PDA

View Full Version : You Can Never Beat The Will Of A People


RADIOACTIVE MAN
03-16-2008, 10:59 AM
fOR ALL u cats who wish to get into politics,this is a lesson to all the selfish bastards like bush that even with all the technology,and advanced weaponry,you can still be beaten
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080316/wl_mcclatchy/2879735

now come defend this asshole repubicans,i bet yall cant wait to give delusional answers to this

its time to bring these soldiers home...the iraqis have made their point


By Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers Sun Mar 16, 6:00 AM ET

WASHINGTON — When U.S. forces crossed the Kuwaiti border into Iraq in the pre-dawn hours of March 20, 2003 , the military set out to shock and awe the Middle East with the swiftest transformation the region had ever seen.
ADVERTISEMENT
http://ads.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_personals4/20070309_84736_1_300x250_lrec_2007_evergreen_susan .jpg (http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=150h46viv/M=634526.11963950.12405399.8411986/D=news/S=2022202689:LREC/_ylt=Ar3FDHeRgOE88pQIzph25eFBXYh4/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1205690157/L=CPLYWUWTcuqTkJFXR88WdAKVS0nmgEfdQw0AAqkV/B=DQ5wPULEYuQ-/J=1205682957192008/A=4564378/R=3/id=noscript/SIG=137mmv5fk/*http://personals.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTE0MHJtaGZrBF9TAzk3NjIwMjI3BHNlYwNuZXRt ZWRpYQRzbGsDaW1naG9tZQ--)http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=CPLYWUWTcuqTkJFXR88WdAKVS0nmgEfdQw0AAqkV&T=1cnlaeno1%2fX%3d1205682957%2fE%3d2022202689%2fR% 3dnews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3 d1700321529%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50 PSJXQVNISU5HVE9OO0lyYXE7bWlsaXRhcnk7TWlkZGxlIEVhc3 Q7aXQ7QW1lcmljYW47dGVycm9yaXN0O3RlY2hub2xvZ3k7Z292 ZXJubWVudDtzZWN1cml0eTtwb2xpdGljcztyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3 lhaG9vX2NvbSIgcmVmdXJsPSJyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lhaG9vX2Nv bSIgdG9waWNzPSJyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lhaG9vX2NvbSI-%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d41719345&U=13bj4bj43%2fN%3dDQ5wPULEYuQ-%2fC%3d634526.11963950.12405399.8411986%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d4564378
Five years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, it's the U.S. military that's been transformed. The efficient, tech-savvy Army , built, armed and trained to fight conventional wars against aggressor states, is now making deals with tribal sheiks and building its power on friendly conversations with civilians.
Instead of planning for quick, decisive battles against other nations, as it was five years ago, today's American military is planning for protracted, nuanced conflicts with terrorist groups, insurgents, guerrillas, militias and other shadowy forces that seldom stand and fight.
The staples of American military doctrine that have developed since the Civil War — artillery, armor, air power, speed and overwhelming force— are of limited use against enemies who blend into civilian populations.
Five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq , the military is being reconfigured to fight insurgencies, but its evolution has been an unplanned, improvised affair, a series of course corrections in the midst of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan . Some changes have been simply last-ditch efforts to stop the violence against Iraqis and U.S. troops, and some say the changes impair the military's ability to fight a conventional war against a "peer competitor."
Divisions are dispersed into what the military calls a more modular Army so smaller units can be moved throughout Iraq . The military has rolled out new vehicles to thwart high-powered explosives. It's set up new training centers and given captains and colonels far more leeway to lead at the local level, not simply follow a general's orders.
Pentagon leaders call this the military of the future.
"Clearly the training now is almost exclusively focused on COIN (counterinsurgency) because that's the fight we are in. And it will continue that way as long as the fight stays at the level that it is," said Adm. Michael Mullen , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an interview with McClatchy .
In the last five years, the military has gained "speed, agility (and) flexibility that . . . we didn't have as a much heavier force" a few years ago, Mullen said.
It's a big departure from the transformation that then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld promised in the months leading up to the war. Under his plan, the Army would be smaller and rely more on precision air attacks and the latest technology.
Indeed, the war in Iraq was supposed to last a few weeks. The U.S. would dispatch the Iraqi military, overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime, install a new government led by Iraqi exiles and introduce freedom, democracy and a market economy.
Within days, however, the U.S. lost control. Looters took to the streets, and an insurgency took root. The U.S. installed an American occupation government and tried to secure a hostile nation rather than a grateful one.
Back then, there was little talk of counterinsurgency. But the new Army Field Manual puts counterinsurgency on a par with conventional war. "Winning battles and engagements is important but alone is not sufficient," it states. "Shaping the civil situation is just as important to success."
But while the Army has intellectually embraced counterinsurgency, it hasn't said how it will build a force that can fight both conventional wars and counterinsurgency campaigns. How should it train its soldiers? What kind of enemy will the U.S. face? So far, military leaders cannot agree on those fundamental questions.
By adopting a new mode of warfare, "the Army is a python that has just swallowed a pig," said a U.S. Army officer who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak more candidly. "It's not clear to me it understands how hard the digestion process is going to be."
"The Army is going to have to build organizations optimized to do (post-combat) stability operations, and that's not what this Army wants to do," the officer added.
Lt. Col. John Nagl , who co-authored the U.S. military's 2006 counterinsurgency manual with Gen. David Petraeus , now the top American military commander in Iraq , questions whether the Army is serious about counterinsurgency.
"The real question is: How does the Army react to the (new field manual)? Can the Army transform itself to be as effective as possible in future battles, which are going to look a lot like Iraq and Afghanistan ?" Nagl said in an interview with McClatchy .
Some think that Iraq is a temporary problem and that the U.S. shouldn't engage in nation-building, as called for under counterinsurgency strategy.
Some think the Army isn't prepared for both kinds of war. Pete Geren , the secretary of the Army , testified on Capitol Hill last month that as the Army steps up counterinsurgency training, it's losing its conventional war skills.
"Our goal is full-spectrum readiness. And right now we're— we're not able to claim that," Geren said. "We are not able to properly organize, train and equip for the rest of the spectrum of operations."
Gen. George Casey , the Army chief of staff, has repeatedly warned that the Army is strained by having 160,000 troops in Iraq . Other Army leaders estimate that the U.S. must reduce its deployment to 12 combat brigades from the current 18 or find itself at the "breaking point."
The war in Iraq has required some soldiers to serve multiple tours of up to 15 months and to remain in uniform longer than they signed up for. Before the war started, soldiers generally served six-month tours in combat zones.
Mullen acknowledged the friction between counterinsurgency and conventional warfare.
"I think that (tension) will be constructive, and actually with what we learned through counterinsurgency, potentially very creative tension as we move to the next several years to get back to a broader spectrum of training."
The military's embrace of counterinsurgency came only in the last 18 months as soldiers noted measurable security improvements in Iraq . In the early years of the war, only a handful of military commanders spoke of the importance of economic development, respecting civilians and employing military might cautiously.
Back then, many ridiculed using "soft power" against what they considered a ruthless enemy. Soldiers said they were in Iraq to fight.
These days in Iraq , soldiers say they're likely to spend the rest of their careers in places such as Iraq , reaching out to civilians and fighting major battles only occasionally. Instead of generals giving orders from behind the front lines, captains and colonels will be forced to adapt as they maneuver through local, tribal politics. And many soldiers say those mid-level leaders will base their decisions on their experiences in Iraq .
Sgt. John Pierce Senkarik , 25, of 1st Brigade, 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, is serving in Diyala province, and could be one of them. Senkarik, of Pensacola, Fla. , comes from a family imbued with military history, and he once thought he'd fight the same kind of battles his forebears did. But since he signed up, he said, he's seen a transformation within the Army .
Senkarik, who's serving his second tour in Iraq , said he plans to stay in the military so the Army can capitalize on his experiences there.
"The Army is filled with junior leaders and middle-level leaders who have a vast amount of combat experience in counterinsurgency, in urban combat," he said. Mid-level officers will lead and be "responsible for the up-and-coming Army ."
( Steve Lannen of the Lexington Herald-Leader contributed from Diyala province, Iraq .)

Longbongcilvaringz
03-16-2008, 11:45 AM
yeah, as ive said before, i just cant see a completion to it.

there seems to be no way out, without either being there for another 10 years or leaving the region in complete instability.

i dunno.

Olive Oil Goombah
03-16-2008, 12:48 PM
We've fucked ourselves. It was a dumb idea to begin with. Now we have to stay or else the region becomes more unstable and who know who will take over. And who knows what Iran is thinking. They might want to move in if we leave.
Now we are stuck. This isn't Vietnam either. What really has to happen is these other countries need to step their game up and start contributing more. Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Australia....all these places need to be in on this because its as vital for them as it is anyone else. They need the United States more than anyone else watching there back.

Longbongcilvaringz
03-16-2008, 12:57 PM
Australia isnt contributed more.

quite the opposite.

unfortunately (for someone...) the whole Iraq thing is extremely damaging politically, therefore the other members of the coalition are tending to downscale involvement.

Olive Oil Goombah
03-16-2008, 01:02 PM
^That seems to be the case in all these countries. Its definitely the case in the US...politically speaking on how damaging it is. ANd trust me, I really dont want to vote republican, but I just think that this will only delay bad things. If the democrats weren't so hell bent on just abandoning the area, I'd like what they are doing more......that being said, they may be just playing that game to get votes.
I'd like to see the economy get better here, but its like give and take. Just shows you what a sham the UN is.

Longbongcilvaringz
03-16-2008, 01:06 PM
and the thing is, the US involvement is effecting your economy drastically, which in turn is creating problems for countries such as Japan, Australia and parts of europe.

i wrote a paper on this last semester for a unit im doing, and the consensus among people in my tutorial was that withdrawal would be a terrible move right now, and i agree.

however, staying will no doubt create more problems politically and economically for those involved.

the amount the war is costing the US is phenomenal.

its gotten to the point where its a lose/lose situation.

and of course the people suffering are the average citizen from Iraq and the US.

Olive Oil Goombah
03-16-2008, 01:12 PM
I heard today that its costing up like 12 billion a month to be in Iraq. Now I'm no economist but thats alot of fucking money.
Its just so fucked up there tho....Who knows if it will even work? Will this govt. be toppled over by power hungry fascists? Will the military take over again?

George W. Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history without a doubt. He and his regime have severely damaged the republican party's reputation as well.

Robert
03-16-2008, 01:14 PM
Call me a pessimistic, but I think the situation is almost beyond repair.

RADIOACTIVE MAN
03-16-2008, 01:18 PM
bring home those soildiers,thats all im saying,they got families here that love em and want them alive,this fight is stupid,maybe jenna bush and all the other bush tards should go and fight

SKAMPOE
03-16-2008, 01:18 PM
I Say Fuckem All!

Longbongcilvaringz
03-16-2008, 01:19 PM
I heard today that its costing up like 12 billion a month to be in Iraq. Now I'm no economist but thats alot of fucking money.
Its just so fucked up there tho....Who knows if it will even work? Will this govt. be toppled over by power hungry fascists? Will the military take over again?

George W. Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history without a doubt. He and his regime have severely damaged the republican party's reputation as well.


i dunno about Bush going down as that bad a president.

hes at least had impact haha.

i mean, i thought Clinton was pretty fucking bad and its seems as though most americans consider him to have been a good president (although i guess he was good for middle class america)

Robert
03-16-2008, 01:22 PM
bring home those soildiers,thats all im saying,they got families here that love em and want them alive,this fight is stupid,maybe jenna bush and all the other bush tards should go and fight

The thing is though, if the U.S leave now it will be worse for everyone.

RADIOACTIVE MAN
03-16-2008, 01:22 PM
I heard today that its costing up like 12 billion a month to be in Iraq. Now I'm no economist but thats alot of fucking money.
Its just so fucked up there tho....Who knows if it will even work? Will this govt. be toppled over by power hungry fascists? Will the military take over again?

George W. Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history without a doubt. He and his regime have severely damaged the republican party's reputation as well.
yea,it is really fucking up the economy but you see,its not coming out of Bush and his buddies pockets so what does he care!! ya know

Sicka than aidZ
03-16-2008, 01:26 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/jameztwo/bush2.jpg

this cartoon says it all

Longbongcilvaringz
03-16-2008, 01:27 PM
i know what you mean about bringing the troops home grave, but in the end those guys signed up with the knowledge that one day they might have to do shit like this.

its fucked up for theyre families and for them, but i guess it is their job and they really have to accept it like that.

that being said, i think they should have every right to openly criticise the administration and the motives for the war.

but its seems as though most of the ex-military guys that have done this have been labeled as traitors etc.

Sicka than aidZ
03-16-2008, 01:28 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/jameztwo/988843749_l.jpg

or like this shit here.

we need to really figure out how we're gonna survive within the next few years or these old rich people are gonna leave us in ruins without a chance to live our lives

HANZO
03-16-2008, 01:29 PM
oil is $110 a barrel thanks to mr bush and his incompetance in dealing with important issues. not only has he screwed the middle east over, but he has put in a good decades worth of harm to the worlds economy.

RADIOACTIVE MAN
03-16-2008, 01:30 PM
sad reality really

RADIOACTIVE MAN
03-16-2008, 01:32 PM
but folks,there is a certain group of people also to blame for all this mideast crazyness

im not gonna name names but im sure you have an idea who im talking about

in America today,people loose jobs for talking against them,anything you point out negative about them,the whole freaking colony will come at u and no,im not talking about the republicans but im sure u know where i going with this

Lox-the-5th
03-16-2008, 01:33 PM
why should other countries contribute? its was america's war for oil. designed to make organisations like haliburton even richer. why should any european country contribute to that.

and they fucked it up. all they did was stir up a hornets nest of anti-american hatred in the middle -east. and polarise muslims.


and theres no point blaming the UN. the UN had the wisdom to know it was an idiotic move. also the UN are involved militarily all over the world and doin a good job of it, its just not widely reported in the media.



one thing is for sure tho, america cannot pull out now. the only way is to re-build the iraqi economy, for the iraqi ppl . not US companies. and thats a long ass process. prob 25+ years.

Longbongcilvaringz
03-16-2008, 01:35 PM
well, i think the price of oil is the least of the worries right now.

a viable alternative energy source needs to be up and running within the next few decades otherwise future generations are truly fucked.

RADIOACTIVE MAN
03-16-2008, 01:35 PM
ihave to agree here,theres no sense in other countries getting mixed up in this stupidity,look at what happened to British prime minister Tony blair,he ruined his whole reputation by selling his soul to the devil Bush,i mean he was actually a good man with good intentions but mingled in the wrong war..sad sad sad..

HANZO
03-16-2008, 01:40 PM
well, i think the price of oil is the least of the worries right now.

a viable alternative energy source needs to be up and running within the next few decades otherwise future generations are truly fucked.

you see if they didnt spend 12billion a month on war, im sure we would have discovered how to store hydrogen cells, which in turn solves our problem.

RADIOACTIVE MAN
03-16-2008, 02:07 PM
thats right!!

Olive Oil Goombah
03-16-2008, 02:18 PM
yea,it is really fucking up the economy but you see,its not coming out of Bush and his buddies pockets so what does he care!! ya know

I hear ya. And im not saying that Bush didnt do this out of his own agenda. He did. Thats why he and his people are fucked up, and I really don't think its a stretch to consider him one of the worst presidents all time.
We got attacked and got into a bad war during his time and the economy has been bad. Three strikes.

Soldiers are soldiers tho. I mean thats there job. I dont like seeing anyone die but that is indeed what they signed up for. Its part of it.

I'm probably voting democrat just for my own selfish wants...better economy hopefully more jobs, higher wages, better healthcare.

Worst case scenario....US abandons Iraq...Iran swoops in and overruns a weak Iraqi military right now (which used to be more powerful than Irans) and now the US has to go to war with IRan over control of Iraqi oil...??? Saddam balanced the power struggle over there and now the US military has replaced him and they are feeling the heat that Saddam had under somewhat control(even tho it was harsh, but thats what had to be done for order)...
Is that a good thing??? What are the other alternative...it depends.

RADIOACTIVE MAN
03-16-2008, 02:21 PM
yea i see ya point

Olive Oil Goombah
03-16-2008, 02:21 PM
ihave to agree here,theres no sense in other countries getting mixed up in this stupidity,look at what happened to British prime minister Tony blair,he ruined his whole reputation by selling his soul to the devil Bush,i mean he was actually a good man with good intentions but mingled in the wrong war..sad sad sad..

I was a fan of Tony Blair. Bush suckered everyone into this thing. I was originally against this whole thing. But now...were in no mans land.

RADIOACTIVE MAN
03-16-2008, 02:50 PM
True That