“The U.S. military death toll in March, the first full month of the security crackdown, was nearly twice that of the Iraqi army, which American and Iraqi officials say is taking the leading role in the latest attempt to curb violence in the capital, surrounding cities and Anbar province, according to figures compiled on Saturday.”
What does this mean? That US troops heroically expose themselves more to danger and somehow have less sophisticated protective gear and weaponry than their Iraqi counterpart? Or could it be that the average Joe in Iraq sees them as an occupying force and actively resists their presence? Keep in mind that Blackwater mercenaries’ figures weren’t included in the count.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Obviously the terrorists would focus attacks on US forces. It’s the US providing resources and training, not the other way around.[/quote]
Yes, and step one is to cow the US into getting its troops out of there, because they are the more dangerous to deal with. After the troops leave, the insurgents can turn their attention to Iraqis.
The insurgents don’t so much see the US as “occupiers”, but as a force standing in their way of their political agenda, which does not parallel that of Iraqis.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The insurgents don’t so much see the US as “occupiers”, but as a force standing in their way of their political agenda, which does not parallel that of Iraqis.[/quote]
If your point is that the US objectives do not coincide with Iraqi objectives, I agree. For example, Paul Bremmer opened up Iraqi natural resources to foreign ownership. That is not in the Iraqis’ best interests.
But somehow I don’t think that was your point. It seems that you’re suggesting that the insurgency is a primarily outsider-based effort. That’s not true, but I see Right Wingers trying to pass that nonsense off, all the time.
The insurgents are mainly Iraqi nationals. Only a small percentage of the fighters in Iraq are foreigners.
[b]The ‘myth’ of Iraq’s foreign fighters:
"Report by US think tank says only ‘4 to 10’ percent of insurgents are foreigners.[/b]
This article is dated, and as Iraq continues to devolve, the numbers will certainly fluctuate. Rumsfeld never made a point of sealing the borders so there will be changes in the stats.
But the point is that the vast number of fighters are Iraqis. It’s not even close.
And I think the point of this thread is that Bush’s escalation will just result in more US casualties. Adding a token number of troops this late in the game is not going to do a damn thing to solve the clusterfuck Bush unleashed over there. Bush has no political or diplomatic component to his strategy (if you can even call it a strategy)… and that is at the heart of our failure in Iraq.
[quote]lixy wrote:
“The U.S. military death toll in March, the first full month of the security crackdown, was nearly twice that of the Iraqi army, which American and Iraqi officials say is taking the leading role in the latest attempt to curb violence in the capital, surrounding cities and Anbar province, according to figures compiled on Saturday.”
What does this mean? That US troops heroically expose themselves more to danger and somehow have less sophisticated protective gear and weaponry than their Iraqi counterpart? Or could it be that the average Joe in Iraq sees them as an occupying force and actively resists their presence? Keep in mind that Blackwater mercenaries’ figures weren’t included in the count.
Your input on this is welcome.[/quote]
What the hell is your problem? You copy and post this as some kind of FUCKING BANNER? Do you like this?
I think people like you need to go away. We do not wish people like you and your American hating, radical Islam supporting rhetoric to waive our fallen in our faces and tell us how stupid we are.
How dare you. You are inhuman, and I would wonder how you really live and treat other human beings.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
What the hell is your problem? You copy and post this as some kind of FUCKING BANNER? Do you like this?[/quote]
No, I don’t. I hate it when people die for no good reason.
This is over the news everywhere. But if you prefer keeping your head in the sand, suit yourself…
Slow down, cowboy. I was trying to make the point that there is a resistance in Iraq that has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or Islamists, that sees the US as empirialist forces and hence fights them.
What’s inhuman is sending poor kids to be butchered there in the first place. Supporting the dispatches makes you nothing short of an accomplice to the massacre.
In case you’re wondering, I’m a pacifist. For me, violence is only legitimate if it’s self-defense to an imminent threat. I treat my fellow human beings with the utmost respect. Hope this helps.
Had to look that one up.
"POS is an internet acronym for “Parents Over Shoulder”, signifying to people in chat rooms or instant message conversations that someone’s parents are behind them or may be within a near vicinity and to watch what is said.
Also BOS is sometimes used for Boss Over Shoulder and is a self-referencing pun (since BOS is pronounced the same as boss)."
But somehow I don’t think that was your point. It seems that you’re suggesting that the insurgency is a primarily outsider-based effort. That’s not true, but I see Right Wingers trying to pass that nonsense off, all the time.
The insurgents are mainly Iraqi nationals. Only a small percentage of the fighters in Iraq are foreigners.[/quote]
Not surprisingly, your assumption was wrong. My point was not to say the insurgents were mostly from outside Iraq or not - my point was that their interests do not coincide with a democratic Iraq generally, regardless of where they call home.
[quote]lixy wrote:
For me, violence is only legitimate if it’s self-defense to an imminent threat. I treat my fellow human beings with the utmost respect. Hope this helps.
[/quote]
Does that only cover defense of one’s self? Or, does it also extend to the defense of strangers?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Does that only cover defense of one’s self? Or, does it also extend to the defense of strangers?[/quote]
It extends to the defense of others provided they’re innocents. Other than that, we get into the realm of “proportional retaliation”. Determine what qualifies as such is a matter of common sense in my humble opinion.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Does that only cover defense of one’s self? Or, does it also extend to the defense of strangers?
It extends to the defense of others provided they’re innocents. Other than that, we get into the realm of “proportional retaliation”. Determine what qualifies as such is a matter of common sense in my humble opinion.[/quote]
Does it extend to the Iraqi’s who don’t want the US to hastily withdraw because they fear mass slaughter? Does it extend to the Iraqi’s elected government? Does it extend to the huge percentage of Iraqis who showed up in droves to exercise their new right to vote?
If violence is justifiable to protect even strangers, why not the above mentioned strangers?
Why are you so focused on the legitimacy of the “resistance” fighters, and not on those who fear what will happen after a the US “cuts and runs?” W
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If violence is justifiable to protect even strangers, why not the above mentioned strangers? [/quote]
Because I’m a grown up and don’t believe in Santa Claus. Besides a few exceptions, countries act based on their sole interests. The US, under neocons rule, is most certainly part of the rule. Claiming otherwise is ludicrous.
Why are you so focused on the “US troops should stay crowd” and not the resistance fighters?
If you think any people would like having foreign troops from the very same country that used to support the bloody dictator they suffered under, you’re not nearly thinking hard enough.