Study: Iraqi security forces not ready

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12


See that's my problem with the previously made statement. People think that the terrorists wouldn't hate us if we didn't invade Iraq. They're full of it. Al-Queda doesn't really need to use propaganda to get other radicals to want to kill us. And to clarify, we are talking terrorists, not just people rising up because we invaded their country. That's not terrorism unless they are kidnapping citizens and lopping their heads off, or killing their own people in markets and such (I'd like to believe that not all insurgents do that but I could be wrong).

Your invasion of Iraq doesn´t create terrorists per se, I agree.
It just provides them with more recruits and more territory where they find sympathisants and resources (Iraq for example, probably wasn´t a good place for islamist terrorirst while Saddam was in power, but now is an excellent territory, which also provides material like weapons, from caches which were left behind by the former army but weren´t discovered in time by the US troops).

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12


See that's my problem with the previously made statement. People think that the terrorists wouldn't hate us if we didn't invade Iraq. They're full of it. Al-Queda doesn't really need to use propaganda to get other radicals to want to kill us. And to clarify, we are talking terrorists, not just people rising up because we invaded their country. That's not terrorism unless they are kidnapping citizens and lopping their heads off, or killing their own people in markets and such (I'd like to believe that not all insurgents do that but I could be wrong).

That is not what I said.

I said that it helps A-Q, not that it is why A-Q exists or that A-Q wouldn't have the ability to recruit anyone if we had left Iraq alone. Furthermore, I noted that the anger caused in that part of the world by our invasion was not, in and of itself, reason to call off the invasion.

It helps if you read what I type. Or not, since you seem to enjoy attacking the strawmen you create.

-Arrian

[DanS]

These dueling reports are becoming mere political props. This report was commissioned by the congress in order to upstage the Petraeus report.

Incidentally, this report catches the National Intelligence Estimate (presumably non-partisan) in friendly fire. The suggestions of this report go counter to what was suggested in the NIE.

For my own part, in addition, I view this congressional report as a defensive action by the parts of the military that don't want the military to participate in a counter-insurgency. Surprisingly, this faction is showing its weakness by throwing its lot in with the congress rather than the president. That faction was in charge at the Pentagon with regard to Iraq until this year, as best I can tell.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Your invasion of Iraq doesn´t create terrorists per se, I agree.
It just provides them with more recruits and more territory where they find sympathisants and resources (Iraq for example, probably wasn´t a good place for islamist terrorirst while Saddam was in power, but now is an excellent territory, which also provides material like weapons, from caches which were left behind by the former army but weren´t discovered in time by the US troops).

I think those recruits and resources were already there. I definitely believe the sympathy was already there. I think its debatable as to how good a place Iraq was for terrorists. The only thing I will agree with is that everything is probably easier and more readily accessable however. The Iraq War probably just cut through a lot of the red tape of having to deal with the Iraqi government.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12


I think those recruits and resources were already there.

Just not as many of them.

I definitely believe the sympathy was already there.

Just not as much.

I think its debatable as to how good a place Iraq was for terrorists.

But not debatable that it is better for them now.

The only thing I will agree with is that everything is probably easier and more readily accessable however.

Yes, we do agree.

The Iraq War probably just cut through a lot of the red tape of having to deal with the Iraqi government.

Absolutely. Now their supplies come straight from the source. No more middle guy.

[Shrapnel12]

But this is no different then if we invaded any other state that sponsers terrorism and is no reason to not invade. If anything this just brings the bastards out in the open so we can kill them.

People use this arguement to say that we made things worse by invading Iraq, but no more so then we made things worse by attacking Japan after they bombed Pearl Harbor.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
... state that sponsers terrorism ...

What? The cash to Pals?

Pretty weak.

Sadam was no fan of AQ.

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Lancer
Imagine if the Brits burned Washington again, wouldn't that be upsetting.

With only 30% support for the current admin, I predict they would be greeted as liberators.

[Berzerker]

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
But this is no different then if we invaded any other state that sponsers terrorism and is no reason to not invade. If anything this just brings the bastards out in the open so we can kill them.

Wrong. If we invaded North Korea Arbs Muslim fundamentalists wouldn't give a ****. As for the second bit, well, someone seems not to have moved beyond the body bag metirc, which was so helpful to us in Vietnam.....

People use this arguement to say that we made things worse by invading Iraq, but no more so then we made things worse by attacking Japan after they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Sorry, but how can you use a BLANTANTLY FALSE analogy? Even in your own statement you point out that JAPAN attacked the US first, ergo making your comparison worthless.

[Berzerker]

Please explain this. I have heard this statement a lot, but don't understand it. To me this is like saying we should just let people get away with whatever they want because if we fight them they'll fight back.

They are fighting back, but what are we giving them? Leaving their country aint like we're giving them something we own. We're using their country as a battlefield for our war on terror. Furthermore, blind pursuit of a policy that makes matters worse is illogical, some would say its insane. So invading Iraq attracts the people we want - terrorists and fence-sitting jihadists - but runs the risk of inspiring Iraqis to take up arms against us, and some will likely become terrorists seeking to hit us here. At some point draining the swamp wont work if water is pouring in from other swamps we've created with our drain.

[Wezil]

That was kind of why I ask about US troop strength.

With 150K US and (according to the article) some 350K Iraqi security still not able to contain a nation of some 20-30M, something is going seriously wrong. Not to mention the $20 Billion or so spent.

[Berzerker]

Tell me Shrapnel, if not for Cold War policies, the oil, and support for Israel, how many Arab Muslims would give a damn about us? Our presence in the Middle East over the last half century seems to have resulted in terrorists attacking us, true? Or do you subscribe to that Repug Bu**** that we were attacked because we are free, not because we've been over there for decades? If that is not evidence of our presence creating terrorists, nothing will convince you otherwise.