|
Since the The SurgeŽ has failed, operation Arm the Insurgency and Baathists has begun (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lilith |
| 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 ing 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??? |
Desperation born of idiocy?
It's the sort of ass-backwards logic of
"Oh hey there's a place which is getting shot up a lot by uncontrolled militia groups."
"How are we going to stop it?"
"Give them more guns to do it with!"
*Brilliant!*
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
oh i forgot. it's all about the short term margins with you:rolleyes:
i was the typical American. now it's you. congrats |
Relax. Was it not facetious enough for you? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| 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 ing 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. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| 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 |
|
|
| tranceDJ |
ing 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... |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
Yet they still insist on "we dont negotiate with the terrorists".:rolleyes:
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. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| 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.:rolleyes:
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. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Please, guide me in life.:rolleyes:
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) |
|
|
| XaNaX |
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 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 |
|
|
| Krypton |
| 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. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
