Iraq, the safest war we ever fought?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorCee
Sure it can. Also you used the words in the same sentence.
I find it particularly gratifying you prove the falsity of your
assertion in the very sentence that you assert it.

Yeah? It can? Well, I think you know what ment by that sentance. Wars are not EVER Safe. They can not be Safe, since Wars involve KILLING.

Is therefore Killing Safe?

First - Safe for Who?
Second - Safe by Which Standards?

I am sorry, but there is not such thing as a Safe War. That was my Point. And the problem is, that the War in Iraq is not Over. You have used Past Tense, as if the War is Over - when what I see is More killing, More Dying, I do not see the end of all hostillities. Do you? So, how can you use past tense?



No I did not mention that. My subject was the safety of the war.
Now that you mention it. Its expensive. Actually so is food and
shelter. Most of my budget goes for those items. Its an expense
I can handle, and it didn't slip my mind at all. I gladly pay this
expense just like I gladly pay for food and shelter, and to do
without this war that I like so much would be to me no smarter
than refusing to buy food and shelter. As a tax payer paying for
the war it does not bother me. I wonder why a non resident like
yourself is worried about American taxes.

Well, I am too a Resident of this Planet, and I live FAR Closer to Iraq then you or the rest of the American Taxpayers paying for this Fiasco. We are on the other hand, experiencing the CONSEQUENCES of this War. For example, Poison DU-dust covering all Europe. Or possible Terrorist Attack in Europe. Yes, we ALL are experiencig the Consequences, since our humble and small country has already sent soldiers to Iraq and will do more in the future! Awesome dude! I am so, SO Happy for that!



Take a look at our strategy and it is evident that civil war is
at the core of our strategy, and the key ingredient as to why this has
been one of the safest wars the US has ever fought.

Correction - if I am not mistaken, 150.000+ or More US Men and Women are still in Iraq, which means the war is still FIGHTING. If you mean by the "Safest War Ever Fought" the first few months, when US flyboys dropped a couple of ten thousand tons of DU on Iraq - yes, that was pretty much Safe. FOR US SOLDIERS!

But Today Iraq is NOT Safe...



The US strategy welcomes civil war. The US strategy has used
civil war from the start.

Yes Indeed it Does! I can't belive it - I agree with you Major!

Remember the Roman saying divide et impera?



The only way we can loose the war in Iraq is if the Jihadists
win.

Who are these "Jihadists"?

You mean the Big Bad Boogie Al-Qaeda?



Civil war is our friend.
Without civil war in Iraq, we probably would not have had a
chance at taking Al Qaeda out of the picture

Civil War is Your Friend?

Firstly, there is NO Al-Qaeda - I mean it is, but its Al-CIA-MI5-Mossad-eada.
Secondly, is Civil War a Friend of Iraqi People? Since this is all about the Freedom of Iraqi people isn't it? Or have I missunderstood something?



Civil war was an absolute requirement,
in order to give birth to Iraqis who were motivated to
oppose Al Qaeda.

What is Al-Qaeda?
You mean the Dude with a Bad Liver?
And the Dude without a Lag, that always misteriously escapes?



If your main strategy is splitting the
Muslims (civil war) does it not make good sense to
camoflage this,

Sure it does? I don't think the Muslim World wants to find that out.

That would sure be kind of Unpleasant.



That is it for today, but I will answer each one of these
talking points as time goes on, and thank you, Souljah, for
giving me the opportunity to restate my points. If you did
not understand them, others probably did not also.

Well, Thank You too Major!

It has been a Pleasure.





posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
You know its funny, I have posted links to the source and a thread that links additional sources of the ACTUAL numbers we are all contesting here, yet nobody is referring to them. It’s like you guys don’t even want to look because the real numbers don’t support your own opinion.

You guys know that more US servicemen died during Reagan terms than all of the Bush terms combined? And Reagan’s era was not a wartime era!!! But, it hardly matters when you guys simply don’t look.

Don’t forget that the death rate among similar aged males living a normal civilian life in the states is a little HIGHER than that of all the servicemen who have served in Iraq.

But I guess that’s moot as long as some of you choose to ignore the FACTUAL numbers.

Is walking down the street in Baghdad safer than Main St USA? No, not for a long shot. But it’s a mathematical FACT that the death rate among troops serving in Iraq is less than the same people living out of service in the states. And the overall death rate among soldiers today during a “War” is the same or less than the last 25 years, even during peacetime.

But you guys keep spewing your un-supported opinions while ignoring the FACTUAL DATA that I have provided in my previous reply.




[edit on 10-4-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
wow 37,000 civilians that would have been alive if we hadn't been there. Thats a shame that you look at it like that. Our government by their own admission made a mistake and you can just say its not our problem? So I guess when you or people like you say we went to bring them freedom you meant freedom from their earthly bonds. Now I get it.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
You know its funny, I have posted links to the source and a thread that links additional sources of the ACTUAL numbers we are all contesting here, yet nobody is referring to them. It’s like you guys don’t even want to look because the real numbers don’t support your own opinion.


Skippytjc
One fact and only one fact. We were not supposed to be there period. No numbers could support you or this entire screw-up of death, lies, profiteering and outright corruption. While you may have fallen for every single change-up thats come down the pipe the one fact remains that in no time were we ever under threat by the Iraqi government , nor was Al-queda there, nor was there any WMD. Nothing that you could post would possibly support any losses of our men and women fighting there or the innocent people dying there now.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I had planned on answering someone else's comments, but Souljah
really got my attention and I have to respond to his last post.
I promise though that next time I will get to someone else's
responses, but I really love when someone goes beserk and starts
bouncing off the walls instead of really engaging in the talking points.

Souljah, you had me absolutely rolling on the floors with your
last response.

I will give some of your comments here that had me particularly
entertained and I will give my reaction immediately after.



I am sorry, but there is not such thing as a Safe War. That was my Point.
And the problem is, that the War in Iraq is not Over. You have used Past
Tense, as if the War is Over - when what I see is More killing, More Dying,
I do not see the end of all hostillities. Do you? So, how can you use past
tense?

Maybe there were no safe wars until this one. This one has even
lower fatality rates than our peace time manuevers. In a way though
you are right. In this respect war is part of life, and there
are no safe lives, when you consider that nobody gets out of here
alive.



Well, I am too a Resident of this Planet, and I live FAR Closer to Iraq then
you or the rest of the American Taxpayers paying for this Fiasco. We are on
the other hand, experiencing the CONSEQUENCES of this War. For example,

So that is your problem, you just are too close to the action and it has
you scared.



Poison DU-dust covering all Europe. Or possible Terrorist Attack in Europe.
Yes, we ALL are experiencig the Consequences, since our humble and small
country has already sent soldiers to Iraq and will do more in the future!
Awesome dude! I am so, SO Happy for that!

You afraid of a little poison dust? Think how bad the jihadist must
have it if this dust has you searching the internet day and night
looking for something to save you. Go to the hardware store and
get a dust mask.



But Today Iraq is NOT Safe...

No its not. All those folks are in a world of hurt. But that
is their problem, theirs and yours with all that poison dust.



Remember the Roman saying divide et impera?

Yes I remember it. That is why the civil war is our friend.
We divided and are now conquering.



Who are these "Jihadists"?

They are recruits of Al Qaeda and other like minded individuals
that have decided to go to Iraq and kill Iraqis, because they
can't find Americans to kill.



Secondly, is Civil War a Friend of Iraqi People? Since this is all about the
Freedom of Iraqi people isn't it? Or have I missunderstood something?

Yep you misunderstood. I'm not an Iraqi. Civil war is a friend of
the US in this war. Its actually tough on the Iraqis. Of course
I already covered that, but you want to play some word games here
and act like you have some brillant point which you never succeed
in making.



What is Al-Qaeda?

Al Qaeda is a super secret organization made up of a Muslim sect that
believes they will go to heaven and get 46 virgins if they can succeed
in getting thousands of Iraqis to kill each other, get poison gas
sprinkled on Souljah until he finally shuts up, and their strategy
to accomplish this all started with crashing airliners into skyscrapers.
And yes, I believe the Al Qaeda leader, Larry, does have a bad
liver. He has some dangerous associates though, named Moe and Curly.
They hide out in Mountains in a remote part of the world with poor
toilet facilities, somewhere beyond view of spy satellites.



It has been a Pleasure.

Don't mention it, the pleasure is all mine. Remember I'm the one
who likes the civil war. You're the one breathing poison dust.


[edit on 10-4-2006 by MajorCee]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
I have already showed extensivly that fighting in Iraq is safer than going to the mall here:


This has got to be the most delusional statement I have seen in some time. Let me take you to Iraq and drop you in Sadr city for two weeks - you'd be whining for your mommy if you survived,



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorCee
Maybe there were no safe wars until this one. This one has even
lower fatality rates than our peace time manuevers. In a way though
you are right. In this respect war is part of life, and there
are no safe lives, when you consider that nobody gets out of here
alive.

WOW! So Noble! So Chivalrious! So Democratic! So Cool! Basicly you are jus Bragging how this Occupation of Iraq is "Safe" for You, American Soldiers - actually you don't give a rats ass for any Iraqi that died today, yesterday or will die tomorrow. And I thought this war was about Liberating the People of Iraq, bringing them a better tomorrow. Naaah! It's just another Wargame played by the Generals - and HEY! It's the Safest of them all! YaY!



So that is your problem, you just are too close to the action and it has
you scared.

Sorry Major - I was CLOSER to the Action before the Illegal Occupation of Iraq. Remembre a litttle thingy called Yugoslav Civil War? Well I was scared back then. Today I am just worried.



You afraid of a little poison dust? Think how bad the jihadist must
have it if this dust has you searching the internet day and night
looking for something to save you. Go to the hardware store and
get a dust mask.

Sadly for you the Poison dust can travell VERY far, and can go half way around the globe. Sadly for you, the poision dust can reach your MutterLand also. And I don't think a "Dust Mask" is going to help RADIOACTIVE dust not to get into your or my body.

Those Blasted Jihadists!



No its not. All those folks are in a world of hurt. But that
is their problem, theirs and yours with all that poison dust.

Wow - really? And it is NOT a problem of the US Armed Forces, which have "Liberated" Iraq? Or the Coalition of the Willies? I mean, what exactly IS then their Problem? Not to shoot too many civilans while hunting the Phantom Al-Qaeda?



Yes I remember it. That is why the civil war is our friend.
We divided and are now conquering.

You got that Right.
Just remember that saying when the # hits the fan in your MutterLand.



They are recruits of Al Qaeda and other like minded individuals
that have decided to go to Iraq and kill Iraqis, because they
can't find Americans to kill.

I am sure that there are Plenty of Americans to kill in Iraq. So, that really does not make any sense.



Yep you misunderstood. I'm not an Iraqi. Civil war is a friend of
the US in this war. Its actually tough on the Iraqis. Of course
I already covered that, but you want to play some word games here
and act like you have some brillant point which you never succeed
in making.

I am glad you showed your true colors. Tough on the Iraqis ey? Too bad this #ty situation in Iraq ey? Well soon you will find out, that Civil War in Iraq is actually a BIG non-Friend of US. And you will soon find out what the consequences of this Civil War are going to spark. The future is so Bright I have to wear shades already!



Al Qaeda is a super secret organization made up of a Muslim sect that
believes they will go to heaven and get 46 virgins if they can succeed
in getting thousands of Iraqis to kill each other, get poison gas
sprinkled on Souljah until he finally shuts up, and their strategy
to accomplish this all started with crashing airliners into skyscrapers.
And yes, I believe the Al Qaeda leader, Larry, does have a bad
liver. He has some dangerous associates though, named Moe and Curly.
They hide out in Mountains in a remote part of the world with poor
toilet facilities, somewhere beyond view of spy satellites.

Al-Qaeda:

Established by the CIA.

Trained by the CIA.

Founded by the CIA.

Add some Mossad Dust and MI6 sprinkles and you get what you see.



Don't mention it, the pleasure is all mine. Remember I'm the one
who likes the civil war. You're the one breathing poison dust.

Remember what you said very well.

Because those words are going to echo in your head one day very loud.

And I will be drinking some good Slovenian Beer and watching it on TV.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I was thinking of skippy's points about the statistics and
the links. Of course I had statistics in my stuff also
pointing out how the Iraq war was safer than a peace time
unit I was in.

Some more statistics to go along with the train of
thought of skippy's points.

The USA has 21,000 murders per year.
The USA has 29,000 suicides per year.
The USA has 43,000 killed in trafic accidents per year,
and this doesn't count the many that are permanently
injured and maimed. I know quite few personnaly that
have been confined to wheel chairs for life from
traffic accidents on top of very many that have died.

When you consider the death rate in Iraq being only
.55% per year, you have to wonder if these guys were
back in the states driving to the mall, after a few
beers, if possibly safety in Iraq is all that bad.

Here are some things that you people can say that like
to say this sort of thing. These following arguments
make as much sense as many put up here by the crowd
that insist we lose the war, and not fight, or that
we should have just given Al Qaeda whatever they wanted
after WTC.

There are no safe skyscrapers, over 3000 died in the
WTC disaster alone, stay out of skyscrapers.
There are no safe cities, people die in cities everyday.
There are no safe malls, people die in malls everyday.
There are no safe hospitals, people die in hospitials everyday.
There are no safe cars, people die in cars everyday.
There are no safe polio vacines, many people have died from polio vacines.
There is no safe Iraq, people have died there, leave Iraq today.
Detroit is not safe, leave today.
Earth is not safe, leave today.
Death is not safe, live forever.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Iraq won't go to Cairo to participate in a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in efforts to stabilize the country. Comments by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak questioned the loyalty of Shiites, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said.

In an interview shown on al Arabiya television, President Mubarak angered Iraqi leaders by saying Shiites in Iraq are more loyal to Iran than to their own country. He also said Iraq was on the brink of civil war.

Mubarak's remarks reflected concern among Arabs that Iran (Persians not Arabs) has too much influence in Iraq and that its Shiite Islamic theocracy could spill over onto into their mostly Sunni countries. Iraq is one of the few Arab countries with a Shiite majority like Iran.

Mubarak said. "Shiites are 65 percent of the Iraqis. Most of the Shiites are loyal to Iran, and not to the countries they are live in.

al-Jaafari said. "Every Shiite society has its unique characteristics. I am surprised this confusion would occur among intellectuals, especially a man with such stature as the president of the biggest Arab country. We take pride in our Iraqi identity. This means we respect the other identities."

Egyptian officials said the Wednesday meeting of Arab foreign ministers to discuss Iraq would go ahead despite the absence of Baghdad's foreign minister. Hundreds of Iraqis marched Tuesday in the Basra to protest Mubarak's remarks. "No to Mubarak, yes to al-Jaafari," the protesters chanted, carrying Iraqi flags and posters of the top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.”

"Mubarak is a U.S. agent," they shouted.

[edit on 4/11/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Souljah,

You ought to love the CIA for training your hero, Osama
Bin Laden. Actually though you got it wrong about the
CIA training him. Back in the days, that the CIA and
OBL were on the same side, OBL was with the Mujahadeen.

Pakistan did all the training for the Mujahadeen, at least
they did the direct training. In turn, the US had to
train the Pakistanis at times when they did not know
some particular weapon, but the US never did any direct
interaction with the Mujahadeen. That was all Pakistan's
territory. A book on this is "Afghanistan the Bear Trap".
It is written by the top Pakistani that carried out the
support effort for that war against the Russians. Between
this book and "Charlie Wilson's War" you get a very good
history of it, and from the Pakistani and American view.

The US did pay a large part of the bill for it though,
half actually.

You can find a very good account of how the US effort in
Afghanistan was handled by reading "Charlie Wilson's War".
I highly recommend the book, it being one of the few
that gives a really good account of a CIA program. These
programs are really hard to document because even very
few in the CIA know the particulars, everything being so
secret. As I said Pakistan was the middle man in this
operation that gave the US deniability. In that effort,
the sanctuary for guerrilla operations was the rough mountain
terrain and Pakistan. Guerrilla efforts were hidden and supplied
by Pakistan. The supplies actually came from the US and
Saudi Arabia. They shared the bill 50-50. The planning for most
of the operation was the brain child of Michael Vickers, a rather
junior member of the CIA who had a genius IQ and much background
as an Army Special Operations type before joining the CIA.
Michael laid out the whole plan, as to weapons, how many of
them, the training needed etc. and his boss Gust Avrakotos
carried out the plan through the help of some key congressmen
providing funding, Saudi Arabia with more funding and
Pakistan acting as the middle man that funneled all the support
and training to the Afghan guerrillas. The Russians knew Pakistan
was furnishing the sanctuary, just as the US knew North Vietnam
was furnishing it in Vietnam. The Russians wavered though
and would not take action against Pakistan, similarly to
the US not taking a decisive action in North Vietnam. The
fact that Jimmy Carter threatened to use nuclear weapons
if Russia went outside of Afghanistan probably was a good
part of the reason Russia never neutralized Pakistan.
The US participation was completely covert. It was kept
secret to the point that only a few of the Afghanistan
leaders had any idea that they were being equipped with
weapons and equipment carefully determined by Michael
Vickers back at the CIA. As to whether OBL knew or was
in contact with the US at the time, I can't say, but it has
not that much importance to the current effort in that OBL
now hates the US, Pakistan, and Saudi, even though
he was glad they helped against the Russians in Afghanistan.
The US definitely did not train him so that he could attack us
as some conspiracy idiots want people to believe. Are you
one of those conspiracy idiots? If not, why bring up this
old story of the CIA manufacturing OBL and Al Qaeda?
In the Russia/Afghan war the Russians won most battles,
usually dominating the fighting (at least early on)
To the Afghanis credit though, they would never give up and
finally the Russians decided it just wasn't worth it and
left. As the Russians marched out and left, the Afghanis
started immediately fighting each other, with the Taliban
finally controlling, at least in the south. One consequence
of this secrecy of the war was that many Muslims that fought
the war against Russia believed that they did it by themselves,
not even knowing that their plan and funding had come from
Michael Vickers, the CIA, and Saudi Arabia.

They believed that they had actually defeated the Russians,
with the help of God, of course, who was on their side and
militant Islam got a large boost to self esteem. This group
that believed they had with God's help defeated the Russians
became inspired to again regain the Muslim glory of the reborn
Islamic Caliphate. This effort eventually surfaced as Al Qaeda
who were now on a mission to establish this one jihadist
government over the entire Islamic world.

To do this, reconstitute the caliphate, they planned to project
the fiction of being independent of the Afghanistan government.
That way the government could not be blamed, and would
give them sanctuary and possibly Pakistan could also give them
help again. From this base of operations they would carry out
their mission. Today this group is known as Al Qaeda. Also today
they hate every one that supported them in Afghanistan
against the Russians. They attacked the USA. They are
now running attacks in Saudi. They have tried to assassinate
Musharaf in Pakistan, and they have on-going fights with
the Pakistani Military in the border area there. In
Iraq, Al Qaeda added the Shia, and good part of the Sunnis
(80% of Iraq) to their enemy list, and are trying their best
to do a divide and conquer strategy there by trying to
add fuel to the civil war. They are failing at this, but
the US is succeeding admirably in the same strategy. Do you
suppose God must be taking a nap, allowing this to happen?

With all the enemies OBL has created for Al Qaeda I suppose
he is pretty thankful for the occasional supporter like
Souljah that turns up.

To sum it up, Al Qaeda is now against the US, Saudi, Pakistan,
and at least 80% of Iraq. This megalomaniac must think he is
the smartest military tactician the world has seen. Apparently
so does Souljah, who spends hours a day in an incompetent
pyschological campaign to show how this idiot OBL is winning.

God and Souljah may have mercy on this guy, but I don't, I would
not mind looking at him over rifle sights one bit. Let's roll .



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

U.S. Death Toll in Iraq This Month Hits 35

Four more American soldiers were killed in Iraq, the U.S. military said as the U.S. death toll for the month surpassed the total for all of March. More than 40 Iraqis also died, including at least 22 in a car bombing near a Shiite mosque northeast of Baghdad.

Casualties among U.S. forces have risen in recent weeks. In March, 31 U.S. service members died in Iraq, the lowest monthly figure since February 2005, according to an Associated Press count. So far this month, the U.S. death toll stands at 35.

Iraq: Safe and Secure.

More?

Bomb kills 26 at Iraq mosque
Basra child mortality 'is rising'
Gunmen kill three Iraqi government workers
Cruel April in Iraq
Developments in Iraq on April 12



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Yes its a dangerous world.

The USA has 21,000 murders per year.
The USA has 29,000 suicides per year.
The USA has 43,000 killed in trafic accidents per year,

As pointed out in the last post, killing in Iraq is
rampant also, bombs killing 26 in a mosque, child
mortality rate rising, gunmen killing Iraqi government
workers. Look at the bright side, at least all us military
guys have job security with these happpenings. We don't even
need a union.


[edit on 14-4-2006 by MajorCee]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorCee
Yes its a dangerous world.

The USA has 21,000 murders per year.
The USA has 29,000 suicides per year.
The USA has 43,000 killed in trafic accidents per year,

As pointed out in the last post, killing in Iraq is
rampant also, bombs killing 26 in a mosque, child
mortality rate rising, gunmen killing Iraqi government
workers. Look at the bright side, at least all us military
guys have job security with these happpenings. We don't even
need a union.


[edit on 14-4-2006 by MajorCee]



My god the spin, THE SPIN! Make it stop!!

21,000/300,000,000 = .00007% of the population gets murdered each year.
29,000/300,000,000 = .000096% of the population kills itself each year.
43,000/300,000,000 = .000143% die is traffic accidemnts each year.

96,000/300,000,000 = .00031% Of the USA population dies each year due to the reasons you post above, based on your numbers vs. the population.

Based on your numbers, about 3 people in 10,000 will die an unnatural death this year in the USA, or about 93,000 people.

Now, without thinking too hard its not so hard to believe that of that 93,000 people 20-40% of them are males aged between 18-45 years old.

Lets see: 93,000 X 20% = 18,600.

Im sorry, how many US soldiers have died in Iraq so far? 2,500?


Match, set, point.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
And lets also remember that among those 2500 killed in Iraq these were done
over 3 years. This works out to be about 800 per year.

Lets see, 800/130000 = death rate of 0.0062

When you figure this is the best that 400,000 of the Iraqi army, plus the many
inported jihadists, and the Sunni resistance, I guess you would have to
say the enemy is not too competent. They actually succeed in killing many
times that in Iraqis. Safe war, you bet, for Americans. THe Iraqis though
have a much different opinion. Thats understandable, but then it is mainly
them fighting each other, so they only have themselves to blame.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Yes Iraq is so safe take your children to visit. Nothing like a bean counter to prove the numbers,



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7
Yes Iraq is so safe take your children to visit. Nothing like a bean counter to prove the numbers,

Hold on - if Major says Iraq is the Safest war "He" Fought, then it is!

Altho the problem arises, when you find out that Iraq War is far from over.

And that more people have died since it was "Mission Accomplished".

IN ANY CASE - it is still the Safest.

Let's go in Baghdad for Hollidays.

Since it is The SAFEST City in the entire World!

YeeeHaaaw!



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
One of the first things I do each day is to check
intel reports coming from Iraq and Afghanistan
for casualties. I believe that over time this
tells a very large story as to how the war is
progressing. One thing that has become apparent
is the very large casualty count from attacks
on mosques. It is amazing to me, that this is
happening, even increasing, with time.

If you look at the basic strategy of Al Qaeda
you see a foundation of what they should be
building upon as the war progresses. Their
basic strategy included:
(1) A most basic premise of Al Qaeda is that
God is on their side, and that they are doing
God's will.
(2) A most basic strategy is that Al Qaeda wants
to unite the Islamic world against the Jews and
Christain west. This was key to their attacking
the west (WTC). Their plan envisioned that the
US would counter attack into the Muslim world,
and that this Christain presence would unite
the entire Islamic world to come to the aid of
getting the "crusaders" out. They envisioned
taking the reins of Islamic power and leading
the Islamic world from one central source of
power to do this.

What the attacks in Iraq show is that, far from
uniting the Islamic world, Al Qaeda has only
succeeded in turning the factions in the Islamic
world against each other with great hatred and
ferocity. The attacks on opposing mosques is a
very telling factor. Three mosque attacks reported
within the past couple weeks were these three against
Sunni mosques. This complete backfiring of an
original key point of your strategy has got to be
very bad for Al Qaeda chances of success. The odds
that Al Qaeda will make its point in Iraq is zero.

3/24/2006
1229 GMT -- IRAQ -- A bomb at the Sunni Saad bin Abiwakkas Mosque
in the Iraqi town of Khalis.

4/14/2006
1144 GMT -- IRAQ -- At least two bombs detonated at two Sunni mosques in the
central Iraqi city of Baqubah on April 14.

Early in the war mosque attacks were done against Shia
mosques in revenge against Shia cooperation with the new
Iraq government. There have been very many of these with
very large casualties for some time. This has led to
revenge in the form of attacks against Sunni mosques.

This growing casualty count of Muslims gathered to
worship God is very hard to reconcile with the notion
that God is on their side. It is difficult to argue
that they are doing God's will when so many are killed
and injured when congregating in his name.

As far as Muslim unity to expell the US goes, you
have wonder when it is going to occur to Al Qaeda
that "Muslim unity" is actually a contradiction in
terms. Well over 95% of the casualties are Muslim.
There is a lot of collateral damage, but its just about
all Iraqi induced. When the Jihadists bomb police and
army they often kill many innocents. On top of that
they actively target the completely innocent,
as has been shown in the recent mosque bombings.
With an enemy this incompetent to pursue a basic
goal of "unity of Muslims" you have to question
the validity of their original plan, or even if they
remember that they had a plan.

With an enemy so incompetent to carry out operations
that will be compatible with their original strategy,
it is no wonder why this war is so safe for Americans.


[edit on 16-4-2006 by MajorCee]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
"Safe," is far from accurate. You cannot compare WWI, WWII, Korea or Vietnam to Iraq as technologically the theater is paradigms apart when talking mass troop assault - there is really no comparison with our current air power. Safe, no, less dead and wounded, yes.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   
To bad its not a war, its an occupation buddy. Some people will never learn. Some times it serves us ($$$) military folk not to think and to just go with the flow. Its alright, Ive been there and its a bitc-. You are damned if you comply and if you dont, you might get a dishonerable discharge and no paycheck.

[edit on 18-4-2006 by pcxmac]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   
The statistical debate has been interesting. But can the Major, from his Olympian height, reveal to us WHY the US is in Iraq in the first place?

It's not because of the WMD.

It's not because of Al-Qaeda.

It's clearly not to 'liberate' the Iraqis - the Major has already said that Bush's strategy is for civil war, and the Major himself is evidently (and inhumanly, IMO) indifferent to Iraqi civilian casualties. On the other hand, any expressed indifference to the casualties of 9/11 would give rise to some pretty nasty posts. A double standard here?

So what reason would the Major give, and can he tell us why Bush kept shifting ground - WMD, 9/11, 'liberation'...? I mean, I know the war is supposed to be 'safe' (though I suspect troops on the ground would have a different perception) but it has to have a point, surely?

It's evident to those not blinded by the myth of US benevolence that the real reasons for this war are driven by the need to control the oil (although, it seems, the Iraqis are doing a reasonable job of making the oil difficult and indeed dangerous to extract) and acquire permanent bases from which to control the rest of the region.

I particularly liked the idea, btw, that the expenses of this war are mainly to do with food and shelter (and, heaven knows, Cheney's Halliburton chums have been caught with their hands in the till on this one). It didn't have me rolling around on the floor, but it did bring a wry smile.

The reported construction costs of the US embassy in Baghdad, which will be its own Green Zone, are set to top a BILLION dollars. Now I know the USD is an inflation-prone currency, plus, there will almost certainly be some carefully concealed costs in there... but over a billion for shelter alone, without even taking into account the four to six permanent bases in the deep desert?

That seems VERY expensive to me.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join