Iraq is lost - AR15.COM

Posted: 10/15/2004 11:15:32 PM EDT

Sorry that I chose this provocative title, but- since it has been mentioned here how stupid Europeans are in their support for Kerry- I just wanted to show you, how the majority of newspaper reports look like here in Europe. I guess one can't really blame normal people who don't have the time to investigate. From one of the most reputable newspapers in Austria (DER STANDARD):

Iraq is lost and there is hardly anything a president Kerry could do, to save it for the West
by Hans Rauscher

How often has the US Army delivered "precise bombing" in the last weeks against an assumed hiding place of the Al Quaida terrorist Zarkawi? We have to give up counting. Maybe Zarkawi is dead, maybe he isn't even in the Iraq - but one thing is clear: each time the American bombs and rockets hit well populated areas of Falluja, the last time the most popular restaurant. Each time there is alot of "collateral damage" in form of many dead Iraqi civilians. How many one does not know since US officials don't count innocent lifes lost- Iraqi lifes that is. However the number must go into hundreds, if not thousands.

Now the Americans are again attacking Falluja- a city which is firmly in the hands of Iraqi resistance- until Zarkawi is delivered. The lawless stupidity of this ultimatum (altough formally enacted by the Iraqi government) exceeds everything that Bush has done wrong so far in the Iraq (apart from the invasion itself). The terrorists and resistance fighter will not deliver Zarkawi; the population cannot do it, even if she wanted it. So the USA are trying to win hearts the and minds of the inhabitants of Falluja, by bombing their houses and killing their families?

Lets face it- Iraq is lost. The USA don't know how to pacify it- this has been proven again and again. The resistance movement is already too broad and too fanatic, in order to be broken with military might. Each further escalation of the military procedure - maybe mass bombardements or "free fire zones" as in VietNam, where everything, which moved was free to be shot - would already exceed the border to war crime. In contrast to this, terrorists have apparently no problems to recruit new forces in the form of suicide assassins, who blow themselves up nearly each day and hit many important targets - the last even in the "Green Zone", the American "Fort Apache" in Bagdad. A correspondent of the Wall Street journal, which supports the war, reported in a mail to her friends that she can hardly move around any longer: "I never go out on the street" The American occupation troops and their civilian aids are hardly differently. Most parts of Iraq are not under control. Who dares to go out, has good chances to be kidnapped and murdered.

We have to deal with the largest strategic error of the USA since the Viet Nam war. Instead of becoming a model for the whole region, Iraq without Saddam became a magnet for the worst anti-western terrorists. All this wasn't a factor in the election campaign, because Kerry omitted to express the whole dirty truth - and because most of the US media are still too governmentfriendly.

Anyway, there is hardly something a president Kerry could do, in order to save the Iraq for the west. The point, at which the majority of the Iraqis could still be won, is well exceeded. It would require a gigantic effort - three times as many troops, ten times as much economic aid -, in order to produce conditions, in which the terrorists find no more fertile soil. Bush is too limited in his views to realize it; from Kerry one does not know, how he thinks of it. (the STANDARD, 16./17.10.2004)

Here is the original, german version

Posted: 10/15/2004 11:25:24 PM EDT

[#1]

I can sum up my thoughts on anything that the germans or french have to say about what we do in Iraq.

STFU!

Thank you for your attention.

Posted: 10/15/2004 11:28:02 PM EDT

[#2]

I think the writer makes some good points. You're right Cato, viewpoints such as those are very rarely mentioned in our free press here in the States.

Whether the writer is right or wrong, his argument is reasonable enough to merit consideration.

-Nick Viejo.

Posted: 10/15/2004 11:28:39 PM EDT

[#3]

I always say,

"What part of Europe are you from?
The part we saved, or the part we kicked its ass?"

Posted: 10/15/2004 11:32:07 PM EDT

[#4]

From the article
"from Kerry one does not know, how he thinks of it. "

Kinda funny. Even the Australian papers admit Kerry has NO PLAN. But hes planning. Which I guess is a start right?

Posted: 10/15/2004 11:37:44 PM EDT

[#5]

I like this part:

"We have to deal with the largest strategic error of the USA since the Viet Nam war. Instead of becoming a model for the whole region, Iraq without Saddam became a magnet for the worst anti-western terrorists. All this wasn't a factor in the election campaign, because Kerry omitted to express the whole dirty truth - and because most of the US media are still too governmentfriendly."

I didnt know that our media wasn't reporting the truth because they like GW.

Posted: 10/15/2004 11:57:02 PM EDT

[#6]

One big

Posted: 10/16/2004 12:03:08 AM EDT

[#7]

That's funny, Germans wouldn't even have the ability to say that if it wasn't for us. What a crock of horse puckey! If they cant join us, fuck 'em!

Posted: 10/16/2004 12:18:34 AM EDT

[#8]

"Problem" with the war: MEDIA
"Problem" with the elections: MEDIA

Delay all news by 1 week. Most importantly of all, the votes on Nov. 2nd. We find out on the 3rd.

The "instant gratification" has taken over the mindset of the world. People let their emotions think for them. (this is bad, if you didn't know, unless you are a liberal or female, then it is "normal")

Posted: 10/16/2004 12:20:04 AM EDT

[#9]

Mebbe if the fucking Europeans hadn't killed off two entire generations of their menfolk in the last century through their own stupidity they'd have some fucking testicles.

Posted: 10/16/2004 12:35:36 AM EDT

[#10]

I am seeing the exact opposite in this thing. Check out the article, from MSNBC of all places, that claims Iraqis are taking action against (i.e. killing) insurgents who they now feel are forcing themselves, and their religious values, on the citizens of Iraq.

MSNBC article

Cheers

Edited 'cause I can't spell

Posted: 10/16/2004 12:54:00 AM EDT

[#11]

Iraq is lost?

Put out an Amber alert then.

Posted: 10/16/2004 1:08:28 AM EDT

[#12]

Mebbe if the fucking Europeans

What a crock of horse puckey! If they cant join us, fuck 'em!

STFU!

As understandable as such expressions are, in most Europeans view,
they just proove that Bush's supporters are totally irrational and blinded
by ideology & patriotism and can't really argue against what is presented here
as "the facts on Iraq". I think the writer is overly pessimistic, but he raises
several interesting questions, mainly how one can fight the insurgents while
avoiding collateral damage- which adds to even more anger towards the USA.
I have to admit, if the current situation is according to Bush's plan, then
Kerry's "no-plan" looks as good to me.

Also, when can one consider the situation there "won" and when is Iraq really "lost"?
Without such definitions, it WILL be another Vietnam.

Posted: 10/16/2004 1:21:05 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Mebbe if the fucking Europeans

What a crock of horse puckey! If they cant join us, fuck 'em!

STFU!

As understandable as such expressions are, in most Europeans view,
they just proove that Bush's supporters are totally irrational and blinded
by ideology & patriotism and can't really argue against what is presented here
as "the facts on Iraq". I think the writer is overly pessimistic, but he raises
several interesting questions, mainly how one can fight the insurgents while
avoiding collateral damage- which adds to even more anger towards the USA.
I have to admit, if the current situation is according to Bush's plan, then
Kerry's "no-plan" looks as good to me.
Also, when can one consider the situation there "won" and when is Iraq really "lost"?
Without such definitions, it WILL be another Vietnam.

Ok. In the UN Debate with LaPierre:

Your Take, should our Bill Of Rights supercede "Global Safety"?

Posted: 10/16/2004 1:26:47 AM EDT

[#14]

Instead of becoming a model for the whole region, Iraq without Saddam became a magnet for the worst anti-western terrorists.

This may have been the intention... Attract the bad guys to Iraq, kill them all there, rather than let them come to American soil.

Posted: 10/16/2004 1:33:59 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Mebbe if the fucking Europeans

What a crock of horse puckey! If they cant join us, fuck 'em!

STFU!

As understandable as such expressions are, in most Europeans view,
they just proove that Bush's supporters are totally irrational and blinded
by ideology & patriotism and can't really argue against what is presented here
as "the facts on Iraq". I think the writer is overly pessimistic, but he raises
several interesting questions, mainly how one can fight the insurgents while
avoiding collateral damage- which adds to even more anger towards the USA.
I have to admit, if the current situation is according to Bush's plan, then
Kerry's "no-plan" looks as good to me.
Also, when can one consider the situation there "won" and when is Iraq really "lost"?
Without such definitions, it WILL be another Vietnam.

As understandable as such arguments are, in the view of most Americans articles like these simply perpetuate the notion that the experiences of the 20th century have effectively neutered European governments, and that even if these governments DID wish to project power, they are incapable of doing so since they've spent the last 50 years building failed welfare states whilst living under the American security umbrella. I think the writer, like many Europeans, has, out of both cultural compellence and neccessity, bought into a zietgiest of victimhood and pacifism that has little relevance when dealing with states like Iraq.

One would think that the peoples of Europe, having had so much history occur in their backyard, would be able to put the situation in Iraq into a relevant context involving temporal and level-of-violence parameters. One would, apparently, be wrong.

Edited 'cause I'm fuggin drunk.

Posted: 10/16/2004 1:34:42 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
This may have been the intention... Attract the bad guys to Iraq, kill them all there, rather than let them come to American soil.

Bingo. Iraq has attracted a large percentage of the most fanatical Islamic elements from all over the region into a fairly compact location that is more easily fought and defeated by a conventional military. Every foreign terrorist that is killed in Iraq is one that can't help attack us from some other country. The fight in Iraq may be tough, but we're choosing the battlefield, so that we end up fighting them in Iraq instead of in the US and all over Europe.

Of course, if this reality doesn't fit your worldview, it can be conveniently ignored or denied.

-Troy

Posted: 10/16/2004 1:45:32 AM EDT

[#17]

Ok, this is an interesting point- why doesn't the Bush campaign mention it
more often??
The only question is- aren't the (dead) insurgents in Iraq mainly lowly "foot
soldiers" which- especially in this region- can be replaced very fast? It may
be nice to get Saddam's officials (after all they are war criminals), but they
weren't really a big Al Quaida asset to begin with. I really doubt that many
"pros"- like Al Quaida functionarys or Chechen mercenarys- have been killed
since they won't do frontal attacks on professional US soldiers. On the one side,
yes, the Iraq has shown the muslim world that the US are willing to fight and
stand their ground, but on the other hand there is worlwide anger over Iraq.
And compared to Al Jarzeerah reports of killed children & collateral damage,
European newspapers look biased towards the USA!!

What I personally fear is, that there will be a new level of willingness, and more
important professionalism, among the insurgents/terrorists that survived the clash
in Iraq- just like it happened in Afghanistan.

Posted: 10/16/2004 1:55:32 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Ok, this is an interesting point. But aren't the dead insurgents in Iraq
mainly lowly "foot soldiers" which- especially in this region- can be replaced
very fast? It may be nice to get Saddam's officials, but they weren't really
a big Al Quaida asset to begin with. I really doubt that many "pros"- like
Al Quaida functionarys or Chechen mercenarys- have been killed since
they won't do frontal attacks on professional US soldiers.

I wouldn't think so. I would say there's a finite number of Arabs willing to go and die for jihad. And there's certainly a finite number of trained, experienced Al Quaida cadre who are neccessary for effective operations. While these "pros' aren't being killed in swaths, they are dying, and there ain't any more terrorist camps turning out replacements.

I think the number of insurgents in Iraq is a very telling sign of how well things are actually going there. The largest estimates put the number of insurgents at around 25k, including the Mahdi Army. Let's say for the sake of argument that they're all Iraqis. Iraq has a population of around 25 million. Half of those are males, so let's say 7 million or so are of military age. Millions of these are veterans, many combat vets from the 80's or Desert Storm. So, all in all, the insurgents represent about .0035% of the available manpower.

Hardly a popular resistance.

Posted: 10/16/2004 2:33:17 AM EDT

[#19]

This kind of BULLSHIT is whappened the last time in Fallujah (in April). The world wrung it's hands and whined about "civilian" casualties. WAAAHHH!!! I also use the term "civilian" VERY loosely---as a GI who's been to Iraq put it to me the other day, "There's no such thing as an innocent bystander."

Why the fuck is it that when the bad guys choose to make a stand in a given place (i.e. Fallujah) that WE are the ones responsible for "civilian" casualties? The enemy is NEVER at fault. Only us. They can do whatever they want wherever they want and when we go after them it's all our fault. HORSESHIT!!!

And of course I love being lectured by a Germanic newspaper about "war crimes" given their snow white past on the subject......

Posted: 10/16/2004 2:43:19 AM EDT

[#20]

The enemy is NEVER at fault. Only us. They can do whatever they want wherever they want and when we go after them it's all our fault. HORSESHIT!!!

No, that is simply the problem when one goes to war with the attitude of
being morally superior- one is forced to follow ethic rules. Besides, if
only 0,035% of the Iraqi population is the enemy, a "kill them all, let God
sort them out" approach is horrible. Most of us, who are not hardened
armchair generals, are simply disturbed by pictures of dead children & women-
no matter of whose faith they are. Sorry for that.

Posted: 10/16/2004 3:25:13 AM EDT

[#21]

No one has even bought up the fact that a ruthless dictator who purposely used chemical weapons on tens of thousands of his own people is now out of power! Sadaam was no pussy cat, he was the biggest "weapon of mass destruction".

Posted: 10/16/2004 3:37:29 AM EDT

[#22]

The Germans should shut the fuck up… "war crimes' hello! does 6,000,000 millions Jews gassed during WWII ring a bell Germany?

Gemany is now the worlds biggest pussy nation… fuck them… and France.

Fortunately for the 'Euro Pussies', Britain, Italy, Denmark, Holland and Poland are willing to do their dirty work that needs to be done.

Andy

Posted: 10/16/2004 3:41:00 AM EDT

[#23]

The article is right about one thing - the US can not pacify Iraq. We lack the knowledge of the culture and local rivalries to do so. The key to pacifying Iraq is to have Iraqis do the pacifying with our support. The administration recognizes this and that is why training Iraqi defense forces is the most important mission there is.

Posted: 10/16/2004 4:12:45 AM EDT

[#24]

Thank you, Airwolf.

Posted: 10/16/2004 4:20:23 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
No, that is simply the problem when one goes to war with the attitude of
being morally superior- one is forced to follow ethic rules. Besides, if
only 0,035% of the Iraqi population is the enemy, a "kill them all, let God
sort them out" approach is horrible.

Name one instance where the U.S. Armed Forces has specifically targeted women or children like, for instance, the Palestinian terrorists have in Israel or the Chechen terrorists did in Russia. You can't because they haven't. You are assuming that because women and children have been killed that U.S. forces did not 'follow ethic rules'. That's preposterous. If the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists choose to strategically surround themselves by innocent women and children, then they are the ones not 'following rules of ethics', knowing that they are targets of the U.S. military.

Quoted:
Most of us, who are not hardened armchair generals, are simply disturbed by pictures of dead children & women- no matter of whose faith they are. Sorry for that.

So we should base our strategy on whether or not women or children might be killed. Stop thinking with your heart. I've seen plenty of dead children in the ER and it's not a pretty sight. I posed a 5 year-old child, beaten to death by his stepfather, for the police photographer to document his bruises. It's gut-wrenching. But, I would rather have to watch dead children on TV from Iraq than here in New York or Los Angeles.

I'm not surprised that European newspapers don't report that the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq is a magnet for the extremist Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists. The European and the majority of American journalists have their own agenda and will do whatever they can to attempt to discredit Bush and his policies.

Posted: 10/16/2004 4:26:08 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Name one instance where the U.S. Armed Forces has specifically targeted women or children like, for instance, the Palestinian terrorists have in Israel or the Chechen terrorists did in Russia. You can't because they haven't. You are assuming that because women and children have been killed that U.S. forces did not 'follow ethic rules'. That's preposterous.

I was not implying that the USA did not follow ethic rules of combat, but that they do so- and have to life with those restrictions!! ABNAK suggested a "kill them all" approach, and the "horrible" was my reaction to that!

Posted: 10/16/2004 4:42:19 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
I was not implying that the USA did not follow ethic rules of combat, but that they do so- and have to life with those restrictions!! ABNAK suggested a "kill them all" approach, and I was reacting to that!

When I see the "kill 'em all" comments I automatically translate it to mean "kill all the Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists". I'm sure that even when people post the "kill them all" comment, 99% of them are not serious and are specifically referring to the terrorists only. The U.S. military has a long history of being one of the most humane in history. After WWII, rather than seek retribution on the entire German people, they helped reconstruct the country. German POW's were returned to society except for the tiny percentage who were tried for war crimes. Contrast this with the hundred thousand+ German soldiers who surrendered at Stalingrad, all of whom suffered inhumane deaths in Siberia.

With the exception of a few shitstain MP's at Abu Graib, there hasn't been an instance where U.S. soldiers behaved in any way other than honorably.

Posted: 10/16/2004 5:22:18 AM EDT

[#28]

Yep, I know- my grandfather gained nearly 60 lbs. while being a POW in the USA.
He never lost the weight again- and has fond memories of the USA and especially
the tradition of BBQ to this day!!

I really hope the majority of Iraqis will go his route- from a fanatical guy
(paratrooper under Rommel in Tunesia) to someone who invited US
paratroopers to veteran meetings here in Austria (there was quite some
resistance of those who still didn't get it) and who tought his
grandchildren that freedom, individualistic thinking & democracy are the
most important values-and that the USA, during time, like no other nation,
stand for these values.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Iraq is lost

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us