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.

 

12 Years of Iraq Insurgency

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   


Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing for even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency "could go on for any number of years."

Defeating the insurgency may take as long as 12 years, he said, with Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, taking the lead and finishing the job.

The assessment comes on the heels of the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll showing public doubts about the war reaching a high point — with more than half saying that invading Iraq was a mistake.








Before the war, Vice President Dick Cheney predicted that Iraqis freed from
Saddam Hussein's rule would greet American troops as liberators. Rumsfeld said Sunday he gave President Bush a list of about 15 things "that could go terribly, terribly wrong before the war started."


And it goes on and on.

news.yahoo.com...

It also contains reference to the secret meetings with insurgent groups which I also posted about.




posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I don't get it... liberals rip the administration when they're too positive in their outlook, such as Bush saying that the US will accept nothing short of complete victory.

Then the libs rip the Administration when they give a somewhat grim outlook, such as the above mentioned link.

You guys are just so consumed with hatred and distrust of Bush and Co. that you'll rip them for anything. What terrible ideology you subscribe to...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
They havent given us ANY just reason to TRUST them or believe what they are doing, because frankly... nothing has addedu p this WHOLE WAR!



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
I don't get it... liberals rip the administration when they're too positive in their outlook, such as Bush saying that the US will accept nothing short of complete victory.

Then the libs rip the Administration when they give a somewhat grim outlook, such as the above mentioned link.

You guys are just so consumed with hatred and distrust of Bush and Co. that you'll rip them for anything. What terrible ideology you subscribe to...

Yeah thats it just use the old black and white idea, dont notice there are diffrences...mabye that explains why our troops die in FF incidents...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
I don't get it... liberals rip the administration when they're too positive in their outlook, such as Bush saying that the US will accept nothing short of complete victory.

Then the libs rip the Administration when they give a somewhat grim outlook, such as the above mentioned link.

You guys are just so consumed with hatred and distrust of Bush and Co. that you'll rip them for anything. What terrible ideology you subscribe to...


Let me help you get it.

The administration should be ripped on when they paint a rosy outlook for Iraq because they are promising the impossible in an attempt to sell the war.

The administration should be ripped on when they tell the truth about Iraq because the truth is that there is no easy way to get out of Iraq, and they're responsible for getting us into Iraq to begin with.

The first concept we call "accountability," the second "responsibility." Not that hard to get, really.

-koji K.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I expect by next few months the support for the war will drop to 20% in the US... it already drop to about like 30-40% for the war.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Yeah, I guess this was missed too, huh?
Rumsfeld: Iraqis Must Defeat Insurgency



WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday it may take as long as 12 years to defeat Iraqi insurgents and that Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, will finish the job.

Rumsfeld, addressing a question about whether U.S. troops levels are adequate to vanquish the increasingly violent resistance, said, "We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.








seekerof

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Seekerof:

How long has that line about the Iraq police force, the Iraqi army, and the Iraqi's taking over been floating around?

1500 deaths ago or so?

Keep waiting though, hey, maybe you'd be interested in some swamp land in florida? A nice Bridge in Brooklyn? You can but them both, low low price



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yeah, I guess this was missed too, huh?
Rumsfeld: Iraqis Must Defeat Insurgency



WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday it may take as long as 12 years to defeat Iraqi insurgents and that Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, will finish the job.

Rumsfeld, addressing a question about whether U.S. troops levels are adequate to vanquish the increasingly violent resistance, said, "We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.








seekerof

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Seekerof]


Yeah, just like the South Vietnamese beat the North Vietnamese...


-koji K.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yeah, I guess this was missed too, huh?
Rumsfeld: Iraqis Must Defeat Insurgency



WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday it may take as long as 12 years to defeat Iraqi insurgents and that Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, will finish the job.

Rumsfeld, addressing a question about whether U.S. troops levels are adequate to vanquish the increasingly violent resistance, said, "We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.








seekerof

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Seekerof]



I dont see the difference in human lives.

12 years of fighting means 12 years of fighting.




posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   


Rumsfeld: "We're not going to win against the insurgency."


Doesnt that conflict with just about everything Bush has to say?

Who starts a war and leaves the devestated country to clean up?

Sad excuse of a plan.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Apparently the Insurgency will go on until the Oil Reseves in the Middle East are depleted.

Then it will Dissapear....



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Apparently the Insurgency will go on until the Oil Reseves in the Middle East are depleted.

Then it will Dissapear....


yeah, the terrorists and insurgents will target the oil plants in Iraq as well as plan attacks against other countries oil reserves as Osama told his followers to do. destroy the oil and the governments will fall and chaos comes and Al Qaeda conquers.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Okay you guys are insane. This war isn't even close. We took over a country and held it for two years with less than 2,000 dead. Terrorist attacks do nothing and are a sign of desperation.

Quick, what land do the terrorist hold? Nothing. They have no organized army and have never made an offensive attacks.

"Oh wait, but they can hide in the cities, eat there, attack the troops every so often, and come back."

You guys who say this no nothing whatsoever and are living in a dream world. Where is the money for bullets, food, housing, and medicine that is need for fighting? Outside of the money stolen from the Iraqi treasury, which will run out eventually, where are they going to get it? Iraqis, who are having trouble supporting themselves? They are probably robbing for food. This insurgency is not an army, only glorified criminals.

And no one sells a war. We went to war because we had to. To everyone who says this war wasn't neccessary, imagine what it would be like with Sadaam still in power. It would be worst with no hope of ever changing. We made more progress by taking Sadaam out than we ever would by leaving him in.

What would you rather do instead of taking Sadaam out? Keep giving aid to the dictators? Promote Western metrosexual life? Give speeches? Take tours?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   
We know 2000 soldiers dead is not much redwhiteandblood but to today's standards it's like vietnam... i don't support the war not because of mass deaths, not really mass death, there's more people die in car crashes in a weak than that lol. But because I don't want My family to pay our taxes so that corporations can gain.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
We went to war because we had to.



With who? Iraq, afghanistan or both?

Did you really have to go to war with iraq?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
Where is the money for bullets, food, housing, and medicine that is need for fighting? Outside of the money stolen from the Iraqi treasury, which will run out eventually, where are they going to get it?

Saudi Arabia is accused by the US to give a lot of financial support, but you know the Bush gtovernment, they'd rather keep Syria and Iran under pressure in the press than Bush's oil buddies the Saudis.



Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
And no one sells a war. We went to war because we had to. To everyone who says this war wasn't neccessary, imagine what it would be like with Sadaam still in power.

You didn't have to do anything, Iraq was not remotely a threat. It's also not like much has improved in Iraq. People are still dying in large numbers, if not in higher numbers than under Saddam.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Tim Russert said Iraq has only 3 properly trained, equipped and functioning battalions. They estimate 107 are needed for the Iraqi govt to secure the country. The way things are going, I'm sure we'll still have troops there in 5 probably 10 years.

Too early to tell if this is still winnable but the costs have been and will be enormous. I'm sure the price tag for Iraq will total a Trillion when all is said and done. I wonder if the Iraqi govt will remember this in 20 years when oil costs 200 dollars a barrel and their economy is going full steam ?



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
It will be at least another 10-15 years until Iraq will become a succesful democratic nation if the the U.S. stays and finishes the job it started. The problem I have is not with the american military, but with the american public, I believe 'Niall Ferguson' author of "Collosus: The Price of America's Empire" said it the best, the American public has ADD. It has been just over 2 years and the Americans are calling this a failure, back in 1947, Germany and Japan were worse off then Iraq is now. Japan economic miracle did not start until the 1950s. One has to look at the examples of Japan and Germany, what the U.S. did, they invested and stayed there until those countries became the modern examples of today's first world nations. The problem with Vietnam was that the Americans betrayed the south Vietnamese, the Americans left in '73, and it wasn't until '75 till North Vietnam took over, a great betrayal by the American public.

I want to talk more but I got to leave now, be back for more talk later.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
Okay you guys are insane. This war isn't even close. We took over a country and held it for two years with less than 2,000 dead. Terrorist attacks do nothing and are a sign of desperation.

Quick, what land do the terrorist hold? Nothing. They have no organized army and have never made an offensive attacks.

"Oh wait, but they can hide in the cities, eat there, attack the troops every so often, and come back."



Hrm... so war to you is like a game of Stratego? Little colored sections of maps really dictate who "holds" land? If we "hold" all the land, why can't we get electricity running in Baghdad after 2 years time? I suggest you read a book or two on modern guerilla warfare. I don't mean this in a condescending way, but you need to get past your truly dated concepts of war to understand what's going on today in Iraq. We "held" all of South Vietnam according to the maps, it didn't help much in the end.




You guys who say this no nothing whatsoever and are living in a dream world. Where is the money for bullets, food, housing, and medicine that is need for fighting? Outside of the money stolen from the Iraqi treasury, which will run out eventually, where are they going to get it? Iraqis, who are having trouble supporting themselves? They are probably robbing for food. This insurgency is not an army, only glorified criminals.



They will get money from where they are currently getting it, Saudi Arabia and other gulf arab states, our supposed allies.



And no one sells a war. We went to war because we had to. To everyone who says this war wasn't neccessary, imagine what it would be like with Sadaam still in power. It would be worst with no hope of ever changing. We made more progress by taking Sadaam out than we ever would by leaving him in.



Yes, imagine. Iraq would be a secular, militarily crippled country of no threat to the United States. Terrorists would be dealt with harshly by Saddams regime, instead of being able to use Iraq as a training and breeding ground.




What would you rather do instead of taking Sadaam out? Keep giving aid to the dictators? Promote Western metrosexual life? Give speeches? Take tours?


Lets see, maybe focusing our efforts on domestic security and the countries which are the acknowledged sources of terror, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

I think your view represents a fundamental flaw in much of the popular support for the war in Iraq. "We invaded Saddam because he was evil," well, he was evil, sure, but this has nothing to do with American security. Or, "we invaded Saddam because what else were we going to do?" Well, gee, lets just sit down and think about that one instead of blindly supporting the first war suggested by the White House.

-koji K.







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join