BF2S Forums For those who believe that the war in Iraq is going badly.

-F8-Scotch wrote:

Okay, so we got the number 2 Al-Qaeda in Iraq guy.

Weee ! Thats what.

-F8-Scotch wrote:

It's apparent you don't want to post facts or answer in anything less than cryptic rhetoric.

Just what is " Cryptic or Rhetorical " in these sentences below ?

Horseman 77 wrote:

War is War. Propaganda is a tool sometimes employed during War.
And I would have to say the war is going poorly. They are reduced to planting roadside bombs that kill their own people 9 times out of 10.

Their number two man was taken out. Its in the shitter I would say. They seem to know it. They aren't dumb they will soon go after weaker prey like they did with spain. It works in some cases.

Also we never said Liberal Media sources will bury or hide news Rather they spin it.

After the landslide 96 elections were Democrats lost a lot of ground they didn't deny it. They did say  "the Electorate is Schizophrenic "

-F8-Scotch wrote:

What about the other insurgent groups? Those that disagree with the formation of a Democratic government? The actual "insurgent" forces far outweigh the Foreign Fighter rolls, almost 10 to 1.

I believe I said the Iraqis who support the Regime change out weigh those who have taken to fighting the coalition.

Did I make reference to a foreign fighters to native fighters ratio?

the ratio I quoted was roughly " Insurgents kill about 10 native Iraqis for every 1 Coalition soldier they hurt. "

Today as an example 13 were killed in a Mosque bombing (that ought to win the insurgents some sympathy) and 1 US Marine was killed.

Do I have to wait until its on CNN before I can acknowledge it?

-F8-Scotch wrote:

Can you at least agree that the "liberal media" is used frequently by the conservative movement to introduce or spin stories thier direction?

I believe the conservatives cannot use the liberal media. The US Media has gone so Far as to deny the NRA ( a Conservative Group ) to purchase add time. Does this sound fair or unbiased to you. The Conservatives have one Station that at best can be called " Not Left " To get their word out they have had to resort to AM Radio. The average American has become so distrustful of the media that AM Radio ( almost non existent in 1990 ) has made a huge come back. I will not bother to cut and paste Hyper links but all being said these are all facts. I don't feel it is Cryptic or rhetorical

-F8-Scotch wrote:

Every statement made by Administration officials, or Conservative/Republican politicians is carefully manicured to produce a specific reaction. That being said I should add this caveat, all politicians do this.

People want to be understood and desire to sway peoples opinions when they talk. So they carefully construct sentences. OK agreed.

-F8-Scotch wrote:

Did you take the time to check into the Iraqi Index on www.brookings.edu? Just curious, I think some of your statements could be revised and some could certainly be supported. However the Infrastructure in Iraq is simply not exceeding pre-war levels and in some areas has regressed past pre-war conditions. If we want to build a free stable Iraq there needs to be solid progression in availability to electricity, running water, adequate sewage services. There are also indicators that the violence in Iraq has heightened in the last few months leaving little evidence of a stablization of the Iraq security situation.

The infrastructure had not reached pre 92 Gulf War conditions before Operation Iraqi freedom. When it does it will be coalition Forces and governments who make it so. No one else is going to. As for the Stabilization level of Iraq. The lack of an organized police force led to many old feuds and scores being settled
We may yet see more violence they tend to be more violent then we are (LA and DC) but I believe progress is being made. Early on in BF2S post I said it would take 6 to 8 years. We spent 8 years on Germany after WWII and The USSR opposed us with all its power every step of they way. Does the Berlin Airlift ring a bell? are these people not worth the same effort? Or am I being cryptic again?

-F8-Scotch wrote:

Finally....don't talk about my Jimmy. My jimmy is special in it's own way and I am not accustomed to strangers discussing my jimmy, especially men...and I am assuming that you are a man. Unless I start talking about other peoples Jimmys keep my jimmy out of your mind and posts. If you want a date I must appologize, I don't go out with other jimmy jerkers, it's vaginas or busts! or both! Scotch

A better response would have been to say Not Aplicable, however, Agreed on the jimmy line. I usually say " Big mouth = Little jimmy " and Someone says " He means me ! "
I have yet to jerk a Jimmy but with that I will tell you while in New Orleans ( French Quarter ) be careful with your alcohol intake. Some of those girls are packing !

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-06-17 14:20:09)

when CNN puts out little fluff pieces like this they do so just so they can point at it and say "look we're not lib sympathizers", but it's funny how these stories get buried and shoved down the line so quickly with them

though he sold it CNN was established by ted turner and is still run pretty much the same way, he displays the inherent hypocrisy of himself and his colleagues in that communism only applies to everyone else, you better not think of taking his money and redistributing it

communist and good american are mutually exclusive

The war in iraq is not going well and will never go well they are radical fundamentalists , you cannot win against people that are willing to kill themselves to win .  I mean these folks are fanatical.  Win or lose , nothing has been won.  I bet the russians in afghanistan, thought , forever, that it was going well for them too.

The bare facts are , we don't belong there anyway.  The facts are that this is about oil, always was, always will be.   Those of you that think there is a much more noble cause behind it, are so sadly mistaken and wrong, its pathetic.


You know what besides, what kind of fuckin stupid post was this in the first place .  'How do you think the war is going?'
 
Use your heads its a fuckin war , people on both sides killed constantly, innocents hurt constantly, billions and billions of dollars that could have been used to help other causes ie, hurricane victims.


How is the war going,  LIKE SHIT, war is fuckin hell.  Any of you idiots that happen to see some glamorized version of it on television , are also the kind of knobs asking questions like that.

If I could minus karma to every single one of you that thinks its going well , I would, cause until you've been over there and see your buddy , get ripped through the chest from a piece of jeep shrapnel , then you have no clue what its really like.

You would know that no war, ever, is going well.  DUH.

Last edited by {KAOS}DesertWraith (2006-06-17 14:22:52)

The Bush remark requires no response as its the " herd mentality " in its purest form.

In general Capitalist societies are free, you can go some place better when you find it. snicker.

Yet people come to the USA in droves, They sneak in if they have to.

Communist countries are the only ones that have walls, minefields, Guard dogs, check points, Barbed wire. And yet people still managed to escape.

They risk death fleeing Cuba, the workers Paradise that has such a fair education system, and such fair health care!.

They will try and come to the USA if they have to do it in a an old car lashed to empty fuel drums or on an truck inner tube. Can you explain this as we see it happen all the time.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Darth_Fleder wrote:

OK....based upon what?

err based on the fact that the americans are getting nailed everyday by a small minority of ill trained insurgents.. I could understand the losses if you were fighting a half decent army but you're not.

If the war was going well it'd be over..

Well, let's put this in a little perspective. In the three years since the incepetion of the war, more than 10,000 people have died in traffic accidents in Britain alone. Compare that to the fact the Iraqi army and subsequent insurgency have only been able to inflict 1/4 that damage in a deliberate armed conflict.

http://trb.org/news/search_news.asp?q_aw=Casualties

It's not the numbers that matter. It's the needlessness of it all.

(Salah): Northern al-Karkh groups are estimated at 40 mujahid, so is the Southern Karkh.  They could double that number if necessary.  Al-Rassafah groups in general is estimated at 30 mujahidin as I was informed by the commander of al-Rassafah. These are very small numbers compared to the tens of thousands of the enemy troops.  How can we increase these numbers?


Intresting.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

It's not the numbers that matter. It's the needlessness of it all.

You know Cameron, again you are inconsistent in your beliefs. On one hand you decry the 'needlessness' of it all, yet on the other hand if there was no coalition intervention Saddam would still be in power. You remember the Kurds, Cameron?

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/7843/halabja9qy.jpg
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm

You feign a concern for the needless waste of life, but in your world the man known as "The Butcher of Baghdad" would still be in power and some of the principal members of the EU would still be profiting illegally and amorally from the 'Oil for Food' program. Didn't more than a million Iraqi civilians allegedly die from starvation during its existence? Your sympathy for human life only seems to exist when it suits your political agenda.

Tell me, do your supposed friends in Baghdad long for the days Saddam was in power?

I'm not talking about how needless the waste of American life is Darth. Again you have me wrong. I couldn't care less about the lives of people I don't know personally. I don't think anybody does if they were truly honest with themselves. They may feign sorrow for a few hours but once the headline has drifted into obscurity I hardly think they'll be remembering said fatality's anniversary!
I'm talking about the need for the US to have entered into a war with them. Nations need to be responsible for their own destiny - not have their destiny handed to them by some foreign power. Ireland won their independence with no external help and the destiny of our country has remained very much in our hands. The people of Iraq would one day have rose up against tyranny, freed themselves and created a coutry of their choosing. The toppling of Saddam seems to me to have been premature as Iraq has now descended into a state of chaos and death as bad if not worse than it was under Saddam.
My friends in Baghdad were no friend of Saddam that's for sure but from the outset they believed this US intervention to be a zionist intervention and an oil grab.

Countries evolve - you can't force evolution. USA: STAY OUT of other countries politics!!

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-18 02:17:07)

Bubbalo wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

So they killed him but kept him in cold storage and made a phone call to the Coalition Forces?

"  Come pick him up !  "

I believe if they had killed them they would have destroyed his body and any evidence of it rather giving the Coalition even a hollow victory. I just doesn't make sense. any thoughts on this ?

I believe Bin Laden is so committed to his cause he has probably made detailed prearrangement's for such an event I know i would if  I were him.

I've already clarified this.  But then, you don't ever seem to read a thread before posting..............

lowing wrote:

I can see you already have your rhetoric in practice for when we find Osama.

Oh, yes.  Because anything which prevents the US Army efforts from being viewed as effective is clearly rhetoric rather tham an actual logical viewpoint

And, for the record, I don't think they'll catch Bin Laden, at least not in the near future.  And you can quote me on that if they do.

I can see clearly, that you and unorginalnuttah and Marconius and the rest ofthe usual suspects are chomping at the bit to see us fail in this war. How disappointed you guys will be if we succeed in this world war.

Bubbalo wrote:

TBH, I wouldn't be entirely unhappy if there were another superpower to force the US to back off.  That will probably be China though, and I suspect before too long the US will go the way of other empires.  I suspect that Al Qaeda may outlast the US.  But does my belief that killing Osama Bin Laden will have little effect (backed up by facts) mean that I want the US to fail?  I can't see how.

Oh I see, you want the US to succeed, yet you bash every effort made in the region. even taking out 1 of the leaders responsible for all of this....irrational

Darth_Fleder wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Darth_Fleder wrote:

OK....based upon what?

err based on the fact that the americans are getting nailed everyday by a small minority of ill trained insurgents.. I could understand the losses if you were fighting a half decent army but you're not.

If the war was going well it'd be over..

Well, let's put this in a little perspective. In the three years since the incepetion of the war, more than 10,000 people have died in traffic accidents in Britain alone. Compare that to the fact the Iraqi army and subsequent insurgency have only been able to inflict 1/4 that damage in a deliberate armed conflict.

http://trb.org/news/search_news.asp?q_aw=Casualties

You guys have spent BILLIONS on the conflict and your government has just approved BILLIONS more. I see little improvement in the situation and notice how many Iraqis, both military and civilian, you've managed to kill in the process; talk about splash damage! As far as I know the insurgents get limited funding, certainly not on the scale of the US army so TBO they're making you look bad.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/homeland … umbers.htm

I can't see how British traffic death statistics are relevant in any way.

Ikarti wrote:

LIBERALS=BAD
CONSERVATIVES=GOOD

IF YOU DISAGREE THEN YOU ARE A LIBERAL AND BAD

can't argue with that logic.

good logic.

the US is doing a great job in iraq, theyve already set up the police, letting ppl have jobs and even allowing the iraqis to have an election

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Darth_Fleder wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

err based on the fact that the americans are getting nailed everyday by a small minority of ill trained insurgents.. I could understand the losses if you were fighting a half decent army but you're not.

If the war was going well it'd be over..

Well, let's put this in a little perspective. In the three years since the inception of the war, more than 10,000 people have died in traffic accidents in Britain alone. Compare that to the fact the Iraqi army and subsequent insurgency have only been able to inflict 1/4 that damage in a deliberate armed conflict.

http://trb.org/news/search_news.asp?q_aw=Casualties

You guys have spent BILLIONS on the conflict and your government has just approved BILLIONS more. I see little improvement in the situation and notice how many Iraqis, both military and civilian, you've managed to kill in the process; talk about splash damage! As far as I know the insurgents get limited funding, certainly not on the scale of the US army so TBO they're making you look bad.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/homeland … umbers.htm

I can't see how British traffic death statistics are relevant in any way.

OK Ricardo, let me make it simple for you. Based on your assertion that the war is going badly because "the fact that the americans are getting nailed everyday by a small minority of ill trained insurgents.. " you imply that somehow the insurgency is inflicting a exorbitantly high casualty rate upon the U.S. In contrast to this, the traffic statistics show that far more people are dying on British motorways by accident than are being caused deliberately by an armed and hostile insurgency. As for your'splash damage' claim, obviously you didn't read my response to CameronPoe above.

CameronPoe wrote:

I'm not talking about how needless the waste of American life is Darth. Again you have me wrong. I couldn't care less about the lives of people I don't know personally. I don't think anybody does if they were truly honest with themselves. They may feign sorrow for a few hours but once the headline has drifted into obscurity I hardly think they'll be remembering said fatality's anniversary!

Well, Cameron, it is interesting watching you hop from one foot to another on issues. Going back to your earlier comment on numbers...

CameronPoe wrote:

It's not the numbers that matter. It's the needlessness of it all.

I found you making this statement...

CameronPoe wrote:

Didn't the US death toll just pass 2500 today or yesterday?

in the Happy death of Zarqawi post. As to your 'needless' comment, perhaps you should choose your words a little more carefully because it is certainly difficult NOT to infer that you are bemoaning the needless loss of life.

CameronPoe wrote:

I'm talking about the need for the US to have entered into a war with them. Nations need to be responsible for their own destiny - not have their destiny handed to them by some foreign power. Ireland won their independence with no external help and the destiny of our country has remained very much in our hands. The people of Iraq would one day have rose up against tyranny, freed themselves and created a coutry of their choosing. The toppling of Saddam seems to me to have been premature as Iraq has now descended into a state of chaos and death as bad if not worse than it was under Saddam.
My friends in Baghdad were no friend of Saddam that's for sure but from the outset they believed this US intervention to be a zionist intervention and an oil grab.

Countries evolve - you can't force evolution. USA: STAY OUT of other countries politics!!

Iraq and Saddam lost the right of self-determination with the decision to invade Kuwait, Cameron. They were a defeated agressor nation and 11 years of diplomacy was failing by Saddam's failure to live up to the resolutions of the U.N. and from the illegal and amoral behaviour of some of the principal members of the Security council.

For someone that thinks that foreigners shouldn't meddle in others politics, you sure take a great interest in ours.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Firstly, I'd say you'd be in a minority if you thought the war was going well. Secondly, I never implied the american losses were exhorbitent, just suprising considering how much you're spending there and how it's supposedly under control.

I still fail to see how British motorway deaths have any relevance. Precisely how many americans should die before the war is, according to you, going badly?

Enough where we're stretched so thin we can't repulse the combined forces of the marauding Mexican and Canadian armies. Cuba will probably try and take Miami while they're at it.