 sj |
||
|
||
BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:39 PM If I was an Iraqi, I'd sure as hell have tried to leave by now... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Divis Sweeney Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:47 PM Just watched the television news and getting bloody sick of seeing US soldiers screaming into the faces of local Iraqi people who haven't a clue what their saying and kicking in doors old shacks of houses that you could blow down with your mouth. Is part of the GI training to shout "Go go go" and "Kick mother f...ker ass" ? I have memories of soldiers doing this on ordinary people at first hand and memories of how they reacted and how it was counter productive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:54 PM I suppose that in order to divert attention from the bloody mess in Iraq they could always invade Iran ... Yes, I really do think that out 'glorious leaders' are that stupid! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:20 PM Yo, T-Bird, I was all prepared to give you another blast but seems like I was late to the table as many others have beaten me to the punch... But What Ard mhacha said at 5:15, purdy well sums it up... You have and continue to be wrong... You seem to think that if you argue semantics and meaningless details that this will make you right but that dog don't hunt... ...'cause yer still wrong... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:22 PM "OK Foolstroupe, either yourself or Bobert go through the transcript of the hearing and prove me wrong, show me where Dr. Robert Gates stated that "the US is losing the Iraq war". [snip] and all that suggests to me is that your comprehension skills are somewhat lacking." Simple Logic - with the US 'cultural philosophy' as rammed endlessly to the rest of the world "If you are not a winner, then you are a loser - and you're all losers, cause the US is the ONLy winner"... "By the bye Foolstroupe, in most situations involving an armed insurgency there is rarely, if ever a successful military victory. " I don't know why they say you are stupid mate... you do seem able to grap basic facts... "The conflict is usually fought to a stalemate situation in which the insurgent side recognises that it is pointless to continue the armed struggle and opts for dialogue and political compromise. " ... except in Vietnam, when the US - and rest of 'the free world' - "bravely ran away"... oh... and now in Iraq, cause in spite of the US Govt deliberately trying to hide the endless stream of body bags, "there has just been too much American blood shed"... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:40 PM " There are only two people on the planet that believes Bush`s road to disaster in Iraq was a great achievement, Teribus and the Pres," I rather doubt that Bush actually believes that any more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Donuel Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:44 PM Rouse Rouse Achtung Allen zie Rouse secret prisons yes, torture yes, retribution killings yes but I don't see US troops putting millions of Arabs on a train to their deaths. We have depleted Uranium for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:46 PM See Donuel, It can be done much more efficiently nowadays... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:48 PM No, no, depleted uranium, accordin' to the Bushites, is good fir ya'... Might of fact they are tryin' to get it into pill form to sell in the health stores... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:33 PM An' jus' in case ol' T is gettin' ready to play that "stalemate" card again the Iraq Study Group today has used the term "dire" in reportin' the US's position in Iraq... "Dire" according to Webster is "arousing terror or causing extreme distress; dreasdful; terrible"... Hmmmmmm??? Doesn't really sound as if it's a tie game to me... But the T-zer has a funny way of lookin' at stuff... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,petr Date: 06 Dec 06 - 08:29 PM the US is losing - depends on what your definition of 'is' is it is not just the case of an insurgency. The French thought they won the Algerian insurgency but they were wrong. Whenever you have a land held together by force such as Saddams Iraq, or the former Yugoslavia, or the Soviet Union. When the force holding it together is gone, there is always a power struggle. In 91 When Cheney was asked by reporters why not go all the way to Baghdad and topple Saddam, he said (correctly) that there would be a power vacuum and an internal struggle and the US would be caught in the middle. There was also the danger of Shiite trying to establish an Iranian style Islamic republic (also what is happening). But what do you expect when two months before the invasion Bush didnt know the difference between Shiite and Sunni? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 06 Dec 06 - 09:19 PM Perhaps we could get one of George's relations to fix the voting machines in Iraq........worked in Florida. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Paul from Hull Date: 06 Dec 06 - 09:26 PM Guest Petr, it was 2 YEARS after the invasion, & he still didnt know the difference between Iran & Iraq.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,Gza Date: 06 Dec 06 - 10:35 PM Well, that's understandable isn't it? There's only a one letter difference between the words Iran and Iraq, after all. Give the poor man a break! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Dec 06 - 04:39 AM "Give the poor man a break! " But isn't that thing on top of his shoulders already broken? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:46 AM Akenaton, there is no "War" in Iraq, there is a duly elected Government and a duly mandated UN Force in Iraq both of whom are currently combating an insurgency, but there is no "War" civil or otherwise being fought in Iraq other than the ongoing war on terror. Terminology regarding the Senate hearings can be accredited to those participating in those hearings do not attribute them to me. Dianavan asks how we're doing, let's see by the end of January 2007 more than 50 % of the 18 regions that make up Iraq will be under sole control of the Iraqi Authorities including all police and security matters, which in comparison to Greece at the end of the Second World War means that Iraq is slightly ahead of schedule, by about a year. Probably by March next year Iraq's second largest city will be handed over to full Iraq Authority control. My best guess is that in the South the British will have withdrawn apart from training and support duties by summer 2007. autolycus - 06 Dec 06 - 03:27 PM Oh, and just as a reminder, it was the West that a)armed Saddam in the first place and b)gave him the money to buy the beastly arms. Neither a) or b) as stated above is correct - Anybody want to dispute that? Between 1973 and 1990 Iraq was the armament industries best market. Now according to the figures published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Iraq's main suppliers of weapons during this period (i.e. point a) above - those who armed Saddam in the first place) were as follows in descending order of importance: - Russia supplied 68.9% of all arms (From 1973 to 1977 Russia was their sole supplier) - France supplied 12.7% of all arms - China supplied 11.7% of all arms - "Others" supplied 4.8% of all arms - Egypt supplied 1.3% of all arms - USA supplied 0.5% of all arms As for Ivor's other contention b) above - Sorry Ivor, Iraq's weapons were purchased with oil deals made by Saddam that ripped-off the Iraqi people and did great damage to Iraq's oil reservoirs. Any here remember who were the most vocal in the debating halls of the international community in support of Saddam in 1990 and again in 2003 - any doubts take a look at the vested interests depicted above - that will provide you with an answer. The mutterings of Bobert and Ard Mhacha aren't even worth addressing, but it is noted that defence of the 600,000 dead Iraqi figures seems to have diminished in the light of fact and reason. If you are going to quote figures to back up an arguement at least get the damn thing right. Impossible for both Bobert and Ard I know, but they do inject a bit of humour into proceedings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Paul from Hull Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:55 AM *LOL* Foolestroupe! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Folkiedave Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:11 AM You mean Rumsfeld only managed to sell 0.5% of the arms that Saddam bought? Pretty poor selling I'd say. And of course it depends how you define "arms" Here is another view: From a 12,000 page dossier submitted to the UN in December 2002. The Security Council agreed to US requests to censor 8000 pages -- including sections naming western businesses which aided Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme. The five permanent members of the security council -- Britain, France, Russia, America and China -- are named as allowing companies to sell weapons technology to Iraq. The dossier claims 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons. Hewlett-Packard sold nuclear and rocket technology; Dupont sold nuclear technology, and Eastman Kodak sold rocket capabilities. The dossier also says some '50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US'. It claims the US ministries of defence, energy, trade and agriculture, and the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories, supplied Iraq with WMD technology. Germany, currently opposed to war, is shown to be Iraq's biggest arms- trading partner with 80 companies selling weapons technology, including Siemens. It sold medical machines with dual-purpose parts used to detonate nuclear bombs. The German government reportedly 'actively encouraged' weapons co-operation and assistance was allegedly given to Iraq in developing poison gas used against Kurds. In China three companies traded weapons technology; in France eight and in Russia six. Other countries included Japan with five companies; Holland with three; Belgium with seven; Spain with three and Sweden with two, including Saab. The UN claims publicly naming the companies would be counter- productive. Although most of the trade ended in 1991 on the outbreak of the Gulf War, at least two of the five permanent security council members -- Russia and China -- traded arms with Iraq in breach of UN resolutions after 1991. All trade in WMD technology has been outlawed for decades. UNSCOM found documents showing preparations by the Russian firms Livinvest, Mars Rotor and Niikhism to supply parts for military helicopters in 1995. In April 1995, Mars Rotor and Niikhism sold parts used in long-range missiles to a Palestinian who transported them to Baghdad. In 2001 and 2002, the Chinese firm Huawei Technologies sent supplies to Iraqi air defence. Foreign companies supplied Iraq's nuclear weapons programme with detonators, fissionable material and parts for a uranium enrichment plant. Foreign companies also provided Iraq's chemical and biological programmes with basic materials; helped with building labs; assisted the extension of missile ranges; provided technology to fit missiles with nuclear, biological and chemical warheads; and supplied Scud mobile launch-pads. Nearly all the weapons that were supplied have been destroyed, accounted for or immobilised, according to former weapons inspectors. Now perhaps you would like to justify the cost of the Iraq War to the USA as your economy weakens and the once almighty dollar crumbles in value? Tell me what you intend to do when your currency becomes worthless? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: ard mhacha Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:41 AM Teribus you are holed below the waterline be British and go down with dignity, you seemed to be a man of many snorts, too many by the fruitless bombardment of facts that don`t mean a thing. Bush was a pitiful sight trying to reply to the Gods of US politics, and you thought the man did well, even Blair has given up the ghost. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:43 AM "the Gods of US politics" LOL, well done Ard, I did say that your babble tended to inject a bit of humour into any thread - "the Gods of US politics" indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,petr Date: 07 Dec 06 - 12:33 PM there is no 'war' in Iraq, oh I forgot it ended when they toppled Saddams statue. Somebody ought to tell that the families of the 13 US soldiers who died yesterday. What Iraqi army? It exists mostly on paper. ALthough there is the Kurdish Peshmerga and Kurdistan, there is Moqtada Sadrs Mahdi Army militia. (Which by the way the US completely underestimated when they shut down Sadrs newspapers and tried to arrest him. When he mobilized his militia they so interrupted the US supplies that Bremer had to institute rationing in the Green zone.) There are other militias as well. None of them are about to be disbanded and merge into an all Iraqi army. And as the US talks about withdrawing, how are the going to bring about more security with less troops, when they arent able to provide it now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 07 Dec 06 - 05:23 PM Well, well, well... Seems that not only is the t-bird in denial but that somehow he thinks some of this stuff is funny... For the life of me I can't find any humor in deaths of over 600,000 people motivated pretty much by the Bushite's desire to hold power... And, T-zer, while we are at it perhaps you'd like to take on the Johns Hopkins folks who have come up with that number??? Resorting to the ***prove it*** defense is a tad below yer standards if you think that one poor ol' hillbilly has the time or background to take a study conducted by folks who are at the top of their fields at Johns Hopkins and prove them correct??? I believe that you have been tutored in the Old Guy Debatin' School... BTW, not only did the Iraq study panel use the word "dire" but also used the word "deteriorating"... Logic would suggest that if yer position is deterioratin' that a "tie game" is quite illogical... Perhaps, rather than burn up bandwidth with usless and irrelevant facts and non facts, perhaps you could, in your own words, explain how "dire and deterioratin" suggest some kind of stalemate??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bill D Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:25 PM guys...it don't matter about the exact number of how many are dead. TOO many.....and it is useless to quibble over semantics about whether "not winning" = "losing"....it is, simply, a big mess because we (meaning Republican strategists) either didn't understand Iraqi politics, or failed to get GW to listen to them. We took the lid (Saddam)off a cauldron where the major groups hate each other and care more about Sunni or Shia 'power' than about Iraq as a country. And on top of this, most of BOTH groups have come to dislike US and assume that our presence there is a major reason a lot of their friends & relatives are dead!....And no one could see this coming? We have been at this longer than WWII. We can barely IDENTIFY the enemy. We have troops on their 3rd deployment, enlistments way down, and mountains of equipment piled up in Alabama, waiting to be refurbished from desert fighting,....we are spending 5-6 BILLION a month...(week?)1 to have a damned STALEMATE? THAT seems a lot like 'losing' to me...but who am I to 2nd guess all those experts? 1 remember the words of Everett Duerksen..."A billion here, a billion there...pretty soon we're talking about real money!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:32 PM But, Bill, it's not all bad. Think of the money the arms industry has made. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:34 PM "Akenaton, there is no "War" in Iraq" No War, right..... "The exact conduct of war will depend to a great extent upon its objectives, which may include factors such as the seizure of territory, the annihilation of a rival state, the subjugation of another people or recognition of one's own people as a separate state. Typically any military action by one state is opposed, ie is countered by the military forces of one or more states." .... which blithely sidesteps "Civil War"... unless one define "state" as any group of people led by leaders, or even any group of would be leaders fighting on behalf of their assumed followers.... Notice that this definition cutely avoids the concept of anybody being hurt or dying... Some people must be bald, the way they want to split hairs... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bill D Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:48 PM You gotta understand the *rules*...if you manage to define cleverly, you get to do anything you wish! "Heck, no...we aren't fighting a 'war'...'cause we didnt DECLARE a war! Therefore we can't be losing a war. We are just...ummmm...helping a bunch of nice folks to recover from a dictatorship and guiding them toward democracy! (Never mind that most of them can barely comprehend 'voting' for anyone except members of their own sect.)" who, me? Cynical? Naaawwww.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:56 PM "either didn't understand Iraqi politics, or failed to get GW to listen to them." "Out of a 1000 people in the US embassy in Iraq, only 6 are fluent in Arabic"...!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:58 PM The President of the USA isn't fluent in English fer krissake. So why should the embassy people surprise you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:24 PM I'm NOT at all surprised - neither is the 'rest of the world' - this sort of arrogant wankerism stuff-up is what the USA is best well known for internationally, and why some of us just KNEW that the US would stick its dick in Iraq, AND get it chewed, like in Vietnam. What we were trying for at best, and it failed with Fascist Johnny, was to not burn our bridges by tagging along - Johnny still refuses to admit that the US is 'not winning in Iraq'... BTW, Johnny said that "sending troops into Fiji at the request of the elected PM would be an illegal invasion" - ROFL.... All that Hollywood crap about careful US military planning is really funny, you know. The last bit of effective US military planning was WWII D-Day, and don't forget that the English refused to let 'the bloody Yanks' have total charge of that, you know... In the Pacific, the tactic was mostly just an inevitable "roll up the carpet with concentrating superior force on a weak spot". After the 'Axis of Evil' & 'Grand Crusade' stupidities, we are just waiting for "Ooops, what was that damn big Red Button for anyway?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,282RA Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:23 PM If there is no war in Iraq, Teribus, then Bush cannot claim war time powers. So Bush then is abusing his power and must face the consequences. Saying we're not losing, we're just not winning is like saying, "I didn't lie, I merely misrepresented my position." There is no stalemate here. Either we get our victory or we have been defeated. We're the superpower, we have to win. The insurgency only has to fight us to a standstill and can rightfully claim victory. Unfortunately, they have already fought us to a standstill and we still cannot turn this thing around. So we are losing. Because our leaders are too chickenshit to talk about it, I'm amazed at how few here bring it up: if we're going to have a chance, if we're going to continue this good fight, such as it is, we need a draft. We simply must have more people. There simply are not enough. We cannot draw down troops until we have an upper hand which we clearly do not. To get an upper hand, we need a lot more "boots on the ground," as they term it, at any given time. Short of a huge influx of soldiers, the United States will lose this war shortly. We keep saying that the Iraqis need to take responsibility, excuse me? WE need to start taking responsibility. WE invaded them, WE dismantled their govt, their military, their police, their media, their infrastructure. We took away every available weapon they had to stop an insurgency and a civil war then we tell them, "This is your fault because you won't take responsibility for it!" WE were the ones that promised to build a democracy there--it is OUR responsibility to see Iraq out of this brutal dark age we have thrust them and ourselves into. As long as we're too chickenshit to draft people and get bodies over there and start kicking butt and start turning this thing around, it is WE who are not taking responsibility for this debacle and it is entirely the fault of the United States and Great Britain. They're talking about the need to send 20,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq to disarm the militias. HOHOHO! Dream on! All that would accomplish it getting thousands more troops sent home in flag-draped boxes. Be honest! We need to send 200,000 to 300,000 over there if we're going to have any success disarming militias. Really, we need about 500,000 to do that. Trouble is, that would be unbelievably expensive since the current paltry 140,000 cost us about $6 billion a month. We have spent too much money already and can't afford to spend much more. So what do we do? Our hardware is also running down and wearing out from overuse and we don't have the personnel or parts to fix it. It will cost $17 billion a year for the next several years to repair this equipment and it wouldn't matter if the war stopped at this very minute. My job deeply involves me in this hardware repair effort and it is a lost cause. I wrote the procedures for revamping the humvees to withstand the rigors of Iraq--I wrote them. There were about 88,000 early last year that needed to be rebuilt at the time I wrote those procedures. We have less than 1% of it done. If we double the repair rate next year and no more humvees come stateside for revamping, we will still have less than 1% of them rebuilt. It is a serious, serious, serious hardware and repair shortage we are facing. I mean, it's extremely serious, folks. We need a draft just to get enough people to fix this hardware. Much of it was never meant for Iraq, it was emergency equipment meant for domestic disasters and most of it is now over in Iraq getting beat to shit and then being sent back to the States to sit in some govt lot awaiting repairs that have yet to come. The money isn't there because Bush slashed it to divert more to Iraq where it is promptly squandered and stolen by unscrupulous assholes. You see how this shortage affected our ability to respond to Katrina. You see how unacceptably slow our response has been to Midwestern people who lost power in that snowstorm last week. Some 55,000 STILL have no power and will not have it back before Saturday at the earliest!! It takes great effort from the National Guard to clear the roads so repair crews can get through but few states have enough Guardsmen or equipment to sustain much of the necessary effort. Eventually, it just won't happen at all. We'll be on our own. We are slowly devolving into a 3rd world nation thanks to Bush and his war. We are cowards if we keep expecting only a small segment of the total population to shoulder this war and all the natural calamities we face. Most Guard units today are now rated as "Unready" or "Unsat" (unsatisfactory) because they lack the necessary personnel and equipment to be able to assist in even the least catastrophic disasters. And it's only getting worse by the month. Even then, we'd rather sit in a cold, dark house than do something about our situation. We have to start acting like a responsible nation instead privileged, spoiled, stupid brats whose individual wants and needs matter above the nation's as a whole and we need to start a draft and start showing the world we're serious or the world is going to go on without us. They don't have much of a choice, really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,petr Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:39 PM Unfortunately while America may have the largest military in the world it is not as useful as one might expect since the US populace has a deep aversion to casualties - as well as cost, (Stiglitz the former world bank economist estimates that over the long run the Iraq war is 2-3$ trillion) when it comes to a war of choice. OBviously the NOv election was the real beginning of Bushs accountability moment, and now hes had to submit to adult supervision. Unfortunately there is very little that the US can do regardless what the Iraq Study group comes up with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:55 PM The influx of troops required to add "boots on the ground" comes in the form of Iraqi troops. A US draft would solve absolutely nothing apart from increasing your casualty rates and guaranteeing the defeat of US troops. How long do you think it would take to put those draftees into the frontline? The answer to that would be termed in months not weeks. How effective would they be? Absolutely bloody useless, they would be a bigger danger to your "professional" troops than the insurgents those "professionals" are currently fighting. Please note that while a largely "civilian" think tank suggests an increase in troop levels, not one single military commander on ground has asked for more troops. I would rely more on their judgement of the situation than those of any damn committee sitting in Washington. US with their conscripted/draftee army were comprehensively defeated in Vietnam by a far weaker foe. The Soviets with their conscripted/draftee army were comprehensively defeated in Afghanistan by a far weaker foe. The British with their professional Army succeeded in both Malaysia and Borneo. Currently in Afghanistan while BBC repeatedly reports that the number of deaths in Helmand Province have rocketted since the British took over, they somehow fail to mention that the vast bulk of those killed are Taleban fighters - again they are facing professional troops, not conscripts, not draftees. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:40 PM And still Bush says "We will prevail". It seems he looks in the mirror and sees Churchill. Anybody else could tell him he's a bit off, to put it mildly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:49 PM I hope that they DO try to reinstitute the draft. That would make this illegal war of aggression so unpopular in the USA that it would definitely cause its failure even sooner. So much the better. The USA is an outright aggressor in this case, and it richly deserves to lose the war and go home in disgrace. And yes, conscript forces would be less effective, just as you say, Teribus. As for the Iraqis, God help them, because they are in deep trouble no matter what happens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:13 AM "US with their conscripted/draftee army were comprehensively defeated in Vietnam by a far weaker foe." Yep. But, really, weaker? Militarily, tonnage of bombs, amount of expensive hardware (as judged by the standards of the time, perhaps) - bet they were fighting on their own soil - and remember that NORTH VIETNAM - before external interference and partition, WANTED HELP from ''the free world' and were promised it during WWII, but were betrayed afterwards - so they had the attitude of "f*** 'em all". Don't forget that the French built their big base in the shadow of mountains "that they can never get artillery up there" ... hahahaha :-) The 'South' were a bunch of corrupt warlord puppets, who could not motivate their 'official army' ... oh dear, starting to sound more like Iraq... "The influx of troops required to add "boots on the ground" comes in the form of Iraqi troops." Which are acknowledged to be no more effective than in Vietnam, not counting infiltration by those dedicated to overthrow... "not one single military commander on ground has asked for more troops." Ah - in the beginning, and even BEFORE the invasion, they did, but since the 'political winds' were observed correctly, no sane military commander has since stepped out of line - hence 'no more requests for more troops'.... :-) "The British with their professional Army succeeded in both Malaysia and Borneo." Sorry, I musta grown up on a different planet... "As for the Iraqis, God help them, because they are in deep trouble no matter what happens. " That's about the best that can be said, unfortunately... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:30 AM 282RA - just about the realistic sounding assessment I've heard. Unpleasant reading, but feels spookily more like reality than anything I've heard for a while. al |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:37 AM GUEST,282RA - 07 Dec 06 - 08:23 PM "If there is no war in Iraq, Teribus, then Bush cannot claim war time powers. So Bush then is abusing his power and must face the consequences." Wrong 282RA, the MNF currently deployed in Iraq are there at the invitation of the duly elected Government of Iraq and under the terms of a perfectly legal and duly authorised UN Security Council Mandate. The latter has just been renewed and extended until 31st December 2007. So sorry no requirement to claim war time powers and no abuse of power on the part of your President. The Iraqi army currently being trained, who have already taken post in almost half of the country and who for some time now have been taking the lead in counter-insurgency operations is a very different force from the Iraqi Army of Saddam Hussein (Who never trusted his Army anyway). Main difference is that this Iraqi Army is not made of conscripts, they are all volunteers, and despite all the bombings and specific targeting of Army and Police recruitment centres thousands of Iraqi's continue to volunteer. Your President is quite right to state that the US "will prevail" because the alternative does not really bear thinking about. If the civilian population of the United States of America does to US servicemen and women currently serving in Afghanistan and Iraq what you did to your conscript army that served in Vietnam. If you succeed in dragging them back home having not allowed them to finish the job, then resign yourselves to the fact that on their return you will be defenceless, because these guys will not be prepared to go in to bat for you again unless it is on American soil where they can see you on the frontline alongside them - of course by that stage it would be too late, you'd already have lost whatever conflict you were involved in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:59 AM "the MNF currently deployed in Iraq are there at the invitation of the duly elected Government of Iraq" ROFL.... elected AFTER the invasion..... hahahahahaha! "under the terms of a perfectly legal and duly authorised UN Security Council Mandate" ROFLMAO - passed 'when the war had been won' AFTER the invasion when George Baby told the UN and the rest of the world to eff off and that the US 'would go it alone'... the attempt to get the UN to clean up the mess Georgie Porgie and "kill 'em all" Rummy created.... ROFL... oh please stop... my sides hurt... "despite all the bombings and specific targeting of Army and Police recruitment centres thousands of Iraqi's continue to volunteer." It's the only real way of earning a living honestly in Iraq - sort of a 'suicide army', in a way, really.... "If the civilian population of the United States of America does to US servicemen and women currently serving in Afghanistan and Iraq what you did to your conscript army that served in Vietnam." Ah - it was the GOVT who did that - didn't want to praise the soldiers so snuck them in undercover, no parades for 'heroes' etc - because they didn't want to wear the political fallout for having 'failed' after years of loud mouth rednecking and trying to destroy all critics of Govt 'policy'. The loyal "the alternative does not really bear thinking about." Echoes of Vietnam, anyone.... now THAT's a good title for a song... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:10 AM Carry on laughing Foolstroupe, as you obviously haven't got any real contribution to make. It would appear that all that you can do is repeatedly spout the usual left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush nonsensical mantras in the hope that people will be stupid enough to swallow them. When confronted with an alternative/opposite point of view backed up by fact, your stuffed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ron Davies Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:14 AM Teribus-- The US "will prevail", you assure us. Gee thanks, that makes it all better. The only thing wrong is that at this point, and probably long since, it has been out of the hands of the "Coalition". How many times do we have to tell you that it is fundamentally a question of IRAQI politics--- before it finally sinks into your giant brain? I've been saying for over a year now that if you don't take Sunnis' wishes into account--specifically their need for oil income and their need to be able to trust the police-- you ensure a bottomless supply of terrorists. Your response is that ALL Sunnis are like hardcore Nazis in 1945--and therefore deserve no consideration. As I've said earlier, this is drivel--dangerous drivel. It's your attitude, as manifested by Shiite leaders in Iraq, which makes peace in Iraq--(even the rump state, without the northern Kurdish area, which is gone from "Iraq" for good)--- impossible---ever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:21 AM "Carry on laughing Foolstroupe" Just as long as you keep spinnin' 'em Mr T! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:29 AM "the alternative does not really bear thinking about." Ah, but it HAS to be thought about... eventually. Yep - that's the same narrow minded red necked ball clanking dickheadedness that got the Iraq mess started in the first place... but, like in Vietnam, "the alternative" is now par for the course - just how much Trade does the US (and the "Allies of the willing in that conflict") now have with Vietnam (oh, and it's "backer of Terror" - China)? ;-) The same will eventually happen with whatever sort of rubble is left in Iraq too... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:43 AM The problem I see with T-zer's "boots on the ground" being Iraqis is that we keep hearing how the stategy should be to train more "peacekeepers"... Yeah, that may sound good but when you peel off a few layers what it amounts to is basicly training folks to be better killers... I mean, like who trained the malitias??? History is repleat with such exercizes of insanity... Think the Taliban here... While I agree with my bud 282RA that any chance of victory would involve a massive effort both in terms of manpower and equipement I'm rather scepical that even if those sacrifices were made that the chances of winning or even breaking even would be very slim... Sadder yet is that Bush is too stubborn and/or intellectually challenged to hang with a paradigm change and that all but insures that the US/UK ill-thought-out invasion will fail... Even today, Bush holds to his rhetoric about completing a mission which has changed over and over to suit his political situations... The man will say anything... So, I think we are screwed... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Paul from Hull Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:12 AM Teribus, I have no intention of getting into a slagging match here, but I want to take issue with a couple of your points from above. "The British with their professional Army succeeded in both Malaysia and Borneo." Actually, a considerable number of the British troops deployed in the 'Malayan Emergency' were National Servicemen. I think we have therefore to look elsewhere for the reasons for the title of this thread. "Currently in Afghanistan while BBC repeatedly reports that the number of deaths in Helmand Province have rocketted since the British took over, they somehow fail to mention that the vast bulk of those killed are Taleban fighters..." While I can believe the above, do you have a source for it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:45 AM Well at very least I think Teribus is being unfair. This guy isn't right wing, left wing or whatever - he's trying to think this thing through, and he may be on to something. The way you win a war is to surround your enemy with superior forces and kill him, and a lot of other innocent people. Like the Union army in the American Civil War, or the aliies in WW2. In WW2 of course the Russians did a lot of our dying for us. If you're not prepared to do that, you shouldn't be fighting a war - its not fair to the men who put their lives on the line for your cause. The Germans didn't stop being Nazis because they had a change of heart. They stopped being Nazis, because if we found one being a Nazi, we shot them in public. And we showed them there were was more percentage in doing things our way. But as the guy says - we are talking MASSIVE commitment. Furthermore there is no way you can guarantee democracy is going to deliver you something sane and sensible in the way of government. Malaya being a bloody good case in point. So you can't really with any degree of honesty, promise a stable benevolent government at the end of the road. I don't really think this war was ever about that. It was about showing the world there are pains and penalties if you pull a stunt like 9/11. There is a military response. And I think in a way - Bush's ignorance speaks very eloquently. It says I don't care if you are fundamentalists or not. I get any shit from your part of the world and this shit is what happens. Look out your window at the wreckage and say Thankyou Osama, without you - there would have been none of this. I think America and England will withdraw without creating Utopia in Iraq. And I think the people who thought this one out, won't give a bugger. Mission accomplished, as far as they are concerned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Dec 06 - 12:44 PM "...there is no way you can guarantee democracy is going to deliver you something sane and sensible in the way of government. Malaya being a bloody good case in point." I don't think you have to go as far afield as Malaysia to get another case in point... Here's a piece by Simon Hoggart in today's Guardian which seems to put it pretty well - Dead fish day "The president looked like a hooked fish with its head hammered by a humane angler. But he always does. Yesterday he looked even worse. He has moved from the riverbank to the fishmonger's slab. After the midterms and the Baker report on Iraq (executive summary: "We screwed up. Now let's get out"), he has been called a dead man walking. Yesterday he resembled a dead fish twitching...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: akenaton Date: 08 Dec 06 - 01:15 PM The War was not about Global politics or spreading democracy, it was about domestic politics. America saw Saddam's Iraq as a soft target, an easy way to gain the political initiative and grab a bunch of oil. Blair was even worse...he saw Iraq as his ticket to glory. An easy victory for the Yanks and the guy who stood "shoulder to shoulder" wouild be rewarded. In the UK this conflict was indeed "Blair's War" single handedly he convinced a willing party and many here that he was fighting for freedom. He lied and lied again.....For personal glory. I remember arguing with wld years ago over this point. wld excuses Blair, but most now believe that he should be tried and imprisoned.......The American can do as they like with Bush who is in reality a sad fool. Blair knowingly committed a monumental political crime and should face the consequences. However, solely due to Mr Blair, Labour will be booted out at the next election, and may they never be returned to power until all who are stained by Blair's crime hide under the Labour banner...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 08 Dec 06 - 01:41 PM I found it difficult to ascribe the motives you did so readily to the leader of the party I had voted for all my life. He has said nothing in his own defence. Perhaps there is nothing to be said. I still don't find the alternatives to Labour very palatable. Do you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:32 PM The alternatives aren't very palatable anywhere where the great corporate empire controls all the major parties which you can vote for... "Let's see. Who shall I pick this time? Tweedledee? Or Tweedledum? Or Tweedledummest? Decisions, decisions." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: akenaton Date: 08 Dec 06 - 03:22 PM Al...Sorry for seeming to tar you along with Blair, and I probably find all the alternatives on offer even less palatable than you do. The question is quite simple... Was he bad or stupid? The same question I would ask all who supported this war....especially TERIBUS. BUT.....the whole notion of pre-emptive war just because someone thinks it may give personal kudos....like something thought up by some focus group, is to my mind evil incarnate. Something which should not be convieniantly forgotten, or weighed against a few more pennies on the pension, or another week in Tenerife for the nurses. Today Blair lectures our minorities on their behaviour, praising terrorism ect. Yet who will point to his own bloodstained hands and demand that justice is seen to be done .......Ake |
