The practice of "copy and paste" regarding news and opinions can be a viable means of provoking debate provided the poster provides a link to the source and has personal commentary to add to the story/article. Henceforth any postings of this sort without a link and posters commentary will be deleted. Thanks for your cooperation.



Here

A link was provided, no comment was needed, unless you encourage sarcasm. Seems you're well on the way to depopulating this place.

Septics sponsor kidnappers and murderers in Iraq.

Yeah, what's wrong with quoting from an article and linking the source, how much commentary is needed to make it acceptable?

I often quote passages of text from different sources to introduce a subject or make a point/add info. For examples, see the "humanism" and "socialism" topics I started.
So adding, for example, "I found these articles rerevant for our discussions and worth posting" would save the post from being deleted?
...or adding something like: "The raving lunatic lefties will scream when they read this" would make it a quality post which will not be deleted?

You need to put a bit more thought and effort into revising the board rules, Phil.

It's like watching a trainwreck in slow motion. You know you shouldn't look but you keep watching

Iraq says 85 insurgents killed in raid




That an't All!!!

Just another "mission accomplished".
Killing 35 will only piss off 3500 more. Like swatting flies in a barn. Good luck

Which explains why in the course of two years the US has managed to topple Iraq's government, build an interim government, have elections, form a parliamentary government, all while keeping the Insurgency on the run.

The Iraq Insurgency is a joke. As a guerilla force they can win this war in one of two ways:

A.) Convince the Iraqi people to rise up and side with them
B.) Convince the US and her allies to leave Iraq, and then take over the country

they have failed miserably at both.

Course the insurgents may not see this in clearcut win/lose terms. That's very much a Western concept.

The US won't leave whatever happens so the insurgents will keep the pot boiling. Wouldn't you if the US was occupied by an Arab army?

http://www.ericblumrich.com/y2.html

Sure.

The insurgency does not have popular support any longer, plain and simple.

There was a time when they had a chance in this war, but they squandered it long ago. Eventually the insurgency will be choked to death. A guerilla group of this sort can only survive for too long with a serious base of popular support. That base slips from their grasp, more and more with each passing day.

That's great news. I guess we won't be needing the armoured HUMVs after all.

I said that the Iraqi Insurgency has already lost the war, not that the war is over.

For clarification let's look at World War II.

Nazi Germany had lost World War II by 1944, with the United States opening a second front in France, and the USSR advancing in from the east after German defeat at Stalingrad, the Third Reich had little chance for survival. The Battle of the Bulge was their last great flail, but they no longer had the economic might to support driving back both the United States from the west and the Soviet Union from the east. Hitler's time was done.

Finished though Germany was in 1944, the war did not end until well into 1945.

Does that clarify what I mean for you?

To show an example of someone elses point that the insurgents are getting to be the real enemy among Iraqi's thse days.

U.S. Captures Chopper Shoot-Down Suspects

3 days later after the incisence Iraqi civilians turned these guys in.

http://www.13wham.com/news/national/story....61-626EC0FDAD7C

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/4409609/detail.html


That is all!

Not really. WW2 was a conventional war with a clearly defined enemy. Vietnam would be a better analogy in this case I think. Iraq is worse than Vietnam in many ways because of the global, religious, cultural and economic implications.

Vietnam was a major conventional war. The United States was fighting the North Vietnamese army on the border, as well as elements of the Chinese and Soviet militaries.

The Viet Cong however, were a far more effective insurgency than the Iraqi one.

When one wants to engage in a guerilla war, there are two ways one may win that war:

1.) Engage the enemy in a Pyrhhian war. Make the war so much trouble for them that it isn't worth it and they go home.
2.) Gain the support of the civilian populace and have them rise up in support of you, making it more or less impossible for the occupiers to stay.

Generally these two things go hand in hand. While the Viet Cong achieved both objectives (the first one with some help from North Vietnam, China, and the Soviet Union.) the Iraqi Insurgency has achieved neither of them.

Vietnam was a major UNconventional war. The Viet Cong did not have the full support of the Vietnamese people. There was even a South Vietnamese Army helping the US.

All wars are different. To me it seems there has been an escalation in strategic thinking. There may not be such a thing as conventional warfare anymore.

We are told the Iraq war is part of the War Against Terrorism. Such a war can only be 'won' either by eliminating all the terrorists (and/or insurgents, guerillas, fanatics etc.) or dealing with the root cause of terrorism. Otherwise it will go on and on.

The Iraqi Security Forces are riddled with informers. Sadr is as vehemently anti-US as any ex-Baathist. I don't think setting the Kurdish Pershmerga onto the Sunnis is an option either since Turkey wouldn't stand for it.

The US must win the War on Terror by addressing the root cause of terrorism. However as long as the current Middle East status quo is in place, we cannot change anything. Sustaining the current status quo is to sustain terror.

I think the more you(?) meddle the worse it gets. But please yourself. I'm just a cynic.

That simply false.

Democratic reform in Afghanistan
Democratic reform in Iraq
Democratic reform in Egypt
Democratic Revolution in Lebanon
Lybia opening itself up to the west for the first time in decades
Democratic reform in Saudi Arabia
Democratic revolution in Kyrgyzstan
Democratic reform in Mongolia
More hope than ever for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Unprecedented amounts of progress has been made in the Middle East and elsewhere since 9/11

Rubbish. They're all just pawns in somebody's game. Freedom and democracy? Progress? You must be kidding. Westerners can't walk down a street in any of those places anymore.

The day I can walk from Gaza to Hebron without being arrested or sleep in the ruins of Petra or Leptis Magna or sit in a Kandahar teahouse again with friendly Afghans or stroll through the bazar in Shiraz or drink beer with Iraqis by the Tigris without a bullet proof vest I'll agree with you.

Whether or not you agree with my by your standards is totally irrelevant.

Whether or not you can sleep in some ruins is irrelevant
Whether or not Afghans like you is irrelevant
Whether or not Iraqis like you is irrelevant

Your self-appointed standards are irrelevant, and whether or not Arabs like the US is irrelevant.

A Democratic Middle East serves OUR interests.

A Democratic Middle East serves THEIR interests.

And thus, there will be a Democratic Middle East.

The progress has been made, whether or not you feel it is a joke is, you guessed it, irrelevant.

As usual, the Right deals with facts while the Left deals with "feelings"

And if you feel that it is impossible to find Iraqis, Afghans, or Arabs in general that are Pro-US then not only are you ignorant, you are fairly racist.

Arabs, like every other ethnic group on Earth, have diverse viewpoints.

Well that's a strange way to discuss things I must say. Dismiss reactions you don't like as irrelevant. Hmmmm I'll keep that one in mind.

I didn't say there aren't Iraqis whatever that are pro-US. Where did you read that? Or are you trying to put words in my mouth? I just said a bunch of power hungry meddlers have made the region unsafe for everybody. I'll stick with that opinion because as far as I can see there was no insurgency before the invasion.

And you forgot to mention the so-called democratic Iraqi government is huddled in a bunker in the Green Zone.

when oh when will be democratic revolution (or whatever was mentioned?) in US ? just for start ...

I have one iraqi friend here in Bkk - I asked him recently, so, Jawad - are you going back to homeland? it was already "liberated" and became democratic and "free" , you know ! guess what was his reply !

he decided to rather stay here in the Land of Smiles. whatever his reasons are - but definetely hs isn't impressed much by "changes" made by "liberators" .... true - he told me stories about Saddam's regime, one of the main reasons he has left his country some years ago. but somehow he doesn't think he wanna go back there despite all the fanfare by all these "cheerleadears" (nice cliche BTW - at least much better and funny than "cronies" one)

That's what they are, cheerleaders. They sing and dance and keep repeating things over and over until people believe it. Anybody who doesn't join in is excluded from the group for having a negative attitude. It's an old advertising technique. Selling politics is like selling underarm deodorant.

alright, here it comes! ustrader - don't be shy, speak out ! surely you have a lot to say aprat from "That is all"

You implied that all or at least the vast vast majority of people in the Middle East are anti-US. Since the Iraq war their viewpoints have become much more splintered.

Why do I need to respond to anything you said? You didnt use facts. You didnt provide sources. You just talked about how you felt. Why would how you feel matter?

Josh Chuck, I always thought that you were a 'certified' Democrat. Anyone who is willing to talk about his party that way, just may be unhappy with it, or trying to be PC?

Why indeed? I'm irrelevant. Ignore me. You too John.

Think I'll post that again by accident.

Why indeed? I'm irrelevant. Ignore me. You too John.

I didn't imply you were irrelevant.

You clearly are not stupid so don't act like it. Post something of substance instead of talking about how you feel.

I have seen enough of what you say to expect more from you than that insubstantiave BS.

Ben, Chuck and Bubba have one thing in common that readily comes to mind. They are both......................Glib. And usually those who are glib are filled with their own sense of self-importance. Chuck is not quite up there at the top yet, but he is working on it.

CwoW, Son, if you knew anything about what you were talking about you would be a danger to yourself and anyone near you.

To say Vietnam did not have Global, cultural and economic implications is audacious. To say Iraq has anything to do with religion is an equally defenseless fact. this is more of this fallacious anti-Muslim paradigm you lot want to believe but which is not true.

You and I know, that had American’s been attacked by Frenchmen over the last 20 years all over the world and especially on 9/11 we, American’s would be looking down the French throats with an equally aggressive and in your face response.

These Arab fighters / Terrorist, in terms of bravery, tenacity and determined will, on there best day ever in their warrior history, could never walk even under the soles of the shoes of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong warrior in any measure as a fighters.

The evidence of this is the facts of the warfare in the Middle East over the last 60 years.

Taking nothing away from these brave soldiers in Iraq, as today's grunts are patrolling a battlefield every bit as deadly and crucible as we faced in Southeast Asia but just not as tenacious nor against a foe of even marginal capability or will to fight.

Even though it is true they do truly face death and destruction daily never the less the numbers of opponents, the quality of their opponents ability as fighters and the intensity and the quality of combat day in and day out is not comparative at all.

There is little doubt that the quality of our Soldiers in Iraq today is superior, for the most part, to those we fielded in Vietnam. T

hey are better motivated, better educated, better trained and more commitment as individuals to a military profession.

We won’t even consider the quantum leap in their equipment and its additional capability in making them far superior and combat effective force than those of our Vietnam generation.

But truth is, in both Iraq wars, the enemy our troops were and are fighting in the Middle East are not even worthy of being compared to the North Vietnamese or Viet Cong. It is an insult to compare any Arab fighters of the last 60 years to these Vietnamese of the 1960’s and 70’s.

If combat deaths and wounded are measures of the combat intensity and ferocity, Vietnam was by far more intense and extensive than both Iraq campaigns. As was WWII and Korea top that of Vietnam.


There are at least a half a dozen reserves who served as Helo pilots in Vietnam and both Iraq’s wars and they have said publicly the two wars as a comparison as to intensity and the fierceness of the enemy is like night and day. They say it is is not as intense nor deadly.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1351925/posts
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...DAB0894DD404482


Similarly, the 4 Israeli / Arab wars, where the Arabs where superior in equipment and personnel are additional proof of the comparative fighting and bravery ability of the Middle Eastern Arabs visa v the Vietnamese.


* SVN South Vietnam ** NVN North Vietnam *** KIA Excluding non-combat deaths

Year 1966 US KIA- 5,008(USMC –KIA –3786) SVN –KIA-11,953 NVN –KIA-71,473 Total-88,434
US WIA- 29,992

Year 1967 US KIA– 9,378(USMC –KIA –3786) SVN –KIA-12,716 NVN –KIA-133,484 Total-155,578
US WIA- 56,013

1968 US KIA- 14,594(USMC –KIA –5047) SVN –KIA-28,800 NVN –KIA-208,254 Total-251,648
US WIA- 87,388

1969 US KIA- 9,414(USMC –KIA –2694) SVN- KIA-22,000 NVN –KIA-132,051 Total-163,465
US WIA- 55,390

USMC –KIA –Total 3 years. 67,68, 69; =11,527, 77.7% of ALL USMC KIA 1962 -1972 which totaled 14, 836 in Vietnam.

Provinces

Quang Nam – 8,084 Quang Tri – 7,532 Total= 15,616

The land area of these two provinces is 50 sq KM by 500 sq km.

In the years 1967, 1968 and 1969 the allied forces were losing over 525 KIA a month. Compared to 2.28 per month in Iraq.

Top US ARMY UNITS KIA

1st Cavalry Division 5,464 -
25th Infantry Division 4,561 -
101st Airborne Division 4,022 -
1st Infantry Division 3,151
Total 17,198



I was particularly amused at the lack of knowledge comparison in the following article:

Iraq 2004 Looks Like Vietnam 1966
Adjusting body counts for medical and military changes.

By Phillip Carter and Owen West
Posted Monday, Dec. 27, 2004, at 3:34 PM PT

Phillip Carter is an attorney and former Army officer who writes on military and legal affairs from Los Angeles. Owen West, a trader for Goldman Sachs, served in Operation Iraqi Freedom with the Marines.

The main and central premise of the article was the following thesis:

Concluded that improvements to military medicine since Vietnam have dramatically reduced the rate at which U.S. troops die of wounds sustained in combat.

The argument follows a 2002 study that tied improvements in U.S. civilian trauma medicine to the nation's declining murder rate.

While firearm assaults in the United States were rising, the murder rate was falling, largely because penetration wounds that proved fatal 30 years ago were now survivable. Thus, today's murder rate were artificially depressed in comparison to the 1960s.

Simply, a soldier was nearly 1.5 times more likely to die from his wounds in Vietnam than in Iraq today.

· * ****
·
In 1966 the US had 386,000 troops in Vietnam and as the article points today, in Iraq we have, on average, about 142,000. (a ratio of 2.71 to 1)

In Iraq, beginning in March 2003, 25 months ago, US Forces have had 1,122 combat KIA.

They have, as well, during the same period had (451 personnel die non-combat deaths)

The total US killed in Iraq over the 25 month period is 1573) along with an additional 90 allied, non-Iraqi, Soldiers Killed in Iraq.

We have had 11,888 wounded in Iraq in that 25 months.

But 5,970 (51%) of those were returned to duty within 72 hours. Leaving 5,918 unable to return to duty requiring evacuation because of wounds.

Comparatively

In Iraq in 25 months we had 1,122 combat KIA and 5,918 combat WIA.

In Vietnam in a 24 months period, 1966 and 1967 we had 14,386 combat KIA some combat WIA of 86,005.

Using a equalizer factor of Troop numbers as a factor of (2.71 to 1) *(Vietnam vs Iraq)

We extrapolate the 1,122 Iraqi KIA x 2.71 to get an adjusted 3,041 combat KIA and our 5,918 Iraq WIA x 2.71 adjusted to get 16,037 combat WIA.

Using the other factor mentioned in th article that a wounded Vietnam veteran was 1.5 times more likely to die from a wound than an US soldier wounded in Iraq.

Assuming we could go back in time and save 1.5 more of the Vietnam KIA.

We take the 14,386 Vietnam KIA of the above mention 24 month period and adjusted that, so that more Vietnam KIA would have not died as they say is occurring in Iraq.

So we divide 14,386 Vietnam KIA’s by 1.5

That gives us an Iraqi adjusted Vietnam KIA for 24 months of 9, 590 KIA that is still 3 times the adjust troop factor of Iraq increase to 3,041 in 25 months.

So if combat deaths and wounds are an fair indication of a wars intensity and the level of combat occurring.

WE see that Vietnam’s1966 and 1967 adjusted Iraq KIA 3,041 and WIA 16,037 compares to Vietnams adjusted 9,590 KIA and 90,851 WIA (adding the extra 4,796 Vietnam KIA that would have lived from their wounds if Vietnam had been fought with the medial technology of today.

If you adjusted these figured for 1967 and 1968 it would be many times higher and even if 1968 and 1969 it would be as well a lot larger comparatively.

In any measure comparing these Arab fighters to the Vietnamese of the 1960’s and 1970’s is like comparing the Vietnam war protesters to today’s wimps and cry babies, not even in the same league.



Sources:
http://members.aol.com/forcountry/kiamonth.htm

http://www.vietnamwall.org/pdf/casualty.pdf

http://slate.msn.com/id/2111432
http://icasualties.org/oif/

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Ar...02.IraqViet.pdf

That is all!

Though my hatred for the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong is/was just as strong as my hatred for the Iraqi Insurgency, there is one difference, and ustrader got it right on.

The Vietnamese demanded respect. They were an enemy that were fierce, ruthless, and above all efficient.

Efficiency is a concept that it would seem is alien to the Insurgency.

And how about those Germans? It's a race thing. Arabs are hopelessly inefficient. There are some good ones though.

I am sure you would LOVE me to fit you're racist strawman of Right-Wing ideology, but I am afraid I can say that I do not.

It is a military thing. The Iraqi Insurgency is a poor level of military force.

I will now kindly ask you not to excuse me of racism for no reason. I'm after all, not the one here who believes that Arabs are the only ethnic group on Earth that either cannot handle Democracy or will actively reject it when offered.

Enough to keep 150,000 US troops and 150,000 (?) Iraqi security forces busy. But I think the US will find a rationale for staying in Iraq whatever happens.

As far as democracy goes I'm sure some will go along with some version of it. Some won't. The majority probably just want to be left alone to get along with their lives. It's not an ethnic thing at all.....it's just the way people are. They probably would accept some kind of homegrown democracy based on the existing tribal and religious structure. They just don't like being manipulated or having some alien system thrust down their throats.

You know nothing of military tactics or strategy. The fact that the insurgency exists is not indicitave that the insurgency is winning. Don't post on the military anymore, unless you enjoy embarrassing yourself.

We don't know for sure whether or not democracy will fall apart in Iraq in the end. All we know is that Saddam fell, a democratic government is being put in place, and the insurgency has so far been unable to unseat the US and her allies, or the new Iraqi government.

In short, all we know so far is that the political right has been correct about every major Iraq prediction since the fall of Baghdad.

There you go again. When did I say the insurgents are winning? I said they are keeping 150,000 US troops and 150,000 (?) Iraqi security forces busy. Can you deny it? You are the one who sees things in terms of winning and losing. If anything it looks like a stalemate.

I spent quite a bit of time living and working with Iraqis. Contrary to popular belief they are not stupid, vindictive people. They are some of the warmest most hospitable people I have ever met. As I said before in my irrelevant post....the day I can sit by the Tigris drinking beer without a flak jacket will be the day I agree with your plans for Iraq.

To our naysayers:



That is allQ

The root cause of terrorism is that they want to establish an Islamic State. Re-establish the Khilafah that hasnt existed since the fall of the Ottoman empire. And, their belief that they can bring it about through terrorism.
We can either help them to establish their goals, OR, convince them that not only is terrorism inneffective at achieving their goals, but instead actually detrimental to those goals. (or at a minimum at least that terroriism against the US is detrimental)
Iran?? This current threat of terrorism against the US is very much a Sunni phenomenon. I dont believe Iran presents any such threat against the US.
MARK


"Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders."

Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh

Pretty much the sentiments of any Foreigner from any country living in the US.

MARK

I think we will be there until Iraq asks us to leave. MARK

Yes I think you are right. Who is Iraq?

Its a Middle eastern nation, not a person. Above Saudi Arabia, West of Iran. I suspect they (the people of Iraq as represented by their new government) will need us for internal security for another year or so, but would likely have us remain, stationed on a couple of military bases, for years into the future to guard against external threats. Will take some time to build up an Iraqi military who could defend against any foriegn invasion. MARK

Thank you. Yes I am sure the people of Iraq as represented by their new government will need 'us' for at least a year or so. I am also reasonably certain that a couple of military bases will remain for years into the future to guard against external threats. I think there may also be a few internal threats that will need guarding against.

No, if anything it looks like the Insurgents are fighting a losing war.

COMPLETED AMERICAN OBJECTIVES:

Topple Saddam's Regime
Win the hearts and minds of the majority of Iraqis
Allow the Iraqi people to set up a government of their own

COMPLETED INSURGENT OBJECTIVES:

0

C Woww you think there will be some internal threats that need protecting againt? SHOCKING!

That describes almost any nation on the continents of Asia, Africa, and South America

Are you referring to the Wahabiists or the Arab People in General?

If you mean the Wahabiists and the Mullahites in general, yes I agree with you.

If you mean the Arab people in general, it's really not true. Greater Middle East Islamism only found it's rise in 1979. It's a flash in the pan on Arab history.

I kind of doubt either the Mullah or the Wahabbists would restore the Kallafah. No, I think the title of Kallafah found it's end in the hands of the Mongolian Horde.

Not one of your most poignant observations. The internal threats you are talking about are trivial compared to the mayhem in Iraq where Westerners can't move around outside the Green Zone without getting shot or kidnapped. Just getting from the airport to Baghdad is extremely dangerous. I can't think of any other country in any other continent where that is true.

I mean all Islamic fundamentalists. And the Ottoman Empire was the last incarnation of the Khilafah, dismantled in 1924.
"Flash in the pan"???
1740s Abd al-Wahhab was preaching islamic fundamentalism. He was expelled from Uyayna and went to Ad dir iyah under the protection of Muhammad Ibn SAUD, the local chief. The two teamed up and consolidated power amongst the tribes and drove out the Hashemites and began the creation of Saudi Arabia under the house of Saud.
Flash forward a couple of centuries, 1927, 3 years after the fall of the Khilafah the wahabbis believe that Ibn SAUD with his oil concessions is selling out control of the oil to the British and french and revolt against the monarchy. Ibn responds with brutal repression. Many of the Wahabbis fled to Egypt. 1928 the Muslim brotherhood is founded in Egypt. Alqaedas goals mirror those of al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Restoration of the Khilafah. MARK

I dont mean Islamic Fundamentalism is a flash in the pan, I mean this particular incarnation of it.

Against the thousands of years of Arabic history, this current Islamism is flash in the pan.

Excuse me interjecting but I think there has been a religious revival of sorts both among Christian and Islamic fundamentalists. I'm not sure how widespread it is or how long it will last. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a flash in the pan because I don't see any way to judge.