New information from Iraq
 

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07175/796431-373.stm

what are your thoughts on this?

Because it is 'way cooler' to care about some slut then it is to care about what is killing your own citizens.

Watching recent news coming out, Al-Queda is getting its clock cleaned...IMO..why there haven't been any serious attacks for a while. Sure they blow up IED's and such in their own cities, but that is it. Though I hate G.W. he was right in saying keep the fight in Iraq.

The reason the media is ignoring it is because it is going to have no effect on anything. The article says there are 1,000-2,000 Al-Queda. Wanna bet that if they kill all 2,000 of them that in a few more months there will be 2,000 more there to replace them?

This is not a war that can be won by military means. For every one of those suckers that you kill, 5 more will come to join the cause. Might as well have fertirlizer in those bombs they are dropping on Al-Queda, because that will be the outcome.

In 6 months from now, we will be in the same place as we are now, except more people will be dead, and we will have spent $100 billion more on this war. Of course that last part is the real reason for this big offensive...

Imagine if you were the company that supplied the weapons used in such operations. When would you want the war to end?

Eric- Socialist, economist, military theorist

I don't think that Al Queda still has continuous exponential growth I believe that no matter what happens people's overall want for self preservation will win out.

:rolleyes:

Triple bomb attacks in Iraq kill 40, shaikhs among dead

Fifteen Iraqis killed in suicide bombing


And last week:


16 die in Iraq suicide bombing

78 killed by bombing at Baghdad mosque; U.S. offensive rolls north of capital

Nice job Eric (this is a perfect definition of how you twist words and pick pieces).

My words after the EXACT comment you quoted!!
and what did you post????? oh, deaths in Iraq :rolleyes: try to READ the whole thing next time before the bias takes over.


I can't wait to see what Rebound says :thumbup:

Bingo, but I bet you the E can show about 453 Wikis stating something else.

:iagree:

Eric, imagine if you were the soldier that died. Sure is easy to type on a keyboard from the states.

I'm sorry but honestly, have we done a poll of how many people OVER in iraq still support the cause? an unaltered report would really interest me...

who ya gonna poll? Iraqis, Insurgents, US Soldiers...current Government? Pretty sure you'll get different results with each group.

Here you go....a poll done by our own government last Fall:

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show

BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department







You guys always say that those who are/were in Iraq know more than those who have not been there. So here is a poll of Iraqis who live in Iraq. Do you trust their opinions?

Oh, so in this case Eric, you believe the US source....convenient.

The US poll says two-thirds of Iraqis favor immediate pullout. Most of the other polls say 80+%, some even as high as 90%. I gave you the least severe of them. ;)


For example:

Inter Press Service: Poll Shows Iraqis Weary of Violence, US Presence

...nearly four in five respondents said they believed that the U.S. military in Iraq is "provoking more conflict than it is preventing," while nearly 61 percent said they approved of attacks on U.S.-led forces...

Here's an interesting poll:

Iraqis Say They Were Better Off Under Hussein

Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.

No joke the polls would say that, if every other day your town was blown up you would say that too. However, it isn't the soldiers blowing up your town. Usually these polls are conducted when violence is at a peak. I saw a great interview with a General:

"if you polled Americans on how patriotic they were on April 1st and then conducted the same poll on July 4th, your results would be drastically different"

I really want to know what soldiers say...

Ask one, or ask ones on this board.

I want an ACCURATE answer, not just some one-sided debate thanks thou

:confused: what is one sided about it, you wanted to know what soldiers thought...ask a couple. Try looking around: http://www.iraqwarveterans.org/

I don't think the soldiers on this board are INACCURATE, as you have eluded to.

I believe they are not an acurate total census of what soldiers really think

wow.

That was an interesting read. I am glad to see 'good news' from Iraq - thanks The Head :)

My nephew's not a soldier, he's a Marine, but he's in Fallujah right now - does that count?

Or is he not accurate? :rolleyes:

Ryan,
I've been there, does my opinion count? :nanana: I have friends over there almost constantly and they all share the same sentiments that we need to be there and that we are accomplishing many, many good things. It's ironic how those of us that have been there willing to sacrifice everything are the ones who want to go back again and again. It's incredible that those who sit at home and bitch about the war are the least willing to serve this country.

Ryan, this is indeed an accurate picture of what most of the soldiers think.

I think you would be hard pressed to find any soldiers from any country in any war who are against the war or who do not believe in their mission. Soldiers are trained to follow orders and believe in the mission.

I.e. we're brainwashed.

Just a bunch of programmed killing machines, bumping around in the dark.

In all the history I have studied, I can think of only a single example of when the soldiers of an army walked off the field of battle and refused to follow orders.

That example is the 1917 Russian Revolution. Most of the Czar's army refused to defend his regime, and most of the soldiers switched sizes to join the revolutionists.

Even in cases of pure evil like Nazi Germany, the German soldiers fought to the death and believed in their cause.

I guess the Czar's army was not very well trained. If they were, they would not think but would simply do as ordered.

Remind me again how this isn't a personal attack?

Eric,
It has nothing to do with believing in a cause. Military personell are allowed to disagree with their mission, however, they believe in their country, and that means they carry out the orders of the Commander in Chief. You see, unlike you, they chose a side, just like others have done before them for over two hundred years. That is why the USA is still here, because there are a lot of people that believe in the constitution and choose to follow it. If you want to criticize policies, wars, etc..., go ahead, you have that right. You do not have the right however, to criticize the men and women who defend the constitution of this country by carrying out orders that are given to them.

The Czar got screwed on that deal as well. Nicholas was not the problem....SOCIALISM and corruption was...sorry :) Lenin, what a winner :tsk:

rebound...didn't you know that all military personnel were incompetent of making their own decisions or forming an idea without guidance of a superior officer?

I just find Eric's hypocrisy interesting. He's the first to go running to mommy when he's offended by the truth, I mean a personal attack. Apparently it's ok for him to make them, though. Shocking. :rolleyes:

Ummm...what are you talking about? I don't know what version of Russian history you have learned.... :rolleyes:

There was no socialism prior to 1917. Russia was 100% capitalist, much more capitalist than we are here in the US. There was no welfare, there was no social programs of any kind. There was not even a public education system. Only private schools for the wealthy who could afford it. The wealthy elite landowners owned 99.9% of the wealth, and everyone else was poor, illiterate/uneducated and starving to death. Kind of like Mexico or much of Africa is today. Russia was a third world country, only about 40 years removed from Feudalism.

And I do indeed know this, because my family came from there during that period. Things were terrible there.

As for Lenin, he and his people were pushing for democracy for more than a decade before 1917. In 1907 the Czar finally gave in and allowed for democratic reforms, and a parlament was elected. But a couple of years later, the Czar got fed up at the laws they were passing, and he disolved the parlament and banned democracy. Then when he entered Russia into a very unpopular war (WWI) and too many Russian kids started coming back in body bags, the public got even more angry.

Lenin was more popular among the Russian public than George Washington was here during the American revolution. If he had lived, things surely would have been different. But he died in 1925, while they were still fighting a war against the US & Britain. His logical successor was supposed to be Trotsky. But a coup took place and Stalin seized power. Trotsky and his people (i.e. Lenin's people) fled the country and never returned. Trotsky was later murdered by the KGB.

You got a Hemi in that dodge?

Ah, Hitler was popular with the people as well, guess we should have left him there. And I like to pay attention to the non popular belief (history is written by the winner). Love how you used coup when Stalin took over but not when the Czar was kicked out an murdered. Nice choice. :tsk: Kind of like US history saying Battle when we beat the Native Americans in a conflict ans slaughter when we lost.