Political Crossfire Forums

[Freemason]

Iraq is in a state of turmoil but does this come from a military failure - bad strategy from the DoD or Rumsfeld?

I don't think so - any soldier could tell you it's one thing to kill someone - it's one thing to defeat your enemy. It's another thing to end the violence.

If people want to fight they'll fight - from Street Riots in the streets of France, to Soccer Riots across the world, to Gang Wars in America and Britain, to simple murder.

Violence is not a product of war - and so violence cannot be confused with war.

When Bush said we had ended major military operations - what did he mean?

He meant that Saddam was over - that the Iraqi military was defeated - that the nation was now fully occupied by Coalition troops.

He did not mean that the hostilities were over.

The hostilities are not necessarily governmental - it is the will of one people to kill another people. It is Shia wanting to exact revenge. It is the Iranians wanting to 'stir the pot'. It is the Sunnis not wanting to lose power.

The violence in Iraq is little to do with the military actions we took or can take.

We could put 1 million soldiers in Iraq and the violence will continue - because they will not stop until what causes the violence is at an end.

World War I (I know I bring it up much, but it's a great example) teaches us so much. How could a war be fought where 600,000 would die to gain 12 km of ground?

Because the people wanted to fight.

Sometimes the case is utter military defeat - where victory on the battlefield ends the will of a people to fight. Such as with WW2.

But sometimes the will of a people is to fight - but they lose anyway...such as in WWI. (Which was arguably the largest reason WW2 happend...because of German revisionist history that wanted to continue what they felt they didn't lose).

Iraq is a war where the war was won...

But the people didn't want to stop killing eachother.

The elements that wanted to kill Coalition troops have been largely delt with - small arms engagements are almost entirely the victory of the Coalition there.

Most deaths come from murder - bombs placed to kill civilians, sometimes killing soldiers.

But soldiers are not the largest target in Iraq because of two reasons.

One - they're tougher to fight.

Two - the people left in the insurgency want to kill Sunnis, not Americans. The elements of Al Qaedah are vaporized, their leader in Iraq is dead, and they too have been militarily destroyed.

How do you stop someone from murdering someone else? You don't - we have murder in every corner of the world.

This is a storm that merely must settle over time.

[callous]

Freemason wrote: Does violence equate failure of strategy?

Does a bear s**t in the woods?

[Mr. Sunshine]

I measure success in Iraq by how many Islamofascist die relative to our soldiers. By those standards, it is highly successful being that two clans of Islamofascists are killing each other off. The collateral damage is the fault of the sectarians; they are after all the ones pulling the trigger and detonating the IEDs. 8:)

[mr.snruB]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: I measure success in Iraq by how many Islamofascist die relative to our soldiers. By those standards, it is highly successful being that two clans of Islamofascists are killing each other off. The collateral damage is the fault of the sectarians; they are after all the ones pulling the trigger and detonating the IEDs. 8:)

I got a question. How are they fascists?

Oh, and by your standards yuo won Vietnam, which......I'm pretty sure everyone will agree with me here.....you didn't

[Mr. Sunshine]

mr.snruB wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: I measure success in Iraq by how many Islamofascist die relative to our soldiers. By those standards, it is highly successful being that two clans of Islamofascists are killing each other off. The collateral damage is the fault of the sectarians; they are after all the ones pulling the trigger and detonating the IEDs. 8:)

I got a question. How are they fascists?

Oh, and by your standards yuo won Vietnam, which......I'm pretty sure everyone will agree with me here.....you didn't

I never had the pleasure of losing in Vietnam. Nam was lost in Washington and by a military riddled with draftees counting calenders backwards. Iraq is filled with volunteer servicemen. Re-enlistment is record setting. Combat MOSs are signing up for double and triple consecutive tours because they know what winning in combat is.

Islamofascists need the kafir to die or convert to their way of thinking. Their goals are pursued via violence and death to enforce their will on everyone they confront. Sounds like fascism to me. 8:)

[A_happy_democrat]

mr.snruB wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: I measure success in Iraq by how many Islamofascist die relative to our soldiers. By those standards, it is highly successful being that two clans of Islamofascists are killing each other off. The collateral damage is the fault of the sectarians; they are after all the ones pulling the trigger and detonating the IEDs. 8:)

I got a question. How are they fascists?

Oh, and by your standards yuo won Vietnam, which......I'm pretty sure everyone will agree with me here.....you didn't
WHAT!!!!!!!!!! WE LOST NAM!!!!!!!!

[FarPastGone]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: I measure success in Iraq by how many Islamofascist die relative to our soldiers. By those standards, it is highly successful being that two clans of Islamofascists are killing each other off. The collateral damage is the fault of the sectarians; they are after all the ones pulling the trigger and detonating the IEDs. 8:)
Are you speaking of the Sunnis and Shiites?

[Zadoc]

Remember that lesson that I gave you earlier about getting "pwned?"

Freemason wrote: Iraq is in a state of turmoil but does this come from a military failure - bad strategy from the DoD or Rumsfeld?



It does mean failure when the stated goal of the strategy is to train enough Iraqi troops and police so that the country can police its self.

The only reason why we are still there is so that the violence doesn't get worse than what it is.

[FarPastGone]

Zadoc wrote: It does mean failure when the stated goal of the strategy is to train enough Iraqi troops and police so that the country can police its self.

The only reason why we are still there is so that the violence doesn't get worse than what it is.
How can the Iraqi troops control what we can't? When they will have insufficient means, be under-trained, and out numbered. The violence can't get much worse, and not be considered a civil war.

[Mr. Sunshine]

FarPastGone wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: I measure success in Iraq by how many Islamofascist die relative to our soldiers. By those standards, it is highly successful being that two clans of Islamofascists are killing each other off. The collateral damage is the fault of the sectarians; they are after all the ones pulling the trigger and detonating the IEDs. 8:)
Are you speaking of the Sunnis and Shiites?

That is a little too general. I prefer Shura Council and Mehdi operatives advised by Iran's Jerusalem Force. America trained some of these dogs to kill and gave the leash to the PM. He let go and will not allow the animal to be pacified. This is what the Iraqi people voted for. It is what they want. That is why it occurs every day. Democracy is about giving people free choice. Mission Accomplished! :lol:

[Mr. Sunshine]

Zadoc wrote: Remember that lesson that I gave you earlier about getting "pwned?"

Freemason wrote: Iraq is in a state of turmoil but does this come from a military failure - bad strategy from the DoD or Rumsfeld?



It does mean failure when the stated goal of the strategy is to train enough Iraqi troops and police so that the country can police its self.

The only reason why we are still there is so that the violence doesn't get worse than what it is.

There was never any time limit placed on the training and we are currently training more than the insurgency is killing; thus success. The stated goal has always been UNTIL VICTORY. Give it another few centuries. 8:)

[FarPastGone]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: FarPastGone wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: I measure success in Iraq by how many Islamofascist die relative to our soldiers. By those standards, it is highly successful being that two clans of Islamofascists are killing each other off. The collateral damage is the fault of the sectarians; they are after all the ones pulling the trigger and detonating the IEDs. 8:)
Are you speaking of the Sunnis and Shiites?

That is a little too general. I prefer Shura Council and Mehdi operatives advised by Iran's Jerusalem Force. America trained some of these dogs to kill and gave the leash to the PM. He let go and will not allow the animal to be pacified. This is what the Iraqi people voted for. It is what they want. That is why it occurs every day. Democracy is about giving people free choice. Mission Accomplished! :lol:
Thank you. I was unsure if you were referring to the two clans as being the Sunnis and Shiites, since the innocent followers of each sect are the majority being killed, and that would follow your statement. My notion was incorrect.

[FarPastGone]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Zadoc wrote: Remember that lesson that I gave you earlier about getting "pwned?"

Freemason wrote: Iraq is in a state of turmoil but does this come from a military failure - bad strategy from the DoD or Rumsfeld?



It does mean failure when the stated goal of the strategy is to train enough Iraqi troops and police so that the country can police its self.

The only reason why we are still there is so that the violence doesn't get worse than what it is.

There was never any time limit placed on the training and we are currently training more than the insurgency is killing; thus success. The stated goal has always been UNTIL VICTORY. Give it another few centuries. 8:)
While I understand what you are saying, and know we are not in a position where we will be leaving in the near future (nor was there any time model that said we were supposed to be). However, there has also been an increase in outside influences (besides ours), as well as in terrorism so much so that I find it hard to believe we are the only ones training combatants in Iraq. IMO it will be "centuries" before our trained Iraqi force will be in a position to retake control, or at least over power the insurgents to the point that we will be able to leave.

[Mr. Sunshine]

FarPastGone wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Zadoc wrote: Remember that lesson that I gave you earlier about getting "pwned?"

Freemason wrote: Iraq is in a state of turmoil but does this come from a military failure - bad strategy from the DoD or Rumsfeld?



It does mean failure when the stated goal of the strategy is to train enough Iraqi troops and police so that the country can police its self.

The only reason why we are still there is so that the violence doesn't get worse than what it is.

There was never any time limit placed on the training and we are currently training more than the insurgency is killing; thus success. The stated goal has always been UNTIL VICTORY. Give it another few centuries. 8:)
While I understand what you are saying, and know we are not in a position where we will be leaving in the near future (nor was there any time model that said we were supposed to be). However, there has also been an increase in outside influences (besides ours), as well as in terrorism so much so that I find it hard to believe we are the only ones training combatants in Iraq. IMO it will be "centuries" before our trained Iraqi force will be in a position to retake control, or at least over power the insurgents to the point that we will be able to leave.

We actually conquered al-Qaeda in Iraq when we neutralized Zarqawi and the top two tiers. They brought in outside talent (al-Masri) to regroup. They had to form a coalition to survive under the Shura Council. Iran then filled the power vacuum with its player (Muqtada al-Sadr). He leads the Mehdi Army and is the military arm of the political wing of the PM of Iraq, al-Maliki. The Iranians see victory as being a subtle takeover of the Iraqi gov't and creating a huge distraction to get pressure off its nuclear program. They are racing the clock. U.S. security support is forbidden by the PM to engage Mehdi. Their death squads kill many Sunni innocents to draw out the Lions of Shura to expose and engage them. Shura does not have the strength so they retaliate against soft targets. The Mehdi want to kill as many Baathists, Wahhabis, and foreign Sunni fighters as possible since they know our rules of engagement specify "observation only" r/t Mehdi operations. Most U.S. military combat "engagement" deaths are with Baathist in Anbar supported by Syria or Shura operatives.

[Bonobo]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: I measure success in Iraq by how many Islamofascist die relative to our soldiers. By those standards, it is highly successful being that two clans of Islamofascists are killing each other off. The collateral damage is the fault of the sectarians; they are after all the ones pulling the trigger and detonating the IEDs. 8:)

The USA invades a country where there has been sectarian hate for centuries if not a millenia, it removes the one thing preventing them fron fighting, have been told if they remove the security that was there (evil or not this is irrelevant) there will be a civil war, and despite them wading on in and removing the one thing stopping all out war, you instead somehow manage to shirk responsibility?

[FarPastGone]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: FarPastGone wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Zadoc wrote: Remember that lesson that I gave you earlier about getting "pwned?"

Freemason wrote: Iraq is in a state of turmoil but does this come from a military failure - bad strategy from the DoD or Rumsfeld?



It does mean failure when the stated goal of the strategy is to train enough Iraqi troops and police so that the country can police its self.

The only reason why we are still there is so that the violence doesn't get worse than what it is.

There was never any time limit placed on the training and we are currently training more than the insurgency is killing; thus success. The stated goal has always been UNTIL VICTORY. Give it another few centuries. 8:)
While I understand what you are saying, and know we are not in a position where we will be leaving in the near future (nor was there any time model that said we were supposed to be). However, there has also been an increase in outside influences (besides ours), as well as in terrorism so much so that I find it hard to believe we are the only ones training combatants in Iraq. IMO it will be "centuries" before our trained Iraqi force will be in a position to retake control, or at least over power the insurgents to the point that we will be able to leave.

We actually conquered al-Qaeda in Iraq when we neutralized Zarqawi and the top two tiers. They brought in outside talent (al-Masri) to regroup. They had to form a coalition to survive under the Shura Council. Iran then filled the power vacuum with its player (Muqtada al-Sadr). He leads the Mehdi Army and is the military arm of the political wing of the PM of Iraq, al-Maliki. The Iranians see victory as being a subtle takeover of the Iraqi gov't and creating a huge distraction to get pressure off its nuclear program. They are racing the clock. U.S. security support is forbidden by the PM to engage Mehdi. Their death squads kill many Sunni innocents to draw out the Lions of Shura to expose and engage them. Shura does not have the strength so they retaliate against soft targets. The Mehdi want to kill as many Baathists, Wahhabis, and foreign Sunni fighters as possible since they know our rules of engagement specify "observation only" r/t Mehdi operations. Most U.S. military combat "engagement" deaths are with Baathist in Anbar supported by Syria or Shura operatives.
I fail to see your point. We neutralized the limited threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq by slaying their leader, or the big brass at least. Now we just have to worry about the terrorism spawned by us, religious influence, outside factors, the deaths (everything that follows along with that), a way to fight America, etc...

[Tracker]

It's an interesting question. I'm glad you brought it up. It's a 'thinkers' question, and too few are anymore -- most being soundbite-repetitions, instead, cloned from hateful religions fomenting DIVIDES, as usual.

Quote: Most deaths come from murder - bombs placed to kill civilians, sometimes killing soldiers.

And the money and the DESIRE to CAST-OUT 'not our kind of people' comes from the SAME PLACE: HatefulReligiousSupremacy, which is NOT confined to Iraq. Just look at the hateful religionists and their pervert doggy-style crotch-sniffin' to concoct CONDITIONS on other peoples' love and THRUST crotches into the public's faces, nonstop, FORCING government and education to sniff crotches like dogs before DENYING EQUALITY of SERVICES. Just ask 'senning' Senators. Those perverts were brainwashed into that hateful religionist mindset, which foments nothing but HATE and that ALWAYS SPAWNS VIOLENCE.

For the good of ThePeople and the Constitution, under the President's Constitutional Authority, that entire 'august assemblage of PERVERTS' should be SENT HOME.

[Zadoc]

FarPastGone wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: FarPastGone wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Zadoc wrote: Remember that lesson that I gave you earlier about getting "pwned?"

Freemason wrote: Iraq is in a state of turmoil but does this come from a military failure - bad strategy from the DoD or Rumsfeld?



It does mean failure when the stated goal of the strategy is to train enough Iraqi troops and police so that the country can police its self.

The only reason why we are still there is so that the violence doesn't get worse than what it is.

There was never any time limit placed on the training and we are currently training more than the insurgency is killing; thus success. The stated goal has always been UNTIL VICTORY. Give it another few centuries. 8:)
While I understand what you are saying, and know we are not in a position where we will be leaving in the near future (nor was there any time model that said we were supposed to be). However, there has also been an increase in outside influences (besides ours), as well as in terrorism so much so that I find it hard to believe we are the only ones training combatants in Iraq. IMO it will be "centuries" before our trained Iraqi force will be in a position to retake control, or at least over power the insurgents to the point that we will be able to leave.

We actually conquered al-Qaeda in Iraq when we neutralized Zarqawi and the top two tiers. They brought in outside talent (al-Masri) to regroup. They had to form a coalition to survive under the Shura Council. Iran then filled the power vacuum with its player (Muqtada al-Sadr). He leads the Mehdi Army and is the military arm of the political wing of the PM of Iraq, al-Maliki. The Iranians see victory as being a subtle takeover of the Iraqi gov't and creating a huge distraction to get pressure off its nuclear program. They are racing the clock. U.S. security support is forbidden by the PM to engage Mehdi. Their death squads kill many Sunni innocents to draw out the Lions of Shura to expose and engage them. Shura does not have the strength so they retaliate against soft targets. The Mehdi want to kill as many Baathists, Wahhabis, and foreign Sunni fighters as possible since they know our rules of engagement specify "observation only" r/t Mehdi operations. Most U.S. military combat "engagement" deaths are with Baathist in Anbar supported by Syria or Shura operatives.
I fail to see your point. We neutralized the limited threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq by slaying their leader, or the big brass at least. Now we just have to worry about the terrorism spawned by us, religious influence, outside factors, the deaths (everything that follows along with that), a way to fight America, etc...

Where have you been? al-Qaeda didn't have a link to Iraq at all before the invasion.

[FarPastGone]

I was under that impression to, but I am following his logic.

[Angelicus]

Bonobo wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: I measure success in Iraq by how many Islamofascist die relative to our soldiers. By those standards, it is highly successful being that two clans of Islamofascists are killing each other off. The collateral damage is the fault of the sectarians; they are after all the ones pulling the trigger and detonating the IEDs. 8:)

The USA invades a country where there has been sectarian hate for centuries if not a millenia, it removes the one thing preventing them fron fighting, have been told if they remove the security that was there (evil or not this is irrelevant) there will be a civil war, and despite them wading on in and removing the one thing stopping all out war, you instead somehow manage to shirk responsibility?



See this is why I say the U.S. is damned by the libs if it does, and damned by the libs if it doesn't.

People always point to Iraq and say, "well see, the U.S. removed the one thing that kept these people from fighting one another." meaning Saddam.

Implying that the U.S. is not up to the task of pacifying the nation, but rather Saddam is a better choice, because he could.

Yet, how did Saddam keep that control? How did he keep them from fighting? By killing anyone that thought about fighting. By running his little torture/rape rooms. By gassing to death those who dared oppose him.

And yet, these same people, then turn around and boohoo and gripe about the U.S. being in iraq, when things like door to door searchs go on?

Get real.

:roll: