Bush's upcoming speech on WOT

[Sixpack]

I forgot when btw..

Do ya agree that the WOT is proving to be (positively) effective and why,

or do ya disagree and why ?

[Terrax]

Not effective. We're bogged down in a guerilla war. We occupy the enemy’s territory, but can't effectively fight him. The enemy pops up to attack and then goes into hiding. And as with most wars of this type, the population of the country suffers the most. We detain, question, and cause resentment in the occupied people, while occasionally killing them. We are making far more enemies than friends in Iraq.

To be honest, I'm shocked that NY hasn't been attacked with a WMD in retaliation. Makes me think the terrorists aren't as well organized as we're led to believe. But they will get around to another attack eventually. I don't think occupying Iraq makes a bit of difference as far as planning and executing the next attack .

[Skybird]

http://www.forward.com/articles/6936
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4484736.stm
http://www.carbonweb.org/documents/Crude%20Designs%20report%20-%20final.pdf
Simply like that.

[Konovalov]

Not effective. We're bogged down in a guerilla war.

Care telling Donald Rumsfeld that after his ridiculous statements at a recent Pentagon news conference? Here is the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10255205/

Seriously I think it is about time that Rumsfeld accept responsibilty for the position we are now in. At first he denied that there was an insurgency claiming it was nothing more than a few "dead-enders". It looked like he and the Pentagon were employing a policy of denial as a method of counter-insurgency which was a joke! As a result of this denial and innaction coalition soldiers are paying the price. :damn:

And if this wasn't enough now he reveals that he has had an "epiphany" and that what is happening in Iraq doens't merit the word insurgency. Boy is he out of touch. Resign now please sir before you contribute to more needless deaths due to your head in the sand mentality! Better still please President Bush sack him! :yep:

[Konovalov]

I forgot when btw..

I didn't see the speech itself except for select sound bites on the news this evening. You can read the full National Security Council (NSC) strategy document here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_11_05_us_iraq.pdf

[kiwi_2005]

We're bogged down in a guerilla war. We occupy the enemy’s territory, but can't effectively fight him. The enemy pops up to attack and then goes into hiding

That line reminded me of a PC game i use to play, called Command & Conquer Generals. 3 sides. The US, China and the Terrorist. When playing against the terrorist they would always pop up to attack and then go in hiding. Good stragedy game BTW.

Anyway, GB can't pull out his troops, hes got to save face. If he pulled out his troops when the job is only half done it will go down as another vietnam disaster. :hmm:

[Konovalov]

We're bogged down in a guerilla war. We occupy the enemy’s territory, but can't effectively fight him. The enemy pops up to attack and then goes into hiding

That line reminded me of a PC game i use to play, called Command & Conquer Generals.

Some handy information for Rumsfeld and any other deluded soul regarding what is happening in Iraq that I have taken from some texts within arms reach on my bookshelf.

"Insurgency may be defined as a struggle between a nonruling group and the ruling authorities in which the nonruling group consciously uses political resources (eg. organisational expertise, propoganda, and demonstrations), and/or violence to destroy, reformulate, or sustain the basis of legitimacy of one or more aspects of politics."
Bard E. O'Neill: 'Insurgency and Terrorism - Inside Modern Revolutionary Warfare.'
The author is Professor of International Affairs at the National War College, Washington DC and is also Director of Middle East Studies and Director for Studies of Insurgency and Revolution.

"Guerrilla War or Insurgency, in the larger sense is revolutionary war, engaging a civilian population, or a significant part of such a populace, against the military forces of an established or usurpative governmental authority. The circumstances may vary. The authority may be alien, that is colonial, and it's opposition being much of the native population led my a vanguard of militants. In other circumstances the authority may be native, at least a nominally independent government, and the insurgency initiated by a small political faction, challenging the policies, ideology, or legitimacy of the regime."
Robert Taber: 'War of the Flea - The Classic study of Guerrilla Warfare.'

"The basic guerrilla/insurgent precepts - defeating alien occupation, having a cause to die for, having the support of a portion of the populace, attacking when least expected and never risking defeat in set battle."
David Rooney: 'Guerrilla - Insurgents, Patriots, and Terrorists from Sun Tzu to Bin Laden.'
Served in India and West Africa during the Second World War and post WWII took the post of Senior Lecturer at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, UK.

Here endeth the lesson Mr Donald Rumsfeld.

[Iceman]

You guys sound like old ladies I swear ya crack me up...lol.Best thing bush said I think was aimed directly at people like you guys....This is/was/is not a war that will end with an unconditional surrender on a Battleship.Get real...Skybird probably has a close idea with his links about oil.American troops ain't going no where ...ever.Ya think they are gonna leave all that spoil for Iran now or goof balls like Zarqi or Ossama to swoop up on... get real.At's like leaving gold bricks around.Be realistic....ya know eaxactly what's going to happen....Iraqi troops will be trained up and American roles will shift more to support and tactical.They ain't never leaving or at least for 20 - 30 yrs or so if ever. And to leave is to invite absolute kaos and anarchy.If you peoples from overseas will notice about Americas populariaty poles here in the U.S. in this case pertaining to Bush....there are 3 groups.People who stand by thier chiefs and there decisions right or wrong...those who will oppose just for the sake of ying and yang...and the majority who is swayed like the wind.Anyone who actually thought that a major War like was launched would end any sooner or go any different that it has should wake up and smell some coffee.

Believe it or not I do understand who Always get's the short end of the stick is the innocent. I truly hope as Iraqi's government evolves and re-takes some sort of shape and they do politely kick us back out and not let us take over control of thier oil.

But I shudder to think of the un-balance in the region and the world if America packs it's bags now. :huh:

[kiwi_2005]

Iraqi troops will be trained up and American roles will shift more to support and tactical.They ain't never leaving or at least for 20 - 30 yrs or so if ever

But that means your saying GB is a lair. Last night on television here on the news it showed GB speaking to soldiers in the states. he says when the iraqi troops manage on there own then america will pull out its troops. (not in exact words but close).

I dont think the US will leave there troops in iraq for 20-30 yrs? Nor do i think the US are in iraq because of oil, they went there to kick hussains butt. Being a world power you dont have to worry about oil, if the US need oil one day they'll get it.

[Kapitan]

the oil rigs near mexico are all thaat america mainly has and they are becoming victims or could to severe weather rendering them useless.

america like britian and many other european and american countries rely on imports hence why they have super tankers to transport oil.

america is not self suffienct it cant produce enough oil for it self so to make the ballence it imports same as britain does.

if america went to war over oil he probly would have the support from the europeans because they need it to, but then they got to pick a country to invade and chances are they are all allied like iran is allied to china and india to russia and china and so on.

if america invaded iran chances are bejing wont just stand by and watch they wont invade the UAE as they are a capitalist country and if they did it would wipe trillions of dollars of the market instantly.

only people left are the few african countrys but then it could turn into the new black hawk down

[Skybird]

Read the third link I gave, the author is an expert from inside the oil business. It teaches you some lessons how an oil economy and market is controlled - not by troops, but by forming according business rules. The current treaties American companies are aiming to sign in 2006 will give the profit ranges at the cost of the Iraqis that are up to 1500% above what is common practice in global oil trade. Losses for the Iraqi economy will be in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars. At the same time there is some talk about giving Iraq financial and rebuilding aid - that the taxpayer in the Wesrt and America should come up for, not those taking the profit - the oil companies? why not leavin Iraq the money in the first, then? I am sure the war was only about getting a government into place that would be corrupt enough to be willing to sign such treaties (the first politically representatives the CIA was trying to get into office one and a half years ago were exactly designed to ease that path, by their biography - check them out, and you see) - treaties that no party with a reasonable mindset ever would sign voluntarily if it has some sense of responsebility for it's people left. The boni for environmental risk factors (offshore, for example) foreign companies pumping oil in a hosting country as a common practice are allowed had been exaggerated in case of Iraq from the beginning, to have a legal basis for the planned exploitation (in treaties the question is not if they are morally correct, but what they say black on white). But these environmental risk factors are not given in Iraq, nevertheless the boni were demanded to be multiple times as high as it is anywhere else in the world, under the most difficult mining conditions. And it was planned to be so LONG BEFORE THE WAR EVEN STARTED, or violant resistance formed up..

the second-best thing is that this flow of money will not be for the benefit of the tax payers who payed for the war in america - it will find it's way into the pockets of oil companies exclusively. The costs for the war will be suffered by the general public and community. that is the money that is missing in education, hospitals, social welfare, desaster aide, and every field where the state has some control and responsebility.

The first thing troops did when entering Bagdhad in 2003 was - rushing for the oil ministry. Hospitals, supply, plundering of cultural wealth from museums that even cannot be estimated in value, economy, water, electricity - everything else was of no importance, compared to seizing the control over the oil ministry back in those days. Why the hurry when those previously beeing in control of government and ministries had been gone...? To prevent anyone else going there and gain evidence for status of oil economy and ressources, black on white, maybe? Prevent the stealing of some type writers?

You guys are damn wrong if you think control means having an army in place. That's the novice's understanding only, like some people say war is not about logistics, but exclusively firepower. Controlling the economical system, the patterns of trade, the rules by which distribution of risks and profit is decided is far more important. The troops will sneak out sooner or later, undeafeted, by demoralized, unable to claim a victory of ethics, and tens of thousands of them will suffer from their experience in the hidden, will remain seriously ill and see the lifes they once new beeing a shadow only anymore, and many of them will be disowned by the public that once accepted them to be sent to war - things are at least as evil as they were under Saddam, some say they are worse. Sooner or later foreign troops will go, only "advisors" and a well-hidden intel and recce capacity will be left somewhere, where it does not trigger attention but can project influence - no matter if the security status can be handled by the Iraqi alone. The parallels to the end phase in Vietnam are stunning. Both wars were started by lies and flawed assumptions, and in both wars America nevertheless remained undefeated, but lost politically. the major differenbce only is that this time, as described above, the US military and intel community will keep a well-camouflaged foot in the door.

If I were a US soldier, I would have to talk some very serious words with the leader of the White House gang. I would feel betrayed that I had to risk my life and order my men into harm's way just to get some companies some of the most lucrative business deals history has ever seen, while beeing told at the same time we go there for moral reasons. I would demand an explanation why I had to fight a war that was not in defense or in the interest of the people I have swortn to protect. I would demand an explanation whyt happens to the billions of dollars some comaopnies will shovel into their pockets, and if this really is just, and why there is no benefit for the general public. A commander-in-chief lying to me I could not trust. The US army is no private enterprise of economical circles, it is for the interest of the people - not a small elite of the people. I respect and honour the willingness of soldiers to serve if the cause is just and fair. But the ethical motives given by their leaders where lies - and many of them swallowed it. Here is where my respect ends.