• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

And the Spooks DID try to Tell Bush and His Advisors . . .

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Corrections . . . Saddam is public enemy #1 (he replaced Osama b/c we couldn't catch him either).
at least you spelled 'corrections' correctly. you cling to the glory of saddam with typical socialist vigor. have you written the folk songs yet ?
epic poem ? or are waiting for his martydom to really bank on his memory ? try not to overlook the facts your hero has to move about every
2 hours, does not have the services of his elite chef, and has been deprived of his snuff videos. as much as you glorify his grueling efforts to
evade our forces and his people, his time is on earth is very limited. now you have osama and saddam to root for. where do you find the time ?
His demon seed is certainly dead but not forgotten
no, they are not. cough. ;)
The Ba'ath Party isn't history b/c Rummy himself said they were funding many of the attacks on US forces (he said that today on the
NewsHour).
the ba'ath party is history. former ba'ath party members are not. the only legitimate parties are those involved in the nascent governing
council. all former ba'ath party stooges are not welcomed, a number of whom are probably being hunted by other iraqis for obvious reasons.
and btw, since when does a pronouncement from rummy amount to manna from god ? very unusual for a mayhem cheerleader to be taking the
word of an archenemy neo-con so uncritiically. i wonder why . . . hmmmm.
The 'appointed council' sent a letter to the Arab League asking for recognition and letting them know that the Iraqi Governing Council was
sending a representative.
<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAYG4NDDKD.html"> (from cairo, egypt news source): The Arab League unanimously granted the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council a seat on the pan-Arab
body early Tuesday - delivering a major boost to the Bush administration's post-war occupation</a>

oops.
The most murderous totalitarian regime of the last 25 years . . . probably somewhere between the Sudan and the Horn. You may want to
check the tally in Bosnia/Kosovo as well but I'm sure one of the African POS has Milosevic beat.
oh, you mean rwanda ? rwanda was a totalitarian regime ? ? news to the world, do tell. the slaughter in rwanda was spasmodic, a paroxysm of
ungodly proportions. but rwanda itself had a democratically elected government (and i don't mean the 99.8% kind of election results saddam
enjoyed). there was a long prior history of ethnic enmity in rwanda that does not make this a good analogy. i can't even deem this a good try.
milosevic is better. but saddam built a police state non pareil over 3 decades that may have murdered hundreds of thousands of people.
those estimates are not mine. they are iraqi dissident figures.
Curiously your 25 year horizon would put us back to 1978 . . . last time I checked the US was on pretty good terms with Saddam in the early
80s . . . we even gave him $200M in one year (1983) . . . and sent an envoy . . . what was that guy's name . . . it escapes me . . . I think it starts
with an R . . . and sorta rhymes with dumbbell.
you seem to remember numbers and a few names but neither in toto make a context. since we could not remain aloof in so critical a geo-political
area and the choice was between the sunny ayatollah khomeini or a cheery saddam who would you choose ? you have two evil dudes who are
willing to knock each off, much to every one else's benefit. that is a godsent interventionary scenario. khomeini, though, was threatening to overrun
his sunni neighbors with swarms of zealots. choice was fairly easy to make, although no less loaded with ethical difficulties. ignoring the problem
the ayatollah posed would not have made it go away. sorry.


as for your comments following from my second quote, you need to read my words more carefully. they all allude to the situation before the
initiation of the campaign, not after. your comments drone on and on about clarifications that you can thank the war for bringing you.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
EXman -

Since you either have a reading comprehension problrm, or did NOT BOTHER to read -

Where do you come up with the crap that you think I would vote for Shar[pton ?
Or where do you think I said Sharpton would do better that Bush ?
Those are YOUR narrow minded non-thinking reactionary inputs.

What I said was (AGAIN) "Do you think he could do WORSE !"
I even made the statement that it was not about the possibility of Sharpton being elected.

Why did you even take the subject outside of that thread and put it into this one ?

Player is out of bounds, thats a 15 yard penalty, loss of down, loss of possion.
My ball - First & Goal from the 1 inch line.

Now back on subject. -
Bush has done the worst job in the office of President in my lifetime, which goes back to Eisenhower.
(Actually Truman and Rosevelt, before Ike but I didn't pay much attention when I was under 10 years old.)
Kennedy was assinated before I was of voting age, but with L.B. Johnsons election at the end of his
replacement term, I have voted in each and every election without fail.
(How many of you can say that - truthfully ?)

Johnson - Decent domestic policies, but surrounded by liars in his Administration
they cooked the books and falsified the Viet Nam information to him (Sound familiar ?, Bush like - No ?)

Nixon - the biggest lying, cheating, paranoid President since Hoover - until Bush the Lessor.
(Nixons Vice-President Spiro Agnew had to resign because he had been caught as a crook).

Ford - Nice guy, aimless, but a stabilizing factor in the aftermath of the Nixon Scandal

Carter - Another nice guy, but here's where the Republican Party refined their Personal Attack Agendas.
He had a situation blow up that was left from the Nixon/Ford days - Iran and their Religous Rebellion.
He tried to send in a rescue party, but the Army equipment met with disaster in a sand-storm.
Republicans worked behind the backs of his Administration to secure the release of hostages -
but only 'IF' Reagan was elected so they could gloat in the political victory. That was treason by them

Reagan, an articulate puppet that never had an original thought in his life, but knew how to speak from a telepromptor,
I went through his 12 years of being a mindless governor of California, he did irrepairable damage to the state,
and they are still suffering today from the All for Big Business policies that his manipulators put in motion in the 70's.
His policies were marionetted by the same crooks that were behind the Nixon Machine, they became his Administration.

Bush 1 - He actually did well with the out of touch to society Administration that he inherited from Reagan.
His only downfall is that he, like his predecessor Reagan had no clues about economic policys.
Whitehouse, as no matter how well the Gulf-1 War went, he neglected Domestic Policy and the public.

Clinton - Did well considering that during the 8 years in office he was under constant attack by the Republuican
Conservatives, who's only purpose was to degrade the status of the Presidency, so a pretender like Dubya
could be seen as being fit to serve in office to replace the man that they had tried to destroy. More Treason.
What's scary is how well he might have done if the Republicans had actually co-operated and done something
for America, instead of only doing things that were to the political advantage of their own party, or Big Business.
So he was forced to lie under oath, after several years of constant attack on every thing he sais or did.
Compared to Bush-2, how many died as a result of his lies ? Certainly not much more than a mouthfull, if that.

Bush 2 - He's lost my support, as he has demonstrated distain for everything except his own ego, and those
who he has surrounded himself with so he dosen't have to face or even hear truth. He's become a paranoid.
The most secretive and deceptive President in the history of this country, a man of no substance.

I am looking over all the candidates as they make their rhetoric public, and have found few I deem worthy,
but I know that Dubya is uniquely unqualified to be allowed to continue with his deceit and lying Administration.
Maybe a pair of 'Pretenders' will rise up and unite to offer a ticket of substance - we'll see.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
The decision ended weeks of debate within the 22-member League over whether to recognize Iraq's interim authority, with opponents fearing that acceptance could be seen as a sign of support for the American invasion.
From your link . . . I made no mistake . . . the Arab League did not invite a representative from the governing counsel. What happened was once an appointment was made . . . the Iraqi Council sent a letter to the League asking for recognition. The Arab League's debate clearly indicates the majority reject the US war and occupation but feel the interests of Iraqis supercede their disdain for US foreign policy. The outcome is the same so I can certainly defer.

you seem to remember numbers and a few names but neither in toto make a context. since we could not remain aloof in so critical a geo-political area and the choice was between the sunny ayatollah khomeini or a cheery saddam who would you choose ?
Well the Israelis sold weapons to both sides . . . oh nevermind . . . we did, too . . . go figure. False dichotomies are wonderful devices for getting people to accept otherwise unacceptable positions. Fortunately, Mother Nature gave most of us intelligence and imagination to find better solutions. Alas, there's no natural requirement to use either capacity.

you have two evil dudes who are willing to knock each off, much to every one else's benefit. that is a godsent interventionary scenario. khomeini, though, was threatening to overrun his sunni neighbors with swarms of zealots.
Actually the zealots were focused on Iran. Saddam was the aggressor in the war. Saddam used the chemical weapons against Iranian soliders/civilians. Saddam was our ally. Do you remember the other major power supporting Saddam . . . the USSR. Whenever you find yourself cheering for a despot and sharing the endeavor with a mortal enemy . . . just maybe it's time for a little reflection.

choice was fairly easy to make, although no less loaded with ethical difficulties. ignoring the problem the ayatollah posed would not have made it go away. sorry.
The choice was easy b/c no one thought about the consequences for the people of Iran, Iraq, or the region. The only question was how to ensure the flow of oil and the possible correlate of stemming the tide of radical Islam. The answer to the first is . . . damn if I know. The answer to the second is that you don't. People have a right to choose what they will believe. The major religion in America is based on the life of a dark-skinned Marginal Jew (read the book) with hair like wool that traveled with a group of men. You look for a picture of Jesus you find a blue-eyed, light-skinned man with flowing locks . . . but hey those are just details. I don't know Sharia or Wahabi but I do know Islam. It's as beautiful and ugly as any other world religion.

The threat posed by the ayatollah was real and the outcome in the region is certainly in question but ultimately the people of Iran and Shia in Iraq will decide how to proceed with their self-governance and their beliefs. If you don't like it . . . buy your oil elsewhere or just volunteer to go in as a missionary and convert the heathens.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
From your link . . . I made no mistake . . . the Arab League did not invite a representative from the governing counsel. What happened was once an appointment was made . . . the Iraqi Council sent a letter to the League asking for recognition. The Arab League's debate clearly indicates the majority reject the US war and occupation but feel the interests of Iraqis supercede their disdain for US foreign policy. The outcome is the same so I can certainly defer.
you made the proverbial difference-without-distinction boo-boo. the arab league accepted the appointment, unanimously. so whether they invited the representative over or they accepted the appointment they will all welcome the return of the iraqi iraqi foreign minister as a representative of the iraqi
governing council. he will assume his familar seat.

Well the Israelis sold weapons to both sides . . . oh nevermind . . . we did, too . . . go figure. False dichotomies are wonderful devices for getting people
to accept otherwise unacceptable positions. Fortunately, Mother Nature gave most of us intelligence and imagination to find better solutions. Alas, there's no natural requirement to use either capacity
next time you commune with that mother nature chick ask her if she would just once deign to share her infinite wisdom with the rest of humanity. you don't
seem to be bringing too much back following your chit-chats with her. btw, how can this 'dichotomy' be false when one side chose to cooperate with us while
the other preferred to march on their path of islamic world revolution ?

Actually the zealots were focused on Iran. Saddam was the aggressor in the war. Saddam used the chemical weapons against Iranian soliders/civilians. Saddam was our ally. Do you remember the other major power supporting Saddam . . . the USSR. Whenever you find yourself cheering for a despot and sharing the endeavor with a mortal enemy . . . just maybe it's time for a little reflection.
oh, thats right. the waves of iranian child soldiers and the mullahs who sent them were the level-headed bunch.

khomeini egged saddam on by calling him all sorts of un-islamic things. you don't do that to cuddly saddam if you have any plans of passing
on your seed. so saddam, rather surprisingly, went ape, lobbed a few missiles, and sent his morons over the border for a few feeble rapid
strikes. but hey, technically, you are correct. saddam did take the first shot. he is the 'aggressor' - as if this fact helps your left-leaning cause.

the fact we had the ussr on our side, then, was not unusual. the ussr also sent their foreign minister to madrid in 1990 to broker talks between
the palestinians and the isrealis. the u.s. ofcourse was involved in those discussions too. there were other instances where the two cold powers
happened to be on the same side. while the ussr was a major player, they were not saddam's major supplier. for those names, you need to look
to western europe, if you dare.

The choice was easy b/c no one thought about the consequences for the people of Iran, Iraq, or the region. The only question was how to ensure
the flow of oil and the possible correlate of stemming the tide of radical Islam. The answer to the first is . . . damn if I know. The answer to the second
is that you don't. People have a right to choose what they will believe. The major religion in America is based on the life of a dark-skinned Marginal Jew
(read the book) with hair like wool that traveled with a group of men. You look for a picture of Jesus you find a blue-eyed, light-skinned man with flowing
locks . . . but hey those are just details. I don't know Sharia or Wahabi but I do know Islam. It's as beautiful and ugly as any other world religion.
aah, the oil. yes. don't drink it. please.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Intelligence officials in America, Britain, and other countries tried to deliver some intelligence to this administration and Blair's boys. Alas they were rejected because why should anyone let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good "rush to war".
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: tcsenter
I think you just reinforced the whole point of this thread. Of course there was heavy resistance. When you invade and occupy another country, especially a country with a long history of resisting occupation, they're going to fight back. Duh. Who could have predicted that? (Aside from pretty much everyone except the Bush administration, I mean.)
Getting back to a point you clearly neglected to address for obvious reasons, what defines "heavy" resistance? You have to quantify it in order to make force projections. Let me guess, "The resistance we are seeing right now is heavy resistance." Its nice being a chattery member of the All Star Armchair Critic Team, eh?

Its easy to say there would be "heavy" resistance in a vacuum with no relative point of reference. 'Heavy' compared with what? Are you sure, in your extensive combat command experience, that the resistance being engaged in Iraq is "heavy" by all relative standards?
Just imagine what would happen to any country foolish enough to try to invade the U.S. Our enlisted military forces would be the least of their worries. They'd be attacked by anyone who could swing a garden tool.
Right, which isn't happening in Iraq. Far from it, by all accounts. I'm glad you chose that as your "relative standard".

The resistance is from militant groups who were pretty much militant before the US invasion; Baathists, Fedayeen militia remnants, Islamic fundamentalists, and increasingly from foreign fighters. A small percentage of hard core extremists type folks, which hardly reflects the other 99.5% of Iraq's 25 million people.

1% of 25 million is 250,000. If there were 250,000 armed militants - two for every US soldier in Iraq - running around Iraq hell-bent on 'driving the Infidel occupation forces out', there would be a helluva lot more mayhem and violence than there is. At best, we're talking 15,000~25,000 armed militants in the whole of Iraq.

It doesn't take 100 armed militants to stuff 20lbs of improvised munitions and high explosives into a plastic bag, plant it on a roadside, detonate the explosives remotely or using a timer to slow or stop a US convoy, then fire a few RPG and a few hundred AK47 rounds on their position, then run away. Hell I could do that myself with the assistance of a few half-wits who can follow instructions.
The invasion was reckless and unwarranted. While the actual attack (step 1) may have been well-planned, the complete lack of planning for steps 2-n means that overall, the plan was a failure.
Ah, I believe your statement above is what actually 'reinforces the premise of this whole thread', and ties-in nicely with my earlier conclusion:
Would Bush haters still be charging the Bush Administration and the Pentagon with incompetent planning had there been 200,000 more troops and fewer attacks? Most definitely.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The way I see it, you're the one who's missing the point.

You can posture all you want about the one true definition of "heavy" (what is "is"?). You can invent lots of random numbers to "prove" your point. Unfortunately, your conclusions just don't match the reality of the situation in Iraq. However "heavy" the resistance may or may not be, it's heavy enough. It's heavy enough to damage and destroy critical infrastructure. It's heavy enough to derail our attempts to restore order and build confidence with the Iraqi people. It's heavy enough to cost us a billion dollars per week. It's heavy enough to keep sending Americans home in body bags.

You're like a weathernan without a window. While you're telling everyone how dry and sunny it is today -- based on your extensive computer models, no doubt -- everyone is laughing at you because it's raining outside. You need to pull yourself out of your ideological fog, look out the window, and see what's really happening.

The Bush "plan" is a failure overall because it didn't anticipate or prepare for steps 2-n of the invasion. It was a one-way ticket to Baghdad. Now we're desperately searching for anyone who can tell us how to get home.



 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
From your link . . . I made no mistake . . . the Arab League did not invite a representative from the governing counsel. What happened was once an appointment was made . . . the Iraqi Council sent a letter to the League asking for recognition. The Arab League's debate clearly indicates the majority reject the US war and occupation but feel the interests of Iraqis supercede their disdain for US foreign policy. The outcome is the same so I can certainly defer.
CAIRO, Tuesday, Sept. 9 ? Arab foreign ministers agreed early this morning to grant Iraq's seat in the Arab League to the American-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, according to Al Jazeera, the Arabic television channel.

The report said the Governing Council would hold Iraq's seat in the 22-member league until the election of a new government and the drafting of a constitution.

Reuters reported that the Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshiyar Zebari, would attend the Arab meetings, to be held Tuesday and Wednesday.

"There was an Arab consensus in this meeting to invite the Governing Council in Iraq to attend this session as a member," the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, told reporters, the news agency said.

Arab League Nations Agree to Grant Seat to Iraq's Council - New York Times
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
Originally posted by: tcsenter


If there were 125,000 (1/2 percent) militant armed resisters in Iraq, nearly the same number for total US forces in Iraq, we would have been run straight the hell out of there a couple months ago.

25,000 militant resisters - 1 out of every 1000 Iraqis - is an absolute worst-case scenario. And that presumes resistance is 100% home-grown, which we know isn't the case. So now, given foreign fighters, even fewer than 1 out of every 1000 Iraqis.

Any way you want to slice it, to suggest that anything more than a miniscule percentage of Iraqis are hostile enough to US intervention that they are taking up arms in resistence is totally baseless and completely disintegrates under scrutiny.
So what you are saying is that it takes at the very least 5 US soldiers to handle every one Iraqi resister right? Seeing as the US soldiers are much better trained and armed than the Iraqi resisters you would think at an absolute worst-case scenario that we should only need 1 soldier for every 2 Iraqi resisters.

Since you estimate that the maximum number of resisters is about 25,000 that means we should only need about 12,500 soldiers over there (much to everyones relief) and can now bring home 9/10ths of our force. The remaining force should be enough to keep all the resisters in line correct?

Ah, but now we see the issue right? Pull the majority of the force back home and what happens to the number of Iraqis willing to take up armed resistance? Do you think the frequency of attacks on the remaining few soldiers would increase or decrease?

And now we see how your aguement is totally baseless and disintegrates under scrutiny.


 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
So what you are saying is that it takes at the very least 5 US soldiers to handle every one Iraqi resister right? Seeing as the US soldiers are much better trained and armed than the Iraqi resisters you would think at an absolute worst-case scenario that we should only need 1 soldier for every 2 Iraqi resisters.
Define US soldiers "handling" armed militant Iraqi resisters. Are they petting them, massaging them, just holding them tightly?

We're not talking about people who hold up signs and chant in protest. We're talking about armed resisters who are engaged in planning and executing attacks against Coalition forces, Iraqis working with the Coalition government, or against reconstruction efforts.
Since you estimate that the maximum number of resisters is about 25,000 that means we should only need about 12,500 soldiers over there (much to everyones relief) and can now bring home 9/10ths of our force. The remaining force should be enough to keep all the resisters in line correct?
Please refrain from entering a discussion about which you know nothing, I'm embarrassed for you.

This isn't a conventional battle a la WWII infantry. If the resisters were wearing nifty-colored uniforms as regular enemy combatants for a declared military organization, ready for battle with US forces, then we'd only need one US soldier for every 10 enemy combatants - or a fighting force of 2500 (plus combat support and other necessary non-combat forces).

These are undeclared opportunistic insurgents with no military organization who blend-in very well with the rest of society and wage guerilla-type excursions and attacks. We are also there providing general security roles such as civil law enforcement and public safety, plus civil engineering and reconstruction roles.
And now we see how your aguement is totally baseless and disintegrates under scrutiny
Yeah, you're a real logical genius...in your own mind.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
Originally posted by: tcsenter
So what you are saying is that it takes at the very least 5 US soldiers to handle every one Iraqi resister right? Seeing as the US soldiers are much better trained and armed than the Iraqi resisters you would think at an absolute worst-case scenario that we should only need 1 soldier for every 2 Iraqi resisters.
Define US soldiers "handling" armed militant Iraqi resisters. Are they petting them, massaging them, just holding them tightly?
Avoiding the issue?

We're not talking about people who hold up signs and chant in protest. We're talking about armed resisters who are engaged in planning and executing attacks against Coalition forces, Iraqis working with the Coalition government, or against reconstruction efforts.
Yes we are.


Since you estimate that the maximum number of resisters is about 25,000 that means we should only need about 12,500 soldiers over there (much to everyones relief) and can now bring home 9/10ths of our force. The remaining force should be enough to keep all the resisters in line correct?
Please refrain from entering a discussion about which you know nothing, I'm embarrassed for you.
It's becoming pretty clear you know nothing about this discussion except some fantasy you made up. Just be embarrassed for yourself, trying to insult me only weakens your arguement further.

This isn't a conventional battle a la WWII infantry. If the resisters were wearing nifty-colored uniforms as regular enemy combatants for a declared military organization, ready for battle with US forces, then we'd only need one US soldier for every 10 enemy combatants - or a fighting force of 2500 (plus combat support and other necessary non-combat forces).

These are undeclared opportunistic insurgents with no military organization who blend-in very well with the rest of society and wage guerilla-type excursions and attacks. We are also there providing general security roles such as civil law enforcement and public safety, plus civil engineering and reconstruction roles.
Yeah?

And now we see how your aguement is totally baseless and disintegrates under scrutiny
Yeah, you're a real logical genius...in your own mind.
Heh...I see avoid the whole point and just try another insult instead. Did you think someone was going to fall for that?

Let's try again:

Ah, but now we see the issue right? Pull the majority of the force back home and what happens to the number of Iraqis willing to take up armed resistance? Do you think the frequency of attacks on the remaining few soldiers would increase or decrease?

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
RAND has an interesting new publication out, entitled America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq . The authors draw lessons from seven case studies?Germany, Japan, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan?then apply these to the Iraq case. Here's a snip:

RAND.org - Lessons Learned

POSTCONFLICT COMBAT-RELATED DEATHS

One of the most sensitive aspects of postconflict operations, especially after the 1993 U.S. retreat from Somalia, has been the issue of casualties. During the 1990s, the U.S. military, under guidance from its civilian leaders, placed tremendous emphasis on force protection to avoid U.S. casualties. As Figure 9.4 illustrates, casualty figures have not been high in postcombat environments. Somalia and Afghanistan top the chart with 43 and 30 deaths, respectively. Afghanistan has the second-highest total for postconflict combatrelated deaths, which reflects the nature of the operation. Although the fighting against the Taliban government ended in December 2001, combat operations against al Qaeda and Taliban remnants continue in what amounts to a low-level counterinsurgency campaign.

The highest levels of casualties have occurred in the operations with the lowest levels of U.S. troops, suggesting an inverse ratio between force levels and the level of risk. Germany, Japan, Bosnia, and Kosovo had no postconflict combat deaths. The postconflict occupations in Germany and Japan proved relatively risk-free because both Japan and Germany were thoroughly defeated and because their governments had agreed to unconditional surrender. The low numbers of combat deaths also show that postconflict nation-building, when undertaken with adequate numbers of troops, has triggered little violent resistance. Only when the number of stabilization troops has been low in comparison to the population have U.S. forces suffered or inflicted significant casualties.

...
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
Ah, but now we see the issue right? Pull the majority of the force back home and what happens to the number of Iraqis willing to take up armed resistance? Do you think the frequency of attacks on the remaining few soldiers would increase or decrease?
There is no "issue" besides your willfull stupidity. I have to believe that only a small percentage of people are so dumb they do not comprehend that securing a country from irregular guerrilla-type warfare is a vastly different proposition than fighting a regular war, and that if we apply this percentage to the universe of AT Forums members, you're pretty much the only one who cannot comprehend this, maybe one or two others, but no more (we hope and pray).

There are 39,000 police officers in New York City alone and they cannot eliminate common street crime. Do you think crime would increase if the number of police officers in New York City were reduced by 50%? You think that might have an effect on the overall levels of lawlessness and public safety in New York City?

Stop being deliberately belligerent, you're embarrassing yourself.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Ah, but now we see the issue right? Pull the majority of the force back home and what happens to the number of Iraqis willing to take up armed resistance? Do you think the frequency of attacks on the remaining few soldiers would increase or decrease?
There is no "issue" besides your willfull stupidity. I have to believe that only a small percentage of people are so dumb they do not comprehend that securing a country from irregular guerrilla-type warfare is a vastly different proposition than fighting a regular war, and that if we apply this percentage to the universe of AT Forums members, you're pretty much the only one who cannot comprehend this, maybe one or two others, but no more (we hope and pray).
I comprehend this fact just fine. Maybe you could point out anything that would indicate that I didn't? ...or are still making things up as you go along as an excuse to sling insults?

There are 39,000 police officers in New York City alone and they cannot eliminate common street crime. Do you think crime would increase if the number of police officers in New York City were reduced by 50%? You think that might have an effect on the overall levels of lawlessness and public safety in New York City?

Stop being deliberately belligerent, you're embarrassing yourself.

Ignoring the point yet again. You attempted write off the amount of resistance being encountered as if only some small portion of the portion of the population is unhappy with the foreign occupation. Apparently you're determined to stay completely blind to the fact that the only reason that the resistance isn't completely out of control is that there are over a hundred thousand heavily armed troops over there.

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Based on the research by RAND into our previous nation-building exercises, the highest levels of casualties have occurred in the operations with the lowest levels of U.S. troops. There's a direct relationship. The most successful nation-building attempts occured when we had high ratios of troops to population. There are other factors as well, but this is perhaps one of the most important.

And tcsenter, why don't you lay off the ad-homs? Think you can do that?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Title from a Tampa Bay daily . . . Arab League Agrees to Let U.S.-Appointed Governing Council Claim Iraq's Seat

"There was an Arab consensus in this meeting to invite the Governing Council in Iraq to attend this session as a member," the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, told reporters, the news agency said.
I stand corrected . . . with the exception that the Arab League does not invite its members. I wonder what they were debating for weeks?
The decision ended weeks of debate within the 22-member League over whether to recognize Iraq's interim authority, with opponents fearing that acceptance could be seen as a sign of support for the American invasion.
My understanding - based on following this story for weeks - is the IGC made it clear to the Arab League that they planned to send a representative . . . even if they had to sit outside on the steps. Contrary to the musings of various dailies and the Bush administration, this is in no way an endorsement of the IGC. This action is indicative of the Arab League doing something right for a change ie looking out for the interests of Iraqis.



 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Based on the research by RAND into our previous nation-building exercises, the highest levels of casualties have occurred in the operations with the lowest levels of U.S. troops. There's a direct relationship. The most successful nation-building attempts occured when we had high ratios of troops to population. There are other factors as well, but this is perhaps one of the most important.
Nice, except nation-building is not nation-building is not nation-building. Superficial similarities aside, the individually unique differences in the nature of these various missions are stark. About the only thing in common between Somalia, Germany, Japan, Haiti, Bosnia, and Iraq is "US military forces went there and did something". Beyond that, they have little in common.

The militant Islamicists and Arab fighters in Iraq have come to die - to be martyred - simply for the chance to kill Americans. In many of the attacks against American forces, the attackers came-out on the losing end. That's ok with them, though, because bliss and virgins are on Allah in the here-after.

To them, it doesn't matter if they're killed by two Americans or 20 Americans, its all the same. In Japan, Germany, Bosnia, and Haiti, there was nothing like the religious fanatics with a death-wish who are contributing substantially to security problems in Iraq. Even the Bushido code that was supposed to instruct the Japanese that it was better to die than surrender - well - didn't.

Besides the fact we really didn't stick around in Somalia to do much, we bailed as soon as things got tough. Security is more than somewhat linked to the desire of would-be resisters to live. Many of these folks desire to die.
And tcsenter, why don't you lay off the ad-homs? Think you can do that?
One man's ad-hom is another's simple observation.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
Ignoring the point yet again. You attempted write off the amount of resistance being encountered as if only some small portion of the portion of the population is unhappy with the foreign occupation.
Pointing out the certainty that no more than a miniscule fraction of one percent of Iraqis could be so hostile to US occupation that they would be engaged in armed militant resistence is not the same as 'writing-off' the amount of resistance being encountered.
Apparently you're determined to stay completely blind to the fact that the only reason that the resistance isn't completely out of control is that there are over a hundred thousand heavily armed troops over there.
Hey genius, get a clue.

Do you suppose that, of the increase in general lawlessness and crime rates which would surely follow after reducing the police force in New York City by half, that this increase would most likely be due to any substantial number of previously law-abiding and peaceful citizens making some 'automagical' transformation to the criminal life, or do you think it more likely that this increase would be due to a substantial number of already criminally inclined persons simply stepping-up the levels or frequency of their criminal behavior?

If any significant number of Iraqis were vigorously opposed to US occupation, far more of them would be willing to take greater risks than we are seeing. If they're not willing to take the risk, then they're obviously not all that opposed to the US being there.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
If any significant number of Iraqis were vigorously opposed to US occupation, far more of them would be willing to take greater risks than we are seeing. If they're not willing to take the risk, then they're obviously not all that opposed to the US being there.
Your assumptions have no basis in reality. The majority of Iraqis are just like the majority of Americans. Their goal in life is to provide for the safety, security, and substinence of their families. Most probably care little about politics. Saddam was a despotic POS so almost anyone would be better. The one thing Viceroy Bremer has going for him is that he's not very visible in Iraq.

I'm vigorously opposed to the Bush regime but I go to work every day and spend the vast majority of my time doing everything but vigorously opposing the Bush regime. In the old days I might write a letter to the editor saying "Bush sux" but these days someone might drop by my office for an "interview".

The majority of people in the West Bank and Gaza are opposed to the occupation but the majority do not take part in protests and certainly it is a tiny minority that vigorously resist (bombings).

Millions of people oppose the Ayatollah and cleric class grip on Iranian society but vigorous opposition is usually reserved for special occasions.

Odds are that if the Iraqi resistance had better weaponry and support . . . the resistance would be quite vigorous (beyond the 10 US wounded every day and 1 fatality every other day). Last time I checked overwelming force was considered a primary doctrine of how to stifle resistance.
 

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76
At best, Iraq will be another Israel--eternally tormented and bullied for being the US's puppet.
No that is not why they are eternally tormented.. Maybe it has something to do with that Palestine wants to elminate all the jews for eternatity...

But hell,

It's Bush's fault.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Your assumptions have no basis in reality. The majority of Iraqis are just like the majority of Americans. Their goal in life is to provide for the safety, security, and substinence of their families. Most probably care little about politics. Saddam was a despotic POS so almost anyone would be better. The one thing Viceroy Bremer has going for him is that he's not very visible in Iraq.
Since you brought up the comparison with us what would happen in this country if we were "liberated" by someone who we really didn't want to be here? Saddam supposedly armed the civilian population before the war. There's plenty of weaponry available in the country. There are indigent leadership elements (mostly religous) capable of organizing resistance. I will agree that the absence of more resistance does not prove acceptance however, I do think tcsenter's statement has some merit. Especially since we're comparing them to us. ;)

I'm vigorously opposed to the Bush regime but I go to work every day and spend the vast majority of my time doing everything but vigorously opposing the Bush regime. In the old days I might write a letter to the editor saying "Bush sux" but these days someone might drop by my office for an "interview".
<cough>BULLSH!T<cough>

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Get some guaifenesin for that cough . . . I would recommend codeine but clearly you are already a little slow of thought today.;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY