[KHL]Republitard Fuckwit

[Surlethe]

The rest may inflict injuries etc, but they aren't anything major. For a so-called "180,000 member" insurgency that is just plain pathetic.

You know, KHL, you're using brianeyci's claim "we should be planning for 180,000 insurgents" and distorting it to claim he said "there are 180,000 insurgents".

The reason you would plan against 180,000 insurgents is because that is the estimate given as the likely number of insurgents.

No, moron; it's a reasonable worst-case estimate. You always plan against the worst case scenario. You obviously didn't read brianeyci's post on the eighth page of this very thread, you imbecilic little donkeyfucker.

[KHL]

Precisely how many dead bodies would it take for you to consider the insurgency to be a serious problem, troll? And how do you justify your assertion that it is not a serious problem below this magic threshold?

Why do I have to be a troll?

Obviously the insurgency is a problem. Even a serious one.

But my contention is its not nearly as large as has been pro-claimed. Nor is it a real threat, by itself, to stopping the establishment of a new Iraqi democracy.

[Surlethe]

Nor is it a real threat, by itself, to stopping the establishment of a new Iraqi democracy.

Aside from the fact it's the biggest fucking thing keeping the country from getting back on its feet? How fucking stupid can you get?

[KHL]

Nor is it a real threat, by itself, to stopping the establishment of a new Iraqi democracy.

Aside from the fact it's the biggest fucking thing keeping the country from getting back on its feet? How fucking stupid can you get?

It has vitually no chance of success thats why.

[Surlethe]

Nor is it a real threat, by itself, to stopping the establishment of a new Iraqi democracy.

Aside from the fact it's the biggest fucking thing keeping the country from getting back on its feet? How fucking stupid can you get?

It has vitually no chance of success thats why.

Since it certainly seems to be succeeding, why don't you justify your statement, dipshit?

[KHL]

You know, KHL, you're using brianeyci's claim "we should be planning for 180,000 insurgents" and distorting it to claim he said "there are 180,000 insurgents".

The reason you would plan against 180,000 insurgents is because that is the estimate given as the likely number of insurgents.

No, moron; it's a reasonable worst-case estimate. You always plan against the worst case scenario. You obviously didn't read brianeyci's post on the eighth page of this very thread, you imbecilic little donkeyfucker.

The worst case scenario listed is 400,000+. I wasn't sure what the fuck "W Average" was so I assumed that was the estimate he was giving since he pointed to it specifically.

If Brian didn't want to use the 180,000 estimate, thats fine by me. Even the 145,000 person estimate still doesn't speak well given the number and scale of attacks perpetrated.

[KHL]

Aside from the fact it's the biggest fucking thing keeping the country from getting back on its feet? How fucking stupid can you get?

It has vitually no chance of success thats why.

Since it certainly seems to be succeeding, why don't you justify your statement, dipshit?

I already have. See previous posts in this thread.

[SirNitram]

*Edit*

I got interupted on that post. First part should read:

Yes I understand the concept of logistics. And yes logistics for a group such as the insurgency would be far lower than those of a modern army since the insurgency doesn't have to fuel and maintain the fleet of Vehicles the army has, and most of the insurgents likely provide their own food, water, and clothing.

So the fact it doesn't have a military-industrial complex behind it doesn't matter? Fascinating bullshit, really. What next, the power of the LAWD! will defeat the insurgency?

What?

A reference to the irrational, dangerous lunatics known as the Religious Right who support Bush in this.

Just a little something for you to chew on: If they're so pathetic, weak, lazy, and powerless, what does it say that the Bush Administration and US Military can't stop them?

The simple answer: They're working on it.

The irony of this kills me. Tell me: Do you think this is another Vietnam? CLUE FOR THE CLUELESS: It has to do with how you declare victory, IE, by bodybag count...

[SirNitram]

Assuming one Steel Curtain attack per week, sustained, with roughly 20 insurgents killed per, with no replenishment of the insurgent ranks, it will kill roughly 1,000 insurgents per year.

145 years with the lower end estimate.

180 years with the most likely.

Four Hundred Years for the worst case scenario.

Yea. They're working on it. And that's assuming, magically, that no one new steps up from this point onwards, save to fill in for those who die of old age.

Oh. And since there's been a fairly steady infusion of 80B$ per year extra for the Iraqi occupation, even the low end comes out to around 11.2 Trillion dollars.

Are you starting to get why this asinine 'count the bags' bit is stupid yet?

[Surlethe]

Don't forget the fact they're arresting 1-2,000 insurgents per year, SirNitram.

[SirNitram]

Don't forget the fact they're arresting 1-2,000 insurgents per year, SirNitram.

For low-end arrests, decrease to 72.5 years, 90 years, and 200 years. For high end, drop to 43, 60, and a hundred.. Something.

[Stravo]

I'm disgusted by the defeatist attitude in this thread. Can't we be optimists and stop hating freedom? No matter what happens...remember they're free.

[Surlethe]

For low-end arrests, decrease to 72.5 years, 90 years, and 200 years. For high end, drop to 43, 60, and a hundred.. Something.

Only 40 years left to go! The terrorists aren't winning! Let the bells of freedom ring!!1

[Wyrm]

Okay, let me toss my chips into this mess.

Suppose we have a bomb-making cell: a commander and deputy, one person to procure bomb components, a bomb-maker and assistant, three scouts, one bomb planter and one bomb detonator. Suppose also that this is a hard-core cell. (Notice that food procurement, shelter and transport is not a part of this team.) This bombing cell can make and plant one bomb per bombing cycle.

How long is a bombing cycle? That is, materials procurement, assembly, scouting out a location, planting, and then detonating? Depends, but let's assume a cycle between one and two weeks, say 10 days. That means that 1 bombing per day requires ten teams of ten people, or 100 per bombing per day. Since there's 100 bombings per day, this means that there are 10,000 people dedicated to bomb-making cells.

Are we forgetting anybody? Yes, the members of the insurgency who just shoot at people. Bombmaking takes some skill, but shooting a gun takes less skill. It also doesn't take as much infastructure to support a gun-person. There's also the fact that a gun person can simply lob grenades and such. Plus there are all the other arms (rocket launchers and such). Four members of these other combat types per bomb-making/planting type seems a reasonable estimate.

The number of hard-core fighters has jumped to 40,000. How many of these are providing shelter, food, money, transport, intelligence and all the other components of a healthy insurgency? Maybe five part-time and support insurgents per hard-core insurgents seems like a safe estimate.

Final figure: 200,000 insurgents.

Boyhowdy, with reasonable estimates, I get a figure close to that of Brian's figure!

[KHL]

Assuming one Steel Curtain attack per week, sustained, with roughly 20 insurgents killed per, with no replenishment of the insurgent ranks, it will kill roughly 1,000 insurgents per year.

145 years with the lower end estimate.

180 years with the most likely.

Four Hundred Years for the worst case scenario.

Yea. They're working on it. And that's assuming, magically, that no one new steps up from this point onwards, save to fill in for those who die of old age.

Oh. And since there's been a fairly steady infusion of 80B$ per year extra for the Iraqi occupation, even the low end comes out to around 11.2 Trillion dollars.

First of all, I don't believe that the actual combat arm of the insurgency is anywhere approaching the estimates given. Thats been the point of my more recent posts.

Secondly, The primary goal of the U.S. isn't to wipe out the insurgency, it is to keep it on its heels while the new government gets on its feet and gets its own defense force trained and operating.

Are you starting to get why this asinine 'count the bags' bit is stupid yet?

Um this thread was started by a "count the bags" bit...

[SirNitram]

Assuming one Steel Curtain attack per week, sustained, with roughly 20 insurgents killed per, with no replenishment of the insurgent ranks, it will kill roughly 1,000 insurgents per year.

145 years with the lower end estimate.

180 years with the most likely.

Four Hundred Years for the worst case scenario.

Yea. They're working on it. And that's assuming, magically, that no one new steps up from this point onwards, save to fill in for those who die of old age.

Oh. And since there's been a fairly steady infusion of 80B$ per year extra for the Iraqi occupation, even the low end comes out to around 11.2 Trillion dollars.

First of all, I don't believe that the actual combat arm of the insurgency is anywhere approaching the estimates given. Thats been the point of my more recent posts.

You've yet to provide evidence. I'm sorry, you ignorant fucking twat, but you need evidence to be taken seriously.

Secondly, The primary goal of the U.S. isn't to wipe out the insurgency, it is to keep it on its heels while the new government gets on its feet and gets its own defense force trained and operating.

Yea, and we've got, what, a Battalion since this happened? That can actually be self-sufficient. And it's likely rotten to the core with insurgents.

And ultimately, you want this Iraqi military to be more effective than the US Military! You're a joke.

Are you starting to get why this asinine 'count the bags' bit is stupid yet?

Um this thread was started by a "count the bags" bit...

Imbecile, do you know nothing? You're claiming victory by counting bags. The thread questions why the hell two thousand have died. They are not remotely the same. Employ such red herrings again at your own peril.

[Wyrm]

Are you starting to get why this asinine 'count the bags' bit is stupid yet?

Um this thread was started by a "count the bags" bit...

It was "count the American body bags..." As in, "how long are we going to let this shit happen to our troops?"

[aerius]

Secondly, The primary goal of the U.S. isn't to wipe out the insurgency, it is to keep it on its heels while the new government gets on its feet and gets its own defense force trained and operating.

And they're succeeding at this goal how again? I don't exactly see a government in the process of getting on its feet and raising a defence force right now. I guess increasing insurgent activity and civilian & US military casualties is a measure of more freedom & success in your whack-a-loon world.

[Stark]

Why don't we compare the supporters/soldiers ratio of the French resistance (WW2) to that of the Iraq situation?

The quickest estimates I can find give a low level of 200,000 armed members and perhaps ten times that in 'supporters' providing cover, food, intel, etc. This is during wartime, with the Evil Nazis.

This suggests that the vast majority of people identified as 'insurgents' are in support roles, who may not know anything about operations or assist in their execution. I'm trying to find statistics on other insurgencies and their support footprint: I'm curious to see how many local supporters a twenty-man armed insurgent band would need to remain hidden, get food and secure communications and equipment. It's possible even a small attack by a small group would require the activities of several hundred 'insurgents'.

[KHL]

You've yet to provide evidence. I'm sorry, you ignorant fucking twat, but you need evidence to be taken seriously.

I've given evidence Jackass. A paltry 100 attacks or less per day is not indicative of a large or particularly active combat force amongst the insurgents. In the beggining they were capable of virtually taking control of large cities. Now their operations are now strictly limited to terrorist activities and assassinations. Neither of which is winning them support amongst the people.

Secondly, The primary goal of the U.S. isn't to wipe out the insurgency, it is to keep it on its heels while the new government gets on its feet and gets its own defense force trained and operating.

Yea, and we've got, what, a Battalion since this happened? That can actually be self-sufficient. And it's likely rotten to the core with insurgents.

Yes a Battalion has been considered "fully trained" by U.S. standards. However, that doesn't mean the rest of the army is fucking useless. The Iraqi forces are taking a larger role in combat operations in ever increasing numbers.

And ultimately, you want this Iraqi military to be more effective than the US Military! You're a joke.

Our military is kicking their fucking ass over there. Hell we killed/captured over50,000 in 7 months. Why would the Iraqi army need to be more effective than us? Hell, if they are even 1/10th as effective they'd still be in pretty good shape.

Further, the Iraqi army will have two main advantages over U.S. troops. First, they will be in their home country giving them an obvious "home field advantage". Secondly, they aren't Americans which means support for attacks upon them by terrorist/insurgent groups won't be near what it is now.

After we leave it won't be long before many of the insurgent remnant start asking themselves "WTf are we fighting for?".

Imbecile, do you know nothing? You're claiming victory by counting bags. The thread questions why the hell two thousand have died. They are not remotely the same. Employ such red herrings again at your own peril.

Its not a red herring. This post about 2000 deaths is being used as evidence that our efforts in Iraq are a failure or waste. If it isn't "counting body bags" why even mention the number of dead?

So I guess showing failure or defeat by counting body bags is ok then right?

[aerius]

Further, the Iraqi army will have two main advantages over U.S. troops. First, they will be in their home country giving them an obvious "home field advantage". Secondly, they aren't Americans which means support for attacks upon them by terrorist/insurgent groups won't be near what it is now.

Considering that Iraqi army & police recruits are one of the leading targets of insurgent activity, you are fucking full of shit.

[SirNitram]

You've yet to provide evidence. I'm sorry, you ignorant fucking twat, but you need evidence to be taken seriously.

I've given evidence Jackass. A paltry 100 attacks or less per day is not indicative of a large or particularly active combat force amongst the insurgents. In the beggining they were capable of virtually taking control of large cities. Now their operations are now strictly limited to terrorist activities and assassinations. Neither of which is winning them support amongst the people.

Show why 100 attacks a day is indicative of a small force, dickwad. Your made up bullshit shows only your ignorance of the footprint of any armed force; perhaps you should do something to augment that, instead of ignoring rebuttals like a fucking dipshit troll.

Secondly, The primary goal of the U.S. isn't to wipe out the insurgency, it is to keep it on its heels while the new government gets on its feet and gets its own defense force trained and operating.

Yea, and we've got, what, a Battalion since this happened? That can actually be self-sufficient. And it's likely rotten to the core with insurgents.

Yes a Battalion has been considered "fully trained" by U.S. standards. However, that doesn't mean the rest of the army is fucking useless. The Iraqi forces are taking a larger role in combat operations in ever increasing numbers.

That's nice. Unless they can function without US support, they don't count to your idiotic end-goal. Unless they aren't full of insurgents, spies, and informants, they're useless.

And ultimately, you want this Iraqi military to be more effective than the US Military! You're a joke.

Our military is kicking their fucking ass over there. Hell we killed/captured over50,000 in 7 months. Why would the Iraqi army need to be more effective than us? Hell, if they are even 1/10th as effective they'd still be in pretty good shape.

Lying dickwad again. The US military is showing itself incapable of beating the insurgency. It does not matter how many bags of the enemy you kill, when each death just encourages more to fight.

Ultimately, you want the Iraqi military to acheive what the US Military is failing to do: Actually defeat the insurgency.

Further, the Iraqi army will have two main advantages over U.S. troops. First, they will be in their home country giving them an obvious "home field advantage". Secondly, they aren't Americans which means support for attacks upon them by terrorist/insurgent groups won't be near what it is now.

Idiotic. The insurgents have the same 'home team advantage'. Are you given special training to be this stupid, or were you just dropped on your head for fucking your sister too many times?

As for not being americans, the fact they collaorated with the Americans heavily is one of the reasons they're hated.

After we leave it won't be long before many of the insurgent remnant start asking themselves "WTf are we fighting for?".

Not all are fighting because the Americans are there, sadly.

Imbecile, do you know nothing? You're claiming victory by counting bags. The thread questions why the hell two thousand have died. They are not remotely the same. Employ such red herrings again at your own peril.

Its not a red herring. This post about 2000 deaths is being used as evidence that our efforts in Iraq are a failure or waste. If it isn't "counting body bags" why even mention the number of dead?

It is a red herring, you dishonest fucktard Republidrone apologist. We are asking what the hell those two thousand died for. We're not declaring victory or defeat by them.

You, of course, being a little pile of cuntslime and cockdribble, are trying to claim victory by a pile of corpses. Which is not the same, no matter how many times your lying ass says it: we're not declaring victory or loss by that standard.

So I guess showing failure or defeat by counting body bags is ok then right?

None of us are, you lying git. Do not lie about the oppositions position. That shit gets you ejected from this forum.

[KHL]

Further, the Iraqi army will have two main advantages over U.S. troops. First, they will be in their home country giving them an obvious "home field advantage". Secondly, they aren't Americans which means support for attacks upon them by terrorist/insurgent groups won't be near what it is now.

Considering that Iraqi army & police recruits are one of the leading targets of insurgent activity, you are fucking full of shit.

They are targets for the insurgency now because they are viewed as American Collaborators., but I have a hard time believing that continuing such attacks on them after we have left will continue to recieve support amongst the populace.

[KHL]

Secondly, The primary goal of the U.S. isn't to wipe out the insurgency, it is to keep it on its heels while the new government gets on its feet and gets its own defense force trained and operating.

And they're succeeding at this goal how again? I don't exactly see a government in the process of getting on its feet and raising a defence force right now. I guess increasing insurgent activity and civilian & US military casualties is a measure of more freedom & success in your whack-a-loon world.

If you don't see it, then maybe you should broaden your news sources. I've linked many throughout this thread.

[aerius]

If you don't see it, then maybe you should broaden your news sources. I've linked many throughout this thread.

Since when are right-wing blogs a credible news source? Would you also like to cite Livejournal entries from angsty right-wing retards? Maybe I should start citing threads from Democratic Underground. Fucknut.