Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 93
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    486
    Post Thanks / Like

    Winning the War on Terror

    The first thing I'd like to establish is that I don't think the ideas of radical Islam will not die as a result of the War on Terror. I think that can only be achieved by better cultural integration and greater understanding between the West and the Middle East over a very long period of time. Even then there will always be pockets of extremists.

    But America's War on Terror intends to focus only on Al Qaeda. As we have seen, we end up fighting not only Al Qaeda but countless other factions and subfactions that get grouped as either terrorists or insurgents.

    I think we now have the strategy for winning this war, or at the very least making America much safer.

    From the noticeable drop in violence in Iraq we can make the inference that a combination of 1. Massive miltiary force or "the Surge" as it was called and perhaps more importantly, 2. Making alliances and distinguishing the factions in what we had previous placed in a box and labeled insurgents is the formula for winning the war on terror.

    The second portion is what I'd like to focus on. This is the subject of a new book How to Win a Cosmic War ( featured on the Daily Show w/ JS). I haven't read it, but in the interview the autor says the gist of the story is that there are 2 kinds of terrorists. Radicals, who's goal is to eradicate the infidels, and who can be met only with force, and extremists with realistic political goals, with whom we should try to negotiate whenever possible.

    ( Reza Aslan's How to win a cosmic war http://www.rezaaslan.com/cosmicwar.html)


    Trying to divide the extremists from everybody else and dealing with them individually worked in Iraq and that is why it has recently started to be done in earnest in afghanistan. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...aliban/?page=2
    Obama is also sending in 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan it appears he is following the Iraq template formula I mentioned before.


    I think that ultimately we will be able to use this strategy to isolate the extremists, and that we will eventually defeat the factions that threaten us the most.

    What do you think could be potential stumbling blocks for this plan? Will it work? Is it our best option?
    Last edited by cdubs; May 25th, 2009 at 06:58 AM.

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    Afghanistan is not Iraq. There is a completely different set of hurdles there.

    For one, build and maintain infrastructure, especially schools. When the Soviets left in '89, over half the men in the country were under the age of 14. Think about that, a bunch of pissed off teenagers with no parental supervision, running around with guns.

    For another, if we want Afghanistan to act like a nation, we have to ween them away from their version of tribal culture. If we want them to live in cities and act "civilized," (i.e. if we want to tame them), we have to destroy their old way of life a'la the native Americans in the 1800's, or at least get them to abandon it willingly. Either way, it still means the death of their way of life.
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  3. #3
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,278
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    There is sadly another distinction, we were successful in Iraq largely because the people were tired of the violence insurgents were putting out. The Afghanis are somewhat used to that level of violence.
    The Surge and our politics convinced the Iraqis that we were serious and a viable alternative. I can't speak for Afghanis, but Iraqis were very troubled in 2004 about the prospect of a Kerry presidency, it is likely that sentiment is transferable to Afghanistan as well. Whether you feel this way or not, whether it is a reasonable assertion or not, the Democrats are largely viewed as the isolationist party outside of our boarders. I can see this having a hugely detrimental effect on showing the Afghanis that we are committed.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #4
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nowhere special
    Posts
    192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    "Winning the War on Terror"

    This can never been done. It would be like having a war on making a right turn on red...it's an action, not something that can be won or lost. It's great that the Obama Administration has dropped the use of this horrible term.

    "But America's War on Terror intends to focus only on Al Qaeda"

    ...and their supporters in the Taliban, as they enabled Al-Qaeda in the first place.

    Technically, "the Surge" didn't work in Iraq, since it did not allow for a long-term political resolution to occur in Iraq.

    I also really don't think that there is any "negotiating" to be done with our enemies. Pakistan recently tried that, because their new leader wanted to show some of the softees in his own govt. that it wouldn't work, and, surprise, surprise...it didn't work at all.

    "What do you think could be potential stumbling blocks for this plan? Will it work? Is it our best option?"

    The main "stumbling block" is that Afghanistan isn't really a country, and it really never has been in the first place. No one faction controls the entire country, so there really isn't a short list of local people to work with. Heck, President Kharsi's brother is apparently one of the head drug dealers in the country!

    Having said that, the only way to "win" this war that we are in is to wipe out as many Al-Qaeda & Taliban members/leaders as we can and then get the heck out of there.

    ----------------------------
    "For one, build and maintain infrastructure, especially schools."

    We will never be able to built a country when none has ever really existed.

    "we have to destroy their old way of life a'la the native Americans in the 1800's, or at least get them to abandon it willingly."

    What a horrible example of a "success"...ugh...

    ---------------------------------------
    "I can't speak for Afghanis, but Iraqis were very troubled in 2004 about the prospect of a Kerry presidency"

    I can't believe that for a second, since a large number of Iraqis have wanted the USA out of their own country for many years now (and then), and the only hope for that was a defeat of GWB.

    "the Democrats are largely viewed as the isolationist party outside of our boarders."

    Prove it.

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    I agree with a lot of what everyone here has said so far. Terrorism is a complicated problem and so are the solutions none of which are 100% going to work.

    I think step #1 is
    Understand your enemies

    Step #2 is
    Make as many of them into allies or neutral parties as you can

    Step #3 is
    Crush all that remain until they are a marginal threat

    The best thing about terrorists is they suck at making friends. Most people in the Muslim world do not like terrorists. They may sympathize with some of the things they fight for, but generally few people actually like random bombs going off in the places they live in.

    What is tough is that if we go in heavy handed ourselves, then we also are seen as doing the same irritating things the terrorists are doing. Dropping bombs more or less randomly. (yes we don't do random but on the ground they may feel like it is since they don't have prior warning where bombs will fall)

    So... we have to rely on the countries where terrorism is happening to fight the terrorism and they may not be strong enough to fight it.

    So what you do is funnel them money, guns and advice, quietly so as to avoid looking like the string pulling puppetmaster you are trying to be.

  6. #6
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,278
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Guy View Post
    Technically, "the Surge" didn't work in Iraq, since it did not allow for a long-term political resolution to occur in Iraq.
    You need to support or retract this statement. The surge did in fact lead to a reduction in violence that led directly to political stability and the recent massive defeats of Iranian and AQI parties in Iraq.



    Quote Originally Posted by mg
    We will never be able to built a country when none has ever really existed.
    Do you mean like the United States? Or hell Russia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, the list goes on. These were all desperate groups before being nationalized.

    Quote Originally Posted by mg
    "we have to destroy their old way of life a'la the native Americans in the 1800's, or at least get them to abandon it willingly."
    Who are you quoting here since I did not say that at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by mg
    I can't believe that for a second, since a large number of Iraqis have wanted the USA out of their own country for many years now (and then), and the only hope for that was a defeat of GWB.
    That shows a fundamental lack of understanding about Iraq, Iraqis and the real world outside of the media. Sure Iraqis wanted us to leave eventually, but not at the cost of political stability, especially in 2004.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #7
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nowhere special
    Posts
    192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Thumbs down Re: Winning the War on Terror

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You need to support or retract this statement. The surge did in fact lead to a reduction in violence that led directly to political stability and the recent massive defeats of Iranian and AQI parties in Iraq.

    On January 18, 2007, the LA times released a Bloomberg poll that said 60% of those polled opposed the troop surge, 51% wanted Congress to try to block Bush from sending more soldiers, and 65% disapproved of GWB's handling of the war. A Fox "News" poll reported that 59% to 36%, Americans opposed sending more U.S. troops to Iraq.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244584,00.html

    Despite a massive security crackdown in Baghdad associated with "the surge" in coalition troop strength, the monthly death toll in Iraq rose 15% in March 2007. U.S. military deaths in March 2007 were nearly double those of the Iraqi army, despite Iraqi forces leading the security crackdown in Baghdad. The death toll among insurgent militants fell to 481 in March 2007, compared to 586 killed in February 2007.

    Three months after the start of the surge, troops controlled less than a third of the capital, which was far short of the initial goal, according to an internal military assessment completed in May 2007. Violence was especially chronic in mixed Shiite-Sunni neighborhoods in western Baghdad. Improvements had not yet been widespread or lasting across Baghdad at all. What really happened with the eventual drop-off in violence was that the ethnic cleansing in Iraq had been pretty much completed by then.

    http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/...ID/KHII-6ZV4DW

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/wo...urge.html?_r=1

    The U.S. GAO reported on September 2, 2007 that the Iraqi government had only met 3 of the 18 benchmarks created by the U.S. Congress in June 2006, a success rate of only 16.67%. Another GAO report stated that the Iraqi Government did not meet 11 of the 18 benchmark measures as of August 30, 2007.

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071220t.pdf

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071195.pdf

    In December 22, 2007, Michael O'Hanlon & Jason H. Campbell of the Brookings Institution called Iraq's economy and political system to be "only marginally better than a year ago".

    http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/20...q_ohanlon.aspx

    In January 2008, Council of Foreign Relations fellow Michael O'Hanlon stated that "Overall, Iraq's political system probably merits a grade of roughly C for its performance over the last 12 months."

    The USA Today stated on February 17, 2008 that U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker "may be hard-pressed to argue that Iraqis have met political benchmarks Congress sought" and contrasted the political progress with the recent military progress.

    http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/20...q_ohanlon.aspx


    Do you mean like the United States? Or hell Russia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, the list goes on. These were all desperate groups before being nationalized.


    The idea that the USA is just like Russia, Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan is simply ludicrous.


    That shows a fundamental lack of understanding about Iraq, Iraqis and the real world outside of the media. Sure Iraqis wanted us to leave eventually, but not at the cost of political stability, especially in 2004.
    The Iraqis have wanted us to leave for many, many years now (as many, many polls of them have shown), and now, under a new President, we well finally be leaving, period.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    733
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    What "War on Terror"?
    “When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves."

    - Herbert Spencer

  9. #9
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,278
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    OK, here was my challenge to your claim;
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    You need to support or retract this statement. The surge did in fact lead to a reduction in violence that led directly to political stability and the recent massive defeats of Iranian and AQI parties in Iraq.
    Lets deal with your responses one by one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Guy View Post
    On January 18, 2007, the LA times released a Bloomberg poll that said 60% of those polled opposed the troop surge, 51% wanted Congress to try to block Bush from sending more soldiers, and 65% disapproved of GWB's handling of the war. A Fox "News" poll reported that 59% to 36%, Americans opposed sending more U.S. troops to Iraq.
    This is not pertinent to the challenge, popularity is not effectiveness. Further, the LA Times is not exactly known for its accuracy, if it was Gray Davis would still be California's governor.


    Quote Originally Posted by mister guy
    Despite a massive security crackdown in Baghdad associated with "the surge" in coalition troop strength, the monthly death toll in Iraq rose 15% in March 2007. U.S. military deaths in March 2007 were nearly double those of the Iraqi army, despite Iraqi forces leading the security crackdown in Baghdad. The death toll among insurgent militants fell to 481 in March 2007, compared to 586 killed in February 2007.

    Three months after the start of the surge, troops controlled less than a third of the capital, which was far short of the initial goal, according to an internal military assessment completed in May 2007. Violence was especially chronic in mixed Shiite-Sunni neighborhoods in western Baghdad. Improvements had not yet been widespread or lasting across Baghdad at all. What really happened with the eventual drop-off in violence was that the ethnic cleansing in Iraq had been pretty much completed by then.
    This is in fact in line with what was expected, you didn't really expect for AQI and others to just go to sleep immediately did you? The challenge to your claim as stated above was that it has not been effective, not that it was not immediately effective. Death tolls are down, free elections have taken place, violence is at an all time low and there has been 0 evidence of the "ethnic cleansing" you pro port.

    Quote Originally Posted by mister guy
    The U.S. GAO reported on September 2, 2007 that the Iraqi government had only met 3 of the 18 benchmarks created by the U.S. Congress in June 2006, a success rate of only 16.67%. Another GAO report stated that the Iraqi Government did not meet 11 of the 18 benchmark measures as of August 30, 2007.
    Again, this is not pertinent to the claim that the surge was not effective. I'll also remind you that our congress had failed to pass a substantive bill by that point and had met 0 of the benchmarks set out by the house speaker.


    Quote Originally Posted by mister guy
    In December 22, 2007, Michael O'Hanlon & Jason H. Campbell of the Brookings Institution called Iraq's economy and political system to be "only marginally better than a year ago".
    Fine, growth is growth and aside from this not showing that the surge was ineffective it in fact shows improvements, many of them dramatic.
    Quote Originally Posted by your source from brookings
    Category Nov. 2003 Nov. 2004 Nov. 2005 Nov. 2006 Nov. 2007

    Iraqi Civilian Deaths from Violence 700 2650 1650 3450 650
    U.S./Other Foreign Troops in Iraq (thousands) 123/24 138/24 160/23 140/18 162/12
    U.S. Troop Deaths 82 137 84 69 40
    Iraqi Security Forces (thousands) 95 114 214 323 430
    Iraqi Security Force Fatalities 65 65 176 123 89
    Daily Attacks by Insurgents, Militias 35 85 95 180 80
    Sunni Volunteers Working with U.S., Iraqi Forces (thousands) 0 0 0 0 50
    Iraqi Civilians Displaced by Violence (monthly, thousands) 25 25 15 1,000 40
    Multiple Fatality Bombings 6 11 41 65 22
    Oil Production (Millions of Barrels/Day; Prewar 2.5) 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.4
    Household Fuels as % of Need 76 77 88 54 67
    Iraq's Global Rank for Corruption 113 129 137 160 178
    Electricity (Average Gigawatts; Prewar 4.0) 3.6 3.2 3.7 3.7 4.1
    Unemployment Rate (percent) 50 35 33 33 33
    Resources Going From Baghdad to Average Iraqi Province (in millions of dollars per year) 0 0 25 50 100

    Quote Originally Posted by mister guy
    In January 2008, Council of Foreign Relations fellow Michael O'Hanlon stated that "Overall, Iraq's political system probably merits a grade of roughly C for its performance over the last 12 months."

    The USA Today stated on February 17, 2008 that U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker "may be hard-pressed to argue that Iraqis have met political benchmarks Congress sought" and contrasted the political progress with the recent military progress.
    Please see my above rebuttal.



    Quote Originally Posted by mister guy
    The idea that the USA is just like Russia, Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan is simply ludicrous.
    In that they were disparate groups of various ethnicities they were very alike in that sense. If you don't except that national sentiment can overcome ethnic differences than I will refer you to the current makeup of a majority of countries on this planet.



    Which brings us to challenge number 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by mister guy
    The Iraqis have wanted us to leave for many, many years now (as many, many polls of them have shown), and now, under a new President, we well finally be leaving, period.
    Support or retract this statement. I am aware of only one poll in 2007 that was conducted under generally accepted principles that shows anything like a desire to see us leave and even then only with the caveat that the country was secure.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #10
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nowhere special
    Posts
    192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Thumbs down Re: Winning the War on Terror

    Further, the LA Times is not exactly known for its accuracy, if it was Gray Davis would still be California's governor.
    LOL...what nonsense! The will of the American people be damned eh??

    This is in fact in line with what was expected, you didn't really expect for AQI and others to just go to sleep immediately did you? The challenge to your claim as stated above was that it has not been effective, not that it was not immediately effective.
    LOL...so, "the surge worked" completely & totally after it was over?? Come on now...

    I say again...what really happened with the eventual drop-off in violence was that the ethnic cleansing in Iraq had been pretty much completed by then.

    there has been 0 evidence of the "ethnic cleansing" you pro port.
    OMG...wow...this statement is truly stunning given the overwhelming evidence in Iraq.

    Entire neighborhoods in Baghdad have been ethnically cleansed by Shia & Sunni militias. Some areas have been evacuated by every member of a particular group due to lack of security, moving into new areas because of fear of reprisal killings. As of June 21, 2007, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that 2.2 million Iraqis had been displaced to neighboring countries, and 2 million were displaced internally, with nearly 100,000 Iraqis fleeing to Syria and Jordan each month.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ld-478937.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ees/index.html

    http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid..._iraq_monthly/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/wo...l.html?_r=1&hp

    http://www.alternet.org/world/46440/?page=1

    "Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.

    The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence, particularly in the Iraqi capital, the epicenter of the bloodletting in which hundreds of thousands were killed."

    "'By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left,' geography professor John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study, said in a statement."

    "'Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning,' said Agnew, who studies ethnic conflict."

    "'Our findings suggest that the surge has had no observable effect, except insofar as it has helped to provide a seal of approval for a process of ethno-sectarian neighborhood homogenization that is now largely achieved,' Agnew's team wrote in their report."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...53066020080919

    Again, this is not pertinent to the claim that the surge was not effective.
    Of course it is...the whole point of "the surge" was to allow for there to be more progress made politically on the ground in Iraq, which is what the "benchmarks" were all about!

    growth is growth and aside from this not showing that the surge was ineffective it in fact shows improvements, many of them dramatic.
    Riiiight, because "marginally better" = "dramatic"...sure, sure...

    Category Nov. 2003 Nov. 2004 Nov. 2005 Nov. 2006 Nov. 2007

    U.S./Other Foreign Troops in Iraq (thousands) 123/24 138/24 160/23 140/18 162/12
    Iraqi Security Force Fatalities 65 65 176 123 89
    Hmmmm, if U.S. troop levels were roughly at 2005 levels in "the surge" in 2007, then why did more Iraqi security forces die in 2005??

    Sunni Volunteers Working with U.S., Iraqi Forces (thousands) 0 0 0 0 50
    Surely, you're not claiming that the "Anbar Awakening" happened as a result of "the surge", since that Right-wing claim has been debunked all over the place by now.

    Iraqi Civilians Displaced by Violence (monthly, thousands) 25 25 15 1,000 40
    BTW, thanks for proving my point that "the surge" post-dated the obvious ethnic cleansing that took place in Iraq.

    Oil Production (Millions of Barrels/Day; Prewar 2.5) 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.4
    Still not up to pre-War levels eh?? What a surprise...

    Iraq's Global Rank for Corruption 113 129 137 160 178
    What does this even mean??

    Unemployment Rate (percent) 50 35 33 33 33
    This has nothing to do with "the surge" either...thanks again for that...

    Please see my above rebuttal.
    It isn't much of a "rebuttal". The fact is that "the surge" did virtually nothing for Iraqi political system or their benchmarks, period.

    In that they were disparate groups of various ethnicities they were very alike in that sense.
    Really, Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan are melting-pots, just like the USA?? Please...that's utter nonsense...

    The Iraqis have wanted us to leave for many, many years now (as many, many polls of them have shown), and now, under a new President, we well finally be leaving, period.

    Support or retract this statement.
    I just LOVE how I have to support my positions, but you don't...lol...anyways:

    "October 11, 2005 -

    A majority of Iraqis in polls favor US military withdrawal and an end of the occupation. At the time of January's election, 69 percent of Shiites and 82 percent of Sunnis favored 'near-term withdrawal.' Surveys done for the Coalition Provisional Authority in June 2004 showed that a 55 percent majority 'would feel safer if US troops left immediately.'"

    "A recent summary of numerous Iraqi surveys, by the independent Project on Defense Alternatives in Cambridge, Massachusetts, concluded that a majority of Iraqis 'oppose the US presence in Iraq, and those who strongly oppose it greatly outnumber those who strongly support it.'"

    "In mid-September of this year, the eighteen-member National Sovereignty Committee in the US-sponsored Iraqi parliament issued a unanimous report calling for the end of occupation."

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/hayden

    This site has numerous polls of the Iraqi people on this issue, and you won't like what you have to read.

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/componen...168/37194.html

    Here's another summary of Iraqi polls on this issue:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/young01052008.html

    2006 - "New Poll: 71 Percent Of Iraqis Want U.S. Forces To Withdraw Within A Year"

    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/

    2004 - "82 percent of Iraqis oppose U.S. occupation"

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...raqpoll13.html

    You're going to learn the hard way that I don't shoot off my mouth without having my facts in order first...oh well...

  11. #11
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,278
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Guy View Post
    LOL...what nonsense! The will of the American people be damned eh??
    What are you even talking about? I am referring to the fact that the LA times predicted Gray Davis would beat the recall, when he was soundly defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by mister guy
    LOL...so, "the surge worked" completely & totally after it was over?? Come on now...

    I say again...what really happened with the eventual drop-off in violence was that the ethnic cleansing in Iraq had been pretty much completed by then.
    Then I will say it again, support or retract this statement or I'll report the post.


    Quote Originally Posted by mister guy
    OMG...wow...this statement is truly stunning given the overwhelming evidence in Iraq.
    Oh, you don't actually mean ethnic cleansing you mean refugees. That I would agree to, thousands of people fled their homes prior to the surge due to the violence. Most of them have returned home since. From the hardly center Huffington post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_168006.html

    For the record, ethnic cleansing usually means massive killing, if you can provide evidence of that... But you wont.



    Quote Originally Posted by mister guy
    Of course it is...the whole point of "the surge" was to allow for there to be more progress made politically on the ground in Iraq, which is what the "benchmarks" were all about!
    No it wasn't, the benchmarks were arbitrarily set by the congress to make them look more effective to the American public. Neither the President nor the military recognized those benchmarks, importantly neither did the Iraqi government or people.



    Quote Originally Posted by mister guy
    Riiiight, because "marginally better" = "dramatic"...sure, sure...
    Just telling you what I saw brother.



    Quote Originally Posted by mister guy
    Hmmmm, if U.S. troop levels were roughly at 2005 levels in "the surge" in 2007, then why did more Iraqi security forces die in 2005??
    I see you have had no experience with the military. The disorganized and inefectual method of training the ING (Iraqi National Guard) in 2005 as well as the de bathification (thank you ambassador Bremer) led to higher death rates. Introduction of MTT (Mobile Training Teams) and the integration of Sunni and Shia units led to successful Iraqi Battalions and Brigades.



    Quote Originally Posted by mister guy
    Surely, you're not claiming that the "Anbar Awakening" happened as a result of "the surge", since that Right-wing claim has been debunked all over the place by now.
    Support or Retract. And remember I saw the Anbar Awakening first hand.


    Quote Originally Posted by misterguy
    Still not up to pre-War levels eh?? What a surprise...
    Thats not what the link says at all, are you deliberately misstating the data?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterguy
    What does this even mean??
    Dude, its your link, shouldn't you know? Alright I'll help you out, its an index based on statistics from the UN. Jees man, know your sources.


    As for the rest of your post, it really doesn't merit a response save your "polls" at the end. They all refer to two polls, that I have already covered. The first one in 2006 as your links note was conducted by phone, hardly a valid source in a post-conflict country. The second also, as I noted has the caveat of security and stability in the question.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #12
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nowhere special
    Posts
    192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Thumbs down Re: Winning the War on Terror

    What are you even talking about?
    I am talking about how quickly you dismiss that the will of the American people (which was extremely wise in this case) was for "the surge" to never happen in the first place.

    Then I will say it again, support or retract this statement or I'll report the post.
    Oooooooo...I'm sooooo scared that you might "report' that I completely & totally supported my statements (just like always) about the ethnic cleansing in Iraq, which you continue to deny BTW...despite a mountain of evidence.

    Oh, you don't actually mean ethnic cleansing you mean refugees.
    Nope, but nice try at spinning the issue anyways...there was ethnic cleansing in Iraq, and everybody (but apparently you...no surprise there Mr. Right-wing Talking Points) knows it at this point.

    Most of them have returned home since.
    Prove it. BTW, from your very own link:

    "'Refugees are returning, but not to the places where they once lived,' he says. 'A Shia who owns a new and expensive house in a Sunni area will want to sell it and buy a cheaper one in a Shia-majority district for safety reasons.'"

    "Baghdad has become wholly divided into sectarian enclaves since the Sunni-Shia civil war of 2005-07. Long grey concrete walls snake through the city, cutting off neighbourhoods from each other."

    "The property market reflects the outcome of the Sunni-Shia war, in which the Shia were by and large the winners. Baghdad is today probably about 75 per cent Shia. The Sunni - traditionally the richer community - have been pushed into smaller enclaves."

    "From the 4.2 million people who fled, the UN refugee agency expects that 500,000 will come back this year if the violence stays at present levels."

    Thanks for proving my point...and completely eviscerating yours...lol...

    No it wasn't, the benchmarks were arbitrarily set by the congress to make them look more effective to the American public. Neither the President nor the military recognized those benchmarks, importantly neither did the Iraqi government or people.
    PROVE IT. Keep in mind these inconvenient facts for your side though:

    "One year ago, the president pledged that 'America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.' Despite the fact that the Iraqi government has only met three of the 18 benchmarks laid out last year, an end to U.S. military and financial commitment is nowhere in sight."

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...benchmark.html

    "President Bush, too, had distanced himself from attaching strings to U.S. funding, but in May 2007 acknowledged 'it makes sense to have benchmarks as a part of our discussion on how to go forward.'"

    http://www.cfr.org/publication/13333...enchmarks.html

    Just telling you what I saw brother.
    LOL...this is arbitrary, unverifiable nonsense, period.

    Were you actually in Iraq during "the surge" "brother"?? No, you weren't, were you...

    The disorganized and inefectual method of training the ING (Iraqi National Guard) in 2005 as well as the de bathification (thank you ambassador Bremer) led to higher death rates. Introduction of MTT (Mobile Training Teams) and the integration of Sunni and Shia units led to successful Iraqi Battalions and Brigades
    ...says you, with absolutely no support, but what else is new, eh??

    You're missing the point, which is that if the number of U.S. troops alone is the main factor here, then there shouldn't have been so many Iraqi security force deaths in 2005. In 2007, "the surge" was merely a repeat of the failed strategy of 2005.

    Support or Retract. And remember I saw the Anbar Awakening first hand.
    LMAO! Again, "brother", don't bother with "I was there, and you weren't" nonsense. It's just a smoke screen for your Right-wing spin on everything, and I suspect that you know it. BTW, the Anbar Awakening started in 2005 & 2006 (while "the surge" happened in 2007), and even you should know that "brother".

    http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/anb...m_sleeping.php

    Thats not what the link says at all, are you deliberately misstating the data?
    No, but you are...nice projection there "brother". Was Iraqi oil production up to it's Pre-War level of 2.5 Millions of Barrels/Day by 2007?? No, it was not, as the data that you posted clearly shows.

    its an index based on statistics from the UN.
    Oh great...so corruption was at an all-time high in Iraq in 2007...thanks so much "surge"!

    They all refer to two polls, that I have already covered.
    No, they really don't...you don't really want me to list all many, many the polls that have been done over the years in Iraq and their outcomes do you?? Exactly how badly do you want to be embarrassed on this issue "brother"??

    Give me a break...

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    35
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    I would like to clear this common misconception that the "Surge" has worked. I was in Iraq in 2005 and we sat around on our base and waited to be attacked and hardly took an offensive mindset in our operations. I am currently in Iraq again and I am still sitting around in a small base in a town just waiting to get attacked.

    It was not a surge that helped us lower the casualty rate but a different, new, idiotic approach. We pretty much pay the people not to attack us. Organizations like the IP (Iraqi Police) have proven that they cannot be trusted and have informants for AQI. We GIVE, not lend but GIVE them millions of dollars to build a new station. The same goes for the Iraqi Army. The death toll has taken a decline because we give them what they want so they do not attack us.

    My company alone has given a little over 1 million dollars to small business owners and multiple military organizations that have never shown any real fruit. Why help these people when our economy is in shambles?? I do not lend people money when I am in debt...bc that would make no sense.

    We have not won this "war" and will not ever accomplish anything but waste of US lives, time, and money.
    I was anti-Obama before it was cool

  14. #14
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,278
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    Quote Originally Posted by Veritas26 View Post
    I would like to clear this common misconception that the "Surge" has worked. I was in Iraq in 2005 and we sat around on our base and waited to be attacked and hardly took an offensive mindset in our operations. I am currently in Iraq again and I am still sitting around in a small base in a town just waiting to get attacked.
    You'll remember of course that the surge was 06-07, so you missed it. In 05 (not sure why you were sitting around) I was actively patroling Baghdad and 06 we trained the Iraqi army, now of course as activity levels are relatively low and the IA is running the show, there isn't much point in patroling.

    Quote Originally Posted by veritas
    It was not a surge that helped us lower the casualty rate but a different, new, idiotic approach. We pretty much pay the people not to attack us. Organizations like the IP (Iraqi Police) have proven that they cannot be trusted and have informants for AQI. We GIVE, not lend but GIVE them millions of dollars to build a new station. The same goes for the Iraqi Army. The death toll has taken a decline because we give them what they want so they do not attack us.
    Could you support this? I lived with the IA for quite awhile I found them dedicated to their mission and country. That is not to argue that AQI did not have informants within the unit.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    35
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You'll remember of course that the surge was 06-07, so you missed it. In 05 (not sure why you were sitting around) I was actively patroling Baghdad and 06 we trained the Iraqi army, now of course as activity levels are relatively low and the IA is running the show, there isn't much point in patroling.
    Another failed misconceptioin. I assure you that (at least in my BDE) we are running the show still. If for no other reason that so Officers can have stories to fill their OER's at the end of the cycle and make themselves look good. Just because we take 2 IA personnel with us when we are rolling 30 people does not make it a joint effort....Esp when they just sleep in the back.
    I was anti-Obama before it was cool

  16. #16
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,278
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    Quote Originally Posted by Veritas26 View Post
    Another failed misconceptioin. I assure you that (at least in my BDE) we are running the show still.
    It wasn't a failed misconception in 2006 in Ramadi or Baghdad now. Please support this assertion that your battalion is actively engaging in security ops or taking the lead in patroling over IA forces.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Pa
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    Hi there... I'm popping my cherry here with this post.

    I love the misconceptions about the reality of the situation over here. It's so wrong and soo widespread that its hard to fight. The "sheeple" just keep regurgitating the same liberal media propaganda.

    The saddest part of all the politics and the arguements is that there are alot of people that I care deeply about that are similarly brainwashed by this liberal mindset. It's hard to right them. My facts have to be, and are, more solid than the whims they hold as truths from other sources. It's a painful process filled with drama. And in the end thier eyes are opened and they thank me.

    squatch347= You seem to ask for alot of people to "support a claim". I guess if it isn't written in the Stars it's not supported?

    You claim to have patrolled in Iraq, in the "green zone", I mean Baghdad. And thanks for yer help in Ramadi

    And to have lived with and trained with Iraqi Army. I have and still do. I find them to be exactly like the society they are from...Lazy, very much so. And only able to be controlled by force. Patriotic yes, but hard working or smart no.

    These microgrants everyone is jamming about is hogwash. I am a part in a security detail for a commander. And we go around and hand out the "bucks". Shiek is arabic for mob boss, plain and simple. And all our "microbribes" go out to businesses in town owned by the same person.

    Yes I am also in a unit parading this joint forces thing. Our brigade Owns a piece of Iraq, and my company is one of the few still in sector in a JSS in a small town. Didn't NObama say they collapsed all the troops to the FOBs over his liberal pulpit....ABC CBS NBC CNN.....?

    Don't continue or feed this wool being pulled over the American publics eyes. I know it's easier to jump in with the popular or winning team. But it's not the right thing to do.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    35
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    BY Stars I think 6.8 means the Stars and Stripes...
    I was anti-Obama before it was cool

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    486
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    Yes I am also in a unit parading this joint forces thing. Our brigade Owns a piece of Iraq, and my company is one of the few still in sector in a JSS in a small town. Didn't NObama say they collapsed all the troops to the FOBs over his liberal pulpit....ABC CBS NBC CNN.....?

    Don't continue or feed this wool being pulled over the American publics eyes. I know it's easier to jump in with the popular or winning team. But it's not the right thing to do.
    Trying to find political intrigue where there is none, how very partisan of you.

    I've heard reports that the Iraqi Army has been taking on an increased role for 2 or 3 years now, this isn't something brand new that Obama told his cronies in the Liberal Media to start heralding.

    On the contrary, if these reports by the media are as inaccurate as you claim, and these reports began during the last administration, then it is another example of the Bush administration trying to trick Americans about Iraq.

    Whether or not it is true is immaterial, this has nothing to do with political affiliations, and this is one of the more feeble attacks on Democrats I've seen.



    squatch347= You seem to ask for alot of people to "support a claim". I guess if it isn't written in the Stars it's not supported?
    He's saying this because you are making claims that are the complete opposite of what the media is telling us, and of his own experiences in Iraq. That doesn't mean what you are saying is untrue, it just means that you are making an argument based on anecdotes that only you can verify, and that is not an acceptable form of debate in this community.
    If you can find an article or a statement from a source that is somewhat reputable that backs you up, then post it, and enlighten us.
    "I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President."
    Dubya

  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    741
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Winning the War on Terror

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    For the record, ethnic cleansing usually means massive killing, if you can provide evidence of that... But you wont.
    Actually, that's not really true.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ethnic+cleansing
    ethnic cleansing
    n.
    The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.



    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0520-04.htm

    Proof from the link above:
    • Across central Iraq, there is an exodus of people fleeing for their lives as sectarian assassins and death squads hunt them down. At ground level, Iraq is disintegrating as ethnic cleansing takes hold on a massive scale.


    There's not much doubt that ethnic cleansing has taken place in Iraq. As the Iraqi army captain from Diyala in the article hinted regarding Sunni and Shia's slaughtering each other in his own home province: "Whoever is in a minority runs," he said. "If forces are more equal they fight it out." Minorities of Sunni's in Shi'ite neighbourhoods have seen their numbers greatly decrease because of the sectarian violence, and vice-versa.There's deep sectarian struggle over many districts and towns, and the ethnic cleansing is a result of this. You've said that you were on the ground in Iraq so I'm not sure why you would be unaware about this very fact. Northern Iraq is also seeing ethnic cleansing taking place, mainly towards the minorities. As the article above suggests: Sunnis have been fleeing Basra after a series of killings. Christians are being eliminated in Mosul in the north. Shias are being killed or driven out of cities and towns north of Baghdad such as Baquba or Samarra itself.

    Now, it's not a matter of proving it. It's a matter of accepting it!

 

 
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Winning Eleven (ProEvo) or FIFA?
    By thegreenape in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 27th, 2009, 06:06 AM
  2. Iraq Mistakenly Freed Terror Leader Zarqawi?
    By Snoop in forum Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: December 20th, 2005, 11:01 AM
  3. Using Terror for Political Gain: the Bush Way
    By Zhavric in forum Politics
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: September 30th, 2004, 12:21 PM
  4. terror postpones election?
    By Spartacus in forum Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 14th, 2004, 01:14 PM
  5. The War on Terror: Who's winning?
    By mrs_innocent in forum Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: June 29th, 2004, 01:16 AM

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
  •