Intelligence Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

[Cerise]

So the US is responsible for the overall global terrorism? I'll bet if we hadn't occupied Iraq in our lust for oil all the "Islamic radicals" would otherwise be known as a serene, harmonious, peace-loving, America-loving people.

 

[Professur]

Actually, Cerise, if the US had topped Hussein and got the hell outta Dodge, they'd be happily killing one another and probably ignoring the US completely. Right up until the Iranian army stepped in to stop the bloodshed.

 

[chcr]

Because pacification is the only way to stabilization of the country. Once the country is stabile, the region becomes more stable. Stable people don't tolerate violent extremists in their midst.

I think you're dreaming. It hasn't been stable in 5000 years (well, kinda, during the Roman occupation) but our hearts are pure and our intentions are the true...

You've got shia and suni and arab and persian and kurd and turk... all in a country laid out by Imperial Britain because they thought it would be proper to have one there.

 

[MrBishop]

Jsut like three quarters of the rest of the world.

Nope...nothing like this one. Not even close. The Embassy alone in Iraq will be 104 acres (about as big as Vatican city).

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/2006/0414embassy.htm

 

[Professur]

Hwo much land did the US take for Germany? Japan?

 

[2minkey]

How many troops? At least double. How long? Depends upon how long the enemy keeps fighting. You're asking for a specific timeline for something that is not specific. I'll answer again, and I'll put it in bold so you can't miss it. As long as it takes.

nice non-answer. no man, we need concrete shit just like you ask of everyone else... what's my plan? what's yer stinkin' plan?

So what would you do, considering you don't know much about what the military is supposed to do...

oh, so you do want my plan? but wait, i don't know anything about what the military is supposed to do? well, gee, since you know everything about military whatever, and you can;t come up with anything concrete, what the fuck do you want with me?

the "you don't know anything" bullshit is getting old. maybe once you stop trying to dominate discussions with that crap, you'll start actually answering questions.

 

[2minkey]

Well, since 2minkey blames this whole war on oil, he wouldn't blink if we exterminated both groups because then he would have both his timeline and the number of troops needed...

i didn't "blame" the war on oil, and extermination and keeping a timeline in no way flows from your assertion of my blame. what you just said makes about as much sense as blaming the holocaust on nielsen ratings. you guys get a fresh shipment of dope over there or something?

 

[Gonz]

Declassified pdf

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives.

That isn't what the NY Times said.

 

[2minkey]

yeah, that would be great. but it's a
really
big
IF

how good do YOU think arab societies are at handling democracy?

....

yeah that's what i thought....

 

[Gonz]

Try & succeed/fail or climb back in our shell & hope for the best?

 

[Gato_Solo]

nice non-answer. no man, we need concrete shit just like you ask of everyone else... what's my plan? what's yer stinkin' plan?

I gave you as concrete as possible. Just because you can't understand the answer, or don't like the answer, doesn't detract from its truth. If I say 6 months, and all other needs are met, but the insurgents are still fighting, then I am an idiot for proposing 6 months. Just as you are an idiot for demanding a concrete answer to a fluid problem.

oh, so you do want my plan? but wait, i don't know anything about what the military is supposed to do? well, gee, since you know everything about military whatever, and you can;t come up with anything concrete, what the fuck do you want with me?

Anything besides the standard "cut and run" would be a refreshing start.

the "you don't know anything" bullshit is getting old. maybe once you stop trying to dominate discussions with that crap, you'll start actually answering questions.

Maybe if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be feeling inadequate on the discussion.

 

[2minkey]

I gave you as concrete as possible. Just because you can't understand the answer, or don't like the answer, doesn't detract from its truth. If I say 6 months, and all other needs are met, but the insurgents are still fighting, then I am an idiot for proposing 6 months. Just as you are an idiot for demanding a concrete answer to a fluid problem.



Anything besides the standard "cut and run" would be a refreshing start.



Maybe if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be feeling inadequate on the discussion.

1. okay. what are all the factors you are weighing in your "answer." how do those factors interact? how they need to align for us to "win?" let's hear it. all of it. no more of this bullshit pabulum "stay the course" or "until the job is done."

2. i don't believe i was exactly suggesting cut and run. for the most part i have suggested in other posts that it would have been smarter to spend the war money on alternative energy development. i do believe i've said things like "we really can't leave now" just like most other, reasonable people. but that doesn;t mean i think the whole thing has become any less stupid, any poorer of a "go" decision or any less of an example of piss poor planning by your civilian overlords.

3. i'm not feeling "inadequate" in the least in this discussion. your bullshit attempts at forceful dismissal by "you don't know what you're talking about" are nothing more than a dodge. ad hominem horseshit. grow up.

but anyway, let's refer back to #1, above, and see how you do.

 

[Gato_Solo]

1. okay. what are all the factors you are weighing in your "answer." how do those factors interact? how they need to align for us to "win?" let's hear it. all of it. no more of this bullshit pabulum "stay the course" or "until the job is done."

1. The country of Iraq no longer has an insurgency problem.
2. The infrastructure has been repaired.
3. The Iraqi military can defend the country in any regional conflict.

The first factor is the most important, because you can't rebuild the infrastructure if the insurgents keep blowing it up. That's why you can't give this a time-line. You are being intentionally obtuse, and, like I said. If you knew this, you wouldn't need to be led over this course again and again.

2. i don't believe i was exactly suggesting cut and run. for the most part i have suggested in other posts that it would have been smarter to spend the war money on alternative energy development. i do believe i've said things like "we really can't leave now" just like most other, reasonable people. but that doesn;t mean i think the whole thing has become any less stupid, any poorer of a "go" decision or any less of an example of piss poor planning by your civilian overlords.

Yeah...right...so the entire time before the war, when everybody knew Saddam was a threat, and everybody knew Saddam was working on nukes, and everybody voted to fund this debacle, all was well. Then when we decided to go ahead, all those bastards who call themselves leaders wanted to quibble over every decision, you want to say that it was poor planning.......I should've figured you had no plan at all...just the capability to complain about my statement of Until we're done.

3. i'm not feeling "inadequate" in the least in this discussion. your bullshit attempts at forceful dismissal by "you don't know what you're talking about" are nothing more than a dodge. ad hominem horseshit. grow up.

And yet you have provided nothing except the above. You want to argue minutiae instead of looking for results. That's why I know you don't understand what you're asking for, and why I cannot have an intelligent debate with you. You have no frame of reference with what I'm telling you, and you're sure to try and find little things to occupy the main part of this whole conversation, but, when it all comes to a close, you still won't know what you're talking about.

 

[MrBishop]

Hwo much land did the US take for Germany? Japan?

Don't confuse land captured in war with what's happening in Iraq, unless you want to redefine the American offensive as an invasion.

 

[2minkey]

1. The country of Iraq no longer has an insurgency problem.
2. The infrastructure has been repaired.
3. The Iraqi military can defend the country in any regional conflict.

no shit, sherlock. every 9th grader understands that. you still haven't answered squat.

1. how do YOU think the US is going to quell the insurgency? what do we need to do? DETAILS dude! you're the expert, right?!? what constitutes a fully subdued insurgency? how would YOU deal with the shi'a-sunni crossfire? how does that relate to the insurgency and their ultimate goals? whattya gonna do? yer the expert!

or maybe you don't know what yer talking about?

 

[Gato_Solo]

no shit, sherlock. every 9th grader understands that. you still haven't answered squat.

Funny. You don't seem to understand it. You asked me what we need to do, and I answered. What you want is minutiae.

1. how do YOU think the US is going to quell the insurgency? what do we need to do? DETAILS dude! you're the expert, right?!? what constitutes a fully subdued insurgency? how would YOU deal with the shi'a-sunni crossfire? how does that relate to the insurgency and their ultimate goals? whattya gonna do? yer the expert!

or maybe you don't know what yer talking about?

I'll answer that one with a question of my own. What do you think constitutes a fully subdued insurgency. Until then, I will no longer have this discussion with you because you're being intentionally obtuse.

 

[2minkey]

i'm not being intentioanlly obtuse, i'm simply asking questions that can't be answered by the obvious crap that everyone knows. though they are questions that should have been better understood by our government before they committed us to this shit-shoot. everyone knows the insurgency is a big deal. everyone knows building infrastructure is fuxed with those assholes blowng shit up left and right. i'm asking questions that someone who claims to be in the know should know. and that person would be you. so whip it out.

but since this'll go nowhere, let's arbitrarily so for "a sufficiently subdued insurgency." so let's just arbitrarily say that the rate of and scale of attacks (perhaps measured by body count) that one could reasonably attribute to insurgent activity drops to less that 10% of what happened in august, which i believe was the most violent yet. how's that? now, you tell us all how yer gonna get us there, heh?

by the way, what's yer job over there, anyway?

 

[spike]

If some country invaded the US I'd expect there'd be a insurgency until they got the hell out.

I don't know why we should expect Iraq to be any different.

 

[BB]

Weaker? Man, go read the training adn battle accounts & numbers of deaths. If people were as weak then as they choose to be today, we'd be sunk. It took years of constant carpet bombing & heavy allied casualties before the tide turned.

Bomber harris?

I really miss the 40s (retrosepectively, of course). I mean, after landing on Normandy & tenaciously working our way towards Berlin, the Germans still loved us. Especially those guys in the Black Uniforms. I don't know what happened to warfare. It used to be so full of comeraderie.

when you say 'our' you mean the Joint forces??

...er... anyway ... (great as the allied invasion of normandy was and subsequent films ... ) ...what exactly does this have to do with the joint 16 agency US report ???

(not that i mind getting side-tracked onto the second world war ... i contend no matter you're guys eventual super support ... without plucky us and the empire and the Navy ...and the radar ...and the ..er... sea .. ..you guys would have ultimately been lost ... )

not to say you guys certainly helped (understatement - heh - i'm allowed - i'm English )

er- but what is the relevance per se?

(pardon my F'in french )

 

[BB]

If some country invaded the US I'd expect there'd be a insurgency until they got the hell out.

I don't know why we should expect Iraq to be any different.

oh i don't know ... you ever see that peter sellers film ...'the mouse that roared' ... where (vaguely from hazy memory) some hard-up english Barony or Dukery decides to invade the US with a few easy going lads in ancient armour and such ... and accidently (diplomatically wins ...) ??

*course this buggered up their strategy ...*

best, BB