BF2S Forums Iraqi Parliament Explosion

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

CannonFodder11b wrote:

Hey bud take that number of troops, and cut it to 1/3rd of that that 1/3rd is spread out all over baghdad, in what are called "battle spaces" each unit owns a piece of the pie.  My unit owns all of baghdad.  Now do some research and figure out how many troops are in a line infantry company and compare that to the number of iraqi nationals in say Shua'la or even Mansour.  Before making idiotic comments you should know that 1/3 of the troops in baghdad are combat arms, the rest are combat support (mechanics,medics,surgeons,JAG,Finance,Cooks,Pilots,Air force lackeys,and officer command staff) 
1/3 of that number rolls outside the wire and has a very busy day.  Thats not a large number when compared to the local population.

And why should we protect the parlament building? Isn't that what the sovern nation of Iraq do?  Oh wait they are too corrupt to give a flying fuck what they blow up or kill.  Not my fault, the prime minister is sunni and sides with Sadr.

owned.  Sit down college boy.

LOL. So what was the fucking point of sending an extra 21,000 troops specifically to Baghdad to iron out the situation there once and for all then!? You guys crack me up. I guess you guys are just the lackeys - military planning, the politics behind the troop surge and the overall goal are probably not your strong points....

The fact of the matter is: you guys aren't really making a shit of a difference there are you!!? It doesn't matter how much cannon fodder you throw at the 'project'...

Owned.  Sit down ex-marine boy.

Too bad you aren't the President, you have it all figured out.

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

CannonFodder11b wrote:

Hey bud take that number of troops, and cut it to 1/3rd of that that 1/3rd is spread out all over baghdad, in what are called "battle spaces" each unit owns a piece of the pie.  My unit owns all of baghdad.  Now do some research and figure out how many troops are in a line infantry company and compare that to the number of iraqi nationals in say Shua'la or even Mansour.  Before making idiotic comments you should know that 1/3 of the troops in baghdad are combat arms, the rest are combat support (mechanics,medics,surgeons,JAG,Finance,Cooks,Pilots,Air force lackeys,and officer command staff) 
1/3 of that number rolls outside the wire and has a very busy day.  Thats not a large number when compared to the local population.

And why should we protect the parlament building? Isn't that what the sovern nation of Iraq do?  Oh wait they are too corrupt to give a flying fuck what they blow up or kill.  Not my fault, the prime minister is sunni and sides with Sadr.

owned.  Sit down college boy.

LOL. So what was the fucking point of sending an extra 21,000 troops specifically to Baghdad to iron out the situation there once and for all then!? You guys crack me up. I guess you guys are just the lackeys - military planning, the politics behind the troop surge and the overall goal are probably not your strong points....

The fact of the matter is: you guys aren't really making a shit of a difference there are you!!? It doesn't matter how much cannon fodder you throw at the 'project'...

Owned.  Sit down ex-marine boy.

And Cannon - who are you fighting for? Israel or America?

I'll add to this, the extra troops have managed to reduce sectarian violence but terrorist bombings still go ahead.  Just more fish in the barrel for the Allah ho Akbar boyz.

Last edited by m3thod (2007-04-12 15:21:14)

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

they should be doing the same in Iraq and let the Iraqis get on with it.

Or just do what we have to do to win a war, then leave and not try and help anything.

Even that would've been better than this fiasco.

No war would've been better still. Saddam was actually pretty useful where he was. The vacuum of power his removal created is where the problem comes from. The Iraqis need a strong leader, not appointed by the US or with US backing, but who is hopefully pro (or at least not anti) west. The current Iraqi leadership is a joke.

Is the current Government pro Muqtada al-Sadr?

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

No war would've been better still.

Sanctions without any bite to them are useless.

Sanctions would have been better than 500,000+ Iraqi and 3000+ American deaths...

He was making money off the sanctions.  Sanctions that actually work would have been better.

usmarine2005 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Sanctions without any bite to them are useless.

Sanctions would have been better than 500,000+ Iraqi and 3000+ American deaths...

He was making money off the sanctions.  Sanctions that actually work would have been better.

True, but not enough to be classed as a threat.

Last edited by m3thod (2007-04-12 15:28:31)

usmarine2005 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Sanctions without any bite to them are useless.

Sanctions would have been better than 500,000+ Iraqi and 3000+ American deaths...

He was making money off the sanctions.  Sanctions that actually work would have been better.

There was a lot of corruption involved. Better sanctions that didn't leave so much room for people to get rich off them would've been nice. But ultimately, they were working, perhaps it's because Saddam was getting so rich and living so luxuriously that he wasn't bothering to build any WMDs or anything else.

CannonFodder11b wrote:

or dont you remember calling me a "Zionist pig"

He would never do that.

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Or just do what we have to do to win a war, then leave and not try and help anything.

Even that would've been better than this fiasco.

No war would've been better still. Saddam was actually pretty useful where he was. The vacuum of power his removal created is where the problem comes from. The Iraqis need a strong leader, not appointed by the US or with US backing, but who is hopefully pro (or at least not anti) west. The current Iraqi leadership is a joke.

Is the current Government pro Muqtada al-Sadr?

They are very Pro Sadr /Pro Shia.
Car bombs are not a Shia thing, car bombs are primarily a Sunni Tactic.
Shia prefer PSAF,EFPs,Mortars, and IEDs placed where they will minimize Shia casualties.
Shia do use carbombs but not as often and usually use them to take out a specific target away from civilian casualties.  Shia's generally prefer not to cause un-needed Shia deaths.

Sunni enjoy: VBIEDS (carbombs) in busy Streets no matter iuf it is a Sunni area with one Shia store...if they think you are Shia, your a target, and the sunni casualties are just martyrs.  Suicide bombings,rocket and mortar attacks on largly Shia areas, and small IEDs to take out foot troops not vehicles. And they love to cause a fire fight in an open area with lots of civilians around to use as a human shield.

Anything else? I've only been trying to stop this for almost 11 monthes now.

CannonFodder11b wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Even that would've been better than this fiasco.

No war would've been better still. Saddam was actually pretty useful where he was. The vacuum of power his removal created is where the problem comes from. The Iraqis need a strong leader, not appointed by the US or with US backing, but who is hopefully pro (or at least not anti) west. The current Iraqi leadership is a joke.

Is the current Government pro Muqtada al-Sadr?

They are very Pro Sadr /Pro Shia.
Car bombs are not a Shia thing, car bombs are primarily a Sunni Tactic.
Shia prefer PSAF,EFPs,Mortars, and IEDs placed where they will minimize Shia casualties.
Shia do use carbombs but not as often and usually use them to take out a specific target away from civilian casualties.  Shia's generally prefer not to cause un-needed Shia deaths.

Sunni enjoy: VBIEDS (carbombs) in busy Streets no matter iuf it is a Sunni area with one Shia store...if they think you are Shia, your a target, and the sunni casualties are just martyrs.  Suicide bombings,rocket and mortar attacks on largly Shia areas, and small IEDs to take out foot troops not vehicles. And they love to cause a fire fight in an open area with lots of civilians around to use as a human shield.

Anything else? I've only been trying to stop this for almost 11 monthes now.

rhet·o·ric

m3thod wrote:

CannonFodder11b wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

LOL. So what was the fucking point of sending an extra 21,000 troops specifically to Baghdad to iron out the situation there once and for all then!? You guys crack me up. I guess you guys are just the lackeys - military planning, the politics behind the troop surge and the overall goal are probably not your strong points....

The fact of the matter is: you guys aren't really making a shit of a difference there are you!!? It doesn't matter how much cannon fodder you throw at the 'project'...

Owned.  Sit down ex-marine boy.

And Cannon - who are you fighting for? Israel or America?

Me? I'm fighting cause I signed up to join the army and better my life.  I have a Commitment to follow through with, and im trying to be an honorable person, so im here doing my job, a job that I love at moments and hate at the same time.  And yeah Theres a star of david in my sig, thats cause im jewish you idiot.  or dont you remember calling me a "Zionist pig"

Now sir any other stupid comments?  Yes, my sig has a Stryker, The US Army flag, and a Star of david fuckin sue me.
(And yeah I admit I messed up typing, that the PM was sunni, I meant Shia and siding with Sadr.  To be in power and side with one side is wrong and is helping to agitate the situation)

No harm done.  If you're gonna pull people up for accuracy, then at least be accurate yourself!!

Yeah sometimes I get typing faster then my former pot hazed mind can track.  My bad. Hehehe.

I honestly believe the timing was off on this one.  But I do also believe we would have come back to iraq within 10years of our current attack. 

But for all those non-americans and pro UK people, You're just lieing to yourself if you truely think the US was the only country beating the war drums.  Your own governement wanted to take out Saddam and attempt to give hope to the people of Iraq.

And to whomever stated that Iraq had not had terrorists while Saddam was in power, you're sadly mistaken.
Saddam and his regime were terrorists themselves.  And ask the hundreds of Shia that were hung outside of they're homes because they tried to form a militia to protect they're daughters from getting raped and murdered by Saddam's Sons.
Ask whats left of the Iraqi Soccer team that Uday (I believe it was him) tortured and permenently disabled because they lost a game to Iran. 
Yeah there was terrorism... It was just called by a different name. 
But the goal of terrorism is the same, to inflict fear, and cause casualties through an act of terror.
The real victims of terrorism are not those that die.  Its those that live in fear for the rest of they're lives.  People like that are what give terrorists they're power.  In the end it boils down to are you willing to give them that power to subdue you through terror? Not me, If I die its gonna be on my feet not in a corner cowering.

usmarine2005 wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

He was making money off the sanctions.  Sanctions that actually work would have been better.

well certainly nothing like the billions of dollars flown in courtesy of the US government to fund the insurrection..

lol....urfunnyboieva

nah mate I think it's  Paul Bremer you wanna  have a laugh at, I know I do.  Pity it has such tragic consequences for the troops they send there.

CannonFodder11b wrote:

And to whomever stated that Iraq had not had terrorists while Saddam was in power, you're sadly mistaken.
Saddam and his regime were terrorists themselves.  And ask the hundreds of Shia that were hung outside of they're homes because they tried to form a militia to protect they're daughters from getting raped and murdered by Saddam's Sons.
Ask whats left of the Iraqi Soccer team that Uday (I believe it was him) tortured and permenently disabled because they lost a game to Iran. 
Yeah there was terrorism... It was just called by a different name. 
But the goal of terrorism is the same, to inflict fear, and cause casualties through an act of terror.
The real victims of terrorism are not those that die.  Its those that live in fear for the rest of they're lives.  People like that are what give terrorists they're power.  In the end it boils down to are you willing to give them that power to subdue you through terror? Not me, If I die its gonna be on my feet not in a corner cowering.

That is a very good point.

But the real issue is containment. Saddam was contained. He was a threat to the Iraqi people (although at least things worked - people had electricity and drinking water, Iraqi guys I know say life was better there under Saddam (although their opinion is divided)), but he was no threat to any other nations and did not contribute to any international terrorism. The closest you can get to saying he did was giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.