Yeah!!!! Stick it to those mother$%^& and break it off!!!!

[Whaleboy]

St Leo: Only other peoples.

Great site by the way, your oil and water thing is my desktop!

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

You're not usually so simplistic.

It's just not worth to differentiatre and elaborate. Short version, you want a political success. Killing Iraqis, in whatever situation, doesn't help you at best.

"The increase of Iraqi on Iraqi attacks also reflects a lack of "solidarity" in the "Iraqi people.""

It reflects the serious risk of a civil war once the US troops leave. Unless you want to keep that protectorate forever.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Roland is like the insurgents, desparate for attention against an overwhelming adversary that is on the inevitable road to victory.

You sound like Goebbels 1945.

[Dis]

woohoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


It's just not worth to differentiatre and elaborate. Short version, you want a political success. Killing Iraqis, in whatever situation, doesn't help you at best.

"The increase of Iraqi on Iraqi attacks also reflects a lack of "solidarity" in the "Iraqi people.""

It reflects the serious risk of a civil war once the US troops leave. Unless you want to keep that protectorate forever.

Well, US has kept troops for many years in our other colonies including Germany.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
It's just not worth to differentiatre and elaborate. Short version, you want a political success. Killing Iraqis, in whatever situation, doesn't help you at best.

It doesn't "help" unless and to the extent that a majority of Iraqis see the people we killed as an impediment to their own political and economic redevelopment.

In the ideal situation (remember, I've *****ed incessantly about unrealistically low numbers of troops from the very beginning) we would have long ago secured and destroyed all major munitions depots and supply points, and we would have been much more active early on in raiding and searching and destroying hidden munitions caches. Limiting the enemy's ability to resist is preferable to fighting him after he starts resisting, but that much of that opportunity has been blown.

"The increase of Iraqi on Iraqi attacks also reflects a lack of "solidarity" in the "Iraqi people.""

It reflects the serious risk of a civil war once the US troops leave. Unless you want to keep that protectorate forever.

That's always been a serious risk, and one the Bushies grossly "misunderestimated" We will be stuck there damned near forever (or at least until the oil runs out ) unless we increase the pace of training of a new Iraqi army, and unless we do a very good job of supporting the development of stable political institutions by the Iraqis themselves.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
It's just not worth to differentiatre and elaborate. Short version, you want a political success. Killing Iraqis, in whatever situation, doesn't help you at best.

You aren't really helping push foward your view of the situation if all you are going to say is that it isn't worth it to go into any detail at all just accept what I'm saying. It just makes you look like an idiotic parody of Fez.

[SlowwHand]

Whimper, moan, and whine; but never say what SHOULD have been done.
Pretty safe attitude, big Mikey.

[Ted Striker]

Anybody know the status of the Iraqi Army anyway? Is there any money to pay for it?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Whimper, moan, and whine; but never say what SHOULD have been done.
Pretty safe attitude, big Mikey.

We shouldn't have thought we could bribe the Turks, and should have had three more divisions assigned at full strength from the outset, using airmobility and forced entry capabilities to enter the north and west in far greater force earlier.

Oh, and secured the ****ing route to Baghdad on the way up.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Anybody know the status of the Iraqi Army anyway? Is there any money to pay for it?

It's about battalion strength, training schedule is slow as hell, and we really don't want to reconstitute their old army at any level even if we funded paying for it.

[Dr Strangelove]

I thought that there were nearly 100,000 men already enlisted in the Iraqi defense force? That would make a rather unweildy battalion.

Would a civil war in Iraq after we pulled out be such a bad thing? It would attract and consume zealots from all over the middle east. A nice long civil war in Iraq might give future Islamic zealots something to think about, a something that might indeed be necessary before the Islamic world can truly adapt to the 21st century. The religious wars in late 16th-early 17th century Europe pretty much dampered the zealotry of Christian Europe. Maybe Islam needs to get something out of its system.

[Kramerman]

Less than an hour later, in a third attack in Samarra, four men in a black BMW fired rifles at members of a U.S. combat engineering battalion. The soldiers returned fire, wounding and capturing the men, Cargie said.

haha

Hooah engineers

[Ted Striker]

Is that you K Man?

Next we are going to hear stories about US computer programmers whooping insurgent azz.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I thought that there were nearly 100,000 men already enlisted in the Iraqi defense force? That would make a rather unweildy battalion.

That's the "civil defense" force, or whatever they call it - glorified Wackenhut security guard types, not trained or equipped for combat operations, or trained in small unit tactics or integration with other units.

The actual combat trained force is about 1000 men so far.

Would a civil war in Iraq after we pulled out be such a bad thing? It would attract and consume zealots from all over the middle east.

Depends on how much driving you have to do.