreign. There is also the different topic of Foreign support, i.e. banking services, money, supplies, weapons, etc...

    Here are a couple sources:


    More foreign fighters entering Iraq
    Foreign fighters entering Iraq in recent months make up a growing percentage of insurgents battling US troops and the country's fledgling security force, according to a senior US military commander.

    In an interview with CNN in Mosul, General John Abizaid - the commander of US Central Command which covers Iraq - said that while most insurgents appear to be Iraqis, "the percentage of foreign fighters over the past several months seems to have increased".

    Iraq holding 281 foreign insurgent suspects
    http://rantburg.com:8080/rantburg/po...005-08-22&HC=1
    Topping the list of detainees’ nationalities were Egypt (80), followed by Syria (64) and Sudan (41). Kubba said there was also a Briton in the group. He named a total of 14 countries, all of them Arab, except Iran, Turkey and Britain.

    IRAQ: Insurgency Goals
    http://www.cfr.org/publication/8117/...dcrumb=default
    Collusion by neighboring countries. Many of the countries on Iraq's borders--Iran and Syria in particular--are believed to be indirectly abetting the insurgency, experts say. The United States and Iraq accuse Syria of not doing enough to prevent foreign jihadis from crossing its 380-mile porous border with Iraq, and for failing to stop an alleged secret meeting by Zarqawi's group last month that may have incubated the latest wave of violence. Iran has been accused of funneling money to insurgent groups in Iraq, though Tehran's primary concern, according to a recent report ( http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3328&l=1 ) by the International Crisis Group, is "to prevent Iraq from re-emerging as a threat, whether of a military, political, or ideological nature." Some Middle Eastern countries may be provoking a degree of instability in Iraq because they do not want a democracy on their doorsteps, many experts say. More importantly, these states may not want to see Washington succeed in its experiment to remake the Middle East to its liking.
  9. #29  
    Where is the international outrage against terrorists? There is plenty of outrage against USA when you hear a book is flushed down the toilet - even Senators want hearings over it. I don't expect you to understand. Just keep drinking your koolaid.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    WTF does your statement have to do wih defending the U.S. (position, I assume) ??
  10.    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    To say foriegn fighters are mythical within the terrorist insurgency in Iraq is just as niave as saying that all of the terrorists and insurgents are foreign. There is also the different topic of Foreign support, i.e. banking services, money, supplies, weapons, etc...

    Here are a couple sources:


    More foreign fighters entering Iraq



    Iraq holding 281 foreign insurgent suspects
    http://rantburg.com:8080/rantburg/po...005-08-22&HC=1



    IRAQ: Insurgency Goals
    http://www.cfr.org/publication/8117/...dcrumb=default
    You're correct. I did not mean to imply the foreign islamofacists were completely mythical. I meant the idea that the insurgency IS "foreign fighters.
  11.    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    My point about weakness wasn't directly related to foreign fighters coming into Iraq - rather attacks on US interests generally. I have clearly defined the mission: to make the coutry safe enough to allow democracy to take root and to train indigenous forces going forward. I've said this several different times. The administration has also said this. You obviously choose not to hear. Yes, I'd like to see things like specifically how many Iraqi troops are enough, but that's a metric, not a goal. The mission is complete when the goals are attained.
    "Democracy taking root" you have to admit that is very very vague.

    I already have pointed out an inherent problem with these three groups that makes the training of indigenous forces actually part of the problem which will sabotage the democratic process for years to come. Again I say this is a fault within the mission problem not how it was carried out by our troops. In my opinion, they can not fail, the Administration already has.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    We are a target of theirs regardless of where we are. Would you rather they try and attack armed US Marines or New York investment bankers?
    By invading an arab country we encourage the attacks by people who would otherwise not give a **** about NY bankers.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    You need at least two sides to have a civil war. Where are the Shia insurgent fighters? Isolated cases of rogue police officers don't count.
    They're not isolated cases. If you believe that you're ignoring the reality of the situation.


    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Both, actually. Afghanistan because of the direct link to 9/11. Iraq because of the unfinished business post 1991 war. Hussein had been thumbing his nose at us (and the U.N.) for 12 years. He was becoming increasingly desperate (but no more cooperative) due to the long years of sanctions. This made him more, not less, likely to be receptive to like-minded enemies of America and the West.
    That's an incredible bit of theory all of which has been disproven. The only thing the Bathist party was receeptive to was lucrative oil contracts drawn up with Russia and France that were waiting for the U.N. to allow happen.
  12.    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Where is the international outrage against terrorists? There is plenty of outrage against USA when you hear a book is flushed down the toilet - even Senators want hearings over it. I don't expect you to understand. Just keep drinking your koolaid.
    The international outrage against terrorists is Americans throwing the phrase around like it's the new "communists". It's also hard to convince a lot of people when you're invading other's countries for no good reason.

    And you have some nerve to ***** about international outrage. In case you forgot, THE WORLD was feeling our pain after 9-11. We had THE WORLD'S support to go into Afghanistan! It wasn't until those neo-con idiots decided to go into Iraq, NO MATTER WHAT, that we lost the World's understanding and sympathy.
  13. #33  
    Oh how your true colors shine so dimly. I'd say the word terrorist is every bit as dangerous as the word communist was. The world felt our pain for about a month and went back to hating us. The world in general has hated us for a long time and that ain't gonna change. Thank God President Bush doesn't create policy based on if the French, Germans, Russians like us or not. Your political views are weak and feeble and are why in the end President Bush was elected and then re-elected. And by the way, 'Sympathy' doesn't defeat terrorists, but putting boots on the ground and killing them does.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The international outrage against terrorists is Americans throwing the phrase around like it's the new "communists". It's also hard to convince a lot of people when you're invading other's countries for no good reason.

    And you have some nerve to ***** about international outrage. In case you forgot, THE WORLD was feeling our pain after 9-11. We had THE WORLD'S support to go into Afghanistan! It wasn't until those neo-con idiots decided to go into Iraq, NO MATTER WHAT, that we lost the World's understanding and sympathy.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    "Democracy taking root" you have to admit that is very very vague.
    No. Having an elected assembly and executive pretty much is rooted democracy and is not at all vague.
    I already have pointed out an inherent problem with these three groups that makes the training of indigenous forces actually part of the problem which will sabotage the democratic process for years to come. Again I say this is a fault within the mission problem not how it was carried out by our troops. In my opinion, they can not fail, the Administration already has.
    Well, I disagree. I guess we will eventually find out who was correct.
    By invading an arab country we encourage the attacks by people who would otherwise not give a **** about NY bankers.
    Attacking Iraq (not their own country) turned plain old arab street citizens into raving jihadis? C'mon...

    9/11 happened before the Iraq invasion. It's a cliche at this point, but it's still true.
    They're not isolated cases. If you believe that you're ignoring the reality of the situation.
    Then show me the stories - what "reality" am I ignoring?
    That's an incredible bit of theory all of which has been disproven. The only thing the Bathist party was receeptive to was lucrative oil contracts drawn up with Russia and France that were waiting for the U.N. to allow happen.
    It was believed to be true prior to the war. Whether it's been disproven ex post facto is no longer relevant. That a desperate Saddam (a known possesor of WMD) might be driven to deal with Al Qaeda was a very real possibility. You can't fairly judge actions taken by us in 2002-2003 in light of facts revealed only after the war.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  15.    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Oh how your true colors shine so dimly. I'd say the word terrorist is every bit as dangerous as the word communist was. The world felt our pain for about a month and went back to hating us. The world in general has hated us for a long time and that ain't gonna change. Thank God President Bush doesn't create policy based on if the French, Germans, Russians like us or not. Your political views are weak and feeble and are why in the end President Bush was elected and then re-elected. And by the way, 'Sympathy' doesn't defeat terrorists, but putting boots on the ground and killing them does.
    The boots were on the ground WITH MY FULL SUPPORT! Then they were moved somewhere else that had nothing to do with it.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You're correct. I did not mean to imply the foreign islamofacists were completely mythical. I meant the idea that the insurgency IS "foreign fighters.
    More accurately the Insurgency and the terrorists involved with it has a percentage of their support from foreign sources.....whether additional boots on the ground, supplies for bombs, financial services or support, other terrorist networks, etc....

    If a foreign country is the source for 10% of the ground force involved in the terrorist acts of the insurgency, then that is significant. If a country is "unofficially" supplying materials for making road side bombs, that is significant. If a country is turning a blind eye to financial services supplying the terrorist and the insurgents, that is significant.

    I think the last quote I used above describes the situation pretty well.
  17.    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Whether it's been disproven ex post facto is no longer relevant. That a desperate Saddam (a known possesor of WMD) might be driven to deal with Al Qaeda was a very real possibility. You can't fairly judge actions taken by us in 2002-2003 in light of facts revealed only after the war.
    United Nations official investigation reported no WMD trucks or programs which were waved at the UN as justification for a war, TWO WEEKS PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq.
  18.    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    More accurately the Insurgency and the terrorists involved with it has a percentage of their support from foreign sources.....whether additional boots on the ground, supplies for bombs, financial services or support, other terrorist networks, etc....

    If a foreign country is the source for 10% of the ground force involved in the terrorist acts of the insurgency, then that is significant. If a country is "unofficially" supplying materials for making road side bombs, that is significant. If a country is turning a blind eye to financial services supplying the terrorist and the insurgents, that is significant.

    I think the last quote I used above describes the situation pretty well.
    Yes, but you fail to mention is that without a U.S. presence, the insurgency would quickly lose any patience they have with the foreign islamofacist. In a way though it's ironic that the actual invasion brought about a cooperation between the secular bathists and the islamofacists.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yes, but you fail to mention is that without a U.S. presence, the insurgency would quickly lose any patience they have with the foreign islamofacist. In a way though it's ironic that the actual invasion brought about a cooperation between the secular bathists and the islamofacists.
    On the 3rd side of the coin, without the support of the US they would overrun the country and turn into another Afg. overlord run gov.

    Again....bring in the UN, but I don't think they have the will power, resolve, or the backbone to take on and maintain the job. Their biggest deterrent in recent years has been "If you don't follow our resolution...we will....we'll....issue another resolution!"
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    United Nations official investigation reported no WMD trucks or programs which were waved at the UN as justification for a war, TWO WEEKS PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq.
    Why the unquestioning belief in anything from the UN? It's simple amnesia to pretend it was in any way known that Iraq possessed no militarily significant WMD prior to the war. They were known to exist - in fact we have found some despite the constant drumbeat of "no WMD no WMD no WMD". See here for one example: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions