Insurgency lacks ingredients for success

[umbrella39]

There is no hope of beating an insurgency. Well, I guess if they kill every middle eastern male between the ages of 1-60 they might stand a chance. Face it, when they have a never ending supply of people willing to strap themselves with explosives, you can't win. Especially when they guy who is strapped looks just like the guy you are trying to protect. When you can't tell who the enemy is, it is not a war, it is a futile exercise in tail chasing. But I digress, they are in the last throes.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: kogase
Your summary makes this sound very much like Vietnam.

true and rather scary

Whats even worse, most of those guys are fearless about dying which is something we can never match. Its all narrows down to a moral dilemma, where the enemy's forces are more expandable than ours. If you strap a dynamite suit on a marine and tell him to run into that group of guys over there and push the button, you'll end up with a combat boot up your ass.

All of you guys need to watch "Apocalypse Now" - that movie took on that moral dilemma that i'm talking about. You can't really beat someone if you're more reserved or have more to lose.

 

[NeenerNeener]

I, for one, am encouraged. Let's invade more countries!

 

[yllus]

I'd agree that the insurgency is fundamentally flawed. There is no focus to it that would allow it to capture the hearts of Iraqi nationals, just terrorists who would risk inciting civil/sectarian war in a slim hope of gaining the upper hand in the ensuing chaos.

With a government elected by the people in place that has asked the MNF to stay for the time being, these terrorists are forced to indiscriminately kill scores of civilians. It accomplishes little other than make them look even more extreme and make the need for a constitution and continued elections ever clearer. Their centreweight of foreigners make it abundantly clear that the terrorists are not working in Iraq's best interests, only their own.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Gigantopithecus,

The CSM is one of the most respected and least biased news organizations running. Do your own research and stop seeing the word Christian and going into full hate mode.



As far as busting heads, I never mentioned anything about the U.S. busting heads did I?

I said that the govt (the Iraqis) needs to bust heads and stop bowing to the Muslim clerics and their influence. That's part of the issue. Muslim clerics do not speak out against suicide, or killing ones own countrymen with any believable rhetoric. You can bust heads without killing anyone. You do this by eliminating the source of the insurgency. You also stop the foreign interference by cracking down on the bordering states and tightening travel accross the borders until you can get a handle on the situation. You stop the influx of weapons by this method as well. You can also begin an aggressive vehicle registration campaign to avoid not being able to track car bomb owners, which at the moment is very difficult because of the antiquated record keeping sytems. The govt can also go after the money of the organizations by freezing all assets of suspected leaders of the insurgents, and the assests of the families that they belong to. It is within their legal rights in Iraq to do so, but is rarely done.

Rainsford,

The vast majority of Insurgents are non-Iraqi. Their leaders are non-Iraqi, and their organizational funding and backing is most all non-Iraqi. Not only does the media back this up, but the death toll and and makeup of actual dead insurgents backs this up.

Links? That's not what general Myers or Admiral Jacoby, DIA director, says:

-Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House panel that the extremists associated with al Qaeda and Zarqawi represent "a fairly small percentage of the total number of insurgents."

-Sunni Arabs, dominated by former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, "comprise the core of the insurgency" and continue to provide "funds and guidance across family, tribal, religious and peer-group lines," Jacoby said.

-Foreign fighters "are a small component of the insurgency," and Syrian, Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian and Iranian nationals make up the majority of foreign fighters, he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16_2.html

Death toll?
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:4R6e.../articles/1116IraqInsurgents16-ON.html
"Of the more than 1,000 men between the ages of 15 and 55 who were captured in intense fighting in the center of the insurgency over the past week, just 15 are confirmed foreign fighters, Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. ground commander in Iraq, said Monday"

That's 1.5% foriegn fighters; hardly majority, infinitesimal is more like it.

 

[maluckey]

And the leadership and financing? The middle level insurgents are foreign. They are not the ones on the lines. Most U.S. troops when killing insurgents have no way of knowing foreign from non-foreign without Passports on the bodies. They rely on guesstimates and will not assume any non-Iraqi dead unless there is a passport on the body. Our tranlators must make the calls. They mostly state that the insurgents are non-local. Many locals state that this person or that is NOT Iraqi. They know and can tell by the accent if someone was raised there or not. The issue to soldiers is that we cannot tell the difference without an Iraqi translator. Tough to do if the suspect is dead.

As I stated, the United States shouldn't be doing the enforcement anyways...the Iraqis should. If an outsider gets tough theya re automatically labeled as racist etc. If your own people do the policework they cannot say the same. It incites less knee jerk response etc.

I also disagree that you must be more brutal than your enemies to win a war. The Japanese were not afraid of suicide or brutality, yet were terrified of the United States Soldiers unwavering advance in the face of anything that they could throw at them. THEY thought that THE UNITED STATES soldier were crazy. They threw themselves from the cliffs to avoid capture. The Nazis and Taliban were certainly unafraid of brutality but they too were defeated. The Russians fell without anyone being more brutal as well. You don't have to play by their rules, just understand them well enough to make a choice.

 

[Todd33]

This thread could just as easily be "Democracy lacks the igredients for success in Iraq." It just depends on who writes the article.

 

[NeoV]

wow Maluckey

The Japanese soldiers were terrified of the US Soldiers? The Russians fell without anyone being more brutal? You are completely missing the point in quite a few of these posts.

What do you know about who is funding the insurgency? You clearly didn't know that the majority of the fighters are in fact from Iraq, why should we think you know/understand the reasons/financial backing of the insurgency?

Leave it to good old TLC to 1)point out the MSM being evil and leftist, 2) point out that we are doing quite well in Iraq, 3) show us that he is much more intelligent than anyone else on this board.

Try this on for size TLC - your beloved VP tells everyone the insurgency is in it's, and I quote, "last throes"....then General John Abizaid, the commander of US forces in the middle east, says that the insurgency is "at least as strong as it was 6 months ago"...yet the VP repeats, when told of the General's words, the "last throes" statement....and now Rummy is telling us that the insurgency may take 12 years to defeat......12 years!?

This administration clearly can't deal with the situation over there, they don't want John Q. Public to understand it, I'm not sure they fully understand it, but of course TLC knows the real deal about what is going on over there, right?

You can tell us all you want about the insurgents killed everyday, but the fact remains that they don't seem to be going away, at all, our soldiers are still dying, and any grand plan/scheme to get them home seems to be far, far in the future...you can tell sunny stories and talk about schools being built, and electricity and water flowing, and the number of insurgents killed, but to me and I think the vast majority of people, the number of US soldiers killed is the most important number - it's not a MSM bias, as you so frequently like to use as a crutch whenever a story that is contra-right wing (of course you are a liberal though, right, so none of your constant bantering really makes any sense anyway, since right is wrong, up is down, and left is right) comes up that may or may not be true.

You are the one saying this is no Vietnam war, we aren't in a quagmire, etc, etc..but you are going to compare the news of the Tet offensive to the media's reporting of this war? Which is it? Oh, and here's a tip TLC - we didn't do so well in Vietnam.

Bottom line? I'm not sure our goverment or our military fully understands this insurgency - they both seem to change their story on it every few months. That said, I trust the words/views of the military people more, and I think that Cheney and Rummy need to keep their damn mouths shut, they checked out of the reality-based world some time ago.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Leave it to good old TLC to 1)point out the MSM being evil and leftist, 2) point out that we are doing quite well in Iraq, 3) show us that he is much more intelligent than anyone else on this board.

Leave it up to good ol' NeoV to 1) Completely ignore the painfully obvious bias in the Guardian article I linked 2) Ignore that we are making progress in Iraq, as Kofi Annan recently pointed out 3) come up with a red herring of a statement since I made no allusion to my intelligence whatsoever.

Try this on for size TLC - your beloved VP tells everyone the insurgency is in it's, and I quote, "last throes"....then General John Abizaid, the commander of US forces in the middle east, says that the insurgency is "at least as strong as it was 6 months ago"...yet the VP repeats, when told of the General's words, the "last throes" statement....and now Rummy is telling us that the insurgency may take 12 years to defeat......12 years!?

This administration clearly can't deal with the situation over there, they don't want John Q. Public to understand it, I'm not sure they fully understand it, but of course TLC knows the real deal about what is going on over there, right?

The administration is dealing with the situation over there. They've made some bad decisions along the way, but things are still moving forward. The problem seems to be that you and others in your camp want to ignore the fact that things are moving forward so you can go on your incessant, and often trollish, partisan rants. All Iraq is to you is a tool to beat Bush over the head with, and any time you can take a swipe at him for any reason is otay with you.

And I find that attitude absolutely fvcking despicable. Iraq is not a tool for your partisan pleasure.

You can tell us all you want about the insurgents killed everyday, but the fact remains that they don't seem to be going away, at all, our soldiers are still dying, and any grand plan/scheme to get them home seems to be far, far in the future...you can tell sunny stories and talk about schools being built, and electricity and water flowing, and the number of insurgents killed, but to me and I think the vast majority of people, the number of US soldiers killed is the most important number - it's not a MSM bias, as you so frequently like to use as a crutch whenever a story that is contra-right wing (of course you are a liberal though, right, so none of your constant bantering really makes any sense anyway, since right is wrong, up is down, and left is right) comes up that may or may not be true.

From the article I posted previously:

"Who thinks that a war can be won without losses and sacrifices is far from reason."

If you want to keep your eyes tightly shut to anything else but the deaths over there and play pretend that's there's only death and destruction - just like the MSM force feeds you, go right ahead. But it makes it abundantly clear you're only looking at part of the picture and are operating on the very same bias as they are.

You are the one saying this is no Vietnam war, we aren't in a quagmire, etc, etc..but you are going to compare the news of the Tet offensive to the media's reporting of this war? Which is it? Oh, and here's a tip TLC - we didn't do so well in Vietnam.

We didn't do so well in Vietnam, and a small part of that had to do with the biased reporting and how it affected the opinions in the US. There were certain elements in the media that seemingly wanted the US to lose. The same thing is happening in Iraq today as well and demonstrates that certain elements of the media are biased.

Mighty gracious of you to point that out.

Bottom line? I'm not sure our goverment or our military fully understands this insurgency - they both seem to change their story on it every few months. That said, I trust the words/views of the military people more, and I think that Cheney and Rummy need to keep their damn mouths shut, they checked out of the reality-based world some time ago.

The bottom line is you're entire rant is really saying little more than the tired, old "Bush suX0Rz."

::yawn::

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: yllus
I'd agree that the insurgency is fundamentally flawed.

Does that mean it's doomed? If so, would you care to predict a time when the insurgency will gone?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: yllus
I'd agree that the insurgency is fundamentally flawed.

Does that mean it's doomed? If so, would you care to predict a time when the insurgency will gone?

1) As soon as Iraq can control it's borders
2) External influences realize that their support will be determiental to their own health.
ie. Those that are aiding terror should be treated as terrorists.

Remove those two items and anything home grown will starve on the vine.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: yllus
I'd agree that the insurgency is fundamentally flawed.

Does that mean it's doomed? If so, would you care to predict a time when the insurgency will gone?

1) As soon as Iraq can control it's borders
2) External influences realize that their support will be determiental to their own health.
ie. Those that are aiding terror should be treated as terrorists.

Remove those two items and anything home grown will starve on the vine.

Can you give a testable time or time-range?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: yllus
I'd agree that the insurgency is fundamentally flawed.

Does that mean it's doomed? If so, would you care to predict a time when the insurgency will gone?

1) As soon as Iraq can control it's borders
2) External influences realize that their support will be determiental to their own health.
ie. Those that are aiding terror should be treated as terrorists.

Remove those two items and anything home grown will starve on the vine.

Can you give a testable time or time-range?

Regretfully no.

Item #1 is dependent on how well the Iraqi forces can be trained and deployed.

Item #2 will take political courage to back up statements made after 9/11. As supporters are identified, they should be provided one chance to recant. No recanting or slippage will mean they will be targetted for action juut like we have done against some (not enough) terror sponsors. The action will also need to be overt to get the message out.

The implimentation of item #2 will piss of some, however, when we went after Saddam, Libya wised up. The same will end up happening when we go after the other sponsors.

#2 could be accomplished with 6-12 months; We have the technology and know how; just need the political will to actually do it. Condemnation will happen - it happened with Iraq. The main thing is to generate hard evidence of support that is verifiable before action is taken. Even the implication of support should make some think twice if we follow Teddy R's slogan of speak softly and carry a big bat.

Using Syria as an example, they have the ability to close their borders and remove terror parties that reside openly within that country. They can be provided with an ultimatim of for or against us. Anyone after 6 months caught coming across the border or having ties to Syria will count as strike #1. Strike #2 would be an attack against known Syrian known locations where such people are congregating. No third chances allowed.

Using Saudi as an example, if the radical clerics continue to spew forth hatred and the cleric is tied to the #2 item above, then that cleric becomes a target. If the government will not crack down, then we will do so. The government may be in fear of being overthrown, however, supporting of terror forces the issue.

Surgical strikes at the mouth pieces of the middle/upper echolons will have an impact.

At this point, one does not need to go after governments, just the people that are supporting the insurgents.

Removing governments becomes a later issue if needed, however, most sponsors are not usually willing to sacrifice themselve for others outside their own powerbase. A sponsor government is built on mouthpieces, remove those mouthpieces and support will fade.

The main thrust is that provide a deadline to terror sponsors/supporters, back up that deadline with action if required and continue to repeat such cycle as needed.

A war was delared against terror, so fight that war on our terms, not theirs.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: yllus
I'd agree that the insurgency is fundamentally flawed.

Does that mean it's doomed? If so, would you care to predict a time when the insurgency will gone?

1) As soon as Iraq can control it's borders
2) External influences realize that their support will be determiental to their own health.
ie. Those that are aiding terror should be treated as terrorists.

Remove those two items and anything home grown will starve on the vine.

Can you give a testable time or time-range?

Regretfully no.

Item #1 is dependent on how well the Iraqi forces can be trained and deployed.

Item #2 will take political courage to back up statements made after 9/11. As supporters are identified, they should be provided one chance to recant. No recanting or slippage will mean they will be targetted for action juut like we have done against some (not enough) terror sponsors. The action will also need to be overt to get the message out.

The implimentation of item #2 will piss of some, however, when we went after Saddam, Libya wised up. The same will end up happening when we go after the other sponsors.

#2 could be accomplished with 6-12 months; We have the technology and know how; just need the political will to actually do it. Condemnation will happen - it happened with Iraq. The main thing is to generate hard evidence of support that is verifiable before action is taken. Even the implication of support should make some think twice if we follow Teddy R's slogan of speak softly and carry a big bat.

Using Syria as an example, they have the ability to close their borders and remove terror parties that reside openly within that country. They can be provided with an ultimatim of for or against us. Anyone after 6 months caught coming across the border or having ties to Syria will count as strike #1. Strike #2 would be an attack against known Syrian known locations where such people are congregating. No third chances allowed.

Using Saudi as an example, if the radical clerics continue to spew forth hatred and the cleric is tied to the #2 item above, then that cleric becomes a target. If the government will not crack down, then we will do so. The government may be in fear of being overthrown, however, supporting of terror forces the issue.

Surgical strikes at the mouth pieces of the middle/upper echolons will have an impact.

At this point, one does not need to go after governments, just the people that are supporting the insurgents.

Removing governments becomes a later issue if needed, however, most sponsors are not usually willing to sacrifice themselve for others outside their own powerbase. A sponsor government is built on mouthpieces, remove those mouthpieces and support will fade.

The main thrust is that provide a deadline to terror sponsors/supporters, back up that deadline with action if required and continue to repeat such cycle as needed.

A war was delared against terror, so fight that war on our terms, not theirs.

There is no war on terror. That is purely psychological and nothing more. What you suggest is a Jihad for Democracy when you suggest going to kill people we do not agree with.

Once you do that, be prepared for something more like a war, with many civilian casualties. If you are willing to provoke many hundreds of millions people, then have at. I am glad I don't live near a city likely to be nuked.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh, as far as the OP/ED, he would be correct IF the insurgency's goal was to "liberate" Iraq. I don't think it is. It's to be the constant bee in the bonnet that drives people mad and inhibits the will of the US in the region. They know they can't whip the US military. That is not their purpose.

 

[NeoV]

Gee TLC, do you really need me to tell you that the Guardian is a biased website? Who gives a rat's A about content on the Guardian - yes, TLC, the Guardian article was clearly biased...happy now?

What does "things are moving forward" over there have to do with the recent comments by Cheney and Rummy? My exact point was that even members of this administration can't agree on what is happening - is it the 'last throes' or is it a 12 year long fight? Try getting the point. Iraq to me is not at all a tool to beat Bush over the head with - is it asking too much that the Cheney, Rummy, and the General in charge of our forces to be in the same chapter, let alone the same page, of the book on this war?

On the MSM portion, which you so frequently use as your crutch, my point was to explain why the media tends to focus on US deaths and not the rebuilt schools, or repaired sewer lines that you seem so giddy to talk about - Does Joe Public here in the states care about a school being rebuilt in Iraq, when his kids attend a craphole of a school, or does he care about the kids from his neighborhood that were killed in Iraq? You tell me what the "MSM" should tell us about. Again, I'm not denying that areas in Iraq have progressed, but you can be sure your reply will be "MSM", "MSM"...blah blah blah..we get it - all bad news reported about this war and this administration is a plot by the MSM to take over America and give it back to the left - of course if the MSM really had that as a mission, we wouldn't have a right-sided President, Senate, or Congress, but that doesn't make your MSM crap have much credence, does it?

Finally, my favorite part of your reply - the MSM was responsible in part for our failure in Vietnam....that one is priceless. How dare the MSM point out that tens of thousands of US soldiers were dying? How dare they point out that our battle plans weren't designed for the terrain initially? How unpatriotic of the media! Who are they to ask for some sort of deadline for bringing our troops home?

Spare us your MSM drivel, it's old and tired - bottom line is you supported this war from the beginning, and you'll fall on your MSM crutch whenever bad news is reported, you'll keep citing progress in the face of an insurgency that even your administration can't agree on, and you'll just say critics are Bush-bashers and being unpatriotic.

To say that the left hopes we fail in Iraq is just plain ignorant - quite frankly it's the kind of thing Sean Hannity uses to rally his mindless troops.

The very freedoms our men & women in the military have fought to defend in the past and continue to today, give us the right to question and report on this war, and if much of that is negative, then so be it, but stop crying about it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
A war was delared against terror, so fight that war on our terms, not theirs.

There is no war on terror. That is purely psychological and nothing more. What you suggest is a Jihad for Democracy when you suggest going to kill people we do not agree with.

Once you do that, be prepared for something more like a war, with many civilian casualties. If you are willing to provoke many hundreds of millions people, then have at. I am glad I don't live near a city likely to be nuked.

The intention against Al-Q and Taliban was as stated. A war against those that create terror and those that support it.

If we had not gotten sidetracked by Iraq and continued the line of cleaning out the wasps nests everytime they were discovered some of the problems in Iraq may not be so severe.

I am not suggesting a Jihad for Democracy.

I am stating that we have the resources and the ability to be the bully on the block against those that sponsor terror. Therefore use that capability to put out such brush fires as quickly as possible.

Those that support terror are little boys with big egos.
Show them that there is a bigger boy on the block that will kick their tails down the street and the wannabess will evaporate.

The key idea is that we will kick them down the block. Not threaten to do so, but go in and do it.

It is not a country that should be targetted, but those within the allow/encourage such actions. Afgans knew that we were going after the Taliban not them. Iraqs knew that also; we were after Saddam, his henchment and those that supported/protected him after the fact.

 

[tommywishbone]

"A war was declared against terror..." I don't think that's correct. It was a few years ago but I think the reason for our invasion & occupation was to capture Saddams WMD's and destroy his ability to build more. Then the reason for our invasion, was to rid Iraq of an oppressive regime. Then our reason for invasion and occupation, was to win the hearts and minds of those we had defeated. Then the reason for occupation, was to help the new goverment maintain stability after we destroyed their ability to maintain stability. Somewhere along the line W, Dick, Rummy & Rice decide that the "T" word was a great catch-all that americans could grab on to and believe in.

If we in fact, declared that our invasion & occupation, was indeed a war on terror, I must have missed it. I should have been paying attention. I maintain the current madness is just a huge armed-robbery gone bad....

Just my .02.... I know no one here on the boards was personally responsible for the insanity now taking place, courtesy of the USA. Thank you.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
"A war was declared against terror..." I don't think that's correct.

Check out statements made by Bush in Spet 2001 after the bombing.

Also, an executive order was issued that carried that wording.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
"A war was declared against terror..." I don't think that's correct.

Check out statements made by Bush in Spet 2001 after the bombing.

Also, an executive order was issued that carried that wording.

Indeed, but the President doesn't have the power to declare war on anyone. He can SAY it, but it's not actually a declared war.

Of course it's all words, and I'm not sure you can declare war against a kind of violence. In the end, it doesn't really matter, except to people who think words are the most important thing here.

 

[maluckey]

NeoV

What don't you get? The United States must either fully commit and succeed, or hold up the Iraqi govt long enough for them to do the same. Anything in the middle only encourages the insurgency.


As for the continued harping about Theater Commanders "in the know"..........

Most of the time they aren't. They rarely even get their boots dirty. They don't get the exposure that a Joe outside of the "green Zone" gets. It's not their fault, but they really should filter better. It is also the very reason that the VP and Rumsfeld don't agree. The get their intel from so many different sources and must pick and choose which ones to accept or deny. We all know the story on that with the President:shocked:. The troops in the field continue to state that the insurgents are foreign backed, and many that they encounter are foreign. It's a difficult call.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: maluckey
NeoV

What don't you get? The United States must either fully commit and succeed, or hold up the Iraqi govt long enough for them to do the same. Anything in the middle only encourages the insurgency.


As for the continued harping about Theater Commanders "in the know"..........

Most of the time they aren't. They rarely even get their boots dirty. They don't get the exposure that a Joe outside of the "green Zone" gets. It's not their fault, but they really should filter better. It is also the very reason that the VP and Rumsfeld don't agree. The get their intel from so many different sources and must pick and choose which ones to accept or deny. We all know the story on that with the President:shocked:. The troops in the field continue to state that the insurgents are foreign backed, and many that they encounter are foreign. It's a difficult call.

Part of what makes it difficult is that while the troops in the field have good detail, they lack perspective to put the whole thing together. A soldier in southern Iraq might have a totally different experience with the insurgents than a soldier in northern Iraq. We all know that some areas are more friendly while other areas are war zones. A soldier does not have broad enough details to make generalizations, while a theater commander does not have enough depth of details to totally describe the big picture. It's a case of the commander having the broad strokes, and the soldiers having extreme detail on one little piece.

Really, there needs to be more communication up AND down the chain of command. But the military isn't (to my knowledge) set up to make that very easy.

 

[Last Rezort]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Zebo

The rebels lack a unifying organization, ideology, and leader

as soon as I read this i knew the guy is a tool. How about "get the fusk out of my country" Idealogy? That would be enough for me, foreign assholes bashing my door down, torturing my friends, pointing automatic weaons at me in my own country etc etc... how about you?

Consider the source, heh. Christian Science Monitor is certainly going to be an accurate, unbiased source of facts.

ROLF.

Well said. I would also like to point out that just the way the guy writes it tells you what he thinks will happen. Onward christian propagandist!

 

[maluckey]

Rainsford,

excellent macro-view. I couldn't have said it better as far as the Joe versus theater commander. I still distrust the big heads and their motives for the most part though, so I guess that either makes me paranoid, or a typical Joe.

 

[Last Rezort]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: irwincur

Consider the source, heh. Christian Science Monitor is certainly going to be an accurate, unbiased source of facts.

Why do we have to go over this every time...

The CSM is one of the most respected publications in the world. Has been for a long time. Just because the name scares you does not mean that it is not a good publication. Intelligent people on all sides will agree with this.

I however, doubt you have ever bothered to read anything in it.

They also happen to be about the only group on the streets in Iraq doing real reporting. Big surprise, the CSM and Fox news are the only ones with real reporters living and working outside of the Green Zone. The rest of the 'respected' media simply buys reports from the cheapest source.

About the only thing this war has in common with Vietnam. Lazy reporters buying news from the enemy.

The lefties in here would rather trust their news from "unbiased" places like the http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1513540,00.html">Guardian</a>.

Isn't the lack of bias in that story just incredible? What a great headline:

Iraq insurgents snatch victory from defeat

"The combination of heavy shelling, diversionary feints, infantry thrusts and suicide vehicles - the "precision-guided" equivalent of tanks - left parts of the district of Hi al-Elam a smoking ruin. If the objective was to overrun the station and free its prisoners the offensive failed. The attackers retreated after two hours, leaving dozens dead and captured. But if the objective was to send a message of power and determination it succeeded."

"The attackers retreated at around 7.30am. At least 10 were killed and 40 captured."

"Lt Col Funk worried about similarities to the Tet offensive, a 1968 push by North Vietnamese forces which failed militarily but whose scale and surprise gave the impression that the US and its allies were failing. "The media got Tet wrong and they're getting Iraq wrong. We are winning but people won't know that if all they are hearing about is death and violence."

-----------

The insurgents got whacked and rebuffed, yet they've somehow snatched victory from defeat. Is the Guardian trying to claim that their tactic of spreading intimidation and fear is working? Well it sure doesn't seem like it's working since, as the article mentions:

"Residents of the mixed Shia and Sunni neighbourhood made at least 55 phone calls informing the police of insurgent movements. Some fired on the attackers. "

Yeah, sounds like they're really intimidated. :roll:

But the usuals will allow that kind of BS bias to slide while hammering on Fox or any other site that doens't spread the doom & gloom prognositications of the lefty sheeple.

And the MSM loves to harp on the numbers of dead Iraqi civilians and while shruging off the numbers of dead and captured insurgents.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Now after you have probably listened to our losses through the media, I'd like to carry the news of their losses?I hate to parrot what others say.
It's not only us who bleed, they're bleeding too end even more profusely and obviously the media has a purpose behind focusing on our losses while mentioning the terrorists losses in the inner pages or in many cases pretending that they don?t exist.
Iraqi and multinational forces are still scoring victories over terrorists and here on this blog, we'd like to summarize the victories of the latest 48 hours:

-1st regiment/2nd commandoes brigade arrested 43 suspects in Al-Doura district while the 2nd regiment/1st brigade arrested 2 terrorists in Shu'la district.

-The interior ministry announced the beginning of operation lightning-1 in Babil province which is going to be a joint effort between the Army and the local police forces. The 1st wave of raids resulted in arresting 43 suspects and confiscating 10 vehicles used in terror attacks against Iraqi civilians and security forces.

-A force from the Iraqi army backed by Polish troops raided terrorists hides in the areas of Jibla and Rashad in the same province and arrested 8 terrorists and confiscated their Ak-47's.

-Police forces in Kerbala arrested 20 terrorists and confiscated 6 suspicious vehicles and disarmed 2 vehicle-born bombs.

-In Zangora area near Ramadi, Iraqi and American troops arrested a terror cell leader named 'Jbair Grayen Al-Jiblawi who's one of Zarqawi's aides in Anbar province.

-In the north, 3 members of the Ansar Al-Sunna army were captured in Mosul; one of the 3 terrorists carried a Saudi ID.

-In Tikrit, multinational forces arrested 3 roadside bombs-makers and in Kirkuk 10 suspects were arrested. The men are supposed to be responsible for some missile attacks in the city.
Explosives' ingredients and blast capsules were found during the search of the arrest scene.

-In Abu Ghraib, Al-Muthana brigade arrested 19 terrorists and found amounts of weapons and detonation devices as well as vehicles that were prepared for performing terror attacks.

-In Al-Kasra neighborhood in Baghdad, IP men and American explosives experts failed an attack with a car bomb that was parked in the heavily crowded main commercial street in the district.
A shop keeper was suspicious of a car that was left in front of his shop, the driver claimed that the car broke and that he's going to find a mechanic but the shop keeper didn't believe the story and called the police and it was found later that the car contained a large bomb that was a mix of artillery shells, TNT rods and gas containers.
By 1 am, the area was evacuated and people were told to keep a distance from the car. The explosives experts detonated the car in its place as it was impossible to move it away. No casualties happened but there was some inevitable material loss in adjacent shops.

-In Tal-afar near Mosul, Iraqi and American troops killed 15 terrorists in clashes that took place yesterday.

-Police patrols in Dibis town arrested two terrorists while they were trying to plant a roadside bomb on the main street in the town.

-One of the most important successes was arresting one of Izzat Al-Douri's relatives along with 3 of his bodyguards.

-Iraqi TV announced Khalid Sulaiman Darwis (aka Abu Al-Ghadia Al-Soori) was killed during a raid as part of Operation Spear in Anbar province.
The Syrian terrorist is one of the leaders of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Sources: Iraqia TV, Al-Sabah, New Sabah and Al-Mada papers.

Who thinks that a war can be won without losses and sacrifices is far from reason.
Yes, sacrifices, efforts, time and costs are all factors that make us seriously worried but we have to remind ourselves that abandoning the mission before it's fully done would be a disaster for all of us.

I'm positive that Iraqis have no intention of giving up and so do their allies and friends while those who think that our position is weak are actually allowing lies and illusions to control their thinking and were driven away from the larger image by the narrow image provided by the media.
The future is ours, there's no doubt about that and we shall win.

But, of course, Mohammed is only an Iraqi in Baghdad. What does he know in comparison to all the pundits in ATP&N?

As someone who hates the right, i find myself willing to agree with you. They can not stand up to us. The problem is that we cant win. Rumsfeld himself said that it will take years though, so let me ask this. Is it worth it? Will all the money spent, with all the lives lost, has this war been worth it? Are we going to get money back from them for helping free their country, or has all this only benifited our defence contractors?

Im not going to sugest that bush is some evil mastermind that stole the presidency, but i will sugest that he screwed up big. The american people are benifiting from this how? True, these actions could be the start of peace in the middle east, but we wont see that for years and years.

Every day, we hear stories of Iraqies being put into prison for doing nothing. We see that people are killed, and for what? The only clear thing we are getting out of this war are oak coffins, filled with the bodies or bave men and women. The american people need answers about when we are getting out of there, because i think we can all agree, we need to leave.

We cannot win this war conventinaly, because we have no army to fight. Its time to leave this civil war we have got ourselves into to Iraq.