Ghost of BiB Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 How you been, Chicot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eventualchamps Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Just as a side note - there are a hell of a lot of foreigners (from Iran, Syria, etc...) that have come to Iraq to fight the Americans. Media really doesn't highlight this or separate these groups out. As an example, take a look at Operation Viking Hammer which is documented. The ODA's found that a boatload of the KIA's were from other countires. Hell, a lot of them had their passports and plane tickets with them. By the way....WMD's were not the only reason we went over there. Think more broadly - I know you can do it. If you need something to make you feel better, we have taken out a very large number of terrorist training camps as well as having disrupted their activities. In my book, that's not a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 And the Mehdi Army? How do you account for them? Didn't they fight battles with the US in Najaf and Sadr City? Are they or are they not Shia muslims? 332838[/snapback] Are they still fighting us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Are they still fighting us? 332863[/snapback] Not only are they NOT, but they have decided to do so under their own volition, taking the stance, get this, that if they ever want to see the U.S. LEAVE Iraqi it would be prudent to get ON BOARD with the joint American/Iraqi efforts to rebuild the country to help achieve the ultimate goal of a U.S. pullout and the formation of a true Iraqi government. Imagine that. Chicot...youre on the clock....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Not only are they NOT, but they have decided to do so under their own volition, taking the stance, get this, that if they ever want to see the U.S. LEAVE Iraqi it would be prudent to get ON BOARD with the joint American/Iraqi efforts to rebuild the country to help achieve the ultimate goal of a U.S. pullout and the formation of a true Iraqi government. Imagine that. Chicot...youre on the clock....... 332889[/snapback] 'Zactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 How you been, Chicot? 332843[/snapback] I'm fine, thanks. What about yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 If so much of this is all about freeing Iraq from the "terrible" grip of the "oppressive" Americans, than why are so many of the attacks targeting IRAQI police stations and military installments? Does it not make sense for those wanting America out to HELP the very same group that will take over? If so, then why are the primary targets of so many of the terrorist attacks against Iraqi targets? 332724[/snapback] That assumes that the US actually wants to leave. As far as I am aware, the current US administration has consistently refused to rule out the possibility of permanent US bases in Iraq. As for the attacks on Iraqi security forces, I certainly do not agree with attacking police stations and blowing up people in queues. Having said that, it would be more or less impossible to fight the US forces in Iraq and avoid conflict entirely with Iraqi forces when they are conducting joint operations, patrolling together ...etc Let me make it clear - I am not saying that all Iraqi fighters are brave, noble freedom fighters. I'm simply pointing out that not all of them are evil, civilian-killing terrorists either. My definition of terrorism is simple: Anyone who intentionally targets non-combatants is a terrorist. I would not call an Iraqi fighter who attacks the US military a terrorist anymore than I would call a US soldier who shoots an Iraqi fighter a terrorist. Both are engaging enemy combatants. Some on this board seem to have an alternative definition that seems to be that anyone, anywhere, who for whatever reason, opposes the US is a terrorist. To my mind, that is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 I think we can count on US troops being well entrenched in that theater for at least the next decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 That assumes that the US actually wants to leave. As far as I am aware, the current US administration has consistently refused to rule out the possibility of permanent US bases in Iraq. As for the attacks on Iraqi security forces, I certainly do not agree with attacking police stations and blowing up people in queues. Having said that, it would be more or less impossible to fight the US forces in Iraq and avoid conflict entirely with Iraqi forces when they are conducting joint operations, patrolling together ...etc Let me make it clear - I am not saying that all Iraqi fighters are brave, noble freedom fighters. I'm simply pointing out that not all of them are evil, civilian-killing terrorists either. My definition of terrorism is simple: Anyone who intentionally targets non-combatants is a terrorist. I would not call an Iraqi fighter who attacks the US military a terrorist anymore than I would call a US soldier who shoots an Iraqi fighter a terrorist. Both are engaging enemy combatants. Some on this board seem to have an alternative definition that seems to be that anyone, anywhere, who for whatever reason, opposes the US is a terrorist. To my mind, that is absurd. 332952[/snapback] The occupation of a country and the existence of a U.S. military base is not one in the same. The U.S. will most likely have a base or more bases permanently in Iraq. But that is not even close to a full-blown occupation, where the U.S. is the de facto government. Youre second point here is quite disturbing. First of all, youre saying that the majority of attacks is against solely American targets, which is patently untrue. Second, you seem to imply that collateral damage caused by terrorists is permissable, I assume becuase the terrorists have far cruder weaponry than the Coalition forces. There is truth in the second part of that statement. But does not change the fact that in modern warfare, collateral damage is borderline forbidden. And Americans have come under HUGE criticism for it. But for the terrorists, its ok, because "theres no way around it for them?" Bollocks. And youre third point is just plain out insane. The Coalition forces are not "enemy combatants" by any definition. And the insurgency was born, is run and is fed by non-Iraqi fighters, some of whom have been life-long sworn enemies of Iraq. As mentioned above, the Iraqi portion of it has gone home and has joined the rebuilding effort. So how you can give credence to the insurgency, even in part, as an honest to goodness attempt by some to fight for a better Iraq is nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 The occupation of a country and the existence of a U.S. military base is not one in the same. The U.S. will most likely have a base or more bases permanently in Iraq. But that is not even close to a full-blown occupation, where the U.S. is the de facto government. Youre second point here is quite disturbing. First of all, youre saying that the majority of attacks is against solely American targets, which is patently untrue. Second, you seem to imply that collateral damage caused by terrorists is permissable, I assume becuase the terrorists have far cruder weaponry than the Coalition forces. There is truth in the second part of that statement. But does not change the fact that in modern warfare, collateral damage is borderline forbidden. And Americans have come under HUGE criticism for it. But for the terrorists, its ok, because "theres no way around it for them?" Bollocks. And youre third point is just plain out insane. The Coalition forces are not "enemy combatants" by any definition. And the insurgency was born, is run and is fed by non-Iraqi fighters, some of whom have been life-long sworn enemies of Iraq. As mentioned above, the Iraqi portion of it has gone home and has joined the rebuilding effort. So how you can give credence to the insurgency, even in part, as an honest to goodness attempt by some to fight for a better Iraq is nuts. 333035[/snapback] I never said that collateral damage was permissible, I stated the obvious fact that, assuming you are going to wage a guerilla war against the US presence in Iraq, you are inevitably going to come into conflict with Iraqi security forces if they are conducting joint operations together. I would be interested how, logically, you could explain that this doesn't have to be the case. The coalition forces may not be "enemy combatants" by your definition, but they certainly are to plenty of Iraqis. Wouldn't you say that the coalition forces were "enemy combatants" when the war started? When did the war end? It doesn't end just because Bush prances around in a flightsuit on an aircraft carrier (Flightsuit! Halliburton!). I said before the war started that occupied Iraq would be "like Northern Ireland x 10" (I was probably being a bit conservative in that estimate) and that there would always be resistance as long as there was a US presence in Iraq, and nothing that has happened since would lead me to believe otherwise. Your statement that "the insurgency was born, is run and is fed by non-Iraqi fighters" is just plain inaccurate. Though the politicians like to play up the contribution of foreign fighters, time and again this is undermined by the soldiers in the field. Yes, there are foreign fighters in Iraq (the coalition forces aren't exactly Iraqi either) but they are a small fraction of the insurgency. The Mehdi Army has, for the most part, laid down its arms for the moment (though I would not be at all suprised if they had something to do with the recent attack on British forces in Amarah) but they certainly were not all of the "Iraqi portion of it". The Sunni insurgency has always been the main component and it rages on as strongly as ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eventualchamps Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 And youre third point is just plain out insane. The Coalition forces are not "enemy combatants" by any definition. And the insurgency was born, is run and is fed by non-Iraqi fighters, some of whom have been life-long sworn enemies of Iraq. As mentioned above, the Iraqi portion of it has gone home and has joined the rebuilding effort. So how you can give credence to the insurgency, even in part, as an honest to goodness attempt by some to fight for a better Iraq is nuts. 333035[/snapback] EXACTLY...can you say Jihad. Not all of them but a whole bunch of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 No, I don't think I'll be complaining about Al-Jazeera's coverage. Why is it so difficult for people like you to comprehend that the armed resistance is not a single body? There are umpteen different groups each with their own aims and methods, some do indeed kill civilians in "droves" and I have no hesitation in describing them as terrorists, some do not particularly care whether civilians die or not, and some go to some lengths to avoid killing civilians. Some may have had relatives killed or tortured by the US and this may have drove them to fight back against the US. Can you truly say you would not do the same and would you be a "terrorist" if you did so? 332634[/snapback] What is the 'armed resistance' actually trying to achieve? Most of Iraq is against them and just wants to move on and into the future. This BS about killing anyone and everyone they can (apparently because US forces are repelling their attacks too easily) doesn't seem to be helping anyone. They're all terrorists. I could care less about their feelings and if they don't like the coalition being there to rebuild their country. Bottom line is that they absolutely can't win this thing so any killing they do is completely senseless. They're not fighting because they have a chance to win, they're fighting because they're mad. They're killing out of anger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Did al-Jazeera have anything to say on the attempt on Bush's life today? Because the American media's not exactly clamoring over it... (Though in all honesty, it doesn't look like all that much of an attempt anyway...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 They're all terrorists. 333132[/snapback] You'll go round and round with him on this. Ask him about his family over there, and if they are supporting the new gov. Or supporting anything else. I have my suspicions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Did al-Jazeera have anything to say on the attempt on Bush's life today? Because the American media's not exactly clamoring over it... (Though in all honesty, it doesn't look like all that much of an attempt anyway...) 333138[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 333157[/snapback] Yeah...great news outlets we have here...it's only hit Reuters in the past half-hour or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 The occupation of a country and the existence of a U.S. military base is not one in the same. The U.S. will most likely have a base or more bases permanently in Iraq. But that is not even close to a full-blown occupation, where the U.S. is the de facto government. Youre second point here is quite disturbing. First of all, youre saying that the majority of attacks is against solely American targets, which is patently untrue. Second, you seem to imply that collateral damage caused by terrorists is permissable, I assume becuase the terrorists have far cruder weaponry than the Coalition forces. There is truth in the second part of that statement. But does not change the fact that in modern warfare, collateral damage is borderline forbidden. And Americans have come under HUGE criticism for it. But for the terrorists, its ok, because "theres no way around it for them?" Bollocks. And youre third point is just plain out insane. The Coalition forces are not "enemy combatants" by any definition. And the insurgency was born, is run and is fed by non-Iraqi fighters, some of whom have been life-long sworn enemies of Iraq. As mentioned above, the Iraqi portion of it has gone home and has joined the rebuilding effort. So how you can give credence to the insurgency, even in part, as an honest to goodness attempt by some to fight for a better Iraq is nuts. 333035[/snapback] "First of all, youre saying that the majority of attacks is against solely American targets, which is patently untrue. " And how on Earth can you be so sure of that? Actually it's not me that says that, it's the US defence department (of course it's from a lefty website so they could have just made it up). Graph of attacks in Iraq Full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 "First of all, youre saying that the majority of attacks is against solely American targets, which is patently untrue. " And how on Earth can you be so sure of that? Actually it's not me that says that, it's the US defence department (of course it's from a lefty website so they could have just made it up). Graph of attacks in Iraq Full article 333178[/snapback] Nice websight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Nice websight. 333181[/snapback] Lefthook.org. I didnt even open it up. I did throw a couple of those when I played Hockey, does that count? Or were they haymakers? Damn, cant remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Nice websight. 333181[/snapback] Hey, it's 1.30 am here! When I get the chance, I'll try to dig up the original NYT article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts