[KHL]Republitard Fuckwit

[Dalton]

This board is decidely left leaning. I don't think there is any dispute about that.

Ahh...apparently you haven't been here for very long because we have plenty of Republicans on this board. You don't have to be a Democrat to despise W.

[Surlethe]

This board is decidely left leaning. I don't think there is any dispute about that.

Ahh...apparently you haven't been here for very long because we have plenty of Republicans on this board. You don't have to be a Democrat to despise W.

Either that, or he's just too stupid to realize political affiliation does not guarantee loyalty to the ones in charge.

[KHL]

This board is decidely left leaning. I don't think there is any dispute about that.

Ahh...apparently you haven't been here for very long because we have plenty of Republicans on this board. You don't have to be a Democrat to despise W.

Maybe there are Republicans here, but I haven't seen many of them. I'm not even actually a republican myself, but thats how I've been portrayed.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Maybe there are Republicans here, but I haven't seen many of them.

Red Imperator, and I WILL bring this thread to his attention.

I'm not even actually a republican myself, but thats how I've been portrayed.

And you lie even more blatantly than Dubya Shrub!

[Ace Pace]

You'd be suprised at the number of OLD style republicans on board(educate me if I'm wrong), but a vastly lower number of the new Fundamentalist neo-con Repulicans.

[Dalton]

This board is decidely left leaning. I don't think there is any dispute about that.

Ahh...apparently you haven't been here for very long because we have plenty of Republicans on this board. You don't have to be a Democrat to despise W.

Maybe there are Republicans here, but I haven't seen many of them. I'm not even actually a republican myself, but thats how I've been portrayed.

You are both blind and absolutely full of shit. Do yourself a favor and lurk before shooting your mouth off, because you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about. With the sheer amount of posts that Sheppard alone has in this forum one would think you'd've seen at least one Republican here, so you're either lying or fucking stupid.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Ahh...apparently you haven't been here for very long because we have plenty of Republicans on this board. You don't have to be a Democrat to despise W.

Maybe there are Republicans here, but I haven't seen many of them. I'm not even actually a republican myself, but thats how I've been portrayed.

You are both blind and absolutely full of shit. Do yourself a favor and lurk before shooting your mouth off, because you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about. With the sheer amount of posts that Sheppard alone has in this forum one would think you'd've seen at least one Republican here, so you're either lying or fucking stupid.

SHEP!!! My GODS how could I have fucking missed that golden opportunity to BURN KHL to a cinder?!

[brianeyci]

Look I'm not going to debate where the roots of Morality lie. The point is that "religion" isn't a bad thing to have. Most religions encourage generosity to the poor, compassion for the sick and weak, respect among family members etc. While a person can be moral and not be religious, the fact remains that these religions do teach morality.

Incorrect. Religion is in general a bad thing to have, especially a monothestic religion which encourages exclusion of other groups. Religions do teach morality, but do more harm than good and since it is not necessary to have religion to teach morality, teaching religion does more harm than good because it brings in all the excess baggage.

No, except that this makes your evidence, the constitution, a weak piece of evidence at best.

There you go again, zero in on the Islamic reference and ignore all of the other provisions in the constitution that would provide for health care, protection of personal freedoms, etc.

Let's just check out the Iraqi Constitution from 1970 compared to the Iraqi Constitution being proposed right now.

(a) Citizens are equal before the law, without discrimination because of sex, blood, language, social origin, or religion.
(b) Equal opportunities are guaranteed to all citizens, according to the law.

Article 11 [Family, Mothers, Children]
The family is the nucleus of the Society. The State secures its protection and support, and ensures maternal and child care.
Article 33 [Health]
The State assumes the responsibility to safeguard the public health by continually expanding free medical services, in protection, treatment, and medicine, within the scope of cities and rural areas.

Article (30): 1st - The state guarantees social and health insurance, the basics

for a free and honourable life for the individual and the family - especially

children and women - and works to protect them from illiteracy, fear and

poverty and provides them with housing and the means to rehabilitate and

take care of them. This shall be regulated by law.

Islam is the religion of the State.

Article (2): 1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source

of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms

outlined in this constitution.

Now what exactly is so good about this new constitution that we should be jumping up and down about .

Take a hint dumbass, SD.net is not one huge homogeneous entity. I'm different than other people, I don't speak for other people and they don't speak for me. I never called it a theocracy. The closest I said was "Can anybody say Sharia law" and that meant certain aspects of Sharia law could sneak into Iraqi law.

Take your own advice dipshit. I wasn't just addressing my post to you which is why I included the terminology that I did. I never said that YOU personally called it a theocracy. And here is another news flash for you. If they did implement Sharia Law, then it would be a defacto theocracy because laws would center around the Islamic religion, rather than simply taking influence from it.

As for "certain aspects of Sharia law sneaking into Iraqi law", Hell certain aspects of Sharia Law nearly snuck into Canadian law! Until it actually happens, then pointing to things that could potentially be abused is not evidence that they will be abused.

Fine, but at the same time pointing to things that could potentially go well is not evidence that they will go well. Too bad so sad, and there's more evidence that things will go downhill rather than uphill.

If the insurgents were as smart as you claim they'd stop the bombings all together, lull us into a false sense of security so that we begin to withdraw our troops, build their strength and then attempt to topple the government. No, I think you are giving them far too much credit. As I mentioned earlier, the repeated attacks against civilian populaces is only going to hurt their reputation amongst the populace.

Topple the government because of a false sense of security? Grow a brain, the insurgency is not a single entity but rather mult-faceted. There's no order of battle, no chain of command like that. Insurgents are getting smarter because battle experience has taught them to leave a city before an impending siege, which the insurgents sniff a mile away (if civilians can sniff it so can insurgents). Even back in Fallujah fighters left most of the city empty rather than stay.

Can you fucking read? I said lull is into a false sense of security so that we would withdraw our troops which would then give them the chance to topple the government. You can say the "majority" of fighters left the city, which I find hard to believe given the fact that we had it surrounded for quite some time. I'm sure some small numbers got out, but as reported at least 1200-1600 were either too stupid, or simply unable to leave.

Yes I can read dipshit, and your idea retarded. Since the US waited long enough to let civilians out, the insurgents could easily have escaped. Lull into a false sense of security is retarded, it's better to keep up the pressure so the US Media continues reporting casualties, pressuring the Administration to withdraw troops.

First of all, you need to figure out which way you are going to portray the insurgency. Either they have, for the most part, a large overall "strategy" able to utilize that numerical superiority, or they are multi faceted disjointed groups with "no order of battle, no chain of command" as you described above. They cannot be both.

False dilemma. Of course there can be a chain of command, just not an overall one you proposed which would allow for your kind of strategy of "lull into a false sense of security." But there can be smaller cells with a local chain of command. Do you honestly think that just because there's no order of battle or overall structure to the insurgency, that they can't learn how to scuttle when the US comes around?

You earlier made a state that there were over 100 "attacks" a day from bombs of various types. Quite frankly, that doesn't indicate a very large number of insurgents doing the work. Id venture that having 1,000 people would be overkill to pull off 100 "bombing" attacks. It really doesn't bode well for your purported number of insurgents. We know there is no shortage of explosives in Iraq. If there were really as many as you say, we should be seeing several hundred attacks per day or more.

Do you have any idea how many people the US kills in a single day? The insurgents need to wait for the right moment to attack, simply ramming trucks into the huge concrete barriers won't work. You need to wait for a US convoy, wait for an Iraqi government official to stick his head out, before you attack. Also are you so retarded that you think all the insurgents are attacking all the time? They have all the time in the world to do what they want, and for each insurgent in the field there has to be some at home base cooking up bombs, providing supplies, support.

As I said earlier, the insurgents window of "success" is closing rapidly. The more troops we train, the better equiped the new government will be to handle these terrorists themselves.

Historical precedent is showing the estimates of the number of insurgents getting larger, not smaller. Also the attacks are growing more sophisticated, and hit-and-run tactics are being used more often.

Define this window of "success".

The "window of success" is the transitional period where there is enough instability in the government that they might succeed in collapsing it. As time goes by and the Iraqi Security forces become better trained, more experienced, and better equiped and as support for the new Iraqi government grows this window will close. Over 1 millinon more Iraqis voted in the latest constitutional election than voted in the previous one. Thats quite a swing that I don't think the insurgency can match.

Big deal, Saddam Hussien had a 100% approval rating and everybody voted under him. Shia religious leaders told their people to vote, so they go vote. It doesn't mean they have any inclination to vote out of a renewed sense of nationalism.

Gurrella warfare is only effective in a major engagement if it is in support of a larger military offensive. Many people want to compare this conflict to Vietnam, but the major difference is that there is no NVA that is able to engage us in large scale conflicts. Unless Iran were to risk being bombed into the stoneage and enter the war on the side of the insurgents, their overall effect is very small.

The fact that insurgency is so spread out is a weakness not a strength. Numbers lose their effectiveness when split up. We continue to mop up small groups of insurgents (such as operation "Steel Curtain" yesterday) while their remnants scurry from town to town. Divide and conquer.

What about fucking Afghanistan with the Soviets hmmm?

Its common fucking sense. The better trained a soldier is, the more effective he tends to be. You bring in green troops, you teach them how to properly aim, shoot, and maintain their weapons and they get better at handling them. You teach them how to organize and work as a team and they become more effective at fighting as a team. You give them "on the job training" by sending them on missions with U.S. troops (as is usually the case when we go on mop up missions such as the afore mentioned "Steel Curtain"). It doesn't take a genius to extrapolate that the effectiveness of the Iraqi Armed forces will go up.

But I guess in your world only the insurgents are "getting smarter" and that the Iraqi armed forces can only get dumber right?

You're a fucking retard. I actually showed the insurgents getting better at making bombs with a news report. Where's your evidence that the Iraqi Army is getting better at what they do hmm? I'm not going to do your homework for you.

The letter provides many insights and contains specific facts regarding the insurgent activities. Go read the letter yourself. I'm submitting it in its entirety as evidence If there is something specific you wish to discuss or dispute within it, then feel free to bring it up.

That's not the way it works around here. You quote, and paste the letter, or relevant parts on it, comment, and I give a rebuttal. Simply giving a link and declaring "violia, read it and weep" is dishonest, because I don't know what you're trying to prove with that letter dickhead.

Stop blamming me for your jumping to conclusions. I haven't posted anything that wasn't true. I said that U.S. Policy was for regime change and it was. Further, Clinton would have been all for the removal of Saddam by military means, just not American military means. Military assistance was specifically pro-scribed for in the act that Clinton signed.

Before you go jumping off the diving board into the illogical conclusion pool again, I'm NOT blaming Clinton for Bush going in after Saddam. Bush clearly took the whole Iraqi Regime policy to "The next level". But I just wanted to illustrate we didn't go from point A to point C without first hitting point B.

Yeah, well your problem for not clarifying your position earlier and acting like a broken record.

Your analogy is flawed. You seem to imply that the first guy would only want to "kick my ass" if I threw a punch and started the fight and that otherwise he was content to stand by otherwise.

The reality is that the while the first guy would only"kick my ass" himself if I started the fight, he at the same time was looking to find someone else to "kick my ass" for him and was offering incentives for them to do so.

It doesn't change the fact that both guys wanted to "kick my ass," it was just a difference of oppinion on how best to accomplish that.

Looking for someone to kick someone's ass doesn't change the fact that the person himself wouldn't be doing the asskicking. In a thread about the death of 2000 American Troops, it's disingenous to mention Clinton at all except to start a flamewar. Of course you don't get that still like the bonehead you are.

Brian

[brianeyci]

Maybe there are Republicans here, but I haven't seen many of them. I'm not even actually a republican myself, but thats how I've been portrayed.

Oh no, you can't hold your own, you need your mommy to come in and save you? Tough nuts, just because there's no Republitards coming in to save you that doesn't mean there aren't any Republicans. And how the fuck you missed Shep, who posted in this very thread, is beyond me.

Brian

[SirNitram]

If you want examples of Bush hatred run amoke, go back and read Brian and Nitram's post on pages 1 thru 3 of this thread.

'Bush Hating'? Is that how know-nothing retards excuse the fact other people have worked out none of what he's done has worked for the better of anyone but himself? Just declare we hate the man, instead of being aware of the world?

Appeal to Motive Fallacy. Blow me.

I mentioned the fact that Clinton signed into law a U.S. policy advocating regime change and they went nuts implying that I was a Bush appologist.

No, your Apologist status comes from the fact you're continually trying to make up BS to justify inherently stupid acts. Your red herring of Clinton is just proof you're a standard-issue Republitard, because all of your trolling ilk throw around such things.

This board is decidely left leaning. I don't think there is any dispute about that. I really don't feel like digging through this entire board for Bush hatred that we all know is present in order to "prove" an off the cuff remark.

Fucker, how does leaning to the left politically result in hating a man? Or is that just showing your own political views: He's against my policies, therefore I must hate him?

Lets just forget I said it ok?

Let's forget you ever posted. The world would be slightly more intelligent that way.

[Dark Hellion]

In actuality, this board is neither left nor right leaning as the majority of the members do not feel necessary to divide on party lines. On the subject of economics, or military matters, the board is decidedly right leaning. While on the subjects of civil rights the board is decidely left. To accuse the board of pandering to a political party, especially given the massive number of non-Americans who post on this board is simply moronic. Perhaps you should try looking at it from the perspective that the people are actively against you, and look at the idea that they are against your ideas. No one needs another Republican with a persecution complex.

[KHL]

Look I'm not going to debate where the roots of Morality lie. The point is that "religion" isn't a bad thing to have. Most religions encourage generosity to the poor, compassion for the sick and weak, respect among family members etc. While a person can be moral and not be religious, the fact remains that these religions do teach morality.

Incorrect. Religion is in general a bad thing to have, especially a monothestic religion which encourages exclusion of other groups. Religions do teach morality, but do more harm than good and since it is not necessary to have religion to teach morality, teaching religion does more harm than good because it brings in all the excess baggage.

I personally think that Religion on its own terms isn't the problem. Its when you slap the word organized on it and that people start forming political power blocks that you begin to have trouble.

*shrug*

Let's just check out the Iraqi Constitution from 1970 compared to the Iraqi Constitution being proposed right now.

Yeah its too bad the Iraqis chose not to go with that one...

Doesn't mean that the government they are going to have under this new consitution isn't better than the government they had under Saddam.

(a) Citizens are equal before the law, without discrimination because of sex, blood, language, social origin, or religion.
(b) Equal opportunities are guaranteed to all citizens, according to the law.

Article 11 [Family, Mothers, Children]
The family is the nucleus of the Society. The State secures its protection and support, and ensures maternal and child care.
Article 33 [Health]
The State assumes the responsibility to safeguard the public health by continually expanding free medical services, in protection, treatment, and medicine, within the scope of cities and rural areas.

Article (30): 1st - The state guarantees social and health insurance, the basics

for a free and honourable life for the individual and the family - especially

children and women - and works to protect them from illiteracy, fear and

poverty and provides them with housing and the means to rehabilitate and

take care of them. This shall be regulated by law.

Islam is the religion of the State.

Article (2): 1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source

of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms

outlined in this constitution.

Now what exactly is so good about this new constitution that we should be jumping up and down about .

I'm not going to compare the new constitution to the old one. The old constitution is not even a part of this debate. I'm comparing the new government established by this constitution to the one lead by Saddam.

Fine, but at the same time pointing to things that could potentially go well is not evidence that they will go well. Too bad so sad, and there's more evidence that things will go downhill rather than uphill.

Thats debatable...

Yes I can read dipshit, and your idea retarded. Since the US waited long enough to let civilians out, the insurgents could easily have escaped. Lull into a false sense of security is retarded, it's better to keep up the pressure so the US Media continues reporting casualties, pressuring the Administration to withdraw troops.

*knock knock* HELLO MCFLY?

I spelled it out for you twice, so here it is a third time. IF THEY MAKE US THINK THEY ARE PACIFIED WE WILL LEAVE VOLUNTARILY. There wouldn't be any need to waste men and resources attacking us. That is the whole point between trying to lull us into a false sense of security. There would be no need to rely on turning the American people against the war.

The more they attack, the more resolute Bush is going to be. He will never bow to public pressure to pull out. Why would he? He's not up for re-election and pulling out now only acknowledges defeat, whereas if he stays until things are more stable he can claim victory.

False dilemma. Of course there can be a chain of command, just not an overall one you proposed which would allow for your kind of strategy of "lull into a false sense of security." But there can be smaller cells with a local chain of command. Do you honestly think that just because there's no order of battle or overall structure to the insurgency, that they can't learn how to scuttle when the US comes around?

So now maybe there is a chain of command, but not one that could pass around a letter saying "Hey lets chill out for a few months so the Americans start withdrawing troops, and THEN we'll strike".

Just admit you have no fucking clue as to the true capablities of the insurgency.

No It doesn't take a military genius to know that you run and hide when the Americans come rolling through. It also doesn't make for a very effective force to have several disjointed groups who will be unable to take advantage of the so-called "numerical advantage" they presumedly enjoy.

Do you have any idea how many people the US kills in a single day? The insurgents need to wait for the right moment to attack, simply ramming trucks into the huge concrete barriers won't work. You need to wait for a US convoy, wait for an Iraqi government official to stick his head out, before you attack. Also are you so retarded that you think all the insurgents are attacking all the time? They have all the time in the world to do what they want, and for each insurgent in the field there has to be some at home base cooking up bombs, providing supplies, support.

For an insurgency as large as you claim it to be 100 attacks a day is pathetic. Basically it means for nearly every 2000 insurgents they can manage 1 attack per day.

How many insurgents does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Historical precedent is showing the estimates of the number of insurgents getting larger, not smaller. Also the attacks are growing more sophisticated, and hit-and-run tactics are being used more often.

Define this window of "success".

The "window of success" is the transitional period where there is enough instability in the government that they might succeed in collapsing it. As time goes by and the Iraqi Security forces become better trained, more experienced, and better equiped and as support for the new Iraqi government grows this window will close. Over 1 millinon more Iraqis voted in the latest constitutional election than voted in the previous one. Thats quite a swing that I don't think the insurgency can match.

Big deal, Saddam Hussien had a 100% approval rating and everybody voted under him. Shia religious leaders told their people to vote, so they go vote. It doesn't mean they have any inclination to vote out of a renewed sense of nationalism.

The difference here is that under Saddam's regime people had threat of death if they didn't vote.

Here, there have been death threats if they did vote.

And yet the voting numbers increased, many of them Sunnis - the so called "backbone" of the insurgency.

What about fucking Afghanistan with the Soviets hmmm?

Money and political pressure much moreso than the Afghan resistance did the soviets in. Even still, they weren't driven out of Afghanistan, they left via Treaty.

You're a fucking retard. I actually showed the insurgents getting better at making bombs with a news report. Where's your evidence that the Iraqi Army is getting better at what they do hmm? I'm not going to do your homework for you.

What a happy coincidence

Here is a choice quote:

The operation "marks the first large-scale employment of multiple battalion-sized units of Iraqi Army forces in combined operations with coalition forces..."

The Iraqi armed forces are clearly taking on more of a role in rolling back the insurgents. This trend will only continue.

Stop blamming me for your jumping to conclusions. I haven't posted anything that wasn't true. I said that U.S. Policy was for regime change and it was. Further, Clinton would have been all for the removal of Saddam by military means, just not American military means. Military assistance was specifically pro-scribed for in the act that Clinton signed.

Before you go jumping off the diving board into the illogical conclusion pool again, I'm NOT blaming Clinton for Bush going in after Saddam. Bush clearly took the whole Iraqi Regime policy to "The next level". But I just wanted to illustrate we didn't go from point A to point C without first hitting point B.

Yeah, well your problem for not clarifying your position earlier and acting like a broken record.

I did clarify it. Multiple times. The reason I sounded like a broken record is because you repeatedly chose to ignore my clarifications and imply that I was "blaming Clinton" as I continued to deny that I was.

Your analogy is flawed. You seem to imply that the first guy would only want to "kick my ass" if I threw a punch and started the fight and that otherwise he was content to stand by otherwise.

The reality is that the while the first guy would only"kick my ass" himself if I started the fight, he at the same time was looking to find someone else to "kick my ass" for him and was offering incentives for them to do so.

It doesn't change the fact that both guys wanted to "kick my ass," it was just a difference of oppinion on how best to accomplish that.

Looking for someone to kick someone's ass doesn't change the fact that the person himself wouldn't be doing the asskicking. In a thread about the death of 2000 American Troops, it's disingenous to mention Clinton at all except to start a flamewar. Of course you don't get that still like the bonehead you are.

Brian

Your skull must be about 3 feet thick... The point I was establishing was that Bush's policy built upon the policy of Clinton, which advocated regime change in Iraq. Their goal was the same, even if the methods by which they would achieve that goal might be different.

[Nephtys]

Look I'm not going to debate where the roots of Morality lie. The point is that "religion" isn't a bad thing to have. Most religions encourage generosity to the poor, compassion for the sick and weak, respect among family members etc. While a person can be moral and not be religious, the fact remains that these religions do teach morality.

Incorrect. Religion is in general a bad thing to have, especially a monothestic religion which encourages exclusion of other groups. Religions do teach morality, but do more harm than good and since it is not necessary to have religion to teach morality, teaching religion does more harm than good because it brings in all the excess baggage.

I personally think that Religion on its own terms isn't the problem. Its when you slap the word organized on it and that people start forming political power blocks that you begin to have trouble.

*shrug*

Stop being obtuse. This is referring EXPLICITLY to organized religion. Another case of you trying to retroactively dodge a bullt that's already hit.

Let's just check out the Iraqi Constitution from 1970 compared to the Iraqi Constitution being proposed right now.

Yeah its too bad the Iraqis chose not to go with that one...

Doesn't mean that the government they are going to have under this new consitution isn't better than the government they had under Saddam.

Again, irrelevant. the government in place doesn't matter when it has no power, as is the case at the moment. without a police force or army worth a damn, They're going to have to rely exclusively on the US for a long, long time. After all, the number of capable national guard companies dropped from three to one...

Fine, but at the same time pointing to things that could potentially go well is not evidence that they will go well. Too bad so sad, and there's more evidence that things will go downhill rather than uphill.

Thats debatable...

And yet, you fail to provide evidence.

Yes I can read dipshit, and your idea retarded. Since the US waited long enough to let civilians out, the insurgents could easily have escaped. Lull into a false sense of security is retarded, it's better to keep up the pressure so the US Media continues reporting casualties, pressuring the Administration to withdraw troops.

*knock knock* HELLO MCFLY?

I spelled it out for you twice, so here it is a third time. IF THEY MAKE US THINK THEY ARE PACIFIED WE WILL LEAVE VOLUNTARILY. There wouldn't be any need to waste men and resources attacking us. That is the whole point between trying to lull us into a false sense of security. There would be no need to rely on turning the American people against the war.

The more they attack, the more resolute Bush is going to be. He will never bow to public pressure to pull out. Why would he? He's not up for re-election and pulling out now only acknowledges defeat, whereas if he stays until things are more stable he can claim victory.

Never. Resolute. Em, pulling out in my opinion is a bad thing, but only because we've botched stuff up this badly. And now you're saying fighting there is a good thing because one man can save face 'if' things get better, how pathetically typical for an apologist.

False dilemma. Of course there can be a chain of command, just not an overall one you proposed which would allow for your kind of strategy of "lull into a false sense of security." But there can be smaller cells with a local chain of command. Do you honestly think that just because there's no order of battle or overall structure to the insurgency, that they can't learn how to scuttle when the US comes around?

So now maybe there is a chain of command, but not one that could pass around a letter saying "Hey lets chill out for a few months so the Americans start withdrawing troops, and THEN we'll strike".

Just admit you have no fucking clue as to the true capablities of the insurgency.

No It doesn't take a military genius to know that you run and hide when the Americans come rolling through. It also doesn't make for a very effective force to have several disjointed groups who will be unable to take advantage of the so-called "numerical advantage" they presumedly enjoy.

They don't need to defeat the US militarilly even on a small scale. All they need to do is send one whackjob a few days to kill civilians and cause havoc. Effective force? A band of six parlor pals can be an effective insurgent cell, because all they need to do is indiscriminately kill, and mission accomplished.

Do you have any idea how many people the US kills in a single day? The insurgents need to wait for the right moment to attack, simply ramming trucks into the huge concrete barriers won't work. You need to wait for a US convoy, wait for an Iraqi government official to stick his head out, before you attack. Also are you so retarded that you think all the insurgents are attacking all the time? They have all the time in the world to do what they want, and for each insurgent in the field there has to be some at home base cooking up bombs, providing supplies, support.

For an insurgency as large as you claim it to be 100 attacks a day is pathetic. Basically it means for nearly every 2000 insurgents they can manage 1 attack per day.

How many insurgents does it take to screw in a light bulb?

How many apologists does it take to reject reason? Those 2000 people have other things to do. They certainly aren't going to be on the streets shooting people every day. Half of them probably are part-timers anyway, with other responsabilities.

What about fucking Afghanistan with the Soviets hmmm?

Money and political pressure much moreso than the Afghan resistance did the soviets in. Even still, they weren't driven out of Afghanistan, they left via Treaty.

So they left because of that. And you're somehow saying the money and political pressure issues weren't because of a capable insurgency causing great trouble to them? Please. That's like saying smoking didn't kill someone, lung cancer did.

You're a fucking retard. I actually showed the insurgents getting better at making bombs with a news report. Where's your evidence that the Iraqi Army is getting better at what they do hmm? I'm not going to do your homework for you.

What a happy coincidence

Here is a choice quote:

The operation "marks the first large-scale employment of multiple battalion-sized units of Iraqi Army forces in combined operations with coalition forces..."

The Iraqi armed forces are clearly taking on more of a role in rolling back the insurgents. This trend will only continue.

Yeah, large scale deployment. That tells us nothing. Were these guys janitors? Did they do the fighting? Were they watching and standing in a perimeter while americans went to do the 'real' job? Who do you think planned the operation, hmmm?

Stop blamming me for your jumping to conclusions. I haven't posted anything that wasn't true. I said that U.S. Policy was for regime change and it was. Further, Clinton would have been all for the removal of Saddam by military means, just not American military means. Military assistance was specifically pro-scribed for in the act that Clinton signed.

Before you go jumping off the diving board into the illogical conclusion pool again, I'm NOT blaming Clinton for Bush going in after Saddam. Bush clearly took the whole Iraqi Regime policy to "The next level". But I just wanted to illustrate we didn't go from point A to point C without first hitting point B.

Yeah, well your problem for not clarifying your position earlier and acting like a broken record.

I did clarify it. Multiple times. The reason I sounded like a broken record is because you repeatedly chose to ignore my clarifications and imply that I was "blaming Clinton" as I continued to deny that I was.

You are blaming clinton, stupid. You're equating 'start a new regime if that man attacks neighboring countries' with 'start a new regime because we feel like it'. There's a huge difference and you're just trying to worm your way out of it now that you've been caught.

Your analogy is flawed. You seem to imply that the first guy would only want to "kick my ass" if I threw a punch and started the fight and that otherwise he was content to stand by otherwise.

The reality is that the while the first guy would only"kick my ass" himself if I started the fight, he at the same time was looking to find someone else to "kick my ass" for him and was offering incentives for them to do so.

It doesn't change the fact that both guys wanted to "kick my ass," it was just a difference of oppinion on how best to accomplish that.

Looking for someone to kick someone's ass doesn't change the fact that the person himself wouldn't be doing the asskicking. In a thread about the death of 2000 American Troops, it's disingenous to mention Clinton at all except to start a flamewar. Of course you don't get that still like the bonehead you are.

Brian

Your skull must be about 3 feet thick... The point I was establishing was that Bush's policy built upon the policy of Clinton, which advocated regime change in Iraq. Their goal was the same, even if the methods by which they would achieve that goal might be different.

Excuse me? Methods are what matters. I'm sure Bush Senior wanted Saddam gone too. But did Clinton launch an offensive war to do such? NO! Because the METHODS are what counted. If Bush wanted, he could have saturation-nuked Baghdad. Saddam gone. But would that be right? No. You're a useless drone, trying and struggling futily against the tide of good reason against bad rhetoric. Go buy yourself a frontal lobe.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I spelled it out for you twice, so here it is a third time. IF THEY MAKE US THINK THEY ARE PACIFIED WE WILL LEAVE VOLUNTARILY. There wouldn't be any need to waste men and resources attacking us. That is the whole point between trying to lull us into a false sense of security. There would be no need to rely on turning the American people against the war.

Prove that we will leave unless forced; we wouldn't be building huge bases unless we intended to stay indefinately. Also it's not a waste attacking us; it kills Americans, and I'm sure that's a victory for them.

The more they attack, the more resolute Bush is going to be. He will never bow to public pressure to pull out. Why would he? He's not up for re-election and pulling out now only acknowledges defeat, whereas if he stays until things are more stable he can claim victory.

Not responding to external reality is a pretty good symptom of insanity.

Money and political pressure much moreso than the Afghan resistance did the soviets in. Even still, they weren't driven out of Afghanistan, they left via Treaty.

And of course, it's mere coincidence that they left a country that had a ferocious resistance, and stayed in ones that didn't.

Your skull must be about 3 feet thick... The point I was establishing was that Bush's policy built upon the policy of Clinton, which advocated regime change in Iraq. Their goal was the same, even if the methods by which they would achieve that goal might be different.

Does the phrase "The ends do not justify the means" mean anything to you ? Like Nephtys said, methods matter; the Moron-in-Chief's method has led to a military quagmire, a ruined Iraq, torture, international hatred and contempt, massive monetary losses and corruption, and general Bad Things. Clinton knew better. Daddy Bush knew better. I knew better.

If Bush invades, and Clinton doesn't, that's a signifigant difference; equating the two doesn't work.

[Surlethe]

I personally think that Religion on its own terms isn't the problem. Its when you slap the word organized on it and that people start forming political power blocks that you begin to have trouble.

Care to throw out a religion which isn't organized? Especially since the definition of the word "religion", given the context, is "a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship [of a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator of the universe]."

[Sam Or I]

There will be no trade sanctions , and it will fold more easily under international pressure.

Making it so that a nation folds easilly under international pressure is a good reason to invade it? Sweet, Canadians, turn your war machine south! It's for their own good!

Do not add words into my mouth. I never said anything about a good reason to invade it. I was pointing out the benefits that the people would have in Iraq under a democracy. Traditionally, democracies listen to the international community better than a dictatorship.

In times the US has been very wrong about international issues, and the international community has been correct.

[Plekhanov]

Gurrella warfare is only effective in a major engagement if it is in support of a larger military offensive. Many people want to compare this conflict to Vietnam, but the major difference is that there is no NVA that is able to engage us in large scale conflicts. Unless Iran were to risk being bombed into the stoneage and enter the war on the side of the insurgents, their overall effect is very small.

The fact that insurgency is so spread out is a weakness not a strength. Numbers lose their effectiveness when split up. We continue to mop up small groups of insurgents (such as operation "Steel Curtain" yesterday) while their remnants scurry from town to town. Divide and conquer.

What about fucking Afghanistan with the Soviets hmmm Afghanistan with the Soviets hmmm?

Money and political pressure much moreso than the Afghan resistance did the soviets in. Even still, they weren't driven out of Afghanistan, they left via Treaty.

Yes and the Germans weren’t driven out of Belgium and France during WWI they left France via treaty

Even for a moron of your calibre KHL this is a truly impressive denial of reality. The Soviets little adventure in Afghanistan cost them nearly 14,000 dead & 500,000 sick and wounded and also placed an enormous financial burden upon the creaking Soviet system. But of course it wasn’t the half a million causalities that forced them out no it was “political pressure & money”

For fucks sake khl go and read some peer reviewed academic history books (not the ones advertised on your freeper websites which would seem to be your only source of information beyond fox news) and come back when you know even the first thing you’re blathering about, because right now you are just embarrassing yourself.

[Darth Wong]

This is fucking hilarious. KHL thinks that an insurgency is fought using exactly the same tactics and strategies as a conventional war, so he judges the Iraqi insurgency to be pitiful, because they aren't able to use the tactics of a conventional military. One must wonder how many pounds of shit one must shovel into one's ears before this kind of idiocy starts to sound good.

[KHL]

I personally think that Religion on its own terms isn't the problem. Its when you slap the word organized on it and that people start forming political power blocks that you begin to have trouble.

Care to throw out a religion which isn't organized? Especially since the definition of the word "religion", given the context, is "a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship [of a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator of the universe]."

Nearly every religion out there has organizations of some form or another, but not everyone who follows a religion belongs to one of these organizations. And I'm not talking your local church or mosque, I'm talking about large organizations such as the "Christian Right" or the "Nation of Islam" who seek to influence politics and impose their religious views on the general populace.

[KHL]

This is fucking hilarious. KHL thinks that an insurgency is fought using exactly the same tactics and strategies as a conventional war, so he judges the Iraqi insurgency to be pitiful, because they aren't able to use the tactics of a conventional military. One must wonder how many pounds of shit one must shovel into one's ears before this kind of idiocy starts to sound good.

No thats not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that if the insurgency is as large as has been claimed, then the activity we see out of it is just plain pathetic.

[Darth Wong]

This is fucking hilarious. KHL thinks that an insurgency is fought using exactly the same tactics and strategies as a conventional war, so he judges the Iraqi insurgency to be pitiful, because they aren't able to use the tactics of a conventional military. One must wonder how many pounds of shit one must shovel into one's ears before this kind of idiocy starts to sound good.

No thats not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that if the insurgency is as large as has been claimed, then the activity we see out of it is just plain pathetic.

Based on what benchmark? Oh yes, you use the benchmark of a conventional military. Moron.

[KHL]

This is fucking hilarious. KHL thinks that an insurgency is fought using exactly the same tactics and strategies as a conventional war, so he judges the Iraqi insurgency to be pitiful, because they aren't able to use the tactics of a conventional military. One must wonder how many pounds of shit one must shovel into one's ears before this kind of idiocy starts to sound good.

No thats not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that if the insurgency is as large as has been claimed, then the activity we see out of it is just plain pathetic.

Based on what benchmark? Oh yes, you use the benchmark of a conventional military. Moron.

Ok lets look at the numbers. We're looking at, on the high end 100 attacks a day. We still see the occaisional gun fight, but the insurgents are usually on the recieving end as of late, so most of these are explosive attacks of some sort. You'd figure that a 10 man team to initiate one bombing attack is probably overkill right? After all, Tim Mcvey and his pal only needed the 2 of them.

But lets say it takes 10 men to perform a bombing attack: 1 man to set off the device, maybe another 1-2 to act as spotter and the other 7-8 can do whatever else would need done to set up the attack (make the bomb, acquire the material, scout the location etc).

The claimed likely number of insurgents is 180,000. If we use that figure, and lets go with a conservative estimate that for every 10 man "team" they can average 1 attack per month, then we should be seeing well over 600 attacks per day. At an average of 1 attack per team per week and we should be seeing 2571 attacks per day.

We know there is no shortage of explosive materials or other weapons. Nor is there a shortage of targets for them to attack. So what the hell are the rest of them doing? Playing darts and shooting pool all day?

This to me demonstrates either one of two things: either the insurgency is far smaller than has been estimated, or the vast majority of those counted amongst the "insurgents" are actually non combatants who "support" the insurgency.

But I'm not perfect, so maybe there is a flaw in my estimates. Anything in there you wish to greatly dispute?

[Surlethe]

But lets say it takes 10 men to perform a bombing attack: 1 man to set off the device, maybe another 1-2 to act as spotter and the other 7-8 can do whatever else would need done to set up the attack (make the bomb, acquire the material, scout the location etc).

The claimed likely number of insurgents is 180,000. If we use that figure, and lets go with a conservative estimate that for every 10 man "team" they can average 1 attack per month, then we should be seeing well over 600 attacks per day. At an average of 1 attack per team per week and we should be seeing 2571 attacks per day.

We know there is no shortage of explosive materials or other weapons. Nor is there a shortage of targets for them to attack. So what the hell are the rest of them doing? Playing darts and shooting pool all day?

You have any sources for these numbers, or you just pull them out of your ass?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

But lets say it takes 10 men to perform a bombing attack: 1 man to set off the device, maybe another 1-2 to act as spotter and the other 7-8 can do whatever else would need done to set up the attack (make the bomb, acquire the material, scout the location etc).

The claimed likely number of insurgents is 180,000. If we use that figure, and lets go with a conservative estimate that for every 10 man "team" they can average 1 attack per month, then we should be seeing well over 600 attacks per day. At an average of 1 attack per team per week and we should be seeing 2571 attacks per day.

We know there is no shortage of explosive materials or other weapons. Nor is there a shortage of targets for them to attack. So what the hell are the rest of them doing? Playing darts and shooting pool all day?

You have any sources for these numbers, or you just pull them out of your ass?

Yes I do believe he did. Pwn him!

[Ace Pace]

How about we narrow it down with numbers I remember from news reports, where ONE person makes tons of explosives, 2 men can launch a rocket attack, gun fire attacks carried out by 1 man same with suicide.

And this is in Israel, alot harder for suspecious people to move around, I imagine in Iraq its alot easier for terrorists to get from place to place.

So wheres the 10 people per attack?