It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


U.S. troops force Iraqis out of Ramadi

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by xmotex

The only situation in which the US can loose in Iraq is if the US leave prematurely.

Nonsense. In any sense that matters, it's already a loss.

Its only a loss if the US leaves, the enemy can not physically defeat the US in the Field, and it doesn't seem to be able to prevent a government from forming.

We're approaching a time frame equivalent of US involvement in WW2 here (if fortunately nowhere near the bodycount), with exactly nothing whatsoever to show for it.

Thats just inaccurate. It took all of world war two to destroy the nazi government, the occupation only began after that. THe US defeated the iraqi government and army within weeks, and the occupation has been going on for a while. The US is clearly far in advance of its standing in WWII. The baathists have been defeated, saddam is on trial, a unity government is established, and the resistance can't move the US Army.

If there had been stiff resistance in the occupation of germany, should the US have left? There were plans for it, there were brigades of "werewolves", citizens by day, insurgents carryingout guerilla warfare and nazi terror by night. It didn't happen, in part, because so much of germany had been destroyed, and because the germans were put into re-education centers.

We barely touched Iraq in defeating the army and comming to occupy it, and there was no country-wide re-education campaing. Heck, the US didn't even round up and put the Iraqis into detention camps, like they did with the germans.

So of course the resistance in iraq is stronger than in germany. But what you are saying is like saying we shouldn't've bombed german artillery batteries and factories, because the germans would'nt've been happy about it. It was never about making them happy with us, it was about destroying their regime and replacing it with a more favourable one.

So, even if it plainly isn't worth it, we should pretend it is? Why?

The problem with this idea is that it is worth it, and nothing has changed between before and after the war.

Which is going to happen exactly never, if the jihadis can count on more support than the government.

Which is why you round up and kill everyone that opposes the government and engages in armed resistance, while feeding a core of natives with supplies and training to enable them to do the same once you leave.

The jihadis can only win if the US leaves AND the iraqi government gets defeated in the field by them. All the US has to do to win is make it so that the Iraqi governmnet can use its army to respond to, not even eliminate, the jihadis.

Of course, as is any datum that threatens your false certainty.

You've failed to explain why it isn't irrelevant. As you haven't explained why the US is 'loosing' in Iraq. The goals of the war are simple. Create a government in iraq that won't fall to militias and zealots and that can maintain a minimum of control in that country. To pretend that this is immpossible is ridiculous. To state that because there is resistance that the entire effort has failed is inaccurate.

Each day the central military grows stronger, the government gets more unified, and the zealots within it are pushed to the fringe. Its flat out wrong to say that because the Iraqis don't love the US that the US has failed. There's a lot of political talk about winning 'hearts and minds', but thats all just part of the propaganda, its entirely irrelevant if the Iraqis hate or love us. There just has to be a somewhat democratic regime in there that is strong enough to not be over-run by the militias and the US has done what it needs to.


posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 01:50 AM

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by jajabinks
America deserves a nuclear bomb attack on one of it's cities..they think it's ok to go on the other side of the world and destroy cities and musrder thousands and rape their natural resouces..I think it's OK to go ahead and nuke an American city, it would kill about 100,000 , the US hava murdered more that 200,000 in Iraq already.

I think you deserve to have a nuclear bomb dropped on you....or perhaps planes flown into buildings that kills your friends and family.

spin it anyway you like, they ( radical islam) started this war....and we are going to finish it.

perhaps the 200k deaths will chastise them a bit eh?

they started this...not us...they started it by 9/11. Now all their people will suffer...if only they took that extra initiative to make sure some idiot like OBL didnt sit in a cave and want to play soldier boy huh?

no terrorist with half a brain would dare attempt a nuclear attack on US think what is happening is bad now? wait until that happened....the middle east would be a glass bowl.

when did iraqi people start 9/11?? america will get what they deserve

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:34 AM
when did iraqi people start 9/11?? america will get what they deserve

I think he was talking about the war against terrorism.
And what does America deserve in your eyes? To be destroyed?

Putting aside it's political ways. If America was destroyed, who would feed the hungry around the world, who would send billions in aids relief to Africa. Where would the charities come from to help tsunami victims. Where? The middle east countries. The middle east is a cesspool and can't even take care of their own.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by steve99]

<< 1   >>

log in