TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Since the The SurgeŽ has failed, operation Arm the Insurgency and Baathists has begun
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo oh i forgot. it's all about the short term margins with you i was the typical American. now it's you. congrats

Relax. Was it not facetious enough for you?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider A policy of arming and enabling the Iraqi army or the Iraqi police would be consistent with a policy of Iraqi's fighting their own battles. Arming the insurgency, which is difficult to control and is prone to attacking US forces is fucking retarded. FFS they even stated that they would attack US forces as soon as Al-Qaeda became less of a threat. Do you actually think this is anything but a tactic of desperation???

When did they say they would attack US forces as soon as Al-Qaida became less of a threat?

I do see your point. But I do think several tribes have offered up their young men (thousands) to serve in the Iraqi security forces. Should these groups join the conventional Iraqi forces? i think it would be in their best interest if they really care about their country, hopefully, they can get past tribal ties and think about the overall regional consequences.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton When did they say they would attack US forces as soon as Al-Qaida became less of a threat? I do see your point. But I do think several tribes have offered up their young men (thousands) to serve in the Iraqi security forces. Should these groups join the conventional Iraqi forces? i think it would be in their best interest if they really care about their country, hopefully, they can get past tribal ties and think about the overall regional consequences.

Only if solving a war is easy as a talk in a pow wow

Fucking stupid logic. Those who do not remember the past are bound to repeat it. The US helped arm Ho Chi Minh, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the list goes on. Yes, different situations from the one being discussed here but what was the outcome of each one? It came back to bite the US in the ass bad. The insurgents are not going to drop their "We Hate America" attitude completely and fight Al-Qaida exclusively. They're obviously going to act like they're going to, turn around, and use the US weapons against the US.

I know the President is dumbass but my hope was that there is at least intelligence in those who make these major military decisions. I guess I was wrong...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton When did they say they would attack US forces as soon as Al-Qaida became less of a threat?

Look, it was stated in the original article that started this thread. Please don't be the type of person that requires a pedantic guide in life.

quote:

I do see your point. But I do think several tribes have offered up their young men (thousands) to serve in the Iraqi security forces. Should these groups join the conventional Iraqi forces? i think it would be in their best interest if they really care about their country, hopefully, they can get past tribal ties and think about the overall regional consequences.

What are you talking about? What you have stated seemingly has nothing to do with the negatives of the US decision to arm insurgent groups. Negatives that were reaffirmed by these very same insurgent groups declaring a cease fire with Al-Quada in Iraq.

Yet they still insist on "we dont negotiate with the terrorists".

This new so called stragedy is another good exmaple of great American politics,and the funny thing is as someone else mentioned here is that these people never seem to learn from their past mistakes.It should be clear to everyone now that this mission is a complete failure and the people so called in charge are clearly insane and incapable of doing anything.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Look, it was stated in the original article that started this thread. Please don't be the type of person that requires a pedantic guide in life. What are you talking about? What you have stated seemingly has nothing to do with the negatives of the US decision to arm insurgent groups. Negatives that were reaffirmed by these very same insurgent groups declaring a cease fire with Al-Quada in Iraq.

Please, guide me in life.

I'm talking about your stated point that Iraqi's fighting for themselves would entail them joining the national security forces. Tell me the negatives if we continued to fight these insurgent groups who are really nationalist in ideology, different from al-qaida? You seem to want them to fail either way.

If it was up to me, I'de make it clear to them that as soon as security for the entire country was secured, the US couldn't leave the vacuum of power open. It is essential that these tribal groups control their territories and they are forming units as part of the larger security apparatus.

There is no negative in changing a static course that wasn't working. It may be too little too late though.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Please, guide me in life. I'm talking about your stated point that Iraqi's fighting for themselves would entail them joining the national security forces. Tell me the negatives if we continued to fight these insurgent groups who are really nationalist in ideology, different from al-qaida? You seem to want them to fail either way. If it was up to me, I'de make it clear to them that as soon as security for the entire country was secured, the US couldn't leave the vacuum of power open. It is essential that these tribal groups control their territories and they are forming units as part of the larger security apparatus. There is no negative in changing a static course that wasn't working. It may be too little too late though.

What you're saying about tribes controlling their own territory would make Iraq look like Afghanistan? Weak central govt and various factions controlling its own territory and its own interests.

Even if these 'nationalists' insurgents fight AQ backed groups, considering they were pretty much formed originally to fight the 'invaders', I doubt they'd stop fighting until every US troops leave Iraq, and put their own govt in place in Baghdad. (Assuming every nationalist insurgents can get together and agree who to put in charge)

This strategy could turn out to be mint. If we are lucky maybe the al-Qaeda radical terrorists and the anti-al-Qaeda radical terrorists will end up wiping each other out so we can get the fuck out of Iraq sooner.

This really could end up well for us, when the terrorist groups are busy killing each other they don't have time to kill American soldiers

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree What you're saying about tribes controlling their own territory would make Iraq look like Afghanistan? Weak central govt and various factions controlling its own territory and its own interests. Even if these 'nationalists' insurgents fight AQ backed groups, considering they were pretty much formed originally to fight the 'invaders', I doubt they'd stop fighting until every US troops leave Iraq, and put their own govt in place in Baghdad. (Assuming every nationalist insurgents can get together and agree who to put in charge)

Strong central control of the country would take another Saddam. The country could better be united without tyrannical rule by allowing a 3-state autonomy with Baghdad as the federal city.

US troops will have to leave the country one day. What these idiot insurgents don't get is that the faster the country is stabilized, the faster the coalition can withdraw. It seems like they want bloodshed and inevitable tyranny.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Strong central control of the country would take another Saddam. The country could better be united without tyrannical rule by allowing a 3-state autonomy with Baghdad as the federal city.

Why do you think Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis would agree to such state?

Isn't the whole insurgents vs insurgents thing all about power struggle?

Not to mention I don't see how all 3 parties can come up with a new constitution satisfactory to all parties. Too much blood and anger right now for conciliatory time, IMO.

Plus Turkey would be annoyed at Kurds getting any sort of autonomy anywhere.

quote:

US troops will have to leave the country one day. What these idiot insurgents don't get is that the faster the country is stabilized, the faster the coalition can withdraw. It seems like they want bloodshed and inevitable tyranny.

I think Iraq will only get peace when everyone gets sick of fighting each other. That includes US too.

Damn. More everyday I'm going in favour of let the Iraqis fight it out among each other.

the final Brigade has arrived...the "surge" is on like Donkey Kong.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Please, guide me in life.

Right so take care to not ask stupid questions that are answered by the original article/post unless you expect pedantic responses.

quote:

I'm talking about your stated point that Iraqi's fighting for themselves would entail them joining the national security forces. Tell me the negatives if we continued to fight these insurgent groups who are really nationalist in ideology, different from al-qaida? You seem to want them to fail either way.

Oh jesus christ what are you talking about? Do you realise that there is an established government of Iraq that we're tryingt o support? Do you realise that we're trying to support a unified government/police/army in Iraq against an insurgency? Do you realise that the group that we're supplying arms to is outside of this government?? More to the point, do you not understand that the groups that we are arming have NO QUALMS about attacking US troops or the established Iraqi government? What about this seems like a good idea when one has the forsight of even 10 minutes into the future??

quote:

If it was up to me, I'de make it clear to them that as soon as security for the entire country was secured, the US couldn't leave the vacuum of power open. It is essential that these tribal groups control their territories and they are forming units as part of the larger security apparatus.

Every action the US has taken has opened power vacumns. FFS you know what happened after the invasion. And your "suggestions" are ludcriously simple at best. There are tribal groups allied to teh Badr camp, the Sadr camp, the SCRCSI, the government, etc., etc., etc. Assassinations, poltiics, and corruption are a mainstay of life. Can you give me ONE first hand account of what the provisional government has attempted to do in Iraq that supports your view? How many first hand accounts have you read about what's going on in Iraq? From military commanders? From former Coaliation Provisional employees? If you have any first hand accounts I'd love to hear about them because I've read a lot that are quite disturbing. If you want I'll provide references.

quote:

There is no negative in changing a static course that wasn't working. It may be too little too late though.

Ummm yes there's changing a static course for the WORSE

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the final Brigade has arrived...the "surge" is on like Donkey Kong.

Right. We should have known by June whether the Surge was working. Then we we're supposed to know by September. Now we're not going to know until 2017.

Yea thanks but no thanks you ultra liberal, big spender, nation builder clan. Please I think I have a few more tax dollars left for you to spend.

quote:

Petraeus: Iraq 'Challenges' to Last for Years By Karen DeYoung Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, June 18, 2007; Page A11 Conditions in Iraq will not improve sufficiently by September to justify a drawdown of U.S. military forces, the top commander in Iraq said yesterday. Asked whether he thought the job assigned to an additional 30,000 troops deployed as the centerpiece of President Bush's new war strategy would be completed by then, Gen. David H. Petraeus replied: "I do not, no. I think that we have a lot of heavy lifting to do." Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, his diplomatic counterpart in Baghdad, said a key report they will deliver to Washington in September will include what Crocker called "an assessment of what the consequences might be if we pursue other directions." Noting the "unhelpful roles" being played by Iran and Syria in Iraq, Crocker said: "We've got to consider what could happen." Comments by Petraeus on "Fox News Sunday" and Crocker on NBC's "Meet the Press" were an indication of the administration's evolving strategy for confronting rising congressional demands to begin planning troop withdrawals. In addition to warning about the possible regional consequences of withdrawal, both men emphasized a "mixed" picture on the ground, citing successes while acknowledging the difficulty of the task ahead. Asserting steady, albeit slow, military and political progress, Petraeus said that the "many, many challenges" would not be resolved "in a year or even two years." Similar counterinsurgency operations, he said, citing Britain's experience in Northern Ireland, "have gone at least nine or 10 years." He said he and Crocker would make "some recommendations on the way ahead" to Congress, and that it was realistic to assume "some form of long-term security arrangement" with Iraq. Democrats failed last month to impose a withdrawal timetable in war-funding legislation. But the enacted measure mandated assessments of military, political and economic progress from Petraeus and Crocker -- rather than from Washington-based administration and military officials -- by Sept. 15. A growing number of prominent Republicans who last month rejected any mention of withdrawal now say they view the September report as a crossroads. "I think everybody anticipates that there's going to be a new strategy in the fall," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "I don't think we'll have the same level of troops, in all likelihood, that we have now," totaling more than 150,000. "The time to properly evaluate that, it strikes me, is in September." On the Iraqi political front, McConnell said, the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been "a big disappointment. They have not done the things that they know they need to do to hold their country together -- things like the new oil law, things like local elections, things like finishing the de-Baathification process." In announcing his new strategy in January, Bush said the troop increase would diminish sectarian violence in Baghdad and break Sunni insurgent control in Anbar province, a stronghold of the group al-Qaeda in Iraq. The ensuing calm, the administration said, would give the Shiite-dominated Maliki government time and space to reconcile with the minority Sunni and Kurdish communities, and build a unified administration that Iraqis -- including many now involved in violence -- would support. But since the deployment of five additional U.S. combat brigades began in early spring, the overall level of violence has not abated and in some respects has increased, according to a Pentagon report issued last week. Little progress has been reported in achieving the political benchmarks spelled out in the funding legislation as well as a revision of the Iraqi constitution to provide a better balance of regional and sectarian factions in the government. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in Baghdad on Saturday that he had told the Iraqi government "that our troops are buying them time to pursue reconciliation, that frankly we are disappointed by the progress so far." The same message, he said, had been conveyed by Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte and Adm. William J. Fallon, head of the U.S. military's Central Command, during Iraq visits last week. In an interview posted on its Web site Saturday, Newsweek magazine quoted Maliki as criticizing administration statements that appeared to be "dictating to the Iraqi government." He said he had told U.S. officials that words such as "pressure" and "timetables . . . do not help." Contradicting reports of difficulties in reaching agreement among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, Maliki reportedly said that draft laws on oil, de-Baathification and provincial elections "are all ready and will be submitted to the parliament next week." Petraeus and Crocker took issue with the portrayal of last week's Pentagon report as overwhelmingly negative, and cited successes in Anbar and in some Baghdad neighborhoods. They acknowledged that as U.S. and Iraqi troops had concentrated on those areas, insurgent activity had sharply increased elsewhere, mainly in the southern belt of Baghdad's suburbs and in Diyala province, northeast of the capital. But Petraeus said that the arrival last week of the last of the newly deployed brigades had allowed a shift in U.S. strategy, "enabling us now to launch operations into sanctuaries, areas in which we have had very little coalition force presence other than raids in recent years." Asked about the recent comment by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) that Petraeus's optimistic assessment of security in Baghdad indicated that the general "isn't in touch with what's going on," Petraeus said that he has tried "not to pull punches" and to "present both the good and the bad." His report in September, he said, "will be a forthright assessment of what we've achieved and what we haven't achieved."

quote:

30,000 troops deployed as the centerpiece of President Bush's new war strategy

"Weeeell, that's yer problem right thar!"

You don't want politicians making themselves out to generals or military strategists, because most of them aren't and history has a wonderful and colourful example of their many failures in this role.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith "Weeeell, that's yer problem right thar!" You don't want politicians making themselves out to generals or military strategists, because most of them aren't and history has a wonderful and colourful example of their many failures in this role.

yep. i bet a decent RTS player could do better in real life than your average politician.

True, we'll just get a bunch of Korean kids to figure it out, Starcraft is a national sport there

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith True, we'll just get a bunch of Korean kids to figure it out, Starcraft is a national sport there

Starcraft Rules!!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Right. We should have known by June whether the Surge was working.

who says? you and Ried?

he said the numbers should peak in June back in early March >LINK<
this isn't rocket science dude.

quote:

Then we we're supposed to know by September.

right, thats when he is obligated to make his report. that was known from the get go. so?

quote:

Now we're not going to know until 2017.

i hope youre wrong.

quote:

Yea thanks but no thanks you ultra liberal, big spender, nation builder clan. Please I think I have a few more tax dollars left for you to spend.

if thats what it takes.

Is it a surprise that 'The Surge' has failed? Giving fancy names like Iraqi Freedom, The Surge and blah blah bullshit dosent work.. they only look good in magazines and media channels..

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo who says? you and Ried? he said the numbers should peak in June back in early March >LINK< this isn't rocket science dude.

Ummm yes. We're peaking in June and there's still no deterrant in terrorism. You're exactly right this isn't rocket science. Nice though you trying to align me to Ried, despite me not knowing or caring anything about the guy. Granted I pretty much align you to every woeful thing that Bush has done but that's a little more self-professed isn't it?

quote:

right, thats when he is obligated to make his report. that was known from the get go. so?

It's quite simple really. Patreaus is insinuating that things are NOT going according to plan and that we might not see results for another 10 years or so. It's not rocket science dude.

quote:

i hope youre wrong.

Yea you and me both, but I'm quoting military commanders on the ground. Don't hope that I'm wrong, why don't you hope that your/my military is wrong. And hopefully maybe you'll attempt to hold the fucktards that are responsible for creating this mess responsible.

quote:

if thats what it takes.

Yea you see, I'm not so stupid that I endorse incompetance with my money. Perhaps you would like to see your tax dollars go to waste but don't expect me to make a similar sacrifice for the stupidity of others. Perhaps you should make more tangible sacrifices to support this administration's policies by investing in government bonds and therefore financing this war at abysmal rates of return? It worked in WW2 and if this war is as just as you make it out be ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ummm yes. We're peaking in June and there's still no deterrant in terrorism. You're exactly right this isn't rocket science. Nice though you trying to align me to Ried, despite me not knowing or caring anything about the guy. Granted I pretty much align you to every woeful thing that Bush has done but that's a little more self-professed isn't it? It's quite simple really. Patreaus is insinuating that things are NOT going according to plan and that we might not see results for another 10 years or so. It's not rocket science dude. Yea you and me both, but I'm quoting military commanders on the ground. Don't hope that I'm wrong, why don't you hope that your/my military is wrong. And hopefully maybe you'll attempt to hold the fucktards that are responsible for creating this mess responsible. Yea you see, I'm not so stupid that I endorse incompetance with my money. Perhaps you would like to see your tax dollars go to waste but don't expect me to make a similar sacrifice for the stupidity of others. Perhaps you should make more tangible sacrifices to support this administration's policies by investing in government bonds and therefore financing this war at abysmal rates of return? It worked in WW2 and if this war is as just as you make it out be ...

noted.

i really have nothing more to say other than there are some good men over there implementing the "Surge" . they know what they do and why they're there doing it, and Al Quaeda is about to get slaughtered.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo noted. i really have nothing more to say other than there are some good men over there implementing the "Surge" . they know what they do and why they're there doing it, and Al Quaeda is about to get slaughtered.

I don't disagree that there are good men over there doing a fantastic job. But this isn't a conflict that can be won through the military alone. And I think the military will suffer because of the failures of the political branch.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I don't disagree that there are good men over there doing a fantastic job. But this isn't a conflict that can be won through the military alone. And I think the military will suffer because of the failures of the political branch.

It would be interesting to see what methods US used to try to get Iraqis on their side, and why the failure.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider But this isn't a conflict that can be won through the military alone.

i'm trying very hard not to get dragged back into this or getting into another stupid pissing contest, but i cant resist saying that NO ONE in the military or it's civilian masters (the Executive) has EVER said this conflict could be solved through warfighting alone. EVER!

we, Americans, are capable of doing two things well. defending Freedom and establishing it. granted, we do one of those demonstrably better than the other, but they are as dependent one another right now as anytime. that is understood from the lowest E2 Private kicking in a door in Diyala to the President himself.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.