Last nights speech by President Bush. What do you think?

[Konovalov]

As per the topic of the thread what was your gut feeling having listened to or read the speech of President Bush? Is it a welcome change of strategy? Or do you feel it is just more of the same? Is it not enough or a case of too little and too late?

I'm not to sure myself. An additional 20k troops doesn't seem like a great deal. In fact haven't we in the past seen troop withdrawls and increases over the last few years that reflect similar numbers mentioned here? Given that how can an additional 20,000 make much of a difference?

My other serious doubt concerns the Iraqi government and Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. Is he really going to deliver what he has promised to President Bush over the last couple of days? He certainly hasn't done it in the past and I can't see any evidence of him doing it now. He has been a man of many words and little action in my opinion. And don't forget that if it wasn't for that thug Muqtada al-Sadr and his band of thugs and death squads that make up the Mahdi Army Al Maliki wouldn't have been elected PM in the first place. So how on earth he is going to disarm, arrest or pacify them is beyond me?

Looking back when we had Muqtada al-Sadr and his thugs in a corner we had a real opportunity back then to take him out yet we blew it by playing his own game. Now we are paying the price for it. For the first time I am going to say that this is looking like a lost cause, certainly in terms of the original goals that were set it looks that way. Best result now would be to split the country up into 3 and make sure that Al Qaeda cannot establish a base of operations in that region whilst trying to minimise Iran's growing sphere of influence. The only thing worse than invading Iraq would be to effect a complete withdrawl over the next 6-12 months. I don't want to even think about the consequences of that crazy policy.

[bradclark1]

He didn't say anything new in speech except for the U.S. withdraw is not open ended. He did say something in action by replacing all the top leaders.
I've mixed feelings on the troop escalation. Too little too late? This is a wait and see.

[TteFAboB]

Gut feelings aside,

Chavez sent 30 specialists and 3000 soldiers to Bolivia. If 3,000 soldiers are enough to counter the anti-Morales uprisings and crush Santa Cruz if they ever seceded, 20,000 troops, if they're mostly of the hold-a-gun-point-and-shoot type could come in handy, if put to a good use, of course.

It's a bizzare comparison, true, while Bolivia is larger than Iraq (1,098mil km2 vs 438 thousand km2) it has a much smaller population (8,8mil vs 28,8mil in 2005). Adjusting for the different levels of violence, the proportion of soldiers seems about right, question is if they're of any use at all.

What was really remarkable was Bush assuming his own personal responsibility. This is always commendable and really rare in this world of scape-goatism. One cookie for Bush.

Two alternatives are to attempt to create a pluralist government, for the local standards, with the internal forces balancing each other out but with a probably high degree of violence or to allow the return of a brutal dictatorship, this time shi'ite. Brutal but guarantor of order, both by eliminating the unhappy elements more efficiently and by masking the statistics/closing the society.

[SUBMAN1]

I find it to be an 'about time' thing. I've stated all along that I think more troops are needed. Rumsfield smaller, faster, lighter, cheaper army mentallity is great for taking over the country, and it obviously worked like a charm, but when it comes down to it, smaller faster lighter cheaper has no capability to 'hold' said country, or at least not hold it with any sense of security. In the end, nothing replaces manpower.

I am glad Rumsfield is gone since he was chopping military capability in my book, down to a level that is practically irecoverable from. Its a sad day for many military bases.

-S

[Schatten]

I'm cautiously optomistic, not because ~21,000 is really a lot of extra troops but the fact they'll be embedding brigades with Iraqi divisions seems like a fairly good idea. There were a couple things that made my ears perk up and they weren't any of the "major" points as the talking heads were disecting the thing, they were:

1) Streamlining the rules of engagement for US forces, which are far too cumbersome at the moment. That didn't seem to get as much reaction as it should have.

2) Interdicting the supplies and insurgents filtering in from Syria and Iran, as well as degrading their support structure. That's an important step because right now in Anbar province there have been multiple reports of Marine units having the enemy "pull a VC" on them and scooting back over the border into Syria after what's left of them disengage. If they can shut down the infiltration/egress routes into Syria that would be extremely helpful.

Those 2 items there could be more important to improving the overall situation than 17,000 troops in Baghdad. The 4,000 extra in Anbar will be helpful as well because prior to that there was an idea to bring down Kurdish Peshmerga to bolster the allied troop strength there. While that would have made sense militarily, but politically it would have eroded some of the good support we're getting from the tribal leaders out there in Anbar who are slowly coming around.


The other reason for some cautious optomism was the new general in charge literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency combat. Some in the MSM were criticizing Bush because this plan goes against what some of the top generals in Iraq are saying they need, but the way I see it (and probably how Bush does) is if they aren't winning then their opinion is less important than it would seem at first glance. I mean if Lincoln would have kept listening to McClellan the Army of the Potomac wouldn't have moved out until 1880 or so...

Until the Iraqis want to start fighting though things aren't going to get better anytime soon. But honestly I think a lot of their reluctance lately has been precisely because of the talk of withdrawl over here; none of them want to be the last guy holding the bag when the Blackhawks lift out the last of our embassy staff. They've heard enough Vietnam analogies and history over the past few years to know what happens to places when the US Congress turns its back on a war.

[AVGWarhawk]

It is like throwing good money after bad. Our troops have done all they can and need to come on home. It is high time the Iraqi takes control of their country. They have become too dependent on our troops to handle the situation. Time to cut the cord and allow the Iraqi military take on the responsiblity as well as the local law enforcement. Time for them to take their country back that they want so badly. I believe throwing more troops at Iraqi is like throwing a bottle of Wild Turkey at an alcoholic, he will just keep on drinking and drinking!

[sonar732]

Despite what the president has requested, if the congress doesn't appropriate said money's to fund those extra 20,000 troops, it would be interesting how Bush can get around it.

[geetrue]

I thought with my heart (sometimes my gut gets in the way) that the
speech was smooth and well presented, but then I love my President.
I like the way he can roll with the punches.

The president is showing the world that we care about Iraq without
Saddam ...
that we didn't just mess everything up and get the hell out.

It's getting kind of hard to figure out who the enemy is over there
with tying people to steering wheels and sending them on suicide missions
or letting the prisoners steal cars full of explosives and then laughing as
they push a few buttons on their cell phones.

It's all about the money ...
whoose money is it, anyway? Iran's, Syrian, Saudia, USA ...?

But I got off the subject, uh? I love my country and I love my president.

It was a well thought out and very well presented speech to the
American people.

Twenty-two months from now, we will be listening to someone else.

G-d be with him (see I can repent)

[baggygreen]

3000 people dead in almost 4 years. In a warzone. its a war people, you're going to get casualties. If the bloody media wasnt so controlled by leftists then it wouldnt be an issue!

To leave iraq now would be disastrous. Shia majority. think about it, where else is there a massive shia majority in the ME, who also wants to cause the US and the western world as much heartache as possible? now think... do they share a border? :yep: And does iraq currently act as a buffer between this other shia nation and israel, which it has sworn to destroy?:yep:

Konovalov said best bet is for 3 seperate states. that wouldnt work for 2 reasons, attractive as it is. 1, you'd get turkey moving against the kurds in the north.

2, you'll get big persian Shia nation moving into iraq from the east, linking up with shias in iraq. they dont like sunnis much, so they'll kill em. now you got a ME superpower butting heads against turkey (support from NATO? unlikely, europe is too pacifist). lots of resources, now sharing a border with israel, which they swore to destroy.

but to move against israel would provoke america. simple solution - close the strait of hormuz. bugger it they say, lets wipe the infidel from the ME and drive south into Saudi and Kuwait, Yemen and Oman will support this as well. Now America cant support Israel because the oil is cut off. Israel gone, not before dropping a couple of nukes and contaminating some ground. 'oh we need living space, where shall we go?' says this new supernation, and hey look, theres a whole lot of muslim nations to the NE as well - lets join up with them. bugger it they say, we're almost all the way to Indonesia the worlds largest muslim country, lets go that extra step.

Now, they can say 'hey guys, we sit on the most important trade routes in the world and we're big, what ya gonna do about it?'

to which the response will be war. a vicious, bloody, nasty war that will take probably millions of lives.


**********************
Mock me if you will, but that scenario is a lot more likely than most people will probably care to think. You people calling for troops to leave Iraq need to think about the consequences of such an action..

[Abraham]

I think that 20.000 well trained soldiers can make a hell of a difference, if they're 'lean and mean' and concentrated in one area (Baghdad).
I get the impression that after pacification instant financial support will be given for economic recovery. If this is done on a small scale and a local level it might win the 'hearts and minds' of the population.
The trick is to show the Iraqi's that there can be a future worth living for (and participating in).

At least the President gave a signal that he's not going to let the US forces go hightailing back to the States. The Iraqi's might understand that they get at least one more chance. And well, a new attitude throughout the chain of command might just work.

Answer to Konovalov: some reason for cautious optimism, if the participants don't blow it the next few months.

[Iceman]

I can't understand wishywashy people....Iraq should have been crushed like a can in the first year...those who can't play nice ,if if it was deemed impossible that they can play nice, then seperation was the only solution...dang it is ridiclous.

As the conquerer im sorry but these choices should not have been left for the conquered to decided...they proved they did not have a handle on things to let Saddam stay in power so long...now there is too much bad blood for them EVER to get along it is preposterous...it boggles my mind.

The 20,000 troops should be used to prepare the new divided country up and start herding people to they're respective new homes....tough crap it is not a choice to give them it should be done for them...pick a place and go live there...then they can fight each other from they're respective strongholds...let em fight for the oil and land after that ...try to strike some balance between them and maybe then they will stop killing each other if they believe they have what they want...

If not then save my brothers in arms lives and bring them ALL home tommorrow.

The only solution is Christ.

[U-533]

:huh: There was a speech last night? :huh:

I must have been in bed.

Oh well... Im sure things will be handled one way or the other.

[Fish]

send in a few tactical nukes and solve it all....come back there in 40 years and you'll have a big oil reserve...

The only solution is Christ.


Glad I am atheist! :o

[STEED]

I or so have mixed feelings about this but as the old saying goes sit back watch and wait, we should see some sort of result in six months to a year.

[PeriscopeDepth]

...after pacification...

The trick is achieving pacification. Which I frankly don't think is possible.

PD

[The Noob]

If not then save my brothers in arms lives and bring them ALL home tommorrow and send in a few tactical nukes and solve it all....come back there in 40 years and you'll have a big oil reserve...

The only solution is Christ.
What the......lol.


Oh wait...... blooooody hell he really means it serious. :huh:

[Skybird]

That man is totally disconnected from reality, and he wants to leave the burden of declare defeat to his sucessor. for that he accepts to increase the number of American soldiers being killed or menally, physically crippled. Great leader, that man, and so wise.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,459353,00.html

The worst part is the way in which George W. Bush has conclusively ruptured his country. The president's "New Way Forward in Iraq" will lead America directly into political trench warfare. (...) Two years before the end of his term and in the comfortable knowledge that he doesn't have to face re-election, Bush announced more of the same, and thus ignored everything that experts, the opposition majority, and the US public want.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,459369,00.html

"We understand that people are going to be skeptical," said Whitehouse spokesman Gordon Johndroe on Thursday, adding that he hoped they would "take a look at the details of the president's plan." That's exactly what people did -- and they rejected the details. They rejected the notion that dispatching additional troops to Iraq would require expanding the US military by 92,000 soldiers in the long term -- a project that would cost about $15 billion a year. They also rejected the proposal of mobilizing the National Guard again, as well as the suggestion that parts of Baghdad need to be hermetically sealed off from the rest of the city -- a tactic that already led to "spectacular failure" in Vietnam, as the Los Angeles Times observed. [...] Meanwhile the Democrats are planning to pass a symbolic majority resolution rejecting Bush's Iraq strategy. The aim is to force the Republicans to offer a clear and humiliating assessment of the situation while isolating the president, much as Richard Nixon was isolated during his final days in office. The specter of impeachment was already making the rounds on Thursday.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,459048,00.html

Bush is no longer talking about victory and democracy for the entire region. Instead he is talking about looming instability in Egypt, about Saudi Arabia's intervention on the side of the Sunnis, and the unstoppable rise of the regional power Iran. Bush's only remaining justification for remaining in the region is that of preventing an even larger disaster.
America's army will ultimately become a buffer between the groups fighting in the civil war. A brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division is to be deployed in Baghdad next week, and others will be sent in as soon as possible. While greater security may not automatically be the result, one thing is guaranteed predicts former NATO commander Wesley Clark: higher casualties.
The current generals are just as skeptical as the former generals about Bush's strategy. Bush has always pledged that he would only strengthen troop numbers in Iraq if his commanders on the ground asked for it. But now, he is countermanding the express will of those commanders -- and is replacing them for that reason. The war in Iraq has become Bush's war once and for all.

Bush not only rejected the plan of the Baker commission, and polls saying that 60-70% of Americans do not want to see additional troops being sent, he also ignores much of the new counterinsurgency doctrine developed by Gen. Patraeus who has taken command (or will be taking command soon) in Iraq. I already have reported on him some weeks ago:

"The US military is learning from it's mistakes in Iraq:"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...455165,00.html

"Nowadays," says Army spokesman Stephen Boylan, a colonel with a moustache who served for several years in Germany, "everyone knows that the road to Baghdad leads directly through Leavenworth."
The best way to fully understand Boylan's comment is to take a grueling tour of the 16 schools, institutes and colleges at the fort where about 2,000 young officers enroll each year for special training. The tour passes through windowless conference rooms, classrooms and lecture halls, and it requires enduring hours of slide presentations and talks by generals, historians, diplomats, Vietnam veterans and soldiers serving in Iraq. It also means wading through documents filled with unfamiliar acronyms, but in the end the visitor is left with the feeling that a revolution is being launched here in Fort Leavenworth, one that will radically change the face of the United States military and the wars it will fight in the future. (...) A revolution is underway that will change the face of the US military -- and with it the wars the world has yet to face.

Interview with Gen. David Petraeus:
"We have to raise our sights beyond the range of an M-16"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...455199,00.html


There is quite a big cultural change going on. We used to say, that if you can do the "big stuff," the big combined arms, high-end, high intensity major combat operations and have a disciplined force, then you can do the so-called "little stuff," too. That turned out to be wrong. (...) What we simply don't want anymore is to give people a checklist of what to do. We want them to think, not memorize. You know, a lot of this is about young officers. But we have to be clear with them, they have to know: You must be a warrior first, that is true, that's why we exist, we exist in many cases to kill or capture the bad guys. But on the other hand, we have to teach them: You're not going to kill your way out of an insurgency. (...) The fight to Bagdad was not easy. It was very, very hard, real people died and bled and we really blew things up, but -- we always knew how to do that, we have it refined to a very high level, we did combined operations that were really at the high end of our business. In fact, you could say that we practiced that stuff by and large for 25, 30 years while we were waiting for the big roll of Soviet tank armies at the Fulda gap or the northern German plain.
But this other stuff, what we used to call the "little stuff" -- the build-up of civil infrastructures, the fight against low-key separatist violence, the dealing with local leaders, it is very, very challenging because it's non-standard and it's definitely not what we have trained for. The demands are very different. When it comes to insurgency, there is no army on the other side, no battalions, the enemy won't expose himself, it's all about intelligence. (...) It also showed the reality of counterinsurgency operations -- which we capture in the soon-to-be-published manual -- that what works today may not work tomorrow. Tactics and approaches must constantly evolve. You know, it's always easy to blow doors down and go in with the machine guns blazing or throw a grenade in. But when you do that you often risk creating more enemies because of the way you conducted the operation.

The BBC now had these remarks on the man some days ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6249565.stm

[bradclark1]

Let none say you aren't a ray of sunshine Skybird.:D

[baggygreen]

Ok, so, what is better... staying in Iraq and trying to sort out the mess (which yes, is caused by stupidity earlier on in the conflict) or letting go and seeing, as i said before, a massive regional conflict that will drastically impact on the worlds economy (even you, you pacifist europeans!) and has a good chance of ultimately resulting in again as i said before, the use of nuclear weapons again..

honestly, whats better?!

[baggygreen]

Oh and Sky, mate, you post something that is telling about the next few years. Where you posted the article about America learning from its mistakes in Iraq, that is because no longer does the US army or marines (or any other western country's forces) need to fight column after column of MBTs. This next half century of warfare will be technology fighting against wave after wave of demented, fanatics - and lord knows, its gonna become very very bloody.

[Skybird]

(even you, you pacifist europeans!)

Eh...? At least not all of us are like that. I for myself am less pacifist than you seem to imply. I am ready to fight wars and do not rule them out totally, no matter the price - when I see the need to do it. And I know by experience that people do not like my thoughts on the way I would fight a war, if needing to do it and have a say in it - it'S just that I do not like it and usually don't see it as my first and only option. I just want to be sure of two things: that the cause is a worthy one, not an intellectual stillbirth like this one has been from the very beginning, and that those that are leading and are in command are knowing what they are doing, know the method of war, and have the experience to talk about war - and are not only hypnotized by their childish illusions that are flying around inside the boundless vacuum inside their heads.

[baggygreen]

Oh dont worry mate it certainly wasnt directed towards you, by no means. from my background, its normal, common and almost expected that you stereotype by region. Thats just how my and my particular... group (for want of a much much better term) are. Yanks are loud and obnoxious, poms whine, europeans are pacifist and the french are 'cheese-eatin surrender monkeys'. The kiwis are just a little too friendly with their domesticated animals.

But at the same time, these stereotypes have got some backing in truth, and a lot of europeans are compeltely opposed to warfare. a little too many for my liking, but thems the breaks.

[Skybird]

But at the same time, these stereotypes have got some backing in truth, and a lot of europeans are compeltely opposed to warfare.
That is true. But you see - two huge world wars, and centuries of continent-wide warfare before worked wonders in acchieving that attitude. Also, those who have much have more reasons to fear losing more, and europe is fat, and old, and lazy. Also, Europe is closer to and more directly affected by many of the world's hotspots than America.

"Those without swords - still can get killed by a sword." But being easy to go to war is no virtue, but a sin. "Readiness is all", said Shakespeare. I say "Readiness is enough, don't be early, don't be late - and you can't get surprised."

[baggygreen]

All this is true. And i'll also be the first to commend the nato contributions in the balkans and in afghanistan. But, what about the question of how much is too much? in war, any is obviously too much, but how much can you let things go before you do go to war? How much can we let Saddam get away with back in the day, how much can we let Iran and NK get away with today - what will it take for action?

I understand perfectly the legacy of the wars and whatnot. no doubting that. But, as a european what do you think itd take today for members of the EU to go to war? Do we need another Sept 11 01? would it honestly take another major attack to reawaken peoples memories?

I assure everyone this is still perfectly on topic. The 2nd gulf war began as a war to depose a dictator and liberate the Iraqis, the majority of whom were oppressed. It has become, however a major front in the war against international terrorism (as determined by 'western' standards). Bush, by electing to send more troops, is continuing the fight. To stabilize iraq is to remove yet another haven for said terrorists (whether it was before the war is irrelevant here, it is now).

[John Channing]

I assure everyone this is still perfectly on topic. The 2nd gulf war began as a war to depose a dictator and liberate the Iraqis, the majority of whom were oppressed. It has become, however a major front in the war against international terrorism (as determined by 'western' standards). Bush, by electing to send more troops, is continuing the fight. To stabilize iraq is to remove yet another haven for said terrorists (whether it was before the war is irrelevant here, it is now).

Actually the invasion of Iraq began as way to protect America from Sadam's WMD's.

When that didn't pan out it was because Sadam was ignoring 17 UN resolutions and shooting at US Planes.

That quickly went to hell in a handbasket so then it was because there was a direct link betwen Sadam and 911.

That one stuck a little longer (thanks in large measure to Faux News), but eventually was exposed as another neo-con-job.

So then... when every other concievable excuse for the debacle had been exhausted... then we get the "Cuz he was a bad guy" excuse.

America has a obligation and moral responsibility to put right what they have done. If they ever want to have credibility in the World again they cannot leave Iraq until they rebuild what they have destroyed.

JCC

[The Avon Lady]

America has a obligation and moral responsibility to put right what they have done. If they ever want to have credibility in the World again they cannot leave Iraq until they rebuild what they have destroyed.
We owe the Iraqis exactly nothing (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014384.php)
“Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have fled their homeland are likely to seek refugee status in the United States, humanitarian groups said, putting intense pressure on the Bush administration to reexamine a policy that authorizes only 500 Iraqis to be resettled here next year.”—from this article (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/12/11/iraqi_exodus_could_test_bush_policy/)
The American people should not be asked to pay, with further endangerment of their security, for the mistakes of the American government, or rather, for the inevitable Sunni-Shi'a friction and hostilities in Iraq. Those hostilities became inevitable because of the nature of societies suffused with Islam (and therefore unable to compromise and naturally aggressive not only toward Infidels, but toward all those who in some way were different, were not the same), once American soldiers undid the Sunni despotism of Saddam Hussein.

Americans have spent or committed close to half-a-trillion dollars in the effort to make Iraq a better place. They have discovered that far from demonstrating any real gratitude, the Arabs of Iraq, both Sunni and Shi'a, have been content to grab as much money -- fantastic sums -- and stuff of all kinds, and to watch the Americans, under hellish conditions, attempt not to "re-construct" but rather to construct all kinds of things for them, in a vain effort to pull them out of the primitive and aggressive and Hobbesian world in which they live.

It is not the Iraqis who have been doing much of the fighting to bring about a better Iraq. Many Iraqi soldiers routinely show up only to collect paychecks. Many run in combat situations, leaving the Americans to fight and die for a place called "Iraq" that the so-called "Iraqis" have no loyalty to, and on every occasion, by the testimony of so many of our fed-up and disgusted soldiers, have left the Americans in the lurch or substituted their own brutal methods of treatment of the population and ignored everything the Americans have tried to teach them.

We owe the Iraqis exactly nothing. We do not owe any Iraqis asylum at all. If asylum is to be given, it should be strictly limited to Christians and the handful of Mandeans and other non-Muslims. Not a single Muslim needs to come to swell the Muslim ranks in this country, adding to the security risk, adding to all sorts of worries.

To those who say, as someone does in the article linked above, that we let in Vietnamese refugees, the answer should be obvious. The Vietnamese Buddhists and Christians were fully able to integrate into American society. They were not raised on a belief system that counselled them, that taught them, to see others as their enemies and to work to dominate them, and to spread a belief-system that was inimical in every way to the legal, political and other institutions and arrangements and understandings of this country. That is quite different from the permanent problem posed by Islam.

Anyone who begins to prate about "what we owe the Iraqis" should be reminded of who has been fighting for the idea of "Iraq" over the past few years, who has been spending or committing a half-trillion dollars, receiving only more demands for more-more-more, and whining, and ingratitude, and the occasional smile as some "Iraqi" asks for a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq. Oh, they've had their Marshall Plan. They've had all kinds of things.

And they've got the oil wealth to live on, like all the other Muslim oil states that are rich through no effort on their own. They can stay there in Iraq. They can move about - Shi'a to Shi'a controlled regions, Sunni to Sunni controlled regions in Iraq, or outside Iraq, to other Arab countries. But examine the attitude of Iraqis toward the Americans who rescued them from a murderous despot who had ruled for 35 years, and whose homicidal sons were prepared to succeed him and to rule for another 35. Examine the behavior of both Iraqi civilians and the Iraqi soldiers and police, the former in often demonstrating indifference to or even taking pleasure in the killings of Americans, and the latter often neglecting their duties or running away, or selling the weapons supplied to them by the Americans on the black market, and almost in no case providing the kind of minimal aid that the Americans had, and have, every right to expect that people will offer. It is, after all, their country and supposedly it is they who care about it.

But we have had quite a demonstration of how the Iraqis think and behave. It has been edifying. And the officers and men of the American military, who have served in Iraq, ought to be consulted first about whether or not they think that we "owe Iraqis" something and whether or not they think tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Muslims should be allowed to settle in our country, or for that matter other Infidel lands.

The response of those officers and men should be instructive.

[The Avon Lady]

Beam me up, Scotty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe4WA58rMu0&eurl=)! :88)

[Iceman]

send in a few tactical nukes and solve it all....come back there in 40 years and you'll have a big oil reserve...

The only solution is Christ.


Glad I am atheist! :o

You guys just don't get it...either make the whole tree evil or make it good...instead you fumble around in the dark....and cry oh why oh why!

Serve who you will and reap what you sow...you sow kaos you will reap it.Well reap it.Even demons are united in their efforts against light....there is no unity in the world and will never be under any "human"..."This is the condemnation of man that light came into the world and men loved the darkness more than light".Well enjoy the freefall....

These evil mens eyes are set on the destruction Israel period.They will find themselves in for a rude awaking soon.I choose to let the the Lord Jesus Christ do my battles for me, he is able.I do not advocate the use of neclear weapons you knuckle heads, read between the lines...I only imply the absurdity of a people who choose to take the couse of action of war...as to why they think there is some "special" way as to how they are to conduct it....the object is to win with the least amount of loss on your side....and when it comes to Gods people not one will be lost.

He that is evil let him be evil still he that is holy let him be holy still.

PS I am speaking about how America is conducting the war if anyone got lost in that lol....War is hell and dirty.

[CCIP]

Wow, and after that one, I'm REALLY glad I'm an atheist :doh:

[Schatten]

Wow, and after that one, I'm REALLY glad I'm an atheist :doh:
Yeah because atheists never did anything like wipe out whole bunches of people! Wait, who were Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao again?

Just messing with ya some, but it'd be a mistake in my opinion to think that religion is the only thing that makes people go a little nutty and decide to wipe out bucketloads of people. Or that taking religion out of the equation would necessarilly remove those sort of impulses.

People have always been a little nutty, it's part of our charm as a species. Religion, ethnicity, politics, etc. just make it easier to organize and channel impulses that are already hardwired.

Yeah I'm obviously a really optomistic "up with people" sort of guy... :sunny:

[Konovalov]

Guys, This thread was specifically about the recent speech by President George W Bush on te situation in Iraq and the US changes in strategy. It was not about religion. Religion has been done to death on this forum. Start a new thread if you like but don't hijack mine. Thanks. :D

[Gizzmoe]

I´ve moved some of the posts to a new thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=103716

[baggygreen]

SO people, what do we all think about the newest nes headlines at subsim.com?

Media speculation?

Leaked information?

Deliberate information?

my bet is for #3, that they're laying the building blocks for an attack, and by christ i hope so. Not because im a warmonger, but because i believe it honestly needs doing

[Konovalov]

SO people, what do we all think about the newest nes headlines at subsim.com?

Media speculation?

Leaked information?

Deliberate information?

my bet is for #3, that they're laying the building blocks for an attack, and by christ i hope so. Not because im a warmonger, but because i believe it honestly needs doing

Do you mean a US strike by the United States upon Iran in April as mentioned in that news article?

If so then I doubt it. It may have been put out there by the US as a signal just as the Patriot missile battery deployments were IMO.

Yesterday Stephen Hadley was interviewed by Tim Russert on NBC Meet the Press. Russert asked Hadley "He raised eyebrows when he talked about Iran and Syria in his speech on Wednesday night, sending carrier groups, Patriot missiles, positioning supplies, weapons, ships into the area near Iran. Are we preparing for a potential military conflict with Iran?"

Hadley replied "No. The president has said very clearly that the issues we do—we have with Iran should be solved diplomatically in terms of the nuclear issue. He did say that Iranians are active in Iraq, supporting people who are putting our American troops and Iraqis at risk. He said very clearly we are going to deal with that, we’re going to disrupt those operations.

But that’s why I tried to say earlier, Tim, there’s a broad struggle going on in the Middle East between the forces of freedom and democracy, the forces of terror and tyranny, and Iran is behind a lot of that. They’re behind Hezbollah. They’re about—behind Hamas. And the region is looking and watching and asking the question whether the United States is going to stay engaged in that region and be an ally of those countries who want to resist an effort by Iran to basically establish hegemony over in that region, and that’s why the president is taking those steps."

Full story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

[AJ!]

Well at this point its become far too obvious that america cant just "pull out".

Its already been confirmed by military officials that Al qaeda is regaining power and becoming more oppressive to coalision forces by the day...... of course theres also countless other factions and countrys against the US now.

America is far too intrenched in the war in the east and currently has the future of the middle east in its hands.

I feel they had no choice but to commit more troops to the fight. With the growing terrorist groups spreading all over the world, and of course new cells in africa, a new and more brutal approch is needed

If America were to pull out now then we would see attacks in the west so horrific, people would forget the 9/11 incident......

Dont forget we are no longer in a cold war era where two super powers only use weapons of mass destruction as deterants ... The Soviet union was just as scared as the west by nuclear weapons and would do anything to avoid using them knowing full well about M.A.D......... but america is now making enemies who arnt affraid to use biological and nuclear weapons and are more contempt with killing themselves in order to destroy america :nope:

[bradclark1]

America is far too intrenched in the war in the east and currently has the future of the middle east in its hands.
I'd say Iran and Saudi Arabia has the future in it's hands. All we've done is open it up for them.

[The Avon Lady]

If America were to pull out now then we would see attacks in the west so horrific, people would forget the 9/11 incident......
I believe this to be very true. The west's politicians, military and national defense agencies still do not understand what they're up against. Iraq is indeed a distraction, drawing terrorists like flies to feces. But the inadvertant distraction won't last forever.

[The Avon Lady]

If America were to pull out now then we would see attacks in the west so horrific, people would forget the 9/11 incident......
I believe this to be very true. The west's politicians, military and national defense agencies still do not understand what they're up against. Iraq is indeed a distraction, drawing terrorists like flies to feces. But the inadvertant distraction won't last forever.
For example (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24006_Pittsburgh_Trib-Review_Investigates_Rail_Security&only). And anyone of us here can think of other similar "creative" plots.

[AJ!]

Indeed the current middle east theatre is just a distraction... Problem is Bush feels by sending more troops over he will be able to quell a war that is no longer limited to that theatre.

America is still using a tactic of "cut off the head and the body will die" against the terrorist cells which just doesnt seem to work. The groups regenerate quicker then the americans can neutralize them and theres always a new head to replace the old.

And with every casualty the terrorists take they become more determined to win

The war is easily turning into another vietnam. the most advanced technology and sheer force is still brought to a halt by an enemy who can use his home turf and gurrila tactics to their advantage..... i mean what good is a multimillion dollar gunship against a enemy that conseals themselves in the civilian population

[geetrue]

Indeed the current middle east theatre is just a distraction... Problem is Bush feels by sending more troops over he will be able to quell a war that is no longer limited to that theatre.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one AJ ... The middle east theater is just that a theater and by being there we are a threat to their threats from Bin Laden's number two man (I can't spell worth a darn) that keeps sending messages that are months old. Bush is sending more troops, because Secretary Rumsfield didn't when he was asked to by his own comanders. Our troops have been playing hide and seek. A very dangerous game ... with more troops we can knock on more doors with good ole M-16's.


America is still using a tactic of "cut off the head and the body will die" against the terrorist cells which just doesnt seem to work. The groups regenerate quicker then the americans can neutralize them and theres always a new head to replace the old.

We are fighting terrorist cells that are being supplied money and arms from Iran which spells sh**te protected by sh**te forces within Iraq (the president himself is a sh**te). We haven't been able to neutralize anything due to, I say inside information being leaked to where we are going to neutralize. The enemy probably lives in the rural areas and come to Dodge just to make trouble, although I have no proof of this.


And with every casualty the terrorists take they become more determined to win The war is easily turning into another vietnam. the most advanced technology and sheer force is still brought to a halt by an enemy who can use his home turf and gurrila tactics to their advantage..... i mean what good is a multimillion dollar gunship against a enemy that conseals themselves in the civilian population

This is not Vietnam, they were backed by Russia and China and were a tougher fightning force than any modern day muslim has even thought about being.

The civilian population you speak of is ripe for this conflict to be over ... Offer them the same $25,000 for staying alive instead of dying in a lost cause car bomb explosion. Give them the reward for information and see how many bad guys get caught by their own mommies ... I know, I know Army intelligence has already tried this, but try harder.

[AJ!]

You make some good points geetrue.

I guess from the looks of things Iraq is about to loose the support from Iran if america and jerusalem have their way, and fair play to both of em for planning such attacks.

From what Iran has claimed it will do, i think the sooner their bombed down a few pegs the better.

[Ducimus]

Bush's speech, what i think summerized in cartoon form:
--------
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/IraqSurge/SURGEimages/plante.gif
-------
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/IraqSurge/SURGEimages/siers6789.jpg
-----

If what this article says is true, im not very optimistic..

Promises, Promises
What happens if the Iraqis fail again?
http://www.slate.com/id/2157391/

[baggygreen]

Well, depends on how you mean by optimistic i suppose. In a lot of ways, I think that it is about time Iran learnt a nice lesson. My wallet doesnt like this idea, because the price of crude will skyrocket straight away, but i do think its time certain nations learn what is and isnt acceptable.

[Ducimus]

In a lot of ways, I think that it is about time Iran learnt a nice lesson.

If you mean a military action, where are all these extra troops going to come from? It's not like we have a limitless manpower pool to draw from. It's pretty telling when part of that 20K extra troops are created by extending indefinatly / involnuntarily extending peoples tours.


Somewhere in this thread i saw a remark that Iraq isn't another vietnam. *shrug* I dont know really, but i found this an interesting read on that comparision:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6245851.stm

[geetrue]

Well, depends on how you mean by optimistic i suppose. In a lot of ways, I think that it is about time Iran learnt a nice lesson. My wallet doesnt like this idea, because the price of crude will skyrocket straight away, but i do think its time certain nations learn what is and isnt acceptable.



First we take out the Iranian subs with the Russia support members training the Iranian crews. Then we fake a beach landing in the Indian Ocean drawing upon the poor 3rd world countries for ten thousand men. Hiring soliders of fortune you can find in any bar in the African/Indonesia area, dress them up with fake U.S. Marine uniforms, promise them full back up and support.

Send C-130's to scatter alumiumn foil along the Iran/Afgan border to fake out their Mirages and various other (useless without enough spare parts) airplanes. Mobile launcher AA waiting for them to cross the border.

Air drop a division of tech's and US Army Airborne to secure the oil fields ... After the first landing zone is considered safe ... bring in the newst chic jeans, fad clothes, Gucci bags etc. for the rebeleous students.

Negoitate the use of our own nukes for any country besides our own (like we did with UK back in the 1960's)(did you know UK can't target American on purpose) and speak peace to withdraw with all WMD's in echange for free Madonna and Sting concerts.

Price of gas comes down to $1.50 cents again, so the world can pollute itself even faster than it has already.

This is so good I might send it to the defense department ... :lol:

[baggygreen]

I'll be completely frank, and say yes military action - but lets be serious about it too, there cant be any troop involvement without reintroducing conscription (something i believe in, but is another kettle of fish).

Airstrikes against leadership and military targets, strikes against naval assets, yes. but to actually send in troops will result in casualty rates that people simply will not accept, both on western forces parts and enemy casualties. It is something i feel must change as well, in war people will die but we dont seem to understand that. And so, in the meantime, i feel every option excluding troops should be used.

[waste gate]

Its all a political shell game. One day the deomocrats want more troops in country the next they don't. One day the republicans want to stay the course the next redeploy. Unfortunately the army, navy, marines, and air force people are at the whim of the politicians who are grand standing for votes and personal gain and celebrity.


Troop level in Jan 2005.....troop strength in Iraq at the current level of about 120,000
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33540-2005Jan24.html
Troop level in Nov 2004...153,000 American troops now in Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/politics/20cnd-policy2.html?ex=1290142800&en=54108cc0e9a51642&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Troop level in Nov 2003...about 132,000.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1120-03.htm
Troop level in Aug 2003...about 140,000 U.S. troops and Lawmakers and other officials have begun questioning whether that was enough.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/25/sprj.irq.main/index.html

Troop levels since march of 2003
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_es.htm

[Schatten]

I'll be completely frank, and say yes military action - but lets be serious about it too, there cant be any troop involvement without reintroducing conscription (something i believe in, but is another kettle of fish).


Conscript armies are bad armies for the most part. The real problem is our teeth to tail ratio. There are huge numbers of people in the military already, but the problem is that there aren't enough combat formations. Part of that is the result of the whole "using the military as a free trade school" deal that happened over the last couple of decades and the other part is a shortsightedness about the sort of military we'd need in a Post-Cold War environment.

I mean the current US Army has about the same number of active duty combat divisions as the Marine Corps did in WWII. On paper the current Marine Corps should be more stretched than the Army is, but they aren't due to the fact that they've always been a combat arms heavy service, whereas the Army isn't.