|
Post by BrewCityBuck on Sept 29, 2004 7:19:40 GMT -5
Mabye a new party.
|
|
ESPNSucks2k5
Veteran
Even I can make ESPN The Magazine!
Posts: 150
|
Post by ESPNSucks2k5 on Sept 29, 2004 15:16:07 GMT -5
Our Administration lied about the number of Iraqie troops trained, they said 200,000 while it's actually 5,000. Right now their are 'no go' area's where the rebels have taken over yet we don't do anything, elections will be held without 20% of the vote, what kind of Democracy is that? Lets take Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, Georgia out of the 04' election. That's not democracy and people wouldn't stand for it in America. Their should be a vote when the country is stable not a half-ass news pleaser that isn't right.
|
|
|
Post by qcomdrj on Sept 29, 2004 16:00:56 GMT -5
The no go zones are a quagmire. We cannot just bomb them into oblivion because there are innocent people there. If the people there would point out who the bad guys are, then it would be problem solved. However, if we try to pull out, they can hold another election after we leave, and they will stand for it. Besides, the people in the fighting zones wouldn't support a government if it were voted on anyway, so it's not an issue for them. If they want to vote, then they can stop fighting. See my point? People in America would also know that violence isn't the answer. We wouldn't stand for women not being able to vote, and also for the leader putting people into giant shredders if they are dissidents.
|
|
ESPNSucks2k5
Veteran
Even I can make ESPN The Magazine!
Posts: 150
|
Post by ESPNSucks2k5 on Sept 29, 2004 16:18:29 GMT -5
Innocent people or dead Americans? I choose us over them. You can't pick out the bad guys, your not going to run to the next village and tell an American troop that their are some bad guys across the street. These people have been opressed all their lives their not going to walk outside and say "You bad people leave right now!" Please.
Stop comparing us to them, were different. We see women different from them. I don't get your points because their simplistic and really make no sense.
|
|
|
Post by qcomdrj on Sept 29, 2004 16:50:34 GMT -5
Innocent people or dead Americans? I choose us over them. You can't pick out the bad guys, your not going to run to the next village and tell an American troop that their are some bad guys across the street. These people have been opressed all their lives their not going to walk outside and say "You bad people leave right now!" Please. Stop comparing us to them, were different. We see women different from them. I don't get your points because their simplistic and really make no sense. Emphasis mine. We simpletons at least use correct grammar. If we carpet bomb a city, we kill innocent civilians. Not winning their hearts and minds exactly. YOU compared them to us when you mentioned 20% of them couldn't vote, and asked if we would stand for a presidential election without Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Georgia. As a matter of fact, it's right here. Now, what part of mine is simplistic again? Oh, and for the record, as an Army kid, I am for the war, and don't think bumrushing cities with no gain has any purpose. Therefore, if they want to have stronghold cities, they can go right ahead and have them. When their new government that they didn't vote for because they were too busy fighting decides to throw them in jail, then can cry all they want to in the mirror.
|
|
|
Post by BrewCityBuck on Sept 29, 2004 17:20:42 GMT -5
He's comparing Democracy/Elections rather then comparing two completly different societies.
|
|
|
Post by BrewCityBuck on Sept 29, 2004 17:28:31 GMT -5
Soldiers speaks out, is threatened with court martial by kos Wed Sep 29th, 2004 at 18:16:00 GMT
Al Lorentz, a non-commissioned officer with nearly 20 years of service under his belt, penned this column explaining why the US bound to lose in Iraq. And given his vantage point -- he's currently in Iraq -- the piece has added salience. Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq. First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists, criminals and dead-enders."
This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.
The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support [...]
Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.
Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile. Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality [...]
Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them. This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for us.
We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again [...]
Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck. This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive [...]
Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.
|
|
|
Post by qcomdrj on Sept 29, 2004 17:37:31 GMT -5
He's comparing Democracy/Elections rather then comparing two completly different societies. No he's not. He compared if we would accept it. Simply put, he is comparing the two societies. I agree with you second point, I said roughly as much in my statement (about not carpet bombing, etc).
|
|