Obviously NOT a Guerrilla type war . .

[HappyGamer2]

there is far more to the story, There will be trouble in iraq for years, they don't want us there and will not change, it's part culture, part religous, part brain washed, part unexplainable craziness of/from living in crazy place like iraq.



as for the Japanese that didn't give up, many of them thought the war was still on, and just could not believe it was over and japan was defeated.

 

[tcsenter]

Beyond the assurances of TBA (Who have been known to stretch the truth when it comes to Iraq), how do you know that the people attacking Americans in Iraq are not just average citizens? I havent seen any reliable evidence either way.

Ummm...hello?

What they are saying is...

Some of the attacks are coming from your average Islamic radical fruit-pies who live for the chance to kill Americans, anyway, including foreign fighters from Pakistan and Syria. But most are reported to be the loyal remnants of Hussein's defunct military and Fedayeen.

 

[Warin]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Beyond the assurances of TBA (Who have been known to stretch the truth when it comes to Iraq), how do you know that the people attacking Americans in Iraq are not just average citizens? I havent seen any reliable evidence either way.

Ummm...hello?

What they are saying is...

Some of the attacks are coming from your average Islamic radical fruit-pies who live for the chance to kill Americans, anyway, including foreign fighters from Pakistan and Syria. But most are reported to be the loyal remnants of Hussein's defunct military and Fedayeen.

'reported to be...' Reported by who? Centcom?

I think I was pretty clear...where is the evidence that these attacks are slely the domain of the lunatic fringe?

I am not telling you that I will ignore clear evidence. I am asking that that evidence be provided, and it's reliability at least somewhat verifiable. Just saying 'The Bush Administration says..' isnt good enough. They have already proven their rather interesting ability to 'interpret' 'facts'

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Beyond the assurances of TBA (Who have been known to stretch the truth when it comes to Iraq), how do you know that the people attacking Americans in Iraq are not just average citizens? I havent seen any reliable evidence either way.

Ummm...hello?

What they are saying is...

Some of the attacks are coming from your average Islamic radical fruit-pies who live for the chance to kill Americans, anyway, including foreign fighters from Pakistan and Syria. But most are reported to be the loyal remnants of Hussein's defunct military and Fedayeen.

I don't think you know any more than us. Certainly many are as you describe, however you say "reported" not "known"

Who does the reporting? Besides, there were a lot of people killed, and no don't quote VN numbers. I know there were fewer but there certainly were enough families who lost a parent or child to generate some bad feelings. I know that if you killed one of mine, I would make you pay for it in blood. You going to tell me that if you held a dead son or daughter in your arms, you would just say "tough luck"? We really do not know much either way. I suppose it will become clearer as the years go on.

 

[LunarRay]

TCsenter, Quote...
What they are saying is, these are fanatical left-overs of regular military and militia loyal to Hussein (professional soldiers who have lost their professional military organization), not business owners and taxi cab drivers or your otherwise average citizen who has put down their shovels and stethoscopes and taken up arms in resistance.

IOW, these are combatants left-over from Iraq's former military establishements (the losers of a conflict who won't give up until they're dead), not an 'uprising' of Iraqi people.[/quote]


If that is what they are saying why isn't it what comes out of their mouth... why do we always need the talking experts to interpret what they "REALLY" said or mean....

This is done on porpoise.... they are trying to be fishy and they ain't... they say what they need to say so that you and others will say what you say they say... so they can, if need be, say "I didn't say that"... Gorilla war... chimp war... ostrich tactics who cares what you call it... what they be doing is the important part....

 

[tcsenter]

'reported to be...' Reported by who? Centcom?

The Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, the Pentagon, General Myers.

I think I was pretty clear...where is the evidence that these attacks are slely the domain of the lunatic fringe?

And I think I was pretty clear. Again, for those who apparently can't read, I stated:

These are text book guerrilla "tactics", but not a "Guerrilla War", in the sense that Bush & Co define it.

What they are saying is....

Then you asked

how do you know that the people attacking Americans in Iraq are not just average citizens?

Ok, remember the fun little test that appeared in the comics section of the newspaper, called "What's Wrong With This Picture?"

We're going to play the same thing here. Except, its called "What's wrong with your line of questioning?"

 

[Warin]

Ok...

So you point to an article quoting an American General that says, in essence, that it's not all of Iraq that is in chaos. Ok. Fair enough.

But it is still not proof from an unbiased and reliable source.

Your arguement is based on accepting that your government wouldnt lie and exagerate for it's own best interests. Am I wrong in that assumption?

If I follow your line of reasoning, if President Bush said that police breaking into your home because you looked funny and took away your new big screen TV is NOT unreasonable search and seizure, but 'Protecting the Homeland from Terr'rists', then it would be ok for them to do just that. Hello?

Just because Bush et al says this is not a guerilla war doesnt for a moment make it so.

 

[tcsenter]

Your arguement is based on accepting that your government wouldnt lie and exagerate for it's own best interests. Am I wrong in that assumption?

Apparently, you weren't fond of that game as a kid.

You still haven't answered the question, "What's wrong with your line of questioning?" Think about it.

Maybe someone will be so kind as to give you a hint, though I don't know how it could be any more clear.

 

[LunarRay]

The element missing for me to accept that the taxi driver takes up arms after a hard day navigating the streets of Baghdad is the pronouncement by the only "Authority" that would cause the rank and file to "Jihad" and that would, I assume, be the Cleric Leadership in Iraq...Without that "command" I think the farmer farms and the doctor doctors and the extremist bombs... along with his buddies from the hood (Iran, Syria, etc.) So... if a bomb or mortar goes off ... I think common sense suggests it be other than the average "Achmed" of Iraq..

 

[tcsenter]

If that is what they are saying why isn't it what comes out of their mouth... why do we always need the talking experts to interpret what they "REALLY" said or mean....

When you're hell-bent on trying to find inconsistent or contradictory meanings in one's statement because you have an axe to grind with them, you run the real risk of completely missing plausible ways in which the statements might be read to be consistent.

The basic rules of construction dictate that when a statement can be read to have two plausible but mutually exclusive meanings, one contradictory and the other consistent, you must exclude the contradictory reading.

IOW, your seething hatred of Bush & Co. is clouding your judgement and precluding objectivity, therefore someone has to come along and point-out the flaws in your reading of their statements.

 

[Brie]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
TCsenter, Quote...
What they are saying is, these are fanatical left-overs of regular military and militia loyal to Hussein (professional soldiers who have lost their professional military organization), not business owners and taxi cab drivers or your otherwise average citizen who has put down their shovels and stethoscopes and taken up arms in resistance.

IOW, these are combatants left-over from Iraq's former military establishements (the losers of a conflict who won't give up until they're dead), not an 'uprising' of Iraqi people.

If that is what they are saying why isn't it what comes out of their mouth... why do we always need the talking experts to interpret what they "REALLY" said or mean....

This is done on porpoise.... they are trying to be fishy and they ain't... they say what they need to say so that you and others will say what you say they say... so they can, if need be, say "I didn't say that"... Gorilla war... chimp war... ostrich tactics who cares what you call it... what they be doing is the important part....[/quote]

We need these "experts" because Americans watch too many movies and think they know everything about warfare. The problem is not that we think that we know everything rather the problem is that we intrepret things and make general, not specific, assumptions.

I want to raise the point that everyone should be questioning these so called military experts. I know 5-10 high ranking officers who were asked to be military analysists for various news programs who in turn were denied the right for National Security reasons. Im not saying all military "experts" on TV are quacks...just take their "analysis" with a grain of salt.

On the "guerrilla warfare" issue, you will find many pentagon officals that will take both sides of the issue so it is certanily valid. I feel that ignoring the level of organization of the resistance that their tactics are definatily guerrilla warfare tactics no question. It is a simple matter of doing the smart thing, if the Iraqi army in 92 with one of the best air defences in the world and with newer Soviet hardware could not defeat us, no resistance/army could conventionally defeat us ever. Im not trying to sound elitist but listen to the pulse of our armed forces for the past decade. I hear all the time about the unknown threat of terrorists using guerrilla tactics and way to much about WMD. I hardly hear anything about the conventional forces of China and NK because these are known quanities. COnventional forces are expensive. As Americans we thoroughly enjoy this from time to time but our money has gone into forming the best conventional army in the world.

Guerrilla warfare has been around in one form or another for centuries and it is the most effective tactic vs the US. (ie Vietnam) guerrilla warfare tactics = guerrilla war...What Bush is trying to do is spin the term for the armchair general's so they dont think Iraq is turning into Vietnam.

Lunar Ray, The resistance does not run around in shirts that says "shoot me." Yes the average taxi cab driver is not part of the resistance. However, members of the resistance are probably taxi cab drivers.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

If that is what they are saying why isn't it what comes out of their mouth... why do we always need the talking experts to interpret what they "REALLY" said or mean....

When you're hell-bent on trying to find inconsistent or contradictory meanings in one's statement because you have an axe to grind with them, you run the real risk of completely missing plausible ways in which the statements might be read to be consistent.

The basic rules of construction dictate that when a statement can be read to have two plausible but mutually exclusive meanings, one contradictory and the other consistent, you must exclude the contradictory reading.

IOW, your seething hatred of Bush & Co. is clouding your judgement and precluding objectivity, therefore someone has to come along and point-out the flaws in your reading of their statements.

Ah... the advocate assumes ... nay... the advocate proclaims.. yes! "Hell-Bent" "Seething Hatred" "Clouding" and "Precluding"... all this to propound the cause for an assumed duty which ought to have not been necessary... if "They" said what "They" meant to say when "They" said what needed to be interpreted to determine what "They" may have meant. A statement ought to stand on its own without any parole evidence needed to define what it means. You know... unambiguous communication from the Government to its People.. I said elsewhere... To say what you mean... mean what you say... and insure what you say is inconsistent with any other meaning... You remember... the ITT case...
The exclusion of the contradictory meaning does not mean that "They" will not, if convenient, say that "They" meant what you or others mistakenly eliminated... "They" must use simple little words that point directly and without obfuscation the intent of the statement.

Ya see... I'm just a dumb guy and I needs them to speak clearly and to the point so I don't have to rely on Bushite advocates to tell me what they know to be the meaning of governmental double speak... even if you or they have the requisite qualifications to do so..

 

[LunarRay]

Brie,
Quote in part,

Guerrilla warfare has been around in one form or another for centuries and it is the most effective tactic vs the US. (ie Vietnam) guerrilla warfare tactics = guerrilla war...What Bush is trying to do is spin the term for the armchair general's so they dont think Iraq is turning into Vietnam.

Lunar Ray, The resistance does not run around in shirts that says "shoot me." Yes the average taxi cab driver is not part of the resistance. However, members of the resistance are probably taxi cab drivers.


I, LunarRay, respond..

Asymmetrical warfare has been around awhile...The Scots used it against the English, the Indians used it, Francis Marion upset the British with it, and anyone who stands against superior odds ought to use it...

They may not have "shoot me" on their T shirts and may indeed drive a taxi... My point, however, is that the resistance is coming from the extremest and not a wide spread involvement of all the able citizens..

 

[Brie]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Brie,
Quote in part,

Guerrilla warfare has been around in one form or another for centuries and it is the most effective tactic vs the US. (ie Vietnam) guerrilla warfare tactics = guerrilla war...What Bush is trying to do is spin the term for the armchair general's so they dont think Iraq is turning into Vietnam.

Lunar Ray, The resistance does not run around in shirts that says "shoot me." Yes the average taxi cab driver is not part of the resistance. However, members of the resistance are probably taxi cab drivers.


I, LunarRay, respond..

Asymmetrical warfare has been around awhile...The Scots used it against the English, the Indians used it, Francis Marion upset the British with it, and anyone who stands against superior odds ought to use it...

They may not have "shoot me" on their T shirts and may indeed drive a taxi... My point, however, is that the resistance is coming from the extremest and not a wide spread involvement of all the able citizens..

oh i see...i misunderstood your post. I agree with your point I think it is the extremists as well.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Brie

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Brie,
Quote in part,

Guerrilla warfare has been around in one form or another for centuries and it is the most effective tactic vs the US. (ie Vietnam) guerrilla warfare tactics = guerrilla war...What Bush is trying to do is spin the term for the armchair general's so they dont think Iraq is turning into Vietnam.

Lunar Ray, The resistance does not run around in shirts that says "shoot me." Yes the average taxi cab driver is not part of the resistance. However, members of the resistance are probably taxi cab drivers.


I, LunarRay, respond..

Asymmetrical warfare has been around awhile...The Scots used it against the English, the Indians used it, Francis Marion upset the British with it, and anyone who stands against superior odds ought to use it...

They may not have "shoot me" on their T shirts and may indeed drive a taxi... My point, however, is that the resistance is coming from the extremest and not a wide spread involvement of all the able citizens..

oh i see...i misunderstood your post. I agree with your point I think it is the extremists as well.

Sorry, I'm taking lesson's from Moonbeam in clear speak.. but, after getting the clown shoes on and the big nose and make up and all, I forget that I'm talking to another human and not someone around the house here .... who don't listen anyway..

 

[tcsenter]

Ya see... I'm just a dumb guy and I needs them to speak clearly and to the point so I don't have to rely on Bushite advocates to tell me what they know to be the meaning of governmental double speak... even if you or they have the requisite qualifications to do so...

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that possibility. I was content with explaining your oversight as the result of being misguided or dishonest, not dumb, but hey suit yourself...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ya see... I'm just a dumb guy and I needs them to speak clearly and to the point so I don't have to rely on Bushite advocates to tell me what they know to be the meaning of governmental double speak... even if you or they have the requisite qualifications to do so...

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that possibility. I was content with explaining your oversight as the result of being misguided or dishonest, not dumb, but hey suit yourself...

Noooop... It is for me to propose... it is for you to dispose.... How or what you conclude and how you choose to dispose of this is limited only by your own mental bandwidth not mine...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Warin
I havent seen any reliable evidence either way.

almost all your information in life is destined to be second hand. the "press" is even more insidious than most because they refuse to show their sources and they selectively edit to suit their own needs, regardless of who you listen to.

 

[Warin]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Warin
I havent seen any reliable evidence either way.

almost all your information in life is destined to be second hand. the "press" is even more insidious than most because they refuse to show their sources and they selectively edit to suit their own needs, regardless of who you listen to.

Exactly my point, which I do not seem to be getting across in any reasonable way.

I do not rely on, nor trust, corporate media and The White House to give me unbiased and fair reporting.

I was sort of trying to say that none of us really know WHAT is going on over there... whether the people involved in the attacks are merely disenfranchised ba'athists, loony fundamental muslims, or even common people.

We're all sort of playing armchair general

 

[Brie]

Originally posted by: Warin
I do not rely on, nor trust, corporate media and The White House to give me unbiased and fair reporting.

I was sort of trying to say that none of us really know WHAT is going on over there... whether the people involved in the attacks are merely disenfranchised ba'athists, loony fundamental muslims, or even common people.

We're all sort of playing armchair general

Or military commanders for that matter...

I was suprised when I was watching the biography of Gen. Franks on CNN the other day. The program was implying that the actual war plan was Rumsfeld's idea and Franks wanted a gulf war 1 style plan. I suppose it isnt all that suprising considering he was artillery man in Vietnam. I think the armed forces needs to rethink their promotion process.

 

[Warin]

I actually think Franks is a pretty smart man, and I haave no doubts that he could have formulated an excellent war plan.

His problem is that he's saddled with a chickenhawk like Rumsfeld who seems to have a lot of pie in the sky ideas of how the real world works.

 

[Brie]

Originally posted by: Warin
I actually think Franks is a pretty smart man, and I haave no doubts that he could have formulated an excellent war plan.

His problem is that he's saddled with a chickenhawk like Rumsfeld who seems to have a lot of pie in the sky ideas of how the real world works.

I agree with you and the Rumsfeld comment is hillarious. I just think that the selection process is based more on guts and glory rather than organizational and tactical intelligence (creativeness anyone?). There are way to many general canidates out there who arent picked simply due to bad circumstances. Like going to college and learning! instead of dropping out and commanding arty batts. It will be at least a decade if not more until you see a somone from Aviation or Missile in Franks position. I believe that the ground war was won by using helocopters (aviation), and missiles.

WW1 = heavy use of civil war infantry tactics
WW2 = heavy use of armored spearheads
(Korea)
Vietnam = heavy use of operational mobility
What will be the next revolution?

Just saying that warfare is changing faster than the military is...We have been caught with out pants down before (WW2) (Vietnam)

 

[Warin]

Hum.

I am not sure that is the case recently though. In terms of operational flexibility, IF has been pretty successful. And when you look at GW1, it was a resounding success. If I am not mistaken, Franks served under Schwartzkopf, so I suspect he comes from a similar background in terms of how to fight.

Despite my rather dim view of US Political leadership, I do believe that the commanders and troops of the US Armed Services (and in spite of some rather egregious friendly fire incidents) are extremely professional and well trained men. If there are faults in the planning and execution of Operation IF, and in the way the 'reconstructon' is being handled, they are purely political faults of those who believe they know better than the commanders of their armed forces.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Brie

Originally posted by: Warin
I actually think Franks is a pretty smart man, and I haave no doubts that he could have formulated an excellent war plan.

His problem is that he's saddled with a chickenhawk like Rumsfeld who seems to have a lot of pie in the sky ideas of how the real world works.

I agree with you and the Rumsfeld comment is hillarious. I just think that the selection process is based more on guts and glory rather than organizational and tactical intelligence (creativeness anyone?). There are way to many general canidates out there who arent picked simply due to bad circumstances. Like going to college and learning! instead of dropping out and commanding arty batts. It will be at least a decade if not more until you see a somone from Aviation or Missile in Franks position. I believe that the ground war was won by using helocopters (aviation), and missiles.

WW1 = heavy use of civil war infantry tactics
WW2 = heavy use of armored spearheads
(Korea)
Vietnam = heavy use of operational mobility
What will be the next revolution?

Just saying that warfare is changing faster than the military is...We have been caught with out pants down before (WW2) (Vietnam)

The current revolution is combined forces and total situation awareness.

 

[LunarRay]

Start wars with nations that have hardly any military to block your progress along with air superiority to drop MOABs and somewhat smart bombs all over the place is this conflict's strategy. Iraq has no air force... , all they have is Gorilla's or what ever you call the hit and run tactic..