It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Carter: Iraqis showed 'no will to fight' in Ramadi

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

Iraqis, barring only a few, never had the will to fight.

They were always willing to let others do the fighting for them. When the US left and ISIS started pouring in from Syria, the Daesh knew this already. Its why they spread like a cancer.

There are exceptions. Iraqi SF are some badass dudes.

The Kurds of Northern Iraq(Which from know on I will refer to as Kurdistan, because Iraqis don't deserve to govern that land).

But by and large the Iraqi army is built out of cowards.




posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: michaelbrux



my question then...is Iraq an obsolete concept?


As soon as the U.S. decided they wanted Iraq's oil then yes, and if anything the moral to this story, if you want people to fight for you, don't ruin the infrastructure of their country first because then they have nothing to fight for.


Iraq was responsible for 8% of US oil imports prior to the war. That number did not change, and has not since.

If we were there for Iraqs oil that number would be higher don't you think? The oil contracts were, by and large, given to Chinese, Russian, and British companies. American companies got a very small piece of the pie and at the end of the day the ones who did are seeking to divest anyway.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ausername

what i'm suggesting is a tactical re-positioning.

spending energy carrying around the corpse called Iraq is a poor idea.

either they are forced to prove their commitment to the concept or they get dropped off.

spending energy fighting ISIS without the burden of an obligation to return the country to Iraqi's makes perfect sense.

and when we justify our presence for generations to come we've got an excellent explanation...

the Iraqi's didn't want it and ISIS is absolutely unacceptable, so we're gonna hold this down until there is no more oil.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Kurdistan will remain...as it appears...they'll have their land in Iraq, Syria and Turkey before the end of the decade.

Iran, through Iraq's Shias will extend to the border of Saudi Arabia...but don't feel bad for the Saudi's...its obviously, through their actions, what they want most.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: michaelbrux



my question then...is Iraq an obsolete concept?


As soon as the U.S. decided they wanted Iraq's oil then yes, and if anything the moral to this story, if you want people to fight for you, don't ruin the infrastructure of their country first because then they have nothing to fight for.


Iraq was responsible for 8% of US oil imports prior to the war. That number did not change, and has not since.

If we were there for Iraqs oil that number would be higher don't you think? The oil contracts were, by and large, given to Chinese, Russian, and British companies. American companies got a very small piece of the pie and at the end of the day the ones who did are seeking to divest anyway.


Yeah, right



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
We bled enough for the Iraqis.

If they are not willing to fight against ISIS when they out number the bastards 10 to 1 then they do not deserve the country we left them.

To all the "arm chair Admirals" who know about the war because they read about it in a blog -

Where are all these oil riches America went to war for?
Where is this "conquest" taking place (we left Iraq under Iraqi leadership)?
What mineral wealth did America plunder from Iraq?

Talking points mean nothing. Show me the proof that the war was about oil/minerals/conquest.

Being strong when you have a division at your back means squat. Having 4 of your 10 men wounded and taking the fight to the enemy (even though the nearest help is still an hour away) is the difference between our cultures.

The Iraqis that are willing to fight have joined ISIS. The rest are just waiting for the scraps to fall off the table. Regardless of which team they fight for they all have a cowards heart. Either they tuck tail and run at the first sign of the enemy, or they brutalize the women and children of their fallen foe.

Why shed any more American (or any worthwhile) blood for a culture that creates such men?



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum




Yeah, right



You could try looking into it. Wouldn't that be something?



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: projectvxn

Kurdistan will remain...as it appears...they'll have their land in Iraq, Syria and Turkey before the end of the decade.

Iran, through Iraq's Shias will extend to the border of Saudi Arabia...but don't feel bad for the Saudi's...its obviously, through their actions, what they want most.



The Kurds have my deepest respect. It is my hope they achieve their own nation. I have not seen a warrior spirit like that in all of my life.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

There is a lot of spin on this event. First it was in the news that the sandstorm hindered our air strikes. Then we got clear pictures of a victory parade vehicles all lined up.... I asked on ATS why no air strikes on that parade? Later, it was announced by our military that the sand storms were not a hindrance on air strikes. Okay. Again then, why no air strikes? We had DAYS to prepare for and complete air strikes against the advancing ISIS to slow or stop that take over. Where were our planes?



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Whaaaat? They have no will to fight? Man, what a surprise! That's absolutely crazy. Mind-boggling, even.

-said no veteran who spent any time in Iraq.

ETA: that's not exactly fair. Some of the individuals in the Iraqi forces are excellent soldiers. Some, anyway. Some of them even "get it" and signed up for more than just a paycheck. The vast majority of them signed up to get paid, though, and don't believe in anything stronger than doing whatever they can to make sure they go home at the end of the day. The point I was trying to convey is that anybody who was there for any length of time and dealt with them knew full well they would fold up and run from a real fight. Many of them don't believe in a higher ideal when it comes to their country.
edit on 24-5-2015 by Shamrock6 because: ETA



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

sounds like political events are governing the war against isis as much as they govern events against a real state.

when one reads an article that an overwhelming Iraqi military presence fled the battlefield with little to no resistance to a criminal organization it becomes clear that politicians serve criminals with equal respect to those that abide by the law.

those politicians must have a hidden agenda and decided that its in their best interests to violate every oath they've taken in life to accomplish that agenda...even though it is certain that they will fail.

no military can ever hope to survive when the civilian leadership decides that they want it to be destroyed and are willing to do everything in their power to achieve that vision.

so...fighters need to allow cowards to get what they've got coming to them and instead prepare to fight the ones that did it.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I don't see why this should come as a surprise. Anyone willing to fight for Iraq was killed off by coalition forces. Then we killed anyone who might fight, along with their families. The only ones left alive were the ones willing to live with a US boot on their neck. Why should they care now who is wearing the boot?



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

you should clarify your use of 'WE'...

...they don't have to care about the isis boot...it won't be there very long.

but first D.C. is going to have to decide to stop helping something that no longer exists.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
The reason for ISIS and other "rogue" groups of the same:
The US did not finish the job. Fact is we havent finished not one conflict since WW2 . Look at history and the conflicts that we "evacuated" too soon (advance to the rear double time) and the results of this.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

America lost WWII, even though the United States won, kind of.

that being said, the War America is involved in has not concluded even though all military operations of the United States nearly have; as no one is going to send its children to fight and die for a people and state that doesn't even exist and that has demonstrated that it has no intention of putting in any work.

how many times can Iraq's paper Army be seen fleeing the battlefield before every one get the message? Ramadi is just the latest example of how Iraqi cowardice is unprecedented in all human history and only a person that hates his kids would send more to help them.

all efforts should be made expecting that Iraq is disintegrating and not worth saving and the preparations should be made to confront and destroy the criminal organization calling itself isis and its allies.

Iraq shouldbe broken up ... the Kurds get their State together with land in Syria, the Iranians can have southern Iraq and the Saudis can deal with whatever remains of the Sunnis and isis that are about to be annihilated.

then We can have Peace.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

By "we" I mean the same coalition forces that invaded Iraq. The Iraqi army was defeated in no time. Then came a decade of occupation where "we" went around rounding up "insurgents" (i.e. people who might be willing or able to oppose an occupation of their country). It's no wonder there aren't enough people left willing to fight another occupation force.

And I think the only people DC is interested in helping are the munitions manufacturers willing to sell Uncle Sam all the replacement bullets and bombs they ask for. At healthy profits for themselves, of course. DC hasn't shown much interest in helping the Iraqi people, or, for that matter, US soldiers that managed to make it back alive.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

the Iraqi Army never fought...after the invasion they immediately became an insurgent army.

clearly this was a part of their strategy and it would seem obvious that isis is in fact the remnant of husseins army and still possesses much of the same infrastructure and international connections that it did when before saddam and his sons were destroyed, as promised to them.

when those 'insurgents' were rounded up and taken to camps they were in fact being protected and given an opportunity to get back on their feet by various shadowy groups operating under the umbrella of protection provided by members of the coalition.

long story short...isis is just the baathist system in Iraq continuing to bring war and suffering upon the iraqi people as it did for 30 years before it had to go underground.

and DC politicians, lacking any capabilities of employing Strategic Thought...sit around scratching their heads as to why Iraq can't be counted on to fight a group that dominated over them for most of their lives...and somehow, they decided that Americans should die fighting for them instead.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
after this little back and forth i've had with all the participants in this thread...i feel more comfortable with the notion that isis is nothing more than something that thinks it has found a way around death...and imagines that it will continue on.

but unlike the Iraqi...someone will fight them...and Win.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

I think to call 'cowardice' on the whole nation is unfair, simply because, as you said yourself, Iraq should be broken up. Why fight for a nation that was never really yours in the first place? I'm pretty sure no one on this thread can claim to know what is like to be an 'Iraqi'; To have lived under messed up dictatorships and mandates by outside nations, etc, etc. (In a country which borders were hastily drawn up by an outside nation that didn't care about the various groups within, as you alluded to earlier)

Joining the army for a paycheque seems realistic to me. I mean, coming-of-working-age men whose whole nation's infrastructure and economy has been absolutely fubarred for the last 10-15 years of their lives...and I'm not being bleeding-hearted here haha. I mean, you gotta put food on the table, right?
edit on 5/24/2015 by WizardVanWizard because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: WizardVanWizard
a reply to: michaelbrux

I think to call 'cowardice' on the whole nation is unfair, simply because, as you said yourself, Iraq should be broken up. Why fight for a nation that was never really yours in the first place? I'm pretty sure no one on this thread can claim to know what is like to be an 'Iraqi'; To have lived under messed up dictatorships and mandates by outside nations, etc, etc. (In a country which borders were hastily drawn up by an outside nation that didn't care about the various groups within, as you alluded to earlier)

Joining the army for a paycheque seems realistic to me. I mean, coming-of-working-age men whose whole nation's infrastructure and economy has been absolutely fubarred for the last 10-15 years of their lives...and I'm not being bleeding-hearted here haha. I mean, you gotta put food on the table, right?


i enjoy inciting emotions. if the Iraqi doesn't fight...it will be destroyed. the notion that discussion on the floor of Congress and at the UN can indefinitely prolong the life of Iraq is naive.

maybe there is something called Iraq...but saying so isn't going to be enough; acting so is of paramount importance.

and none of this will fall back on the American or the United States...no matter how much people want it to.

what's the point of getting a paycheck that is written in a currency that doesn't exist and can't buy anything? it should be clear that isis will not use the Iraqi Dinar...they will not respect your Title to property...or even your name!

you imagine that words have meaning...they do when someone will Make it have meaning and no time else!

and the only thing making Iraq real today is the United States of America.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join