So, let me get this straight so I understand you guys...
It is your opinion that Al Qaeda is better trained, better financed and has more members now, then before we invaded Iraq.
That is what you are suggesting, right?
That would make sense considering the US had just spent a year destroying the Taliban and most of the AQ infrastructure and financial means.
Do you believe they are better trained, better financed and has more members now, then before 9/11?
reverend hellh0und wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
no **** but we fight them until they re-evaluate thier cost to kill ratio....
Um, they are winning this ratio. They have evaluated it, and it's going well for them.
Cycloptichorn
Really? How many did we kill, how many did they kill?
Which side is more than happy to die for their religion?
Looks like you already forgot about Asymmetrical warfare.
Stupid is as stupid does. Keep it up.
So, let me get this straight so I understand you guys...
It is your opinion that Al Qaeda is better trained, better financed and has more members now, then before we invaded Iraq.
That is what you are suggesting, right?
That would make sense considering the US had just spent a year destroying the Taliban and most of the AQ infrastructure and financial means.
Do you believe they are better trained, better financed and has more members now, then before 9/11?
McGentrix wrote:So, let me get this straight so I understand you guys...
It is your opinion that Al Qaeda is better trained, better financed and has more members now, then before we invaded Iraq.
That is what you are suggesting, right?
That would make sense considering the US had just spent a year destroying the Taliban and most of the AQ infrastructure and financial means.
Do you believe they are better trained, better financed and has more members now, then before 9/11?
Let me add to this.
If these savages are "better financed, trained, and equiped." What kind of FOOL would suggest retreating now!
And Cycle, you talk of "cowardice"....
reverend hellh0und wrote:McGentrix wrote:So, let me get this straight so I understand you guys...
It is your opinion that Al Qaeda is better trained, better financed and has more members now, then before we invaded Iraq.
That is what you are suggesting, right?
That would make sense considering the US had just spent a year destroying the Taliban and most of the AQ infrastructure and financial means.
Do you believe they are better trained, better financed and has more members now, then before 9/11?
Let me add to this.
If these savages are "better financed, trained, and equiped." What kind of FOOL would suggest retreating now!
And Cycle, you talk of "cowardice"....
Yes, I do. Those who are obsessed with guns are cowards at heart, and your avatar says a lot about you.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:reverend hellh0und wrote:McGentrix wrote:So, let me get this straight so I understand you guys...
It is your opinion that Al Qaeda is better trained, better financed and has more members now, then before we invaded Iraq.
That is what you are suggesting, right?
That would make sense considering the US had just spent a year destroying the Taliban and most of the AQ infrastructure and financial means.
Do you believe they are better trained, better financed and has more members now, then before 9/11?
Let me add to this.
If these savages are "better financed, trained, and equiped." What kind of FOOL would suggest retreating now!
And Cycle, you talk of "cowardice"....
Yes, I do. Those who are obsessed with guns are cowards at heart, and your avatar says a lot about you.
Cycloptichorn
Tell me J. what brave things have you done in your life to call someone you don't know on the Internet a "coward"?
Sad.
If these savages are "better financed, trained, and equiped." What kind of FOOL would suggest retreating now!
I am not required to have performed any specific action in order to voice a specific belief.
You asked on another thread what my military background was, and I have no problem telling you that in 1997 neither the Army nor the Air Force was interested in my service, given my ocular disability; my nickname isn't pulled out of thin air. To be fair, I didn't ask the Marines or the Navy if they would take me.
You state:
Quote:
If these savages are "better financed, trained, and equiped." What kind of FOOL would suggest retreating now!
It is our presence in Iraq which is training, financing and equipping them. You propose that we continue to do so, which is foolish in the extreme.
Cycloptichorn
I base my beliefs upon a lifetime of experience with firearms of all types. It is something of a family tradition. And there are definite differences between people who deal with them on a regular basis; some do so for fun, some do so out of necessity. Some take it to a whole other level, and those who pose with guns for pictures generally tend to fall in that category.
Quote:
So you wanted to join? and you name yourself after your "disability"? Laughing
Again, Have you ever been in a gunfight?
If not how can you judge "Cowardice" when it comes to guns?
I did want to join, yes, and was rejected.
Have I ever been in a gunfight? No!
You don't have to have been in a gunfight to know what cowardice is. There's a time and place to be strapped, and that's on the field of battle or when you're hunting.
Quote:
A man who shoots an intruder in his home who was raping his daughter, do you call that man a coward?
Hoplophobia runs deep with you.
No, that guy isn't a coward. You are Appealing to Extremes, which is a logical fallacy.
Quote:
So we leave tomorrow. That would stop Terrorism?
Who said that? Appealing to Extremes is a logical fallacy.
Cycloptichorn
This is better - I like substantial discussion.
To begin, are there options in Iraq other than full engagement? Before discussing leaving completely, we should discuss whether or not we can partially leave/change focus to a level where our presence is not acting against our own interests, yet we aren't so far away that Iran could just roll in forces.
Cycloptichorn
I disagree. You say we 'cannot' lose this war, but all of the consequences of loss are either nebulous or supposition. We won't have tanks or planes rolling in on our soil if we retreat. The American people will be in no greater danger then they are today, because nothing we are currently doing in Iraq is keeping any sort of attack from happening here at all.
This is already going on, in case you haven't been paying attention.
Quote:
3. Create economic reprucussions as fear of oil prices hit the market.
4. create a failed state in Iraq.
5. Embolden Iran. I think Iraq would falsley see our retreat as a sign of weakness and spark a much larger conflict.
Meh, oil will do whatever it's going to do. We can't not make strategic decisions because we fear oil prices going up; we are not hostages to the oil market.
What would we be emboldening Iran to do, exactly? They have no force capable of attacking us, and an attack upon Israel will result in their nuclear annihilation. So I'm not sure why you are so worried about them.
Quote:
What would staying until we win do.
1. Facilitate a stable Iraq that trades freely with other nations to the benefit of the iraqi people not certain fat cats in the UN, France, Russia, etc.
This seems hopelessly naive. How are we facilitating a stable Iraq right now? It isn't as if we haven't been working on this for years.
Quote:2. Demoralize the terrorists, how much so depends on the level of victory.
If anything, our presence there gives them happiness. We know it gives them money and recruits and more ill-will against America amongst the general Islaamic populace. Tell me, what is the downside for the terrorists if we stay in Iraq? They get to attack us more, they get more training, more recruits, more money, while WE have to spend ever-increasing amounts to stay there, and have no flexibility with our armed forces to go after them elsewhere. Not a winning situation.
Quote:3. demonstrate another path other than radical islam to people in the region.
Oh, mmm hmm. I think that the average Muslim is as smart as you or I, and is quite aware that Democracy is out there. They don't really need us to 'demonstrate.' In fact, they could look to Turkey for a demonstration of Democracy amongst Islaamic folks. I don't think this is a strong point.
Quote:4. Be a guideline or a shiny possibility of success to other ME nations who reform.
Right. This hasn't been working out so well so far, so what makes you think it will?
Look, here's the deal. If someone could lay out a plan for victory that didn't rely upon idiotic projections of things that aren't going to happen, then I would be more positive. As it is, there has been no plan presented which even remotely resembles one with a large chance of succeeding. So there's not much point in pursuing these options.
Think of it this way - the population of Iraq is 25 million or so, 16 million over 18. If even 5% of the population is willing to work against us - a super small amount, really - then we will never win. First of all, we're massively outnumbered - just 5% is 750k+ people either willing to fight against us, work against us, or not turn in those who do.
Second, we can't tell those who are against us from those who aren't, and we don't have the goodwill necessary to get the Iraqis to tell for us. As we keep firing Arabic translators for being gay, I don't see this lack of intel changing any time soon.
Islam is not a tolerant religion at this point in history, Much the way Christians were way back when. The best solution to this is to bring them up to speed like you and I.
Quote:
Third, we are trying to get the populace to trust and believe us at the same time as rooting out the insurgents and terrorists amongst them. This necessarily is a bloody and difficult task, both because of their barbaric actions and our well-intentioned ones; we will have an amazingly difficult time winning goodwill of the folks at the same time we are shooting their neighborhoods up.
You are correct. War is hell and that should not be a reason to give up. There has to be a way.
Also note that most of Iraq is peaceful... so its not as dire as it sounds.
Quote:
Fourth, the Shiite-dominated, Iran-friendly government has no intention of striking a fair deal with the Sunnis or the Kurds when it comes to control of the oil fields. Yet, they represent 60% of the population, so we can't tell them they aren't acting in an undemocratic way without undermining our own system which we are trying to impose upon them. That's a major problem.
Actually if you divide the regions up according to where they live the disposition of the oil fields are about equal, Like our states. Vermont has more maple syrup than tennessee but they are not fighting each other.
Quote:
Fifth, the cost of the war is staggering. 2 billion a week (and rising!) is a lot of money. But for our enemies, it costs nothing. Nothing for them to stretch this battle out over the next ten, twenty, thirty years. They can be as patient as they like. This is a significant disadvantage on our part.
I could go on, but I'll wait to see what you have to say.
Cycloptichorn
It does cost them in people, supplies, and morale. Though the way we currently hold back and this talk of retreat they have hope which is bad. Did you read my private timeline solution. (maybe this thread or another). I don't think we should be there forever but start to move behind the Iraqis instead of in front of them (we have been in many provinces) and tell the iraqi gov privately to get thier azz in gear or we will be less involved and back out to less populated areas and only come back if something affects our interests.
Thanks for the response, I'm going to pick out a few points if that's cool. If I drop a point you think is important, remind me and we will discuss it.
When we are occupying their lands with force, we give legitimacy to the terrorists and radical Islaamists who say 'the US wants to occupy your lands by force and do away with your way of life.' We are doing exactly what the enemies told those in the middle we would do. This has given them more support then they ever could have gotten without us doing this.
Upon what facts do you base your beliefs that the terrorist network is 'damaged?' I'm curious, because it certainly seems that you have information that is counter to the assessments of our military and intelligence communities, who have been saying the exact opposite for some time now. Please be specific.
Quote:
Invade Irag (whether armed or politically), Become more bold in their nuclear ambitions to start. and reak havoc on the world oil market.
We can't stop them from invading Iraq politically, as if the people of Iraq wish to ally with Iran, they have every right to do exactly this.
I don't fear the 'havoc on the world oil market' as much as you seem to. If that's the greatest reason we aren't leaving Iraq, we should go. It isn't as if people who are pumping oil right now are going to stop, and neither Iraq nor Iran can force any other country to not sell to the US.
Quote:
2 Sept 1945 Japan surrenders and the occupation began and lasted until 8 September 1951. Thats 6 years and we were much more heavy handed than we were in Iraq.
I firmly believe that had we operated like we did in Iraq like we did in Japan this would take no longer than it did back then.
Comparisons to WW2 are not valid. Japan aggressively attacked America, had a unified, industrialized and imperialistic society, and there was practically no armed resistance once they capitulated. There is no valid comparison to this and the current situation we face, none whatsoever. The situations are completely different.
Quote:
They don't get training per say, they get combat experience. If you think they are happy now, imagine a retreat!
Why? The only reason they get such free reign in the country is the fact that at least some of the population supports them attacking the occupying forces. There is no reason to believe that the absence of the US would create more terrorism in Iraq.
When people talk about the terrorists taking over a 'failed state,' I always wonder upon what they base their judgments that this could ever happen. Terrorists cannot hold territory. They have no capability to conquer or take over anything whatsoever.
Combat experience is exactly what they need. Bomb-making experience is what they need. It's on the job training, and only the successful survive. Also, our presence and attempts to track them down help refine their strategies for hiding, for cellular formation and for both Asynchronous and Asymmetrical warfare.
Quote:
It is much less than that. I would say less than 1% activley fighting the US.
To get your quick victory we would need a draft and a very large occupation again, like we did in Japan. We are not willing to do that so this gets dragged out.. Though I know we will win it. Just not in the time of a 1/2 hour sitcom.
Upon what do you base your assumption that only 1% of the population is either fighting the US, giving money to those who fight, giving shelter to those who fight, or not turning in to the US those who fight? Please be specific.
AND, even if this is the true number - 1% - 1% of 16 million adults is 180,000 people. On top of this, what percentage are fighting against each other? Significantly more, and the groups overlap somewhat.
Even so, we are facing a huge force - who knows the territory - who can blend in with the civilian population - who can wait as long as necessary. This is not a recipe for success on our part. We have neither the money nor the manpower to effectively combat such a force.
You've already seen that tours are being increased to 15 and 18 months. It would take a significant increase in the size of our armed forces in order to increase the number of troops in Iraq to the point where they could be any more effective. And our pigheaded diplomacy pretty much ensures that we won't be able to get these troops from other countries, something which could have been done if we had made better choices years ago, diplomatically.
Quote:
Did you read the GQ article as to what Muslims do to gay arabs? Shocked Islam is not a tolerant religion at this point in history, Much the way Christians were way back when. The best solution to this is to bring them up to speed like you and I.
I don't care what the Muslims do to gays, it's ridiculous for us to be getting rid of gay armed forces translators who speak arabic!!! The fact that they are gay is trumped by their obvious critical role in our work over there, yet this has not stopped them from being fired.
I can't say that I'm surprised, but such things are signals of the deep and pervasive problems with the leadership of our armed forces, who put morality over practicality. Never a smart move!
its more than a slogan, believe me. I dispute the 'most of Iraq is peaceful' line. Most of Iraq is empty deserts. They are pretty peaceful. But the places which aren't backwoods country are universally not peaceful. With the possible exception of the Kurds, who may be facing war with Turkey any day now.
Quote:
It does cost them in people, supplies, and morale.
I disagree completely and would like to see where you draw your belief that this is true from. If they are gaining in money, recruits, and morale from us being there - which both the armed forces and the intelligence community agree they are - at a greater rate then we can kill them, they are not being cost anything.
There is no senior or important leader of AQ in Iraq. Why the hell would they go there? There isn't anyone in Iraq that we can kill which would significantly harm their organization outside of that country.
Quote:Though the way we currently hold back and this talk of retreat they have hope which is bad. Did you read my private timeline solution. (maybe this thread or another). I don't think we should be there forever but start to move behind the Iraqis instead of in front of them (we have been in many provinces) and tell the iraqi gov privately to get thier azz in gear or we will be less involved and back out to less populated areas and only come back if something affects our interests.
Okay, so here's my question:
Today, you (and others such as Bush) say that if we leave, we will be emboldening the terrorists and inviting trouble at home.
But, if we follow your plan, and in two years things aren't any better, and we leave then - won't we be emboldening the enemy and inviting trouble at home?
The only difference between leaving now and later, is that you don't want to admit that we've lost the fight yet. This is not a rational position, and if you truly believe that we would be inviting trouble if we left, there is no difference between doing so today and in two years.
Cycloptichorn
