OT YOU WANNA WIN THIS War In Iraq?

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:Wvudncufn8VjhVbfRVn-vA@ez2.net...[color=blue]
>
> "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> news:1120175203.3966222ae80aa69449509b71be1f738d@teranews...[color=green]
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news:msednSme7oMYzlnfRVn-2w@ez2.net...[color=darkred]
>> >
>> > "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1120096956.037392.177530@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> OK... I am sick and tired of the bellyaching from both sides on this
>> >> bullshit.
>> >>
>> >> I ALREADY SAID 'LETS PULL out', but NO..... THE same Moronic Pussy
>> >> NEOCONS and "'publikns" that suppored this war now say 'LETS STAY AND
>> >> FIGHT YOU Lilly Livered Varmit!!'
>> >>
>> >> Fine then lets fight!!!!
>> >>
>> >> A FORCE OF 500,000, STAT.
>> >>
>> >> We need to increase the Troop Levels in Iraq to 500,000 Americans or
>> >> Coalition forces under joint Iraqi-American control. Iraqi-law,
>> >> American-military.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, the problem with that is if we want Iraqis to secure Iraq, then[/color][/color]
> you[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > can't keep piling in the American troops. At some point, Iraqis - the
>> > general population - has to be willing to point out the assassins,
>> > snipers,
>> > murderers, and terrorists to the security forces. As long as the bad[/color][/color]
> guys[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > can roam the streets with impunity, it doesn't matter how many troops
>> > we
>> > put
>> > over there because we can't possibly put enough. If we have troops on
>> > every
>> > other corner, then the bad guys will hit the corners were there are no
>> > troops. If we put a road block every 5 miles, they bad guys will hit[/color][/color]
> every[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > 2.5 miles. If we cover the east, they will hit the west.
>> >[/color]
>> The problem is that the bad guys ARE Iraqi! A fact that no one in this
>> administration seems to be able to understand.
>>[/color]
>
>
> Sorry dude, that is not the case at all. Most of the "insurgents" are
> foreign fighters, not native Iraqis. This is a big problem. Does it really
> matter where the fighters are coming from though? If the locals finally
> get
> tired of the murder and mayhem, they will start reporting the insurgent's
> activities to the security forces.
>
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > The solution is precisely what Bush said, we have to get Iraqi security
>> > forces up and able to provide independent security. Arabs have to be
>> > willing
>> > to want and fight for democracy and decency to the exclusion of[/color][/color]
> terrorism[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > and hatred.
>> >[/color]
>>
>> What evidence is there that this could ever be possible. Democracy does
>> not exist in Islam. You want them to have our vision of decency, hatred
>> and terrorism, that will never happen.
>>[/color]
>
> I don't know what evidence there is, but it is within the realm of
> possibility, and is one of the requirements if democracy is going to
> succeed.
>
>
>
>[/color]

Islam does not allow for a Western style democracy. Their rules come from
Allah. Period.

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:msednSme7oMYzlnfRVn-2w@ez2.net...[color=blue]
>
> "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120096956.037392.177530@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
>> OK... I am sick and tired of the bellyaching from both sides on this
>> bullshit.
>>
>> I ALREADY SAID 'LETS PULL out', but NO..... THE same Moronic Pussy
>> NEOCONS and "'publikns" that suppored this war now say 'LETS STAY AND
>> FIGHT YOU Lilly Livered Varmit!!'
>>
>> Fine then lets fight!!!!
>>
>> A FORCE OF 500,000, STAT.
>>
>> We need to increase the Troop Levels in Iraq to 500,000 Americans or
>> Coalition forces under joint Iraqi-American control. Iraqi-law,
>> American-military.
>>[/color]
>
> Well, the problem with that is if we want Iraqis to secure Iraq, then you
> can't keep piling in the American troops. At some point, Iraqis - the
> general population - has to be willing to point out the assassins,
> snipers,
> murderers, and terrorists to the security forces. As long as the bad guys
> can roam the streets with impunity, it doesn't matter how many troops we
> put
> over there because we can't possibly put enough. If we have troops on
> every
> other corner, then the bad guys will hit the corners were there are no
> troops. If we put a road block every 5 miles, they bad guys will hit every
> 2.5 miles. If we cover the east, they will hit the west.
>
> The solution is precisely what Bush said, we have to get Iraqi security
> forces up and able to provide independent security. Arabs have to be
> willing
> to want and fight for democracy and decency to the exclusion of terrorism
> and hatred.
>[/color]

Muslim Arabs are not going to fight for democracy. Is someone going to come
to the US and convince you to fight for a society governed by the Quran?
Funny how we have people in this NG who use killfiles and at the same time
want another society to consider adopting our form of government. We think
our Western democracy is great and we love it. Muslims don't give a shit
what we think and don't want to hear it. Sound familiar killfilers??

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 17:02:40 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
<josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>> The trouble with that analogy is that the Congress ran the Viet Nam War, and
>> they had a seemingly different criteria on a daily basis. War is never good,
>> but if there is going to be a war, the Generals have to be the ones driving
>> the bus, not the Congress. That is a lesson we should take from Viet Nam. I
>> don't know why the Russians had so much trouble, maybe they just suck at
>> playing army.[/color]
>
>The problem is that unless you literally slaughter everything in the
>area and impose an iron grip on what's left, they will eventually
>revolt. To date, no citizen-led revolt hasn't led to a situation where
>the invader looses unless the invaders are willing to adopt
>a scorched-earth policy in response. We failed in Vietnam because
>of it, the Russians in Afganistan, Britian in The Colonies, and so on.
>[/color]

Hang on a there minute, Jo. Get your historical facts right,
please.......

Apart from the American Colonies, Britain largely agreed independence
with its Colonies without conflict, over a 100 year period.

Hence Australia, New Zealand, Canada, most African Colonies, even
India was an agreed deal. There, conflict came later.

So don't lump us Brits in with situations where an outside army (US,
Soviet) invaded a foreign country to maintain influence - apart from
recent Iraq, of course.

"ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
news:1120607024.ed25bb0ee0e82cfbdeef2052a7153b88@teranews...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> The problem is that the bad guys ARE Iraqi! A fact that no one in this
> >> administration seems to be able to understand.
> >>[/color]
> >
> >
> > Sorry dude, that is not the case at all. Most of the "insurgents" are
> > foreign fighters, not native Iraqis. This is a big problem. Does it[/color][/color]
really[color=blue][color=green]
> > matter where the fighters are coming from though? If the locals finally
> > get
> > tired of the murder and mayhem, they will start reporting the[/color][/color]
insurgent's[color=blue][color=green]
> > activities to the security forces.
> >
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> >> > The solution is precisely what Bush said, we have to get Iraqi[/color][/color][/color]
security[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > forces up and able to provide independent security. Arabs have to be
> >> > willing
> >> > to want and fight for democracy and decency to the exclusion of[/color]
> > terrorism[color=darkred]
> >> > and hatred.
> >> >
> >>
> >> What evidence is there that this could ever be possible. Democracy does
> >> not exist in Islam. You want them to have our vision of decency, hatred
> >> and terrorism, that will never happen.
> >>[/color]
> >
> > I don't know what evidence there is, but it is within the realm of
> > possibility, and is one of the requirements if democracy is going to
> > succeed.
> >
> >
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> >> > The problem isn't so much the training of Iraqi soldiers, or the lack
> >> > of
> >> > training, but the unwillingness of common Iraqis on the street to
> >> > thwart
> >> > suspected terrorists. The unwillingness is well founded, don't get me
> >> > wring.
> >> > But it's there nonetheless, and this has got to change before things
> >> > can
> >> > get
> >> > better.
> >>
> >> Not wanting to die is pretty good incentive to not cooperate.[/color]
> > Unfortunately[color=darkred]
> >> the insurgents are winning on that front.
> >>[/color]
> >
> > That's true. But, waiting to get killed at a bus stop is a sucky way to[/color][/color]
go[color=blue][color=green]
> > through life too. Pretty soon, the general population has to be willing[/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green]
> > point out the attackers, or the attackers will forever gain the upper
> > hand.
> >
> >
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> >> >
> >> > What's the point of a Secret Timetable? What's the point of a[/color][/color][/color]
timetable[color=blue][color=green]
> > at[color=darkred]
> >> > all? We went, we have to stay until we are not needed. This is the
> >> > timetable.
> >>
> >> Just like the Russians in Afghanistan or us in Viet Nam. It's just a[/color]
> > matter[color=darkred]
> >> of time before we leave with our tails between our legs. Occupying
> >> a foreign land with vastly a different culture whose people distrust[/color][/color][/color]
and[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> hate us can never succeed. Never has, never will. We were not
> >> greeted as liberators and that's when we lost the war.
> >>[/color]
> >
> > The trouble with that analogy is that the Congress ran the Viet Nam War,
> > and
> > they had a seemingly different criteria on a daily basis. War is never
> > good,
> > but if there is going to be a war, the Generals have to be the ones
> > driving
> > the bus, not the Congress. That is a lesson we should take from Viet[/color][/color]
Nam.[color=blue]
>
> That's true, but I doubt we ever could have successfully occupied Vietnam
> and fought off a jungle based insurgency. I think that would have
> been unsustainable, especially when they were no threat to our
> country and we had no support from S. Vietnam.
>[/color]


I think there is a certain apples-and-oranges quality to this point. There
was no insurgency in South Viet Nam, there never was. The communist forces
were trying to take over a former French colony that was for most purposes a
democracy. There was no objection from the locals of remaining a free and
open society, the trouble came from the North Vietnamese that dressed in
civilian clothes to mingle in with the general population. And, the North
Vietnamese army was much more skilled in combat than anybody gave them
credit for.


[color=blue]
> I[color=green]
> > don't know why the Russians had so much trouble, maybe they just suck at
> > playing army.
> >[/color]
>
> They seem to be as good at it as we are. At least the Russians were
> fighting insurgents who were being supplied, trained, and supported by the
> U.S.
> How do you think Al Queda got their start?
>[/color]

They got their money from taking American public works contracts in the
region. We paid Osama millions of dollars to undertake all manner of
projects. He made millions from America. Millions. What turned him into a
raving lunatic? Your guess is as good as mine.

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QqTze.1034$dU3.554@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
> > The trouble with that analogy is that the Congress ran the Viet Nam War,[/color][/color]
and[color=blue][color=green]
> > they had a seemingly different criteria on a daily basis. War is never[/color][/color]
good,[color=blue][color=green]
> > but if there is going to be a war, the Generals have to be the ones[/color][/color]
driving[color=blue][color=green]
> > the bus, not the Congress. That is a lesson we should take from Viet[/color][/color]
Nam. I[color=blue][color=green]
> > don't know why the Russians had so much trouble, maybe they just suck at
> > playing army.[/color]
>
> The problem is that unless you literally slaughter everything in the
> area and impose an iron grip on what's left, they will eventually
> revolt. To date, no citizen-led revolt hasn't led to a situation where
> the invader looses unless the invaders are willing to adopt
> a scorched-earth policy in response. We failed in Vietnam because
> of it, the Russians in Afganistan, Britian in The Colonies, and so on.
>
> Our generals are fools. They think that you can actually win
> against a general revolt by the populace by hitting them on
> the head harder. Typical military strategy. Typical repeat
> of other's mistakes because they think that this time it'll
> be different.
>[/color]


You seem to be suggesting that we are in Iraq for us, not them. If we were
genuinely interested in colonizing Iraq, then your view would have merit,
but there is no plan to create a new colony that I have ever heard. As such,
there is no "occupancy" because that would mean that there was no plan to
turn the country back to its own leaders and so on. Occupany means that the
invading forces will set up and control government and the security, and
manage all of the means for the country to generate wealth. I have seen no
evidence that the US is working in that directiion, indeed we seem to be
working above and beyond the call of duty to NOT be going in that
direction -- despite what the nay sayers have to say.