Fallujah resistance 'lighter than expected.'

[LordMortis]

Let's bring some troops home from Germany and France, let those whiners pay for their own defense for once.

I'm all about that. Hasn't Bush been holding the troops in Germany over German heads for awhile now. Not for defense reasons, but economic reasons. Removing 1000's of expensive people will decimate any local economy.

[noxiousdog]

I think it is time the UN got off their asses and did something. It seems the only thing they are good at is corruption. As I recall that has been a historically French possesion, they obviously have the same plan there as Iraq. Do nothing unless it can be profitable.

As opposed to anyone else?

[Incendiary Lemon]

[Grifman]

And we all know how well Afghanistan is doing.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... 191346&e=1

OMGZ! A hostage! I heard there was a kidnapping in Houston too! WE'RE ALL TEH D00M3D11one

Weren't some of us so outraged just now over a few beheadings and ready to bomb the crap out of Fallujah? Why is this any different if these 3 hostages are beheaded?

The point isn't whether we are outraged or not, but whether the kidnapping in Afghanistan means that things are going badly there. Which I would assert is a flawed assessment on your part. Kidnapping are easy relatively easy to do. The true measure of how things are going in Afghanistan were the recent elections. You know that the Taliaban and Al Quaida would have done anythingto disrupt those elections if it were at all possible - but they didn't. Violence was minimal. Millions of Afghans voted. The Taliban and Al Quaida were totally incapable of doing anything. That speaks volumes as to how well the situation is going there in ways a kidnapping, no matter how regrettable it may be, does not.

The point is your assertion that things are not going relatively well there is patently false.

Grifman

[Eduardo X]

The war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq are two completely different monsters.
In Afghanistan, the US helped the populace overthrow their unpopular regime. In Iraq, the US went at it alone.
In Afghanistan, the cooperation between the 2 forces was a great source of stability for the nation. Instead of having another foreign target to kill (and they know how to kill very well in Afghanistan), they saw the US as an ally that wasn't there to take over and take the resources. One can argue that is what was happening, but the argument doesn't go over well, and the proof is scarce.
The proof in Iraq that the US invaded to take the resources is pretty abundant, and the people in Iraq know it and are willing to fight the US.

[Rip]

The war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq are two completely different monsters.
In Afghanistan, the US helped the populace overthrow their unpopular regime. In Iraq, the US went at it alone.
In Afghanistan, the cooperation between the 2 forces was a great source of stability for the nation. Instead of having another foreign target to kill (and they know how to kill very well in Afghanistan), they saw the US as an ally that wasn't there to take over and take the resources. One can argue that is what was happening, but the argument doesn't go over well, and the proof is scarce.
The proof in Iraq that the US invaded to take the resources is pretty abundant, and the people in Iraq know it and are willing to fight the US.

That is pure baloney. Where has the US taken oil. You must have them confused with the UN. The oil is sold on the market and ithe money is at the disposal of the Iraqi government. They may think that is what is happening, but that is just because of the many supposed news sources that spout off half cocked suppositions as though they were fact. Hell, I bet half of them still think Saddam will be back.

[Eduardo X]

The war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq are two completely different monsters.
In Afghanistan, the US helped the populace overthrow their unpopular regime. In Iraq, the US went at it alone.
In Afghanistan, the cooperation between the 2 forces was a great source of stability for the nation. Instead of having another foreign target to kill (and they know how to kill very well in Afghanistan), they saw the US as an ally that wasn't there to take over and take the resources. One can argue that is what was happening, but the argument doesn't go over well, and the proof is scarce.
The proof in Iraq that the US invaded to take the resources is pretty abundant, and the people in Iraq know it and are willing to fight the US.

That is pure baloney. Where has the US taken oil. You must have them confused with the UN. The oil is sold on the market and ithe money is at the disposal of the Iraqi government. They may think that is what is happening, but that is just because of the many supposed news sources that spout off half cocked suppositions as though they were fact. Hell, I bet half of them still think Saddam will be back.

1. Where are the WMDs?
2. Why did Haliburton get so many no-bid contracts?
3. Why did the US go in to Iraq for humanitarian reasons while killing 100,000 (allegedly) civilians and torturing innocent people in methods similar to Saddam's?
Agree with the points or not, but if I were an Iraqi right now, I'd be armed and resisting an illegal occupation.

[SuperHiro]

From what I understand, Halliburton was the only company able to handle that large an assignment.

But I could be wrong.

[Eduardo X]

From what I understand, Halliburton was the only company able to handle that large an assignment.

But I could be wrong.

I've heard that as well, but imagine hearing that Hailburton, the VPs old company, has exclusive access to your resources.

[Rip]

The war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq are two completely different monsters.
In Afghanistan, the US helped the populace overthrow their unpopular regime. In Iraq, the US went at it alone.
In Afghanistan, the cooperation between the 2 forces was a great source of stability for the nation. Instead of having another foreign target to kill (and they know how to kill very well in Afghanistan), they saw the US as an ally that wasn't there to take over and take the resources. One can argue that is what was happening, but the argument doesn't go over well, and the proof is scarce.
The proof in Iraq that the US invaded to take the resources is pretty abundant, and the people in Iraq know it and are willing to fight the US.

That is pure baloney. Where has the US taken oil. You must have them confused with the UN. The oil is sold on the market and ithe money is at the disposal of the Iraqi government. They may think that is what is happening, but that is just because of the many supposed news sources that spout off half cocked suppositions as though they were fact. Hell, I bet half of them still think Saddam will be back.

1. Where are the WMDs?
2. Why did Haliburton get so many no-bid contracts?
3. Why did the US go in to Iraq for humanitarian reasons while killing 100,000 (allegedly) civilians and torturing innocent people in methods similar to Saddam's?
Agree with the points or not, but if I were an Iraqi right now, I'd be armed and resisting an illegal occupation.

1.) Syria? Iran? Who cares? I wanted to go the full march first time around. Don't need WMDs to get my support.

2.) Because no one else could fulfill the need, that was in a country from the alliance.

3.) Who said we went for soley humanitarian reasons. We went do to National Security concerns. 100k casualties is a lot. Where are the bodies? I know where you can find more like 500k, that were already there. Not colateral casualties. Executions!

Torturing what innocent people? Again I can line up 10s of thousands to vouch for the torture that took place before we got there.

Occupation isn't illegal, but if you took up arms, you'd die like the rest. Your loss.

[hepcat]

Occupation isn't illegal, but if you took up arms, you'd die like the rest. Your loss.

...it just gets scarier and scarier.

[Eduardo X]

Sounds to me, Rip, that you don't really care what the Iraqis think.
And nobody is disputing the torture before the US arrived. It is the torture that happened when the US arrived that is the issue.
In a guerrilla war, if you don't win over the people, you lose. There's no ifs ands or buts about it: if you can't win the people over you can't win.

[Rip]

Sounds to me, Rip, that you don't really care what the Iraqis think.
And nobody is disputing the torture before the US arrived. It is the torture that happened when the US arrived that is the issue.
In a guerrilla war, if you don't win over the people, you lose. There's no ifs ands or buts about it: if you can't win the people over you can't win.

I still see no evidence of any torture. Other than that prison crap, but the guys in those prisons aren't innocents. Show me some evidence of our guys draggin out a guys family and kids and beating them till he tells what he knows. That is torture. You guys want to just lump all ill treatment into a big torture pot. It doesn't work that way. You want to know about torture talk to a POW from NAM!

It isn't that I don't care what they think, because I do. I simply don't think you can let it change what must be done to accomplish our goals. Same way as I wouldn't let the polls at home dictate what should be done. I am also GW hasn't allowed it to dictate his decisions. That is why I was happy to pull the lever for him again.

[Eduardo X]

Sounds to me, Rip, that you don't really care what the Iraqis think.
And nobody is disputing the torture before the US arrived. It is the torture that happened when the US arrived that is the issue.
In a guerrilla war, if you don't win over the people, you lose. There's no ifs ands or buts about it: if you can't win the people over you can't win.

I still see no evidence of any torture. Other than that prison crap, but the guys in those prisons aren't innocents. Show me some evidence of our guys draggin out a guys family and kids and beating them till he tells what he knows. That is torture. You guys want to just lump all ill treatment into a big torture pot. It doesn't work that way. You want to know about torture talk to a POW from NAM!

It isn't that I don't care what they think, because I do. I simply don't think you can let it change what must be done to accomplish our goals. Same way as I wouldn't let the polls at home dictate what should be done. I am also GW hasn't allowed it to dictate his decisions. That is why I was happy to pull the lever for him again.

Was it 9 out of 10 people in Abu Ghraib that were innocent? MEaning 9 out of 10 people tortured were innocent? According to the military, but why would you believe them, Rip?

Military officials said 70% to 90% of the Iraqis swept up for interrogation were arrested by mistake, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported.

Article

I guess seeing dozens of people beaten to death, seeing people raped, seeing people with electrodes attached to their testicles and being electrocuted sounds like torture to me, but... how would I know? That's just ill treatment. Real torture is... wait, Rip, what is it again?

[noxiousdog]

Yes, Superhiro, Halliburton was the only company that could do the job and do it quickly.

Eduardo, the 100,000 number has been so thoroughly discredited it's ridiculous. See: Fred Kaplan at Slate.

The vast majority of insurgents are old Sunnis and foreigners. I know somebody brought up Al-Sadr but they have been quiet for a while..


Rip, don't be naive. There's plently of torture going on. The mistake is thinking that Abu Graib is unique. It's war. It happens. But it cannot be tolerated. And even though it occurs, it's still better than Dufour and it's better than Saddam.

[Eduardo X]

Yes, Superhiro, Halliburton was the only company that could do the job and do it quickly.

Eduardo, the 100,000 number has been so thoroughly discredited it's ridiculous. See: Fred Kaplan at Slate.

The vast majority of insurgents are old Sunnis and foreigners. I know somebody brought up Al-Sadr but they have been quiet for a while..


Rip, don't be naive. There's plently of torture going on. The mistake is thinking that Abu Graib is unique. It's war. It happens. But it cannot be tolerated. And even though it occurs, it's still better than Dufour and it's better than Saddam.

To be honest, there wasn't a second where I believed that 100,000 number. The report was based off of asking Iraqis how many people they THINK have died, and that is, in this war, a much more serious number.
Iraqi Body Count has the number from 12,000-16,000. I think the number is somewhere in there.
Iraqis think Iraqis are being slaughtered wholescale by the US. That is the real issue here.

[noxiousdog]

To be honest, there wasn't a second where I believed that 100,000 number. The report was based off of asking Iraqis how many people they THINK have died, and that is, in this war, a much more serious number.
Iraqi Body Count has the number from 12,000-16,000. I think the number is somewhere in there.
Iraqis think Iraqis are being slaughtered wholescale by the US. That is the real issue here.

Not according to NPR. Reports from there indicate the Sunnis and Zaqawi are being blamed.

[Zarathud]

Eduardo, the 100,000 number has been so thoroughly discredited it's ridiculous. See: Fred Kaplan at Slate.

Not to disagree with the facts, but the perception of 100,000 dead can be a big problem. If the Iraqis believe the death toll is massive, the outrage will fuel the willingness to fight against US troops. The only way to walk out of Iraq with a victory is to convince the Iraqis that we're not an occupation force, but a security force. But I don't blame Iraqis for being suspicious of our motives after their experience with Sadaam and the years of inhumane conditions blamed on the US sanctions.

And let's face it, Arabs aren't concerned with the truth as much as they are their hostile perceptions of the US. Al Queida clearly had an incentive to take another crack at attacking the World Trade Center, but a number of Arabs couldn't believe it. And more than a few who believed Al Queida was behind 9/11 were out on the streets rejoycing.

The way for the US to win the battle against terror is to win over the Arab people through psychological operations, not military might.

[Dirt]

The USA can win any war it engages at this point in history, militarily speaking. But, it's people who think like Rip that often makes the USA lose the war of propaganda.

[Poleaxe]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 514504.stm

Seventy per cent of people said that things were going well or quite well in their lives, while only 29% felt things were bad.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Go ... 40314.html

March 15— A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high.

[noxiousdog]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 514504.stm

Seventy per cent of people said that things were going well or quite well in their lives, while only 29% felt things were bad.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Go ... 40314.html

March 15— A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high.

Quagmire! Veitnam! 100,000 dead!

[Ralph-Wiggum]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 514504.stm

Seventy per cent of people said that things were going well or quite well in their lives, while only 29% felt things were bad.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Go ... 40314.html

March 15— A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high.

You do realize, of course, that those articles are 7 months old? Is there any dispute that the resistence and the rate of deaths have been steadily increasing since that time (just as a reference, Nick Berg wasn't beheaded until May)? I seriously doubt that the percentage of Iraqis who still feel that way has remained constant over all that time.

[noxiousdog]

You do realize, of course, that those articles are 7 months old? Is there any dispute that the resistence and the rate of deaths have been steadily increasing since that time

Why yes, yes there is.

I seriously doubt that the percentage of Iraqis who still feel that way has remained constant over all that time.

Me either.

[milo]

I seriously doubt that the percentage of Iraqis who still feel that way has remained constant over all that time.

Me either.

Err.... "Me too" ?

[Defiant]

Here's a more recent poll:

Poll shows Iraqis doubtful of future

BAGHDAD, Oct. 21 (UPI) -- A poll of Iraqis shows unanimous concern for poor security, with 45 percent saying the country is headed in the wrong direction, USA Today reports.

Conducted by the International Republican Institute, a U.S.-taxpayer-funded organization that promotes democracy abroad, more than 2,000 Iraqis were questioned Sept. 24-Oct. 4. The poll, which will be released this month, has a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points.

Asked to rank the most important issues to them, every Iraqi surveyed named security, followed by an 80 percent vote for the economy, 58 percent for quality of life and 38 percent for politics.

When asked to identify the main source of the country's problems, 33 percent blamed problems on U.S.-led forces, and 32 percent blamed foreign terrorists.

Sixty-five percent of respondents said they believe life will be better a year from now, which was unchanged from six months ago.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking ... -8677r.htm


Hmmm..

Poll shows Iraqis doubtful of future

Sixty-five percent of respondents said they believe life will be better a year from now, which was unchanged from six months ago.

More from that poll:

Then there’s a poll of Iraqis by the International Republican Institute. Although four of five Iraqis say they plan to vote in the January election, every section of the country thinks things have gotten worse during the past few months and the popularity of the Allawi government has declined from 66 percent to 43 percent.

http://www.valleystar.com/editorial_mor ... 5_0_28_0_M

[noxiousdog]

I seriously doubt that the percentage of Iraqis who still feel that way has remained constant over all that time.

Me either.

Err.... "Me too" ?

Maybe it's a regional saying, but it's perfectly fine around here.

[Eduardo X]

I seriously doubt that the percentage of Iraqis who still feel that way has remained constant over all that time.

Me either.

Err.... "Me too" ?

Maybe it's a regional saying, but it's perfectly fine around here.

Your region has bad grammar!
I think you mean me neither, as that actually makes sense.

That said, 45% of how many million people think the country is doing poorly, and 33% of how many million think the US is to blame?
CIA has the number at 25,374,691. That's quite a lot of people angry!

[Poleaxe]

That said, 45% of how many million people think the country is doing poorly, and 33% of how many million think the US is to blame?
CIA has the number at 25,374,691. That's quite a lot of people angry!

What you are failing to say is that a good portion of those who are unhappy would like us to kill all the insurgents so that the security situation would be better. And then leave of course.

[Rip]

I seriously doubt that the percentage of Iraqis who still feel that way has remained constant over all that time.

Me either.

Err.... "Me too" ?

Maybe it's a regional saying, but it's perfectly fine around here.

Your region has bad grammar!
I think you mean me neither, as that actually makes sense.

That said, 45% of how many million people think the country is doing poorly, and 33% of how many million think the US is to blame?
CIA has the number at 25,374,691. That's quite a lot of people angry!

Still millions less than the number that thought that worm Kerry would make a good president. We are not there for a popularity contest. There are probably 90% of the pop of Iran and Syria that don't like us. Never will, unless we nuke ourselves or something.

[gbasden]

I seriously doubt that the percentage of Iraqis who still feel that way has remained constant over all that time.

Me either.

Err.... "Me too" ?

Maybe it's a regional saying, but it's perfectly fine around here.

Your region has bad grammar!
I think you mean me neither, as that actually makes sense.

That said, 45% of how many million people think the country is doing poorly, and 33% of how many million think the US is to blame?
CIA has the number at 25,374,691. That's quite a lot of people angry!

Still millions less than the number that thought that worm Kerry would make a good president. We are not there for a popularity contest. There are probably 90% of the pop of Iran and Syria that don't like us. Never will, unless we nuke ourselves or something.

Err- if we aren't there for a popularity contest, what the hell are we there for? If, when we pull the troops out, they are burning Uncle Sam in effigy, wouldn't that constitute a resounding loss? If the people of Iraq end up hating us, the next government may well be just as dangerous to US interests as Bush claimed Saddam was.

Or do we plan on leaving the troops there for the next 50 years?

[Rip]

I seriously doubt that the percentage of Iraqis who still feel that way has remained constant over all that time.

Me either.

Err.... "Me too" ?

Maybe it's a regional saying, but it's perfectly fine around here.

Your region has bad grammar!
I think you mean me neither, as that actually makes sense.

That said, 45% of how many million people think the country is doing poorly, and 33% of how many million think the US is to blame?
CIA has the number at 25,374,691. That's quite a lot of people angry!

Still millions less than the number that thought that worm Kerry would make a good president. We are not there for a popularity contest. There are probably 90% of the pop of Iran and Syria that don't like us. Never will, unless we nuke ourselves or something.

Err- if we aren't there for a popularity contest, what the hell are we there for? If, when we pull the troops out, they are burning Uncle Sam in effigy, wouldn't that constitute a resounding loss? If the people of Iraq end up hating us, the next government may well be just as dangerous to US interests as Bush claimed Saddam was.

Or do we plan on leaving the troops there for the next 50 years?

To remove a dictator that was a threat to our national security. Install a representative government. Assist that government in maintaining law and order until they can do it themselves while also molding a constitution holding elections and such in order to provide a minimal amount of stability.

[Poleaxe]

Or do we plan on leaving the troops there for the next 50 years?

Yes, we do. Troops stationed in the heart of the middle east are in our best interest as both a deterent to rogue governments and as an insurance policy to ensure the free flow of oil.

[Dirt]

Didn't we have troops in Saudi Arabia?

Isn't that one of Osama bin Laden's stated reasons for planning and initiating 9/11?

[Rip]

Didn't we have troops in Saudi Arabia?

Isn't that one of Osama bin Laden's stated reasons for planning and initiating 9/11?

I'm sure it was. Those troops are the only reason he isn't running his little american killing machine from there. If he got caught over there we wouldn't have to worry about those pesky ol Geneva rules. The Saudi's are known to be very effective at information extraction.

[Poleaxe]

Didn't we have troops in Saudi Arabia?

We had to move them eventually. Their presense on holy ground was destabalizing the nominally secular government.

Isn't that one of Osama bin Laden's stated reasons for planning and initiating 9/11?

I can't say this strongly enough: Who gives a fuck what sets off a terrorist?

[Exodor]

I can't say this strongly enough: Who gives a fuck what sets off a terrorist?

Perhaps because, in order to win the "War on Terror", it would be helpful to know what is creating new terrorists?

We can't possibly hunt them down and kill them all if we're creating them faster than we can kill them. Just ask Israel about the efficacy of a military solution to terrorism.

[Defiant]

We had to move them eventually. Their presense on holy ground was destabalizing the nominally secular government.

I can't say this strongly enough: Who gives a fuck what sets off a terrorist?

Do we care if they are working to destablize a nominally secular government?

[Eduardo X]

Didn't we have troops in Saudi Arabia?

We had to move them eventually. Their presense on holy ground was destabalizing the nominally secular government.

Isn't that one of Osama bin Laden's stated reasons for planning and initiating 9/11?

I can't say this strongly enough: Who gives a fuck what sets off a terrorist?

Sun Tzu knew that to win a war, you must know your enemy.
Do you disagree?

[Rip]

Didn't we have troops in Saudi Arabia?

We had to move them eventually. Their presense on holy ground was destabalizing the nominally secular government.

Isn't that one of Osama bin Laden's stated reasons for planning and initiating 9/11?

I can't say this strongly enough: Who gives a fuck what sets off a terrorist?

Sun Tzu knew that to win a war, you must know your enemy.
Do you disagree?

No, but you only know him for the purpose of knowing how to kick his ass. Not negotiate, of course if we used the tactics from The Art of War directly we would have the whole world in an uproar.

[Rip]

From the The Art of War:

(1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued
with the Moral law?
(2) Which of the two generals has most ability?
(3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven
and Earth?
(4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced?
(5) Which army is stronger?
(6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained?
(7) In which army is there the greater constancy
both in reward and punishment?

By means of these seven considerations I can
forecast victory or defeat.

I would say based on that we have already won.