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.

 

Are we outgunned or outfoxed in Iraq?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Watching Fox News this afternoon, BG Mark Kimmitt was shown appealing to the Iraqi public for any information on the whereabouts of Zarqawi. This appeal was followed by a report of another bombing south of Baghdad in which 17 people were killed and 40 wounded, followed by a report of the kidnapping of 3 Turks and the threats of their beheading.

It had been anticipated that these types of events would increase in frequency as June 30th approaches. So the fact that they are happening is not as surprising as the fact that they are so successful.

Where are our vaunted Special Forces? How effective are they? The last I heard of the super Task Force 121 was that they came to Iraq, captured Saddam, and were off to look for Osama. Now, we know that the capture of Saddam had a good measure of luck involved. And the fact that Osama is still on the loose speaks for itself.

It seems to me that the coalition forces are not on the offensive anymore, save for the occasional airstrike on a safehouse.

I support our troops as strongly as anyone. But I am concerned about their effectiveness recently. Are they being outgunned, outfoxed, or held back? Somebody please tell me there is a method to our madness, because I am getting frustrated over what seems to be the lack of a strong response to these terrorists.





posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
The only course of action in iraq is to pull troops of the streets and flood the country with new hospitals,schools, supermarkets, car show rooms and give the men jobs and pay them fairly for the work so that they can live a normal life.Once America has shown what there country could be they will soon stop hidding the people who are against America.If you leave the troops on the streets without any change in the iraqi`s life style you will force the people to resent you and cause them to fight back.Wouldn`t you fight for your freedom.If America dosn`t change this will get worse.You have to put yourself in there shoes what would you do if they entered your country and used there force to make you do what they want you to do.You would fight for your country no.They only know the past and the present,they don`t like both so you show them the future that they would like.Then you get peace.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I'd say it's due to the fact that by letting our humanitarian concerns for not inflicting casualties govern our battle tactics, we are basically fighting with a hand tied behind our backs. We, unlike the terrorists, don't hide behind women and children. We don't use religious structures as forts. We don't believe our lives are so worthless that the best use of them is to blow ourselves up to take out the enemy.

I cannot advocate changing that either. It's hard being the good guys. It takes moral courage to keep to the course even when it would be so easy and quick just to end the problem. We know, however, that to do that would just bring us down to their level. That would prove nothing.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   
In response to Are we outgunned or outfoxed in Iraq?, I offer the following.

The hard push to hand over control of Iraq to the Iraqis and put our troops in a stand down is easy to explain. The war crimes immunity deal struck with the U.N. ends on July 1, 04. The U.S. therefore must insure the Iraqis have sovereignty by June 30 according to the Cutting Edge News Update for this week. (cuttingedge.org... ).

Our troops and even leadership from generals to the Out House, or is that White House could be charged with war crimes. Again from Cutting Edge there are three possible War Crimes charges these men could face:

1). Torture and Sexual Degradation In US Military Prisons In Iraq
2) Deliberate Targeting of Civilian Populations With Conventional Weapons
3) Wreaking Silent Nuclear War On Iraq Using Depleted Uranium Munitions

Again from Cutting Edge: While each of these charges would be sufficient to bring War Crimes charges against the President, the most serious is #3, simply because this Depleted Uranium War is going to slowly kill the entire population over the next 20 years, leaving a country totally devoid of all living things.

There already has been saber rattling from a few in the U.N. over war crimes and they think it would be grand to humiliate American leadership with the truth on this matter and bring them into the socialist line. You would have to admit, if there is no crime, there is nothing to fear, there fore we could suspect there has been far more evil committed in the name of democracy than we may have been told on the controlled new media.

The fact that our troops have been screwed again just as Agent Orange has decimated many Viet Nam Vets, our troops from Gulf War I and II could be walking corpses, not to mention the whole of the Iraqi population. DU is a very nasty weapon and technically forbidden to even be used, although many nations do.

If you have doubts about the war crimes or the effects of DU, just do a word search and you will see why our leaders have such a war crime weggie and why we want to turn over leadership to the Iraqis.

Ghostwolfemoon



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Neither 'outgunned' nor 'outfoxed'. Basically the iraq war is a limited war, with limited goals. The us military is designed to fight a conventional war, and it is simply hard to fight a few thousand 'guerillas', with a conventional army. The longer the us stays in iraq the worst it gets and the longer iraq is without its own government, the longer the us military will have to stay and keep fighting these insurgents.


[edit on 26-6-2004 by jrod8900]



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
For reals, if we were "outgunned//outfoxed" we'd have been beaten.

If we wanted to subdue Iraq and all insurgents we could have just done what the Romans did.

We could "decimate" the population (killing every tenth person) and we could salt their farms and blow-up their damns and smash their hospitals and power plants and water-purification facilities.

And when we are done smashing their infrastructure, and they are crawling on the streets with disintary, crapping all over themselves as they starve on a curb.

We give them our ultimatum.

"Join us or die".

As Rome found out, they quickly become your best friends.

But America is not like that...it is not in our interests to "win", it is in our interests to make Iraq a soveriegn nation with a legitimate government of its own.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   

, it is in our interests to make Iraq a soveriegn nation with a legitimate government of its own.


And there you have it... its in your interests.

You people should do your homework about social structures etc. and you would see that very rarely can change be brought about by force, not lasting anyway. This kind of change must come from within only then will it bear the hallmarks of acheivement, so enabling the recipients to feel pride and defend their ACHIEVEMENT.

These are proud people, and rightly so. You impose your might, rub their faces in their weakness and then expect them to thank you for solving problems they were too pathetic to do anything about....HEY THEY SHOULD BE HAPPY TO BE LIKE US ...RIGHT?

WRONG......we'll see...time will tell, how the great global police affected the shape of wars to come.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Smudge you have to be really stupid to believe that Nation Building does not work and then say "look at history".

WWI, 5 nations existed on the European continent.

After WW2, 33+ nations existed. All constructed by the "Victors".

WWI, about 30 nations existed in the world...correction no no no wait.

Britain, France, Germany, Austro-Hungary, Russia, Itally, Ottoman, United States, China, Japan, Mexico, and Canada. Plus a myriad of south American and Central American countries.

Today, about 190 nations. All either built by the victors of WW2, or simply "let go" after de-colonialization.

So you are going to try and tell me that we can't build a Democracy.

When the entire world was built by 3 nations. United States, Britain and France?

Yeah...I think you need to do some more research into history.

Oh...also, if we wanted to "impose our might" we'd decimate them...not be doing what we are doing right now.

But believe me, they'll love being just like us...we've created 100 nations before, we can create another one.

This doesn't mean they'll be without conflict, but it does mean they'll have soveriegnity and the ability to shape their own lives within the structure we want for them.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   
HHmmmmm lets see, firstly by calling people stupid you just label yourself a hot head and nobody takes you seriously, get a grip.
Secondly around the time of the Great War the nations such as Austro Hungaria were being artificially held together hence Austro ( Austria ) Hungaria ( Hungary) after the war and since, nations have been getting smaller, empires are breaking down peolple are returning to their pre empire boundaries. I refer you apart from Austria and Hungary to the Balkans and the entire former Soviet Union who even with massive force were unable to prevent their member states from breaking away and returning to their race boundaries rather than have rule imposed, oh and Chechnya. OOOhhh and Kurdistan, and Kashmir and....nearer to home the Scottish and Welsh people finally managed to secure their own parliaments a few years ago after fighting against centralised govt. for many years.

The Iraqi's are several peoples melded together, and once you leave them to their devices, like the former soviet block they will most likely tear themselves apart into smaller states, as in Afghanistan...and...

sorry I could go on but I feel we are getting away from the point, which is a trick you pro war peeps employ to detract from uncomfortable points.

The change must be their own not yours...perception...they see one tyrant for another.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 11:01 PM
link   
We should never have been in iraq anyway.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I guess I still don't understand. I am not suggesting that we try to beat down the entire population, or to make them see things our way, join us or die. I could certainly see the resistance to that idea.

But there are certain terrorists, such as Zarqawi, and before him, al Sadr, who are responsible for much of the violence. Why can't our special forces find these individuals?

Now some will say, it is because the average Iraqi sees them as an ally, fighting on the same side against the occupation. But every day, more and more Iraqi civilians are being killed by Zarqawi and his cohorts. How is it that they can continue to hide among the general population? Our intel does not seem to be worth much.

We hear reports that the average Iraqi is glad we are there, glad that Saddam is gone. Our turn-over date is only 3 days from now. Why are they still resisting our efforts to rid their cities of these terrorists? Don't they realize that once we turn over sovereignty to them, these terorists will still walk among them? And it will be their sole responsibility to deal with them. Why not help us out now when we can still do the maximim good?




posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 02:09 AM
link   

You people should do your homework about social structures etc. and you would see that very rarely can change be brought about by force, not lasting anyway. This kind of change must come from within only then will it bear the hallmarks of acheivement, so enabling the recipients to feel pride and defend their ACHIEVEMENT.


Wow, if this isn't one of the biggest loads of male cattle fecal matter, then I don't know what is. Maybe OJ being found not guilty is worse.

Lasting change, fundamental cultural changes, are often brought on by force, often brutal and ruthless force. The Saxons in Germany and Lithuanians were brought under Christianity by force. Islam was spread by force. Germany and Japan were fundamentally restructured by force. China became communist by force. The idea that violence doesn't solve anything has been disproven over an over again in the world. The truth is it often takes violence to solve problems.




top topics



 
0

log in

join