Page 6 of 23 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920212223 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 445

Thread: Will Bush bomb Iran?

  1. #101
    Registered Member
    Posts
    46
    Yes. My chains are gold, though, and yours are iron. Iron is a much stronger material, 'tis true, but then gold is so much softer and more comfortable.

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Outback View Post
    Precisely.
    It seems as though I've been misreading you, and assuming that you were suggesting that we should be flattening entire towns to get a few insurgents that are hiding in them, like the talk radio yobs* here often do. In light of the rest of this post, I went back and re-read what you were saying and agree with much of it. There is no shortage of historical examples of nations with arbitrarily drawn borders irrespective of cultural fault lines being unable to stabilize under anything but the most draconian internal security. Iraq itself has seen this before while under the post-WWI British mandate.

    As it stands now, and just as a general FYI, the focus of the COIN campaign in Iraq is to enfranchise the people to the point where political reconciliation can happen at a municipal and national level. The hope is that if the patchwork of Iraqis can work out their grievances through the political process rather than through street violence, a system can be hammered out that is tenable to the wide majority of Iraqis. While the idea has been floated here and there of dividing Iraq along its cultural fault lines, there is no way to do while avoiding sectarian exclusion from the oil, phosphorous, and fresh water sources. Also, Iraqis are quite nationalist, and overwhelmingly reject the idea of a partitioned Iraq.

    The US Army COIN manual I refer to was finalized late last year after composition by some of the best and brightest historians of the Army/Marine Corps officer corps (Gen. Petraeus, Gen. Mattis, Col. McMaster, et al.) It is based on our experiences in Vietnam...as well as the British in Northern Ireland, the French in Algiers and Vietnam, even the Nazis in Croatia, etc. It was written in response to the unpreparedness of our military to wage a proper COIN campaign upon the completion of the invasion in 2003, and also incorporates much of what we've learned in Iraq since then. In any case, don't be quick to summarily dismiss it without giving it a read, because it is widely acknowledged by experts - military and civilian alike - as a paradigm-shattering revolution in traditional military strategy. The PDF is available for download here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Norsefire
    @Echo: No, you didn't conquer Baghdad. The US army has zero ability to conquer shit, you defeated the Iraqis, whoopee....
    If you know of a better metric to gauge the efficacy of a fighting force than its ability to obliterate opposing forces and take/hold terrain, please share.

    Also, if you're going to seriously try to argue the history of Arab militaries against those of the west as anything but spectacular failures, I'm putting down my beer before I blow it all over my monitor with laughter.

  3. #103
    Registered Member
    Posts
    46
    Downloading...

    or perhaps not. I'm at work right now, and the privilege of working a nightshift and being able to surf whilst theoretically doing something of importance might be lost should someone bother to check my activities.
    It will have to wait until a later time, but I will read it.

  4. #104
    Salam Shalom Salom
    Posts
    11,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo3Romeo View Post

    If you know of a better metric to gauge the efficacy of a fighting force than its ability to obliterate opposing forces and take/hold terrain, please share.

    Also, if you're going to seriously try to argue the history of Arab militaries against those of the west as anything but spectacular failures, I'm putting down my beer before I blow it all over my monitor with laughter.
    There is no better than that, but that right there is an ability the US military does not have.

    Against the West? I'm not talking about the West, I'm talking about America in specific

    And in case you don't know, Arab militaries in the past, such as the Golden Age of Islam, DID have much success against the "West" (Europe)

    And as if Iraq wasn't a spectacular failure...

  5. #105
    Registered Member
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo3Romeo View Post
    It seems as though I've been misreading you, and assuming that you were suggesting that we should be flattening entire towns to get a few insurgents that are hiding in them, like the talk radio yobs* here often do.
    Not precisely.
    I am rather tired of hearing that the Americans are incapable of winning such a conflict with forces such as those arrayed against them in Iraq, though, and sometimes resort to the extreme out of pure annoyance.

    It is extremely frustrating to realise that these think that the force displayed in Iraq, hobnailed as it was by logistics, politics, and social concerns (perhaps even a desire to conceal the full extent of American capability), was all that the US is capable of unleashing - should it choose to do so.

    I have been privately censured by a moderator recently for calling those such as this one above a twit, so I shall not do so again. I shall, instead, merely think it, as opposed to writing it out here for public viewing.

    ...There is no shortage of historical examples of nations with arbitrarily drawn borders irrespective of cultural fault lines being unable to stabilize under anything but the most draconian internal security. Iraq itself has seen this before while under the post-WWI British mandate.

    ....Also, Iraqis are quite nationalist, and overwhelmingly reject the idea of a partitioned Iraq.
    Now don't those two things add up to something curious?

  6. #106
    Salam Shalom Salom
    Posts
    11,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Outback View Post
    Not precisely.
    I am rather tired of hearing that the Americans are incapable of winning such a conflict with forces such as those arrayed against them in Iraq, though, and sometimes resort to the extreme out of pure annoyance.

    It is extremely frustrating to realise that these think that the force displayed in Iraq, hobnailed as it was by logistics, politics, and social concerns (perhaps even a desire to conceal the full extent of American capability), was all that the US is capable of unleashing - should it choose to do so.


    Now don't those two things add up to something curious?
    Why are you tired of it? You aren't even American, nor should you be siding with the Americans that want nothing but total influence over whatever nation you come from.

    Are you happy as a slave? Is your master feeding you enough lies?

    Also, I would say likewise. The US army could unleash more, but it can't because of society. The Iraqis could unleash more, but they can't because of society

    Do you think they've fought their hardest? Nah, if it completely, all came down to it, America would be flattened in no time. And no one will help them.

  7. #107
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    [QUOTE=Norsefire;1535118]There is no better than that, but that right there is an ability the US military does not have.

    Against the West? I'm not talking about the West, I'm talking about America in specific

    And in case you don't know, Arab militaries in the past, such as the Golden Age of Islam, DID have much success against the "West" (Europe)
    [QUOTE]

    And in the end they were driven out of Europe, and subjugated in the Middle East, that is the lesson that we fail to recognize, that the war brought to us by the Fundamentalist Islamic Jihad, is a long war, and as in all wars there are ups and downs, but in the end someone is backed down, the war to back down the Islamic Fundamentalist is the Long War, and we need to take a look at the way it was fought and won in Europe and the Middle East the last time.

    [QUOTE=Norsefire;1535118]And as if Iraq wasn't a spectacular failure...[QUOTE]

    It is becoming a spectacular failure for the Terrorist of Islam all right, even the Moslems of Iraq are recognizing that the Foreign Terrorist fighters are killing more Iraqi innocents than they ever are going to kill of Americans.

  8. #108
    Salam Shalom Salom
    Posts
    11,529
    [QUOTE=Buffalo Roam;1535131][QUOTE=Norsefire;1535118]There is no better than that, but that right there is an ability the US military does not have.

    Against the West? I'm not talking about the West, I'm talking about America in specific

    And in case you don't know, Arab militaries in the past, such as the Golden Age of Islam, DID have much success against the "West" (Europe)
    [QUOTE]

    And in the end they were driven out of Europe, and subjugated in the Middle East, that is the lesson that we fail to recognize, that the war brought to us by the Fundamentalist Islamic Jihad, is a long war, and as in all wars there are ups and downs, but in the end someone is backed down, the war to back down the Islamic Fundamentalist is the Long War, and we need to take a look at the way it was fought and won in Europe and the Middle East the last time.

    [QUOTE=Norsefire;1535118]And as if Iraq wasn't a spectacular failure...

    It is becoming a spectacular failure for the Terrorist of Islam all right, even the Moslems of Iraq are recognizing that the Foreign Terrorist fighters are killing more Iraqi innocents than they ever are going to kill of Americans.
    Yes, in the end they were driven out. That's how it is, power shifts
    Also, please keep all of this "Islamic" bullshit out. Everything with you is "islamic"

    If power shifts in the future to us, how will it be? Just like it shifted to the Europeans, that's just the way it is.

    the terrorists, yes it is a failure for them. that's what they get for targeting innocence
    but the usa it is a spectucular failure

  9. #109
    Registered Member
    Posts
    46
    Syria? Oh yes... that relatively large country with the relatively large military which had the crap kicked out of it by Israel some time ago. You know, that little flyspeck of a nation you don't like very much and tried to wipe off the face of the map, you peace loving nation you.

    Feel free to reminisce fondly on "golden ages" centuries gone, t....

    Am I permitted to call him an unwashed toad, then, Mr Moderator? Or must I limit myself to merely thinking that as well?

  10. #110
    Salam Shalom Salom
    Posts
    11,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Outback View Post
    Syria? Oh yes... that relatively large country with the relatively large military which had the crap kicked out of it by Israel some time ago. You know, that little flyspeck of a nation you don't like very much and tried to wipe off the face of the map, you peace loving nation you.

    Feel free to reminisce fondly on "golden ages" centuries gone, t....

    Am I permitted to call him an unwashed toad, then, Mr Moderator? Or must I limit myself to merely thinking that as well?
    Quite, under the Umayyads Syria was alot larger than your nation could dream of.

    Crap kicked out? Hardly.......defeat? Yes.

    Pfft, alot more peaceloving than the Americans, thanks alot!

    Centuries gone, but teach a valuable lesson. Power shifts, 6 centuries from now, do you think the USA will even exist?

  11. #111
    Registered Member
    Posts
    46
    Amusing, isn't it. Couldn't even manage to attack Israel successfully, right next door as it was, and then he raves about conquering America in a year.

    Is that a little bit of drool there I see there, Mr Syria, at the thought of America's demise?
    What does your little user title say? Syria will Prevail? Over what?
    I thought you were all about peace... and yet here you are advertising your long term victory.

    What a facade you are.

  12. #112
    Salam Shalom Salom
    Posts
    11,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Outback View Post
    Amusing, isn't it. Couldn't even manage to attack Israel successfully, right next door as it was, and then he raves about conquering America in a year.

    Is that a little bit of drool there I see there, Mr Syria, at the thought of America's demise?
    What does your little user title say? Syria will Prevail? Over what?
    I thought you were all about peace... and yet here you are advertising your long term victory.

    What a facade you are.
    Attack and win are different words. Oh, and of course "we" can conquer America. We, as in the entire free world, including your nation if you choose to go against your master.

    You can see over the internet? Amazing, but you saw wrong.

    Syria will prevail over anything that is thrown against her.

    Here you are, supporting the USA, yet supporting Peace at the same time. If you are about peace, how can you possibly support the USA

    What a facade you are.

  13. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Norsefire View Post
    There is no better than that, but that right there is an ability the US military does not have.
    I'd be curious to see you try to logically support this assertion.

  14. #114
    Salam Shalom Salom
    Posts
    11,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo3Romeo View Post
    I'd be curious to see you try to logically support this assertion.
    Support your claim (if you are implying one) that they can

  15. #115
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    16,477
    Quote Originally Posted by outback
    OK, then are you actually claiming that unleashing "hell on earth", by some convenient means, would have been a competent strategy in Iraq? ”
    Yes, it would have been. Wars are not won by being nice to people. The US has been trying that since the end of WW2, with a spectacular lack of success.
    But this is an occupation - occupations are very often made successful by being nice to people - as the US has, in the now distant past, demonstrated.
    The war was won in a few weeks, without serious difficulty - remember "Mission Accomplished" ?
    Quote Originally Posted by outback

    Nah,there's some doubt. Sasquatches might exist, too - you can't be sure about these things. ”
    I am sure about one thing.
    The Americans have access to vast information networks and satellite imagery, and whole organisations of staff to interpret information. There is no doubt about that - only about their interpretation of the information gathered.
    Which is why deliberate lying is the standard, reasonable presumption. Because none of that stuff showed WMDs as described by W&Co.
    Quote Originally Posted by outback

    As far as the WMDs, W&Co never made any sense in their claims - they were not believeable, jsut on common sense grounds. ”
    Not to you, perhaps.
    Others believed them, if for no other reason than that not only did the Americans know that WMD were being developed in Iraq, they could produce the reciepts for the components shipped from America.
    Destroyed by the UN inspection program. The claims by W&Co were of current, ongoing production of massive quantities of specified kinds of WMDs in 2002. For that, no one had any evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by outback
    What is interesting is that you're trying to say that the US didn't know where the facilities were, when even the UN did, which is why they knew where to search prior to the conflict.
    Anything the UN knew about was destroyed before 2001. We are talking about the fall of the year 2002, when W&Co started the preliminary bombing (while claiming to the US citizenry that no decision had been made).

    Now we ask whether W will bomb Iran. And the obvious answer is - of course, if he can muster the domestic backing. He does need some minimal popular and political support, though. So we anticipate an anti-Iranian propaganda effort, similar to the one curtailed in spring of this year, when developments in Iraq shorted it.

  16. #116
    Registered Senior Member chuuush's Avatar
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Outback View Post
    Amusing, isn't it. Couldn't even manage to attack Israel successfully, right next door as it was, and then he raves about conquering America in a year.

    Is that a little bit of drool there I see there, Mr Syria, at the thought of America's demise?
    What does your little user title say? Syria will Prevail? Over what?
    I thought you were all about peace... and yet here you are advertising your long term victory.

    What a facade you are.
    Yes, Arabs war with Israel was a total shame. Of course Israel enjoyed the total backing of the biggest powers of the time and their latest technologies along with a powerful espionage system which had already disintegrated the Arabic armies as well as the Nuke tech. it had got from France, but all these should not constitute a pretext to lose your land to your enemy and not be able to get it back after more than 30 years. I think Syria has to prove it if it has the capacity and not just brag like Saddam did. Actions speaks louder than words and peace can be achieved only when you are ready to war...

    By the way Norsefire, one friend who had visited Siyra told me that your president goes out freely in the streets and to the restaurants and shopping etc. with his family without much security just to keep in touch with his own people and that people really like him. I wondered whether it was correct news?

  17. #117
    Salam Shalom Salom
    Posts
    11,529
    It's very safe, and people do like him, but I have yet in the time I've been there to see him anywhere. I've only been to Latakia and Damascus, however, so maybe that has something to do with it.

    Outback for some reason supports the USA, but the odd thing is, he's not even American! He's the classic US slave, lol

  18. #118
    Registered Senior Member chuuush's Avatar
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Outback View Post
    This does not mean there were any, nor does it mean there were not. It means only that the public is generally convinced that there were not, without having any of the advantage of intelligence and satellite information that the US government had at the time, and at the same time being utterly convinced of the ability and willingness of the west to deliberately mislead its own public. Amongst those latter believers, many have never considered why the US government might have found it necessary to embark on such a course of action.
    What do you mean by all these groupings of words? When something is not there it reasonably means it doesn't exist. Wake up it is 2007 not 2002.

    A more correct philosophical cynicism would be to believe in neither the existence or non-existence of WMD without proof either way. That there were none found by the time they were actively searched for without hindrance is proof for neither belief. The only rational belief it possible for a man not in an informed position to have is that he does not know, but suspects one way or the other, dependant entirely on his political inclination and ideological sympathies.
    I have always though that philosophical thinking equals illogical thinking. Here comes another proof.

    The majority of westerners are against any war with the middle east simply because they cannot see the danger in doing nothing, and because doing nothing now will in all probability have no adverse result during their own lifetimes. It may well be that in the future the middle east will become something far more dangerous than it is now and logistically uncontrollable.
    The majority of westerners are not daring to do any action to stop the bullying U.S. simply because they cannot see the danger in doing nothing...
    How do you support your thesis of potential danger? By showing fake documents in the U.N security council!?!

    If the USA was free to act, unhindered by politics or by its own espoused ideals, both Iraq and Iran could be reduced to smoking ruins in a very short space of time. Make no mistake on that point. That this conflict has been handly ineptly is more a result of public opinion and the fear of being seen as a hypocrite than any inability of the US military to conquer.
    I think this is what they call democracy. If public opinion was not to check the military and the politics, it would be just like Deutschland under the Führer.
    Last edited by chuuush; 09-10-07 at 10:25 AM.

  19. #119
    Salam Shalom Salom
    Posts
    11,529
    I am amazed at how Outback strongly supports the USA. He must be the only European (if indeed he is) that does. It's ridiculous

    And like I've said before, the USA has zero ability to conquer.

  20. #120
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    [QUOTE=chuuush;1536407]Yes, Arabs war with Israel was a total shame. Of course Israel enjoyed the total backing of the biggest powers of the time and their latest technologies along with a powerful espionage system which had already disintegrated the Arabic armies as well as the Nuke tech. it had got from France, but all these should not constitute a pretext to lose your land to your enemy and not be able to get it back after more than 30 years. I think Syria has to prove it if it has the capacity and not just brag like Saddam did. Actions speaks louder than words and peace can be achieved only when you are ready to war...QUOTE]


    Yes, the Israelis started with worn-out WWII equipment in 1947, and whipped the shit out of the Arabs who were well supplied with equipment and out numbered the Israeli defenders 30 to 1, and it was after the war was won that the U.S. became involved in re-supplying the Israelis, in every war the Arabs have had at a minimum of 10 to 1 odds in their favor, How many tens of thousands of tanks did the Soviets supply to Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Jordanians had U.S. Tanks, M-48, the equivalent of or superior to Israeli Vehicles. How many thousands of Russia Fighters and Bombers did the Arab Forces have to expend against Israel in the wars? and the Israelis still whipped their ass, after 1967 we supplied the Israelis, but we never flew the missions for them, and we never provided combat troops or advisors to them, in fact they provided Advisors to our Armored troops to help us develop new tactical doctrine in dealing with the Soviet Armor threat.

    On the whole the Suez operation, launched on 29 October was a disaster. Although Israel's part of the operation was a stunning success, allowing it to occupy the entire Sinai peninsula by 4 November, the French and British invasion on 6 November was a failure. The attempt to advance along the Suez canal bogged down and then collapsed under fierce US and Soviet pressure. Both European nations pulled out, leaving Israel to face the pressure from the two superpowers alone. Soviet premier Bulganin issued an implicit threat of nuclear attack if Israel did not withdraw from the Sinai.
    On 7 November 1956, a secret meeting was held between foreign minister Golda Meir, Peres, and French foreign and defense ministers Mssrs. Christian Pineau and Maurice Bourges-Manoury. The French officials were deeply chagrined by France's failure to support its ally in the operation, and the Israelis were very concerned about the Soviet threat. In this meeting the initial understanding about a research reactor may have been substantially modified, and Peres seems to have secured an agreement to assist Israel in developing a nuclear deterrent.
    Not the U.S., the Russians Threat, is what sent Israel down the Nuclear road, and it was the French who provided the and received help from Israel to developed its own and Israeli nuclear weapons.

Similar Threads

  1. By madanthonywayne in forum World Events
    Last Post: 02-20-07, 06:56 PM
    Replies: 167
  2. By MattMarr in forum World Events
    Last Post: 09-18-06, 04:00 PM
    Replies: 4
  3. By Solve et Coagula in forum Politics
    Last Post: 04-22-06, 04:11 PM
    Replies: 25
  4. By vincent in forum World Events
    Last Post: 01-27-06, 08:50 AM
    Replies: 10
  5. By Kiwi123 in forum World Events
    Last Post: 11-08-05, 08:54 PM
    Replies: 26

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •