| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: It's just one city. (Bagdhad) |
 |
|
Can someone explain to me why the most powerful army in history/a few of it's allies is unable to bring one backasswards city under control? Seriously.
Forgive the bluntness, I do really wish to know what the hell is going on. Is it political interference? Ineptness? Lack of resolve? An impossible task? The skill/numbers of insurgents? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe they really don't want to?????
There are a lot of benefits to the present situation for those who sit in offices and sign papers and give speeches and have a lot of brass around ........ maybe it is planned incompetence, sort of the flip side opposite of planned obsolesence.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You can't run a hearts-and-minds campaign and wage a war at the same time. This fiasco should be proof of that. If it were purely a HAM deal, we would have pulled our troops out and started pouring only money into Iraq. If it were a real war, the place would've been leveled and our troops would be patrolling a parking lot. Mix the two and you've got what you see now...a fustercluck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:10 am Post subject: Re: It's just one city. (Bagdhad) |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
Can someone explain to me why the most powerful army in history/a few of it's allies is unable to bring one backasswards city under control? Seriously.
Forgive the bluntness, I do really wish to know what the hell is going on. Is it political interference? Ineptness? Lack of resolve? An impossible task? The skill/numbers of insurgents? |
The funny thing about Washington DC is they can't even take care of their own city. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You don't fight terrorism with an army, you fight it with intelligence agents, police, and small, mobile military strike forces working in coordination on an international level. Just ask Europe.
To fully answer your question: they didn't go into Iraq to fight terrorism, they went in to control the oil. If you don't believe this, do some reading on Peak Oil. (All major players in the Bush Cadre come from Oil, even Rice.) Check out Cheney's comments on oil security in his pre-VP days at Halliburton... FYI, he said the keys future of oil supply and security were in the Middle East. Gee, what a coincidence.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
You don't fight terrorism with an army, you fight it with intelligence agents, police, and small, mobile military strike forces working in coordination on an international level. Just ask Europe.
To fully answer your question: they didn't go into Iraq to fight terrorism, they went in to control the oil. If you don't believe this, do some reading on Peak Oil. (All major players in the Bush Cadre come from Oil, even Rice.) Check out Cheney's comments on oil security in his pre-VP days at Halliburton... FYI, he said the keys future of oil supply and security were in the Middle East. Gee, what a coincidence.... |
You had me with your opening and then lost me with your conspiracies.
Is there oil in Baghdad?
This was a discussion about Baghdad right?
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EFLtrainer"]
| Quote: |
| You don't fight terrorism with an army, you fight it with intelligence agents, police, and small, mobile military strike forces working in coordination on an international level. Just ask Europe. |
Yes the US always has lots of good intelligence about what is happening in the middle east. Uh nope
It is also interesting that mideast nations have had no problem dealing with insurgencies in their nations.
However there are some people who can find just about all Al Qaeda agents and supporters world wide in a number of days.
Who? The Intel services of mid east nations. Unlike the US they actually know where Al Qaeda is.
| Quote: |
To fully answer your question: they didn't go into Iraq to fight terrorism, they went in to control the oil. If you don't believe this, do some reading on Peak Oil. (All major players in the Bush Cadre come from Oil, even Rice.) Check out Cheney's comments on oil security in his pre-VP days at Halliburton... FYI, he said the keys future of oil supply and security were in the Middle East. Gee, what a coincidence.... |
[/quote]
The US went into Iraq to gain military bases so the US would be able to pressure mideast regimes into changing their behavior . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YoshaMazov
Joined: 10 May 2007
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| coughvietnamcough |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
You don't fight terrorism with an army, you fight it with intelligence agents, police, and small, mobile military strike forces working in coordination on an international level. Just ask Europe.
To fully answer your question: they didn't go into Iraq to fight terrorism, they went in to control the oil. If you don't believe this, do some reading on Peak Oil. (All major players in the Bush Cadre come from Oil, even Rice.) Check out Cheney's comments on oil security in his pre-VP days at Halliburton... FYI, he said the keys future of oil supply and security were in the Middle East. Gee, what a coincidence.... |
You had me with your opening and then lost me with your conspiracies. |
So sad for you that you are hearing (reading) voices. There were no conspiracy theories mentioned.
| Quote: |
| Is there oil in Baghdad? |
Political interference was not part of the question? Oh, yes, it was.
FYI, since you aren't able to see anything except what you are told to see, apparently: An end to the violence in Iraq is the last thing the Cadre wants. What reason would they have to stay? None. Hard to hold on to that oil without an army close at hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
The OP was talking about Baghdad not Iraq and not oil.
I wish people would stay on topic.
Please let's properly criticize the ineptness of activities in Baghdad.
This could be a decent discussion without the detractors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
The OP was talking about Baghdad not Iraq and not oil.
I wish people would stay on topic.
Please let's properly criticize the ineptness of activities in Baghdad.
This could be a decent discussion without the detractors. |
This is ridiculous. How do you discuss Baghdad in isolation and make any sense at all? Is there a wall around the city preventing more insurgents from getting in? Is their anger limited to that city and is it an issue only of size of arms? Really?
No wonder your posts are so damned short... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just stumbled across this. Interesting take:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/13/19143/4199
| Quote: |
Grim Thoughts About Iraq and the American Empire
by Pesto
Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 04:06:44 PM PDT
Long ago, when I was in high school, I heard the following story about how people in Scandinavia used to kill marauding wolves.
I have no idea if it's apocryphal or historically accurate -- but it's a disturbing metaphor for our nation's slide into self-destructive imperial warfare.
More below the fold.
* Pesto's diary :: ::
*
The story goes as follows.
Way back when, before the invention of guns, wolves were plentiful in Scandinavia -- and largely unafraid of people. A marauding wolf could kill animals, children, even adults, especially in winter when food was scarce. Killing one with the weapons at hand (bow and arrow, spears) wasn't easy, nor was trapping them.
Here's how they killed wolves. They would dig a hole a foot or two deep into the snow and put a big, sharp knife in it, blade sticking straight up. Then, they'd pour blood on the knife, fill the hole in with snow, and pour blood on the snow. Then they'd leave.
The hungry wolf would smell the delicious blood and find the bloody snow. Thinking that there must be a bleeding or dead animal in the snow -- yum! -- it would start licking and digging through the bloody mess. By the time it had gotten a foot or two down into the snow, the wolf's muzzle and tongue were getting pretty numb from the cold snow.
And at about this time, too, the wolf had reached the blistering cold, bloody knife. It would lick the blade, which usually would hurt, of course -- but the wolf's numb tongue couldn't sense the pain. But what it did sense was the smell of warm, fresh blood. Thinking it had found its prey, the wolf would lick more and more enthusiastically, cutting its tongue to shreds, producing ever more fresh blood.
The hungry wolf would bleed to death, greedily pursuing its bleeding prey -- which was, of course, the wolf itself.
As I said above, I don't know if this story about the knife in the snow is true. But this method sure seems to work with oil in the sand. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| cbclark4 wrote: |
The OP was talking about Baghdad not Iraq and not oil.
I wish people would stay on topic.
Please let's properly criticize the ineptness of activities in Baghdad.
This could be a decent discussion without the detractors. |
This is ridiculous. How do you discuss Baghdad in isolation and make any sense at all? Is there a wall around the city preventing more insurgents from getting in? Is their anger limited to that city and is it an issue only of size of arms? Really?
No wonder your posts are so damned short... |
I don't know ask the OP.
Your the one violating the ground rule. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:39 pm Post subject: Re: It's just one city. (Bagdhad) |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
Can someone explain to me why the most powerful army in history/a few of it's allies is unable to bring one backasswards city under control? Seriously.
Forgive the bluntness, I do really wish to know what the hell is going on. Is it political interference? Ineptness? Lack of resolve? An impossible task? The skill/numbers of insurgents? |
For the benefit of the ELFish amongst us I repost the OP.
And call attention the operative statement:
Can someone explain to me why the most powerful army in history/a few of it's allies is unable to bring one backasswards city under control? Seriously.
Now if you wish to expand the question get your own thread!!!
The question concerns Baghdad! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ddorky conspiracy theories aside, the real problem is that they never sent a large enough army to win the peace. They simply do not have enough troops.
If you drop 2-300,000 troops in the city you could secure it.
Not only was this an illegal, wrong and unjust war, it was also carried out with the Bush administrations trademark competency. Rumsfeld thought a few divisions could shock and awe them into democracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
