It's like investing in Enron pre-bust. That's what I think.
Poll
Troop increase, Good or bad idea?
| Good | 41% | 41% - 54 | ||||
| Bad | 58% | 58% - 77 | ||||
| Total: 131 | ||||||
PS - The US haven't been able to establish meaningful control anywhere in Afghanistan, the home of Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban, outside of Kabul and a few other urban centres. There are a fraction of the troops in Iraq stationed in Afghanistan. Where's the troop increase for Afghanistan? What makes Iraq more special than Afghanistan, especially given that the latter is the bona fide home of Al Qaeda? It doesn't happen to have anything to do with a blackish coloured long chain hydrocarbon does it? Predictable.
PPS - I like how Bush described the Iraq war as part of the 'global war on terror'. I thought the Iraq mission was meant to be the liberation of the Iraqis from a tyrannical dictator? Also - it's not exactly a 'global war' now is it. In fact it seems to only centre around countries that have oil or strategic value. Funny that. When is the 'global war on terror' coming to Sudan or Zimbabwe. Plenty of terror there.
PPS - I like how Bush described the Iraq war as part of the 'global war on terror'. I thought the Iraq mission was meant to be the liberation of the Iraqis from a tyrannical dictator? Also - it's not exactly a 'global war' now is it. In fact it seems to only centre around countries that have oil or strategic value. Funny that. When is the 'global war on terror' coming to Sudan or Zimbabwe. Plenty of terror there.
Are you saying the situations are identical (Iraq, Afghanistan)?CameronPoe wrote:
PS - The US haven't been able to establish meaningful control anywhere in Afghanistan, the home of Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban, outside of Kabul and a few other urban centres. There are a fraction of the troops in Iraq stationed in Afghanistan. Where's the troop increase for Afghanistan? What makes Iraq more special than Afghanistan, especially given that the latter is the bona fide home of Al Qaeda? It doesn't happen to have anything to do with a blackish coloured long chain hydrocarbon does it? Predictable.
PPS - I like how Bush described the Iraq war as part of the 'global war on terror'. I thought the Iraq mission was meant to be the liberation of the Iraqis from a tyrannical dictator? Also - it's not exactly a 'global war' now is it. In fact it seems to only centre around countries that have oil or strategic value. Funny that. When is the 'global war on terror' coming to Sudan or Zimbabwe. Plenty of terror there.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
He's saying that proportional to their population levels, the violence is nearly identical. The governments of either country have about the same amount of power (ie, none past their "safety zones"). Warlords of various stripes actually run things. If you want to point out that Afghanistan is actually a little quieter, go ahead, but it would only be due to the bumper heroine crop that's keeping quite a few people rich and happy. The Taliban is still bombing school houses on a regular basis and terrifying the locals...and Osama is still running around like the roadrunner punking Wile E. Coyote.
Afghanistan and the problems there have kind of been completely side-lined with Iraq going on, which is I think the point...start enough wars and a few of them Americans won't know about.
Afghanistan and the problems there have kind of been completely side-lined with Iraq going on, which is I think the point...start enough wars and a few of them Americans won't know about.
Why has Afghanistan been sidelined? Show me.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
He's saying that proportional to their population levels, the violence is nearly identical. The governments of either country have about the same amount of power (ie, none past their "safety zones"). Warlords of various stripes actually run things. If you want to point out that Afghanistan is actually a little quieter, go ahead, but it would only be due to the bumper heroine crop that's keeping quite a few people rich and happy. The Taliban is still bombing school houses on a regular basis and terrifying the locals...and Osama is still running around like the roadrunner punking Wile E. Coyote.
Afghanistan and the problems there have kind of been completely side-lined with Iraq going on, which is I think the point...start enough wars and a few of them Americans won't know about.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I hope for the sake of the people of Iraq and US service personnel that the plan works. I have my reservations however. Who is to say 20,000 more troops are going to be able to secure squat? Unless they can secure every building, farm, hill, riverbed etc at once, the insurgents are going to be able to hide and choose when, where and how they want to attack, just as they can now.
If by some miracle security is restored, it gives Iraq an opportunity to stop the civil war and talk. But will they? The hatred seems so deep.
So there are really two big risky gambles in this plan. 1) Are 20,000 more troops going to bring security, and 2) Are the people of Iraq going to use the opportunity to prevent a long and bloody civil war (if point 1 is successful)
If by some miracle security is restored, it gives Iraq an opportunity to stop the civil war and talk. But will they? The hatred seems so deep.
So there are really two big risky gambles in this plan. 1) Are 20,000 more troops going to bring security, and 2) Are the people of Iraq going to use the opportunity to prevent a long and bloody civil war (if point 1 is successful)
A recent documentary broadcast by the BBC was extremely candid and included interviews with the head of the British troops in Afghanistan among other luminaries. It followed the trials and tribulations of an embedded BBC reporter. It made for grim viewing. The troops there neither have the support nor the equipment to do anything meaningful. At one point the British battalion/platoon/whatever, who were sent to secure the police station of a particular town were surrounded on all sides by Taliban who were firing mortars and whatnot into the town. They were laid siege to for so long without support that they actually had to send some of their men into the fields to bring back wheat, two of which died in the process! They eventually managed to secure the town only to be told a few weeks later that the town was too difficult to hold and not of enough strategic value to bother so the Taliban ended up taking it in the end.Kmarion wrote:
Why has Afghanistan been sidelined? Show me.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
He's saying that proportional to their population levels, the violence is nearly identical. The governments of either country have about the same amount of power (ie, none past their "safety zones"). Warlords of various stripes actually run things. If you want to point out that Afghanistan is actually a little quieter, go ahead, but it would only be due to the bumper heroine crop that's keeping quite a few people rich and happy. The Taliban is still bombing school houses on a regular basis and terrifying the locals...and Osama is still running around like the roadrunner punking Wile E. Coyote.
Afghanistan and the problems there have kind of been completely side-lined with Iraq going on, which is I think the point...start enough wars and a few of them Americans won't know about.
That's what I'm talking about. It happened Summer 2006 - very current - during the British deployment in Helmand province and the British general basically stated that their mission has not been successful and that they just don't have enough men, helicopters and other equipment to do their job.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-11 02:11:56)
The war in Iraq will never be won full stop no matter how much troops you introduce. It was a stupid and pointless war to start in the first place. When people realise that only then the US will win the war by pulling out.
I'll dl it and watch.CameronPoe wrote:
A recent documentary broadcast by the BBC was extremely candid and included interviews with the head of the British troops in Afghanistan among other luminaries. It followed the trials and tribulations of an embedded BBC reporter. It made for grim viewing. The troops there neither have the support nor the equipment to do anything meaningful. At one point the British battalion/platoon/whatever, who were sent to secure the police station of a particular town were surrounded on all sides by Taliban who were firing mortars and whatnot into the town. They were laid siege to for so long without support that they actually had to send some of their men into the fields to bring back wheat, two of which died in the process! They eventually managed to secure the town only to be told a few weeks later that the town was too difficult to hold and not of enough strategic value to bother so the Taliban ended up taking it in the end.Kmarion wrote:
Why has Afghanistan been sidelined? Show me.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
He's saying that proportional to their population levels, the violence is nearly identical. The governments of either country have about the same amount of power (ie, none past their "safety zones"). Warlords of various stripes actually run things. If you want to point out that Afghanistan is actually a little quieter, go ahead, but it would only be due to the bumper heroine crop that's keeping quite a few people rich and happy. The Taliban is still bombing school houses on a regular basis and terrifying the locals...and Osama is still running around like the roadrunner punking Wile E. Coyote.
Afghanistan and the problems there have kind of been completely side-lined with Iraq going on, which is I think the point...start enough wars and a few of them Americans won't know about.
That's what I'm talking about. It happened Summer 2006 - very current - during the British deployment in Helmand province and the British general basically stated that their mission has not been successful and that they just don't have enough men, helicopters and other equipment to do their job.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Sending more troops in wont make a difference the Iraqi's are already living in fear from the "Republican Guard" Sadam's Partisans.
There job is to spread fear and confusion and they have been doing that quite well. One factor I notice is that a lot of the American's in the forum pay little attention to the Civilian Casualties that have incurred since the so called "War on Terror"
the amount of soldiers KIA pails in comparison to the amount of Iraqi civilian deaths the current death toll of Americans is currently 3019 or so and counting.
Where the civilian deaths of Iraqi's are in excess of 53194... Now please tell me this is fair to the people of Iraq? Do they receive a uniformed soldier at the door bearing the news that a loved one has been killed?
Countless deaths of the very people that the American government is "trying" to protect. Ironical isn't it!
And with the administrations attitude to the civilian death toll is even more harrowing. This is a response from an American brigadier General....
“Change the channel”
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.
This shows to me there is a clear lack of compassion and or any sense of humanity left in many of the people fighting in Iraq its almost as if the Civilians are just as bad as the partisans fighting in the country.
If the American government wants to send more troops in they must be prepared for more body bags to come home.
Hey but what do I know i'm just an innocent by stander watching the world go for a ball of SH1T and there is not much i can do about it!
Well such is life......
There job is to spread fear and confusion and they have been doing that quite well. One factor I notice is that a lot of the American's in the forum pay little attention to the Civilian Casualties that have incurred since the so called "War on Terror"
the amount of soldiers KIA pails in comparison to the amount of Iraqi civilian deaths the current death toll of Americans is currently 3019 or so and counting.
Where the civilian deaths of Iraqi's are in excess of 53194... Now please tell me this is fair to the people of Iraq? Do they receive a uniformed soldier at the door bearing the news that a loved one has been killed?
Countless deaths of the very people that the American government is "trying" to protect. Ironical isn't it!
And with the administrations attitude to the civilian death toll is even more harrowing. This is a response from an American brigadier General....
“Change the channel”
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.
This shows to me there is a clear lack of compassion and or any sense of humanity left in many of the people fighting in Iraq its almost as if the Civilians are just as bad as the partisans fighting in the country.
If the American government wants to send more troops in they must be prepared for more body bags to come home.
Hey but what do I know i'm just an innocent by stander watching the world go for a ball of SH1T and there is not much i can do about it!
Well such is life......
First of, I think this whole war is a farce, like the entire war on terrorism. I'm just happy my country, who sometimes still behaves like it's a freakin sattelite decided to stay out of this one.
On topic. I think the increase of troops is a desperate try to safe a lost cause. Iraq has decended into a full blown civil war and I highly doubt more American troops will change that. The main problem with this war is that it's illegitimate and more and more people realize it. They'll say, hey why did my country lie to me about the reasons for this war? My sons are dying for no reason.
So, sooner or later the USA will pull out leaving the situation unsolved.
PS: Like someone above said, what's with the war on terrorism in Somalia and other countries. Where's Bin Laden? Stil running around, with nobody trying to catch him? Or is he already dead (died of typhus) like a report the french secret service had suggests?
On topic. I think the increase of troops is a desperate try to safe a lost cause. Iraq has decended into a full blown civil war and I highly doubt more American troops will change that. The main problem with this war is that it's illegitimate and more and more people realize it. They'll say, hey why did my country lie to me about the reasons for this war? My sons are dying for no reason.
So, sooner or later the USA will pull out leaving the situation unsolved.
PS: Like someone above said, what's with the war on terrorism in Somalia and other countries. Where's Bin Laden? Stil running around, with nobody trying to catch him? Or is he already dead (died of typhus) like a report the french secret service had suggests?
Wether a troop increase is good or bad will depend on the strategy behind it and what additional actions will be taken to support the ground war.
Still, 20,000 more troops won't change the fact, that Bush is trying to conduct anti-terrorist operations with mostly regular armed forces. As well trained as the army or marine corps personnel may be, there is little hope the increase in troop numbers will help to also increase effectiveness against well-funded, motivated insurgents that hide among the general population.
Also, it won't change the fact that the much bigger problem - sectarian violence among regular iraqis - remains unresolved.
Both major religious movements in Iraq are more or less openly supported by other middle eastern nations.
Iran is often blamed for supporting Shi'a militias, while Saudi Arabia ( being predominantly Sunni ) has recently said that it will support Sunnis in Iraq financially and logistically to counter Iranian influence if necessary.
I don't think Terrorism is the main problem in Iraq. If the Iraqi society was peaceful, stable, and prosperous (sp?), terrorism would be a near non-factor. After all, they are sitting on 10% of the world's oil reserves. But the religious divide that is apparant in Iraq is the ideal breeding ground for terrorism, especially with the US troops being in the middle of it all.
Al'Quaeda ( or is it Al'Quaida ) or not, there will be no long-lasting peace before the differences between the religious groups are resolved. What the 20,000 troops will most likely do is apply more pressure ( i.e. force ) on the parties involved. But is that going to help resolve the underlying issues ?
I doubt it.
Still, 20,000 more troops won't change the fact, that Bush is trying to conduct anti-terrorist operations with mostly regular armed forces. As well trained as the army or marine corps personnel may be, there is little hope the increase in troop numbers will help to also increase effectiveness against well-funded, motivated insurgents that hide among the general population.
Also, it won't change the fact that the much bigger problem - sectarian violence among regular iraqis - remains unresolved.
Both major religious movements in Iraq are more or less openly supported by other middle eastern nations.
Iran is often blamed for supporting Shi'a militias, while Saudi Arabia ( being predominantly Sunni ) has recently said that it will support Sunnis in Iraq financially and logistically to counter Iranian influence if necessary.
I don't think Terrorism is the main problem in Iraq. If the Iraqi society was peaceful, stable, and prosperous (sp?), terrorism would be a near non-factor. After all, they are sitting on 10% of the world's oil reserves. But the religious divide that is apparant in Iraq is the ideal breeding ground for terrorism, especially with the US troops being in the middle of it all.
Al'Quaeda ( or is it Al'Quaida ) or not, there will be no long-lasting peace before the differences between the religious groups are resolved. What the 20,000 troops will most likely do is apply more pressure ( i.e. force ) on the parties involved. But is that going to help resolve the underlying issues ?
I doubt it.
Don't you mean America's Oil reserves now?B.Schuss wrote:
If the Iraqi society was peaceful, stable, and prosperous (sp?), terrorism would be a near non-factor. After all, they are sitting on 10% of the world's oil reserves.
I think any country which has gone through the transformation and stress that Iraq has and the people have gone through would cause these sort of effects.... "Blow back as the CIA calls it!" for every action there is a reaction.
The American government funded Sadam and put their puppet into power and the hand that fed him was bitten! So as usual the Red and White stripes ride in to save the day!!!
They created the whole fiasco and now they gotta clean it up, Sometimes civil war is inevitable and cannot be avoided.
I would be doing my nut in if i lived in Iraq first I have to deal with the secret police and Sadam's extreme religious policies only a few Iraqi's are feeling the benefits of Sadam's government. Then all of a sudden Baghdad lights up one night with bombs going off left right and center and my countries been invaded!
They say they are here to fee me but what freedom do I have I cannot get to the other side of Baghdad because there are so many check points and road blocks with Americans there that it would take me the whole day to get across town. And lets not forget some of the trigger happy check point operators that have a bit of an itchy trigger figure....
There is a curfew in place i cannot leave my house at night! What freedom is this? I live in fear as I hear American and coalition troops kick down doors in the apartment next to mine! When will my door be kicked down?
I have no running water well its on very seldom and electricity is still a problem. What freedom is this?
They give me meal rations with American flags printed on all the packaging the water bottles they gave me even have the flag printed on them....
I open the packed of food that was handed to me and I find M&M's and Skittles, What nutrition is this?
those are the questions I would be asking myself!!!
Oh and you won't? Both American and Iraqi.ATG wrote:
You'll have blood on your hands.Turquoise wrote:
Bad idea... withdrawal is the answer.
It's like in poker when you have a bad hand and your bluff didn't work. The sooner you fold the less you lose.
ƒ³
We just went all in on the river.oug wrote:
Oh and you won't? Both American and Iraqi.ATG wrote:
You'll have blood on your hands.Turquoise wrote:
Bad idea... withdrawal is the answer.
It's like in poker when you have a bad hand and your bluff didn't work. The sooner you fold the less you lose.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
LMAO. If the US wouldn't have backed up Israel for years, if the US wouldn't have helped totalitarian regimes to stay in power, and if the US wouldn't have invaded Iraq in 2003, the entire mid-east problem may have been non existent.Kmarion wrote:
Not exactly the stuff winners are made of. If Europe wouldn't have fucked the borders up in the first place this entire mid-east problem may have been non existent.
I fail to see how it's going to help, I remember a General stated just before the invasion hundreds of thousands would be needed, and he wasnt taken seriously. Now the 'job is done' we are dealing with the aftermath, an increase in force would only really do any good if the Americans where getting there ass handed to them by the iraqi military during the actual war its self.
Martyn
Martyn
You've alienated moderate Muslims....and converted many into expert RPG users.Kmarion wrote:
No we should help provide them with hope, since the lack thereof is what spawns terrorism. We should also support moderate Islam and allow them to take their religion back from these murderous fucks. Only moderate Islam can defeat militant Islam.Turquoise wrote:
Following that logic, shouldn't we just leave them alone and increase domestic defense?Kmarion wrote:
They will resent us no matter what. The Islamic world has been around for over 1200 years and look at their current state of death and despair. They need a great Satan to blame. With the west being as successful as it is it makes it an easy target.
TheEternalPessimist you need to learn to think beyond your current lifetime. It's kind of small minded to think this is all the result of one man.
Who ever said Pakistan and Afghanistan are bigger trouble you're right. This is where the terrorists are really being nurtured and developed.
The Iraq detour is the mother of all fuck ups.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Unfortunatly the new troops may become little more than targets. Also the Iraqi government is to reliant on the US that increasing the number of men may make them think the US is in control and they don't need to do much. I think instead of more troops we need more effective troops, so increase the quality of training while at the same time gradually bring soldiers back. So it would be like sending over 30 troops who have befieted from better training while bringing back 40 troops who are already on their 3rd tour.
Good analogy.Kmarion wrote:
We just went all in on the river.oug wrote:
Oh and you won't? Both American and Iraqi.ATG wrote:
You'll have blood on your hands.
It's like in poker when you have a bad hand and your bluff didn't work. The sooner you fold the less you lose.
But not with a very good hand unfortunately.
Insurgents cheat, We are letting Iran is slip them cards under the table.Bertster7 wrote:
Good analogy.Kmarion wrote:
We just went all in on the river.oug wrote:
Oh and you won't? Both American and Iraqi.
It's like in poker when you have a bad hand and your bluff didn't work. The sooner you fold the less you lose.
But not with a very good hand unfortunately.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
If people are cheating it's a better idea to leave the table than to up the stakes.Kmarion wrote:
Insurgents cheat, We are letting Iran is slip them cards under the table.Bertster7 wrote:
Good analogy.Kmarion wrote:
We just went all in on the river.
But not with a very good hand unfortunately.
i have a uncle that was already over there, a friend just got back from there a couple months ago. im joining the day i turn 18.shadowkila wrote:
Hey heres a great fucking idea, why don't you or someone in you family join and head over to Iraq.or whereverthefuck.11sog_raider wrote:
i feel its a good idea, buti think 20,000 isnt enough
The Iraq war isn't exactly like logging onto a 'Road to Jalalabad' server and picking the assault kit. I'd have a good long hard think before you go and do something you might regret in your immaturity.11sog_raider wrote:
i have a uncle that was already over there, a friend just got back from there a couple months ago. im joining the day i turn 18.shadowkila wrote:
Hey heres a great fucking idea, why don't you or someone in you family join and head over to Iraq.or whereverthefuck.11sog_raider wrote:
i feel its a good idea, buti think 20,000 isnt enough
If the war were really about oil, we'd have kicked the crap out of the insurgency from the start and easily kept control of the country. Do you think that the war would be conducted this way if massive oil revenues were the only goal?CameronPoe wrote:
PS - The US haven't been able to establish meaningful control anywhere in Afghanistan, the home of Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban, outside of Kabul and a few other urban centres. There are a fraction of the troops in Iraq stationed in Afghanistan. Where's the troop increase for Afghanistan? What makes Iraq more special than Afghanistan, especially given that the latter is the bona fide home of Al Qaeda? It doesn't happen to have anything to do with a blackish coloured long chain hydrocarbon does it? Predictable.
PPS - I like how Bush described the Iraq war as part of the 'global war on terror'. I thought the Iraq mission was meant to be the liberation of the Iraqis from a tyrannical dictator? Also - it's not exactly a 'global war' now is it. In fact it seems to only centre around countries that have oil or strategic value. Funny that. When is the 'global war on terror' coming to Sudan or Zimbabwe. Plenty of terror there.
And I don't see how the idea that (gasp!) the war might have two or more purposes doesn't connect with you. Obviously we want to both create a stable democracy and prevent terrorists from using an unstable Iraq as a safe haven.
Now as for why we don't just go tramping all over the world, we obviously don't have enough troops to do it (even if we didn't go into Iraq), and honestly we only care about Islamists. If we cared about all terrorism, we could have invaded Ireland and helped the British secure Ulster. As for Sudan, if Europe wants something to be done about it, why can't they do it themselves? It's not like the EU has no offensive military power.