U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-17-2007, 05:41 PM
 
Location: FL/TX Coasts
1,456 posts, read 3,760,703 times
Reputation: 431

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 66nexus View Post
LOL agreed again. The US fought for it's own dependence and came to eventually establish a democracy as the best government to suit. They have to decide their own destiny
it just seems that the "help" provided by the US overseas could be used domesticaly, and actually will be very welcomed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2007, 05:44 PM
 
2,770 posts, read 5,349,539 times
Reputation: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain View Post
An 'insurgent' is a politically motivated militant. They are fighting someone else mostly to achieve a political goal. They have chosen not to participate in the civic (that is, non-military) political environment in Iraq. The present groups of insurgents are a small portion of the population of Iraq, but they have caused a great deal of social and economic upheaval. Some of the leaders of these groups are religious leaders, but not necessarily the most prominent religious leaders, in Iraq.

The American forces are presently assisting the Iraqi police and military to quash domestic insurgent activities. That's not a war; it's more like the activities required of a supplemented Iraq National Guard to maintain domestic order. And until the last couple of months it was an open question as to how well the activity of quashing those insurgents was doing.

If the U.S. were still at war in Iraq, then we would have commited at present far more resources than are there now, and there would be taking place a military offensive to gain de facto control on the ground of more or less (say, 90 percent) of the entire Iraq territory.

The U.S. military in Iraq is nowhere near prosecuting such a mission at the present time. Why? Are there any functioning military units from the Hussein administration still in existence in Iraq? No, there aren't. So the American forces there now are obviously constituted and deployed so as to perform a policing function against domestic political insurgents to assist the present Iraqi administration.
The insurgents not only make up a sizable force, but even if most of the Iraqi populace aren't insurgents, the fact that they mostly sympathize doesn't help us either.

As I stated earlier, the war with the 'traditional Iraq is over' but the war for Iraq is not. It is the insurgents (Sunni/Shiite militants, al-qaida, Mahdi Army, and countless others) versus the Coalition (US/UK/Austr, etc.) for Iraq. If there were no war we could have left last week.

When I served it wasn't called a peacekeeping mission, it was called: Operation Iraqi Freedom III as in the third phase of the original.

Battles like Fallujah are of the largest scale. But necessary because the US doesn't have the troop numbers to sustain the entire country...that's a fact

We don't only 'supplement' the Iraqi forces, as it stands right now we are STILL the primary means of defense and execution on most of all missions. Territory has to be deemed stable and Iraqi forces ready in order to be handed over to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2007, 05:49 PM
 
2,770 posts, read 5,349,539 times
Reputation: 734
^There is a connection between conventional warfare vs. guerrilla style warfare. War is not limited to only armies fighting under flags.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2007, 05:51 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 7,706,647 times
Reputation: 1029
You are speaking in what I would call military propaganda terms, as for the labels you mentioned to distinguish military operations.

The U.S. military should deal with insurgents by hunting them down, battling with them as necessary, then disarming them. If they are being supplied from Iran, then the U.S. military shold make sure that border is secure, then round up the insurgent groups and disarm them. If the U.S. forces don't have kind of mission right now, then why not. By not doing so, the U.S. will have to continue to spend ridiculous amounts of money to get nothing accomplished.

The U.S. is spending a ridiculous amount of dollars to participate in domestic guerrilla skirmishes. That is military mismanagment as well. That won't be politically acceptable much longer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2007, 05:55 PM
 
2,770 posts, read 5,349,539 times
Reputation: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain View Post
You are speaking in what I would call military propaganda terms, as for the labels you mentioned to distinguish military operations.

The U.S. military should deal with insurgents by hunting them down, battling with them as necessary, then disarming them. If they are being supplied from Iran, then the U.S. military shold make sure that border is secure, then round up the insurgent groups and disarm them.
Whatever they choose to call them is fine by me, I just know that whether or not it's called a 'conflict', a reeeeally long 4yr+ battle, or just a fight, that there are big battles being fought, and if we stop we will definitely lose ground.

As far as dealing with insurgents, you'll get no argument from me there. The only problem is that US forces are stretched thin and Iraq isn't the smallest of countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2007, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 7,706,647 times
Reputation: 1029
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66nexus View Post
The only problem is that US forces are stretched thin and Iraq isn't the smallest of countries.

So you are acknowledging that there is an argument to be made that, strategically, Dubya made a mistake by commiting American forces to a military operation that it can't decisively win given our present resources and, therefore, America must bleed its own Treasury to have a hope for eventual success.

MISMANAGEMENT. RECKLESSNESS. STUPIDITY. MALFEASANCE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2007, 06:02 PM
 
2,770 posts, read 5,349,539 times
Reputation: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain View Post
So you are acknowledging that there is an argument to be made that, strategically, Dubya made a mistake by commiting American forces to a military operation that it can't decisively win given our present resources and, therefore, America must bleed its own Treasury to have a hope for eventual success.

MISMANAGEMENT. RECKLESSNESS. STUPIDITY. MALFEASANCE.
Oh BELIEVE YOU ME, we're definitely on the same page on that one. The Soviets had to leave Afghanistan in the late 80s because of almost exactly the same reason. Sure, it's wonderful to 'want' to fight a war, but what then when you can no longer afford it?

ex. I want a $70,0000 car, I make $50,000 a year...it just doesn't...quite...fit
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2007, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,639 posts, read 24,781,171 times
Reputation: 11318
I could be wrong in what I'm seeing on this thread, but it seems as though the people who want us to kill the Iraqi people seem to be christian. How does the "thou shalt not kill" commandment of the christians find agreement in our killing others for political reasons?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2007, 06:21 PM
 
2,770 posts, read 5,349,539 times
Reputation: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
I could be wrong in what I'm seeing on this thread, but it seems as though the people who want us to kill the Iraqi people seem to be christian. How does the "thou shalt not kill" commandment of the christians find agreement in our killing others?
Where are you getting that from?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2007, 06:27 PM
 
Location: SanAnFortWAbiHoustoDalCentral, Texas
791 posts, read 2,015,074 times
Reputation: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
I could be wrong in what I'm seeing on this thread, but it seems as though the people who want us to kill the Iraqi people seem to be christian. How does the "thou shalt not kill" commandment of the christians find agreement in our killing others for political reasons?
By separation of church and state, what else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:29 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top