Fallujah falls to Al Qaeda

[Victorian Gray]

Were we to be attacked by terrorists again on our soil, I guarantee the people would come together and vote for taking the same action. I'm not into boots on the ground, but I do like the idea of good bombings for fucks like that.

You mean like Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11? You mean "fucks like that"?

 

[Fayd]

Which is why the Neocon vision is, was, and will remain folly. They invaded both Afghanistan & Iraq with no intention of following the advice of their best commanders.

Remember this guy?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/mills-truth-teller-iraq/

If the American People have no stomach for the kind of wars you describe, then the American Govt shouldn't engage in them. One could argue self defense/ retribution in the invasion of Afghanistan, in a weird way, but not for the atrocious conduct of the occupation that never ends. One can't make any such claims wrt Iraq, which was purely voluntary on our part.

i fail to see how he was punished.

 

[compuwiz1]

You mean like Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11? You mean "fucks like that"?

Who has taken over Fallujah?

Who was responsible for 9/11/2001?

Yes, dumb fuck.

 

[Vaux]

They invaded both Afghanistan & Iraq with no intention of following the advice of their best commanders.

Half-truth. There were also commanders that said they could accomplish the mission with what they had. Now if they were right or wrong or were pressured into stating this, that's debatable.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Looks like we didn't leave properly. Another Obama failure?

Umm...refresh my memory...who got us into the Iraq debacle in the first place? Could it have been a former Republican president who has since been (essentially) excommunicated by his own party, a political party that pretends that his administration never existed or occurred?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Too late, ACA passed. It unfortunately is going to be with us far far far longer than Iraq was.

You make it sound like the American health care system pre-ACA was some sort of a model health system devoid of private health insurance company death panels and medical cost-induced bankruptcies and deaths from lack of care.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Bush had bigger problems on his plate than people who need to buy cell phones instead of pay for their insurance, he had a war to fight with people killing our civilians. Bush's fault was not that he fought the war, but how he managed it. Or, more specifically, how he managed the people managing it. He did a horrible job there.

Have you paid for any health care on your own lately? It's much more expensive than the cost of a mere cell phone.

When did Iraqis kill American civilians? Are you saying that Iraqis killed American civilians prior to the invasion of Iraq in early 2003?

 

[cliftonite]

Correct. But this is where the US Public fails. The US Public wants our military to go into these conflicts with the absolute minimum troop levels, spend as little as possible, have zero casualties (ours and civilian), and be done in Starbucks waiting time periods. Basically, the US Public fucks us. They cannot understand that if you're going to go into an Afghanistan or Iraq (or any other modern conflict), you're going to be there 20-30 years. It's going to take that long to un-mind f*ck enough of the population to re-indoctrinate them to - at some level - our way of thinking.

So what do the Politicians, who control the military, and of course, want to be re-elected/have a legacy, do? Why, instead of telling the public we need 600k for Afghanistan and then another 500k for Iraq, something the public with their unreasonable expectations just will not accept, they instead come up with numbers that make it all but impossible for the military to long term win. That's to say nothing of the other BS we expect the military to adhere to while fighting a war.

The military can't fight the Politicians, the media, the public, plus the country they're going over to defeat and change. It's an impossible task, which is why we've sucked at the past few conflicts we've been in.

Chuck

Why exactly do we need to "re-indoctrinate" other countries?

 

[bshole]

Ironically, Al Qaeda could never have taken any city in Iraq until America got involved. We furthered the cause of terrorism by invading Iraq. We removed the leader who controlled the terrorists with an iron fist.

Each and every American who died over there was a life flushed down the toilet in a cause that was AGAINST American interests. Each of those kids was MURDERED by George W Bush. He is DIRECTLY responsible for their deaths. I would love the opportunity to spit in Bush's face, he is the scum of the earth.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nope. But I remember Democrats and Republicans voting overwhelming for both wars though.

I remember all the fear mongering, bullying & lies leading up to that, too.

I remember how it was sold to Congress as a threat the Prez needed to obtain compliance from the Iraqis, not the actual plan, and how anybody who didn't vote for it was a terrarist coddlin' Al Q sympathizer who hated Merica & made the baby Jesus cry.

You probably didn't even notice at the time, huh?

 

[fskimospy]

Correct. But this is where the US Public fails. The US Public wants our military to go into these conflicts with the absolute minimum troop levels, spend as little as possible, have zero casualties (ours and civilian), and be done in Starbucks waiting time periods. Basically, the US Public fucks us. They cannot understand that if you're going to go into an Afghanistan or Iraq (or any other modern conflict), you're going to be there 20-30 years. It's going to take that long to un-mind f*ck enough of the population to re-indoctrinate them to - at some level - our way of thinking.

So what do the Politicians, who control the military, and of course, want to be re-elected/have a legacy, do? Why, instead of telling the public we need 600k for Afghanistan and then another 500k for Iraq, something the public with their unreasonable expectations just will not accept, they instead come up with numbers that make it all but impossible for the military to long term win. That's to say nothing of the other BS we expect the military to adhere to while fighting a war.

The military can't fight the Politicians, the media, the public, plus the country they're going over to defeat and change. It's an impossible task, which is why we've sucked at the past few conflicts we've been in.

Chuck

So we were in Afghanistan for a decade, which sounds like anywhere from 33% to 50% of your required time frame. What did you see in that experience that indicated to you that another 10-20 years would result in success?

 

[chucky2]

Which is why the Neocon vision is, was, and will remain folly. They invaded both Afghanistan & Iraq with no intention of following the advice of their best commanders.

Remember this guy?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/mills-truth-teller-iraq/

The problem is that Afghanistan was needed, and Iraq in light of 9/11 was just too good of an opportunity to pass up (for various reasons). This is what I meant when I said Bush was a horrible manager of his managers. He should not have allowed the results out of them that they produced and brought to him. He should have been having skip level meetings, multiple level skip level meetings, etc. I don't remember reading anywhere him doing that.

If the American People have no stomach for the kind of wars you describe, then the American Govt shouldn't engage in them. One could argue self defense/ retribution in the invasion of Afghanistan, in a weird way, but not for the atrocious conduct of the occupation that never ends. One can't make any such claims wrt Iraq, which was purely voluntary on our part.

But the Gov in the situation of a 9/11 is in the position of needing to do an Afghanistan, and making a decision on using 9/11 to take care of Iraq. That's their job, to be seeing the long term picture when the public can't and taking action on it. Of course, it's also their job not to F it up.

Couple questions Chucky

1.) Do you agree with Jhnnn?
2.) Were you, or are you in the military?

1.) Rarely.
2.) Not in military, have not been in military. Lots of buds in or were in military, almost went in myself (should have, at least for GI bill bennies if not longer).

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

You make it sound like the American health care system pre-ACA was some sort of a model health system devoid of private health insurance company death panels and medical cost-induced bankruptcies and deaths from lack of care.

Doesn't matter, please don't introduce another strawman like a previous poster did. The Dems had all the control they needed to get UHC in and passed. They had a mandate from the American people with those election results, and they completely and totally failed. Instead of instituting a system that could actually control costs, which by far and large is the reason people cannot afford HC (whether directly paying or paying insurance), they gave us ACA. They specifically chose to fail. Reid and Pelosi are to blame for this, but Bummer gets some shit on him to as he was the newly elected head of the Dem party, and POTUS.

Have you paid for any health care on your own lately? It's much more expensive than the cost of a mere cell phone.

Yes. My point is there are many many people who could afford to pay for their own HI, but chose not to...other disposable income things are more important. I have friends exactly like this: They have money for their car for shit it doesn't need, money for a cell phone plan to cover them Fing around on their cell phone doing stupid shit they don't need to do, money to go out and drink, money for clothes they don't need, but then will bitch they can't afford HI.

When did Iraqis kill American civilians? Are you saying that Iraqis killed American civilians prior to the invasion of Iraq in early 2003?

Nope. Don't care if they didn't or not. On 9/11, things changed. Iraq was basically the only country short of Afghanistan that we could go into, take without any significant military loss, and have a chance of affecting societal change. We did that. Except because of Bush allowing his managerial F ups, which it's basically his job to specifically not allow that to happen, we might have had a far different result in Iraq than we have now. Too late though...we're out and done. It's up to Iraq and their surrounding brothers to determine if Iraq keeps having winners like suicide bombers as part of their culture, or, progresses.

 

[chucky2]

Why exactly do we need to "re-indoctrinate" other countries?

You cannot go into a country militarily, take it over, and then just leave and not expect that country to fail (fail from our perspective that is). Even in Japan and Germany post WWII, this was needed. Of course, their citizens had far more demoralization and they were more aligned (especially Germany) with western values. In the ME we'd have to be there that long to actually have any chance of culture exchange (force, designed, or natural).

 

[chucky2]

So we were in Afghanistan for a decade, which sounds like anywhere from 33% to 50% of your required time frame. What did you see in that experience that indicated to you that another 10-20 years would result in success?

When I say 20-30 years, I say 20-30 years done properly. Not 20-30 years done like Bush's idiotic managers did it. You can't clusterfuck up years .5 - 10 and then expect things to be going rosy...or at least, rosy all over. The best we can hope for in Afghanistan at this point is that it splits. Some regions will be severely anti-western and be a disaster for the next 1000 years - or until the Chinese come in and do what needs to be done to exploit their resources. Some areas will actually progress.

 

[glenn1]

Sounds like a great opportunity for neocons to exercise their right to bear arms, form a well regulated militia, and ship off to Fallujah. If Al Qaeda can do it, so can you.

Or a great opportunity for liberals to exercise their right to choose. Al Qaeda can handle that unwanted clump of cells and work for cheaper than Planned Parenthood too, so double win.

 

[fskimospy]

When I say 20-30 years, I say 20-30 years done properly. Not 20-30 years done like Bush's idiotic managers did it. You can't clusterfuck up years .5 - 10 and then expect things to be going rosy...or at least, rosy all over. The best we can hope for in Afghanistan at this point is that it splits. Some regions will be severely anti-western and be a disaster for the next 1000 years - or until the Chinese come in and do what needs to be done to exploit their resources. Some areas will actually progress.

What are you basing this on? What literature do you use to determine what is 'done properly'? Do you have any education or experience on international development, particularly as it relates to forming new political norms and institutions?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You cannot go into a country militarily, take it over, and then just leave and not expect that country to fail (fail from our perspective that is). Even in Japan and Germany post WWII, this was needed. Of course, their citizens had far more demoralization and they were more aligned (especially Germany) with western values. In the ME we'd have to be there that long to actually have any chance of culture exchange (force, designed, or natural).

Spent 50 trillion dollars, kill millions and never leave. Just what would it take for someone to erase western history and culture? I mean make us into Native Americans in culture? It will never happen. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan, none of them could possibly do so and neither can we. It's incredibly foolish to even think of attempting such a thing and I would oppose any government who would attempt to take the initiative to do what would even stand a chance of an actual "mission accomplished" Madness.

 

[chucky2]

What are you basing this on? What literature do you use to determine what is 'done properly'? Do you have any education or experience on international development, particularly as it relates to forming new political norms and institutions?

Done properly, ala WWII (and SK would work also). You'll notice Japan nor Germany are attacking us, setting off IEDs to kill us, etc. But that was happening after hostilities ended - we had Mission Accomplished and troops were still dying...imagine that. No education or experience in international development, just have to look at successful occupations to understand what it takes.

Question: With State's absolute winners over the years, and I'm sure they have plenty that have education and experience in international development, your purpose for asking was what?

 

[chucky2]

Spent 50 trillion dollars, kill millions and never leave. Just what would it take for someone to erase western history and culture? I mean make us into Native Americans in culture? It will never happen. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan, none of them could possibly do so and neither can we. It's incredibly foolish to even think of attempting such a thing and I would oppose any government who would attempt to take the initiative to do what would even stand a chance of an actual "mission accomplished" Madness.

It'd take an alien invasion to erase western culture. And I'm not advocating erasing eastern culture, just helping to bring it forward a few hundred years.

 

[blankslate]

Were we to be attacked by terrorists again on our soil, I guarantee the people would come together and vote for taking the same action. I'm not into boots on the ground, but I do like the idea of good bombings for fucks like that.

You mean like Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11? You mean "fucks like that"?

Who has taken over Fallujah? Who was responsible for 9/11/2001? Yes, dumb fuck.

Oh the irony, as another poster stated.

Ironically, Al Qaeda could never have taken any city in Iraq until America got involved. We furthered the cause of terrorism by invading Iraq.

Only a moron would just conclude that anyone who is hostile to the U.S. would just team up with another entity hostile to the U.S. without looking into the political / religious climate in the middle east

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20100922/NEWS/9220307/FBI-records-Saddam-was-hostile-to-al-Qaida

Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, a prominent member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle, told the FBI that the dictator "delighted" in the 1998 terrorist bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa but had no interest in partnering with Osama bin Laden, declassified documents show.

"Saddam did not trust Islamists," Aziz said, according to handwritten notes of a June 27, 2004 interrogation, although he viewed al-Qaida as an "effective" organization.


The FBI notes are among hundreds of pages of interrogation records of top Iraqi officials — including Saddam — provided to the AP this week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. While most of the Saddam records had been previously released, the National Security Archive, an independent research institute at George Washington University, said the FBI had previously refused to declassify Aziz's records.

While Saddam Hussein liked the fact that the U.S. was hit by Al-Qaeda he didn't trust them enough to work with them. He loved living the luxurious life and that's something that would not work well with hardcore religious views

...the Aziz interrogation records support arguments that while Saddam viewed the U.S. as his enemy, he was also hostile to al-Qaida and its radical religious ideology.

Further more this view that Saddam Hussein wouldn't give Al-Qaida aid was published by the CATO institute which is far from some left wing think tank.
http://www.cato.org/about


http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-hussein-will-not-give-weapons-mass-destruction-al-qaed

But the administration’s strongest sound-bite on Iraq is also its weakest argument for war. The idea that Saddam Hussein would trust Al Qaeda enough to give Al Qaeda operatives chemical or biological weapons — and trust them to keep quiet about it — is simply not plausible.

Saddam Hussein did not trust Al Qaida and if he was still in power with weapons inspectors roaming around the country (which was the situation before we told Iraq we would invade unless Saddam Hussein left) Al Qaeda would not be in control of Fallujah

Also you may have heard a little thing called the Iran-Iraq war?

Well Iran and Iraq are not so hostile anymore after we invaded Iraq
http://thediplomat.com/2012/01/iran-gets-close-to-iraq/
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/25/175234474/kerry-makes-stop-in-iraq

Had we not invaded Iraq Saddam Hussein (while a madman he was a known element) most likely would not have opened up trade with Iran, but now we see Iran no longer concerned as much, if at all, about hostilities from it's neighbor while we're worried about Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Iran developing nuclear technology.

Sure we needed to respond to the attacks but we did it in completely the wrong way when the U.S. didn't pursue all avenues to kill or capture Bin Laden, which might have included plans that Special Forces floated up the chain of command but were given the no-go on in 2003.

Instead we let Bin Laden slip away and invaded a country whose leader had no interest in providing aid to Al-Qaeda. As a result a power vacuum appeared which allowed Al-Qaeda access to a country they previously didn't have much access to Furthermore former enemies (who were not really friendly to the U.S.) that went to war are now trading partners.


And your post about this asks if it is an Obama failure when he voted against an invasion of Iraq as Senator and wasn't even a presidential candidate when the invasion started?

What? As an acquaintance I knew several years ago would yell "Are YOU fucking high?!"


TLDR: (because based on your posts in this thread you can't be bothered to even gain more than a surface knowledge of the chain of events)
You starting a troll thread and then calling another person a dumb fuck is priceless.




=====

 

[fskimospy]

Done properly, ala WWII (and SK would work also). You'll notice Japan nor Germany are attacking us, setting off IEDs to kill us, etc. But that was happening after hostilities ended - we had Mission Accomplished and troops were still dying...imagine that. No education or experience in international development, just have to look at successful occupations to understand what it takes.

'Done properly' how? What specific actions did the US undertake in the years following WW2 that have not been taken in other occupations, and how did this translate into effective formation of new norms and institutions? How do you reconcile the experience of South Korea with Germany and Japan, and how do you account for their dramatically different paths while attributing that success to a common element? (the US)

Question: With State's absolute winners over the years, and I'm sure they have plenty that have education and experience in international development, your purpose for asking was what?

My purpose for asking this was to see if you had any idea just how hard international development is. Organizations and states around the world spend billions every year trying to accomplish this with some highly educated, highly intelligent people. They usually fail. The idea that you can just go look at Germany and Japan and figure it all out is just a symptom of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Nebor]

'Done properly' how? What specific actions did the US undertake in the years following WW2 that have not been taken in other occupations, and how did this translate into effective formation of new norms and institutions? How do you reconcile the experience of South Korea with Germany and Japan, and how do you account for their dramatically different paths while attributing that success to a common element? (the US)



My purpose for asking this was to see if you had any idea just how hard international development is. Organizations and states around the world spend billions every year trying to accomplish this with some highly educated, highly intelligent people. They usually fail. The idea that you can just go look at Germany and Japan and figure it all out is just a symptom of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Because most of them are afraid to hurt the people they're trying to change, or fear international backlash for acting in a non-politically correct way.

Look at successful counter-insurgencies carried out by the Russians and Sri Lankans. A lot of people got hurt, but real victory was achieved.

In order to bend the Arabs & Afghans to our will, we'd have to kill a lot of them, and it would take about 20 years. But to pretend that it's some elusive goal that can't be achieved when it's clear that we have the technology and are restrained only by ethics is ridiculous IMO. If we could have accepted a 20% "innocent" casualty rate we could have cleared nearly every insurgent out of Afghanistan, and established the border with Pakistan as a "kill on sight" zone unless crossing through an established checkpoint. And in doing so, we would have earned the respect of the people, because they only respect power, not good intentions.

 

[fskimospy]

Because most of them are afraid to hurt the people they're trying to change, or fear international backlash for acting in a non-politically correct way.

Look at successful counter-insurgencies carried out by the Russians and Sri Lankans. A lot of people got hurt, but real victory was achieved.

In order to bend the Arabs & Afghans to our will, we'd have to kill a lot of them, and it would take about 20 years. But to pretend that it's some elusive goal that can't be achieved when it's clear that we have the technology and are restrained only by ethics is ridiculous IMO. If we could have accepted a 20% "innocent" casualty rate we could have cleared nearly every insurgent out of Afghanistan, and established the border with Pakistan as a "kill on sight" zone unless crossing through an established checkpoint. And in doing so, we would have earned the respect of the people, because they only respect power, not good intentions.

And yet the Russian counter-insurgency efforts in Afghanistan were a miserable failure despite an obvious willingness to kill lots of people.

Sudanese counter-insurgency was one of the most brutal operations the world has ever seen. It failed.

Ethiopian attempts against Eritrean insurgents were brutal. They failed.

I could go on for a long time. Simply put, this is just wrong; if you learn more about counter-insurgency you'll see that it's not nearly this simplistic.

 

[chucky2]

'Done properly' how? What specific actions did the US undertake in the years following WW2 that have not been taken in other occupations, and how did this translate into effective formation of new norms and institutions? How do you reconcile the experience of South Korea with Germany and Japan, and how do you account for their dramatically different paths while attributing that success to a common element? (the US)

Well first, and obviously, the civilians were so demoralized and tired of war that they were at a social point where acceptance of the war ending, even if not on their terms, was tolerated. Also obviously, I'm not advocating reducing Kabul to dust ala WWII style. When we took over these countries in WWII, we didn't allow them to just formulate policy on their terms. We dictated, they obeyed. There was no secret in this. What we didn't allow them to do is setup a quasi sympathetic to us gov that was insanely corrupt, play lip service to our goals, all the while bilking their populace for whatever it could steal/con.

My purpose for asking this was to see if you had any idea just how hard international development is. Organizations and states around the world spend billions every year trying to accomplish this with some highly educated, highly intelligent people. They usually fail. The idea that you can just go look at Germany and Japan and figure it all out is just a symptom of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Yes, but they try and accomplish it within the corrupt and/or indoctrinated system. A luxury we enjoyed to not have when we took over Afghanistan and Iraq. This is why they continually fail/make so little progress as to just consider it an overall fail. We will never "win" on any realistic timescale doing that.