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.

 

Insurgents offer US 30 day truce to get out of iraq

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
now that i think about it more deeply is is a risky senario to take the deal. next thing you know it the insurgents declare victory and re arm because we left. the hamas did that with the gaza cease fire but nobody won there.




posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Has anybody else read Red Storm Rising? Remember the end, when General Alekseyev promises the NATO commander that he can have Soviet forces back to their own borders in 1 month, and SACEUR replies, "I can accomplish that without a cease fire".

That's basically how I view this ceasefire offer. When the US government gets its head out of its nethers, we can be out of Iraq any time we want with very few casualties. It's not going to look like the fall of Saigon- there is no substantial conventional force on the other side to rush in on the rear guard of the retreat or anything like that. You people who say "it's a good deal" don't know the first thing about the tactical situation in Iraq. If America decides to leave (which it will once the will of the American people is recognized by our government) we have the ability to not leave a single thing of value to the insurgents.

The request that we leave our weapons does bring up an interesting point though. The insurgency is not monolithic. Don't forget what the Afghans did when the Soviets left.
Whoever commands the best weapons when we leave is probably going to end up controlling Iraq.
The conventional wisdom is that the Shiites have Iran and control access to the Gulf, and thus will kick some serious Sunni butt, and Iran will essentially decide which militia ends up in control.
But it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.

Right now, the Neocons are probably secretly wishing that they could send Saddam back in to punish the Shiites and keep Iran at bay. To be honest, I, being the hard-hearted geopolitics obsessed jerk that I am, can't help thinking that the best case scenario at this point is to go for the balance of power option- give up on the democratic ideal for Iraq, start getting ready to pull out, and work at a break-neck pace to stack the deck in such a way that the country either falls back into Sunni hands or so that rule over the whole cannot be consolidated by any side.

It's worth watching- we'll throw 5 more brigades at Baghdad and things will get worse rather than better, and faced with the reality that we're not going to win, I believe that the Bush administration will create arm the hell out of a paper-tiger government, get them their own artillery and helicopters, and allocate it in such a way that when everything falls apart it is most likely to fall into Sunni and Kurdish hands. That way when we leave and the Shiites begin making their moves, the Sunnis will just about burn the country to the ground trying to hold on to Baghdad, the Kurds will make a play for autonomy- worst case scenario, Iran directly intervenes, giving us the excuse we need to salt the earth before we leave with an air campaign. Best case scenario- Turkey intervenes and annexes the North, thus stabilizing half of the Iraqi oil supply and perhaps creating a lifeline for Sunni guerillas to keep up the fight for the central area of the country.

Things in Iraq could get REALLY ugly in any number of interesting ways when we leave, depending on just how we do it. I don't blame the militias for wishing we'd leave our hardware and bases for them, but they must be on the pipe if they think it's gonna happen.


kix

posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
When the invasion started some YEARS ago I was completelly against it, I recieved tons of flames, coward, non patriotic, terrorist supporter, anti american...I kept saying a civil war would ensue and then a religious war.... I even endured the freedom fries fiascos and mocking of my ideas on the subjetc...

Well 3 years later 80 billion spent, over 2000 soldiers dead, 15000 wounded, thousands or Iraqui civiliand slaughtered and counting... I have grown cynical and black humored so...

In my opinion I hope the USA will never pulls out (it keeps gas prices on check)
I hope a ton of people dies (we are way too much overpopulated)
I hope the US deficit keeps growing, and go bankrupt, the Us citizens deserve it for keeping a certified idiot on the white house.
I hope your children learn from history and thsi debacle, becaause is clear thos generation has not learned anything....

I wonder what would Saddam do.....????


[edit on 23-12-2006 by kix]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Here is what I would do:
1: Negotiate over the "terms" of leaving in 30 days. I will not leave heavy equipment behind but pull it ALL back to VERY specific spots and take it out as fast as possible over a course of days, weeks, or months. The navy is already in the Gulf so getting it out is no big deal.
2: Tell the "resistance leader" to back off and leave us alone while we do this or face all out barrages. Of course there will be a few idiots who try and break truce on both sides, make sure both sides annihilate them and do this TOGETHER to show support.
3: Full withdrawl of troops to designated evacuation locations.
4: Get the other resistance leaders on one table and get them to all agree on something to at LEAST keep them off our backs for a while. The more they work together the less likely they will start to fight each other if at all.
5: Regroup the military somewhere safe.
6: Never go back again without just cause not the Fox news type cause or bu#e cause.

Reasons for above:
1: NOT negotiating will only cause more combat, negotiating will allow us to gather round forces and to fall back without chance of losses being high. Swallow your pride, this is a chance of a lifetime to save lives in one area, take it.
2: Getting them to agree to such terms will mean that should they fire we are backed up LEGALY, THEY broke the truce or if we break it (or they) we BOTH take out the one who tried to stir up more conflict. Doing this will prove to the Iraqis, as well as all Arabs and peoples of the world we are willing to negotiate and will take the chance to bring at least SOME peace. After all that is the current goal right? Not bomb them to hell... Yeah right...
3: No point in staying in areas that are ABSOLUTELY unsecure.
4: Once again we prove we are willing to work with others, back ourselves up LEGALY here so we will have a good aliby should anyone try anything.
5: Save lives, go somewhere that is actually safe, secure an area and hold it while the heavy equipment is pulled back.
6: Never had just cause in the first place, so why bother staying? Do not give the usual responce of "oh we are too deep" BS! You hauled (self bleeped) out of Vietnam when you were getting butchered so suck it up! The death is only going to increase no matter WHAT you do right now! SO GET OUT AND GO BACK WHEN THINGS HAVE CALMED DOWN ONLY SEND IN AID NOT MILITARY ASSETS! The bu#e military LOST, no point in staying and fighting a battle you CANNOT win.

This is from a Roman Proverb, they were smarter than the generals of today:
"A general who knows when he can and when he cannot win a battle is a wise one."
Thus if you CANNOT win DO NOT FIGHT!
"Knowing when you can attack and your enemy cannot, this is half the battle, knowing when you enemy can attack and when you cannot, this is half the battle."
-Sun Tzu (said: Shan You)

Swallow your pride, get out, this will only get worse and nothing can be done militarily, let the militias and factions sort things out. Pride will get you killed in war.

I am not saying never have anything to do with Iraq ever again though. We did screw things up BAD! Only we cannot help them now, leaving them now will be a blessing in an ironic sense. Let nature take its course for now, should factions want to kill each other, so be it. They will kill each other ANYWAY after you are defeated. It might take 20 years but they will NEVER stop, the military has proven time and again it is not there to help them, and that it is their enemy not their friend. After about 10 years go back in and do nothing but air drops of food, sanitation equipment, medical supplies, and other necessities. Drop the medical supplies on top of or next to the few hospitals left, and then drop school supplies near schools. This will show you do not have the intention of killing them but of helping them. Yes they will NOT trust you at first and only think this is a ploy, but after a few years of this they will believe you. Once you have their trust, give the following:
1: They send out a dedicated military presence to protect MASH units built to help their people on a more technical scale since they are lacking of such facilites.
2: If they cannot send forth enough people, both send forth equal numbers, if they cannot do even this, then you will have a full presence in X area and will maintain it, FIRE WHEN FIRED UPON! NOT WHEN YOU WANT TOO!
There 2 simple things to do. This is only a start and a rough draft, modify this as circumstances change and expand upon it and over time you will regain respect. The alternative is outright war for the next 20 to a thousand years and death and destruction untill every last living person is dead on the "enemy" side.
NOW IS NOT A TIME FOR PRIDE!
Which would you prefer?



Edit: Added a comment to Deadbang
Those are the tactics that lost you Vietnam remember? Overwhelming forces in "strong enemy presence areas." You are NOT fighting an ARMY, you are fighting MILITIA and GUIRILLA FIGHTERS! They do NOT take on superior numbers unless they ABSOLUTELY CAN WIN. Your offencive would fight whom? Ghosts? They are not that stupid...

[edit on 23-12-2006 by Vekar]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I really hope Bush listens to his generals and seriously beefs up the forces.

If anything I think we have proven that the Rumsfeld doctrine is not really the way to win a war...as a tool to take key objectives...it has some merit.

To win a war, you fight it in the Schwarzkopf doctrine.. you assemble overwhelming forces, through either your own or a coalition...and hit them HARD on all fronts...and then don't let up until they surrender.

SS...you really should read up on insurrgencies and how they fair in modren warfare...I honestly don't beleive that the insurrgents in Iraq can post the numbers it would take to defeat a modern military. Let's use Vietnam since you are so fond of using that as an example...I believe the killed in action numbers were something like over 1 million to 58,000...can you honestly say that at the rate we are going in our losses (U.S.) somewhere around 3000, that the insurrgents currently or potentially could come up with enough fighters for a long all out slog...

I don't...you can boast and say they can...but in all honesty what we have here is a classic war of attrition, and frankly Irag's insurrgency cannot put up the numbers it would take to secure victory.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadbang
I really hope Bush listens to his generals and seriously beefs up the forces.

If anything I think we have proven that the Rumsfeld doctrine is not really the way to win a war...as a tool to take key objectives...it has some merit.

To win a war, you fight it in the Schwarzkopf doctrine.. you assemble overwhelming forces, through either your own or a coalition...and hit them HARD on all fronts...and then don't let up until they surrender.

SS...you really should read up on insurrgencies and how they fair in modren warfare...I honestly don't beleive that the insurrgents in Iraq can post the numbers it would take to defeat a modern military. Let's use Vietnam since you are so fond of using that as an example...I believe the killed in action numbers were something like over 1 million to 58,000...can you honestly say that at the rate we are going in our losses (U.S.) somewhere around 3000, that the insurrgents currently or potentially could come up with enough fighters for a long all out slog...

I don't...you can boast and say they can...but in all honesty what we have here is a classic war of attrition, and frankly Irag's insurrgency cannot put up the numbers it would take to secure victory.

Wait.. me SS or Syrian Sister SS, because I said the exact same thing as you, the insurgents could never win a war of attrition.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Obviously the US wont take the offer,
And im sure the insurgents knew this..

I mean, it is a good offer.
Its a fair offer

You have gone in, raped and pilleged, murdered and maimed and destroyed this country.. now they are giving you the opportunity to leave without being attacked.

Of course this is nothing more than a major slap in the face for the US administration.

'' are you really going to let these 'rag-tag' militar humiliate you like this? "

Pa-The-TIC!

Xphiles, im glad your so gun ho about this.. so available to rddicule anyone against the USA on this.

just makes it all the more sweeter when your countyr comes CRASHING down, and small minded sheep such as yourself are left wondering how the hell was I duped soo badly.

You have no winnabel solution to this illegial war your started.
Defeat is your ONLY way out, and the longer you refus to achnowledg the truth in that country, the larger that 'stupid' label seems to be on your forehead.


GW couldnt find his way out of a boardroom after giving his speech, what chance does he have getting his army out of a country.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   
You cant defeat an insurgency by a war of attrition for the simple reason unlike a conventional army in many cases an insurgency can tap into an almost bottomless pit of man power. Insurgency's mostly require idealogical training rather then physical training.

Unless you win the hearts and minds of the local population you could have a 10 - 1 casualty rate in your favor and you would still lose the war.


It also helps if you attempted to cut or at the very least put some kind of pressure on the insurgents supply lines.

[edit on 24-12-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
This post got kind of long so I'm inserting the readers digest version at the top: Surrendering to insurgents will accomplish nothing. Who we need to be "surrendering" to, if not actually calling it that, is the Iraqi government and the UN. The Iraqi government needs to be the one deciding who is a threat to its stability and needs to be attacked, and they need the full backing of the US and the international community to any extent that the US can entice their support to begin carrying that burden without US troops as we announce a withdrawl date and begin preparing to meet it.


Although I agree with the general sentiment that the war was ill advised, cannot be "won" (in the sense of imposing a lasting order) without resorting to even more severe measures than Saddam ever used (afterall, we could destroy their water infrastructure, put an RFID in every Iraqi, and render them dependent upon us for the ability to survive, but the effect would be genocidal in scale), and that we need to get out of it.

That being said, the idea that we need to negotiate simply doesn't make sense.

1. It won't save face. Our government behaved in an irresponsible, dishonest, often incompetent fashion, disregarded opportunities to pursue legitimate ends over crooked ones, and in so doing added thousands of unnecessary deaths and years of instability to what could have been a comparatively quick and low-intensity transition.
Hallmark doesn't make any cards that say "please forgive me for 4 years of death and destruction in the name of profit". They don't make them because nobody would accept them. It's a little late to show the Iraqis our good side.

2. It's also worth recognizing that just because we were wrong doesn't make everyone on the otherside good. Iraq is caught in a power struggle between the US and Iran and is the victim of both sides. We owe it to the Iraqi people to give them a true democratic choice in whether or not they wish to fight the radical influences, and we do that by getting our war out of their country and preserving a willingness to aid them on terms of their own choosing if they request it.
Negotiating with the other side does nothing for the Iraqi people. If anything, it does to them what we did to the Czechs at Munich. WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE IRAQ'S FUTURE. This would be essentially the same as what I said the Neocons may do to Iraq in my last post, except we'd be handing it over to people we didn't want support.

3. There is not tactical advantage to retreating under the protection of a cease fire. The insurgency lacks the power to bring the fight to us conventionally- the casualties incurred in a retreat would probably not break any records. The possibility of a couple of dozen casualties does not justify any concessions that might be expected- especially considering point 2- that most of those concessions would be to the detriment of Iraq's self-determination, as they would involve turning over strategic positions or weaponry to a force which has no legitimate claim to representation of the Iraqi people.


Here's what America needs to do, idealistically speaking, and although I realize this is breakneck pace, it needs to get done in 2007:

#1, Give the Iraqi government veto power over offensive US operations in their country, request the imbedding of non-combatant observers Security Council Member's militaries in American units to ensure against human rights abuses, and pass a law that temporarily makes US servicemembers in Iraq subject to the ICC for any charge of rape, and which also requires the department of Justice to vet any murder charge, and turn the accused over to the ICC only if it is found that there was a premeditated murder not in any way connected to legitimate combat operations. This is a bare bones compromise between US sovereignty concerns and demonstrating a substantive respect for human rights.

#2, Announce a date for unilateral withdrawl. Everyone says this will make the terrorists just lay low and wait for us to leave- that's the idea! First, we want to make everyone stop fighting over our presence, then it will be possible for the Iraqi people to discern who is trying to get us out and who is trying to rule them, and their government can make a legitimate decision on requesting international assistance.

#3, Extend to Iraq a promise of funds that they can use to contract out extra police services, and promise them the full weight of US diplomatic support in any bid for UN assistance they might make.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   
"and leave their heavy weaponry behind"
No offense but that statement is quite hillarious, that's like telling your enermy in war to lend them some weapons...



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   
the whole 'leave the heavy weapons' issue is straight out of the crusades and is designed to humiliate. They are hoping for a Vietnam / Dunkirk situation which is highly improbable unless they have something up their sleeves.

Now people on here saying the coalition have been building infrastructure have really got it wrong. Like Afghanistan its one of the major factors why the hearts and minds war has been lost. I would advise reading Life in the Emerald City the new book about Iraq and the Green Zone.

The guy brought into rebuild the stock exchange - his only major job before that? Driving an ice cream van! Yes that's right. There's been no attempt to put specialists in place to setup infrastructure. Only corporate bid winners like Halli-B and contractors who vote republican. And guess what? You end up with a corrupt mess and where has all the money gone?

Without overcooking the crusades metaphors, it's really very similar (oil aside for a moment) People and organisations sign up on one level and then it's like the wild west in reality with almost nobody actually setting out to achieve their stated goals but in fact working on a baser level.

If the new Sec of Def can't tell the diff. between shia and sunni what chance of an accurate analysis?



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
2stepsfromtop


a chihuahua taking on a tank


Looks like that brave chihuahua has brought you to your knees. there are iraqi boys out there taking on your tanks with rocks.

Pieman.


Not sure if people remember since this was a while ago but it was a video of a bunch of security guys (Not arabs) driving around in Iraq just randomly shooting cars driving on the road and shooting at people walking on streets.


Yep i've still got that video on my computer, i even remember the background music they used while they where murdering innocent bistanders, some kind of weird redneck country hick song. And by security guys you mean mercinaries
.


CuriousSkeptic.


I don't know, my fear with that is that if we leave Iraq without any kind of a solution or resolution then what would stop the Muslim problem from coming here to the States


The resistance themselves have said, they've got nothing to do with 9/11 and nothing to do with alqaeda, so you can take your squable outside iraq thanks, you created them tobegin with.

Anyway, under the geneva conventions, since you have declared war on iraq it is totally acceptable for iraq to retaliate and attack military targets inside the US, that little detail your government forgets to tell you when it invades countries right?

If you want to feel safer, i suggest you pressure your emperor bush to end the war, and accept the defeat of your fledgeling capitalist empire.

grimreaper797

I know your upset about your lost taxes and i'm sorry about that, but that's not the fault of the iraqi resistance, that's bush's fault, it's up to you to stop them from rebuilding the military machine and from spending all your money on killing machines, and start rebuilding New Orleans. It's up to YOU, that's your job man, and the whole world is counting on you.

If you think your upset over the money you've spent, think of how upset the Iraqies are, your nation ruined their infustructure and continues to level their cities to the ground. Not to mention of the hundreds of thousands of the cost in lives.

also thanks for recognising how awful some of the racists posts are around here. But i doubt the mods will do anything about it, since the rules seem to only apply to one side of the arguement around here.

ShatteredSkies and Deadbang.


obviously they're weakened because they would even consider a truce in the first place


Not a truce, your the one who called it a truce, it's the condition of your surrender, which may not have been agreed to by all groups would've agreed with by the way, rashedeen said before they'd fight you till the last man is out of iraq, "only then will they say the soil is liberated". You try to do a nice thing and that's the kind of language you get. Tisk.
That's why its a once in a lifetime offer.

and deadbang, you expect us to belive your numbers are accurate, and i do like to use vietnamn as an example since you lied about your cassualties then to.
The resistance will win the war of attrition, it is the inevitable. There is nothing that you can do now to turn the tide of the war. Can't you see already, Iraqies won't have you there.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
First of all the insurgency is the Iraqi people and as long as is an Iraqi in Iraq they will stay strong, so is illusions to think that the Insurgency is dying .

Second Bush will not listen to nobody he takes all the independent reports about Iraq that has been provided to him that tells the Realities of the situation in that nation against our troops and wipe his rear end with it.

He doesn’t need committees or Generals or advisors he needs A Psychotherapist to remove the blind fog of victory from his brain .

He keeps telling himself that is progress in Iraq .

Third now that US has pushed the UN to impose sanctions on Iran, with obvious no results but more defiance and making Russian and China split between US and Iran they are the ones to lose with this sanctions. . .

I imagine that the truce comes as a reminder of how precarious the situation in Iraq will become If US decides to declare war against Iran or attack Iran.

The opposition knows that but it seems that Mr. Bush can not get in his brain that another conflict in the middle east will only make the middle east stronger against the US invasion of the area.

This no about wining this is about common sense and to give off Bush Crusade of democracy campaign that is only going to take more lives in the Middle East and more lives out of our troops.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
It is more of an illusion to think the Insurgency is Iraq. Last time I checked Iraq was made up of 3 different people, the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. Not everyone in Iraq is a fundamentalist, I don't know for sure, I haven't been there(then again, how many people on this board have and can truly comment?), but would it be fair to say that not all Iraqis want the American occupancy out? How do we know the insurgency is good for the Iraqi people? I think it's not.

In 1992, President George H. Bush sent in 20,000 Marines to Somalia to control the Warlords who were holding the country through Famine. 300,000 civilians die due to this. Those Warlords are no better than the insurgents. The insurgents keep in mind are most likely Radical Fanatics who have their own intentions in mind and most probably could care less for the very country they're "fighting for". Would it also be fair to say that there are people in Iraq(Iraqi People) who want a safe, secure nation to raise their families? Agreed, neither the Insurgents or the Americans are providing that safe and secure nation, only the Iraqi government can do that, but if the Insurgency does win the country; then they'll be with chaos, why? Because the insurgency is against the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi Government will most likely have to fight the insurgency after the US has left. It wouldn't be right to dump that responsibility on the Iraqis, the US started it, the US has to finish it, and not on the terms of the insurgency.

"All That is Necessary for the Triumph of Evil, is for Good Men to do Nothing." Where's there's support, there's hope. Stay the course.

And Syrian, the insurgents are in no place to demand an unconditioned surrender. They are not a state, they are a group of people, not a nation, not a form of government. They are not in the right state to demand a surrender from a conventional force. They'll have to put up with it. It is a truce, a cease fire that will most likely never take place and will most probably have almost no repraucussions if denied... Do you know what a War of Attrition IS? I'll tell you what, it's something the Vietnamese couldn't win, nor could the Insurgents, but this isn't a war of Attrition. It's a guerilla war, with guerilla tactics fought by guerillas and a conventional force. It would be more accurate to say that the Guerillas will eventually win THEIR current war. For them, war is life and they'll just start another one as soon as we leave.

I'm beginning to be under the impression that some people think that as soon as the big bad Americans leave, everything will be hunkey-dorey fine and the fields will be flushed with green grass and flowers and all the little critters will come out and play. It's not going to happen like that, when has it ever played like that in these situations?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Nothing has been shattered here

Is not about wining is not about victories is about destabilization of a rich oil area that is in the hands of undesirable factions.

And is not over . . . is not about the Iraqi people and neither the Iranian is about creating chaos and to keep the profiteers of war coffers fat and the oil away from unfriendly hands . . . as long as they stay fighting nobody can claim the land and nobody can expliot the oil.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
^

Right, and i'm the naive one, did Fox news tell you this stuff? You think that the shia actually want you there? You think they don't have resistance movements of their own?
LOL.
I downloaded a video yesterday, that will wake you right up out of that dream, but it's far to graphic to post on here. Send me a u2u if you want to watch things other than what you find on CNN, and see for yourself how much the shia love you.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by Syrian Sister]


I'm sure there are shia that don't like us. This isn't a populaity contest though, and guess what the shia know that the US is the only reason they are in power. THink that one through for a bit. No I don't rely on fox or cnn or msnbc. HOw about you? Video can be found all over the web to support whichever view you want.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
That country as soon as we leave is going to go towards religious rule anyway. We should leave and open Saddams cell on the way out and let him know that we are going to watch him closely. He is the only man that will keep both sides together aside from splitting the country up and having wars at the borders constantly. We are not going to be able to fix anything. They do not trust us and I don't blame them. More people died under our occupation then during Saddams entire rule.



Keep the people together? You mean brutally repress the shia and kurds... Don't worry if false peace is what you want the shia and kurds will give to you when we leave by slaughtering the sunnis.

HOw would you know about the people who died under saddam they didn't exactly have a free press or open accurate statistics.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
You cant defeat an insurgency by a war of attrition for the simple reason unlike a conventional army in many cases an insurgency can tap into an almost bottomless pit of man power. Insurgency's mostly require idealogical training rather then physical training.

Unless you win the hearts and minds of the local population you could have a 10 - 1 casualty rate in your favor and you would still lose the war.


It also helps if you attempted to cut or at the very least put some kind of pressure on the insurgents supply lines.

[edit on 24-12-2006 by xpert11]


Sure you can. Their limitless pit is not limitless. They kill more iraqis then they do us troops. So there goes local support except for those sunnis wishing for the old days. Forgeign fighters entering the country, Thats a plus keep sending in terrorist recruits to get slaughtered. better their then everywhere else.

In fact has anyone thought that what is going on now is might be the plan. Make iraq into a meat grinder for terrorists. Have the media make the situation look bleak and winnnable so that terrorists from all around come flocking to their death? As long as foriegn fighters continue to stream into the country from syria saudi arabia and iran why not just sit there and let them come. Instead of hunting them down around the world create a focal point.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Nothing has been shattered here

Is not about wining is not about victories is about destabilization of a rich oil area that is in the hands of undesirable factions.

And is not over . . . is not about the Iraqi people and neither the Iranian is about creating chaos and to keep the profiteers of war coffers fat and the oil away from unfriendly hands . . . as long as they stay fighting nobody can claim the land and nobody can expliot the oil.

And thus it comes down to oil again.

Oil this, oil that, oil is the root of all evil, bladdy blah blah blah.

It's no longer about Oil because no one cares about anymore except for the "evil power-hunger mongers that exist". Let me tell you that the american people I talk to could care less about oil at this point, so what if the economy takes a hit? There are more important things at hand, like who will prevent further acts of terrorism not just on the United States, but the world? The UN? You're insurgent friends? No.

Everything's been shattered, everything. Look at the country and see what's still there, what those people believe in, I don't think they know who to trust. Times are changing and oil will soon no longer be an argument anyone can fall back on because ultimately, in the end, people won't care as much.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Hey if you don't want to take it, it's your funeral. Literally.

My guess is your just going to try the tired old "send more troops in" strategy, because that really worked well for you right before the fall of saigon.

Frankly i can't wait untill you do, because it shows we are getting closer to the end. Another chapter gone of history repeating itself.

All we need now is a tet offensive.


The US may not win every war it fights, or even make perfect decisions, but at least it always fights with the best of intentions. Syria on the other hand funds terrorists and is just another nation of Israel hating anti-Semites. When you people join the rest of us in the 21st Century, maybe we'll listen to you.

As for right now, the Iraq war was a huge mistake, I said it then and I feel the right to say it now, the insanity that permeates every action of the Middle East nations should be left well alone by us. But, if we just pull out, we will be left with yet another Islamic fundamentalist state committed to destroying Israel and imposing the evil rule of Islam over yet another beleagured people. It's our mess, we have to clean it up.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join