Whose Insurgency?

Quote:

---

WHOSE INSURGENCY?

By MARK GOLDBLATT

Email Archives
Print Reprint

June 7, 2005 -- ACCORDING to the SITE Institute, a respected counter-terrorism organization, only 9 percent of suicide bombings sponsored in Iraq by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are conducted by native Iraqis.

Analyzing data from a "martyrs" list posted on a Zarqawi Web site, SITE found that 42 percent of the killers hailed from Saudi Arabia, 12 percent from Syria, 11 percent from Kuwait, with the rest from an assortment of Asian and European nations.

Why does it matter?

Because it gives lie to the suggestion, often heard on the left, that the struggle in Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror. The antiwar crowd insists that American soldiers are now engaged in a guerilla war with militant Iraqis — Michael Moore has compared them to the Minutemen of our own Revolutionary War. Except now it turns out that fully 91 percent of suicide bombers are foreigners crossing into Iraq with the purpose of killing civilians.

In short, terrorists.

American soldiers are not fighting an Iraqi insurgency. They're fighting a terrorist insurgency. If not for jihadi nutcases pouring across its borders, Iraq would be well on its way to a stable and peaceful democracy.

It's high time that truth sunk in.

---

I told you so. ~;)

an invading army yelling foul play because part of the resistance is not indigenous to the invaded country.....


the irony is so tick one could cut it with a knife.... :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

an invading army yelling foul play because part of the resistance is not indigenous to the invaded country.....

---

Part? Where do all the casualties and attacks come from? How many die as a result of fighting with real Iraqi insurgents?

No Iranian percentage? I think that's odd because I just heard an author on Jon Stewart the other day who said there were terrorists from Iran operating in Iraq.

Quote:

---

No Iranian percentage? I think that's odd because I just heard an author on Jon Stewart the other day who said there were terrorists from Iran operating in Iraq.

---

Add up the stats they only list 65% of the terroists that still leaves 26% for Iran and the other 20 countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

an invading army yelling foul play because part of the resistance is not indigenous to the invaded country.....


the irony is so tick one could cut it with a knife.... :inquisitive:

---

Your forgeting one thing from article that Gawain posted its not the army that has done the study. And the data was taken from a site that seems to be listing the names of the individuals doing the bombings.

http://www.siteinstitute.org/

It just seems that if there was an appreciable percantage of Iranians it would have been listed.

Part? Where do all the casualties and attacks come from? How many die as a result of fighting with real Iraqi insurgents?
Ask your government , suicide bombings make up only a minute proportion of attacks in Iraq .
Listen to your governmnet Gawain , it doesn't know much , but it probably knows a hell of a lot more about Iraq than a Proffesor of Fashion . ~D

Quote:

---

Ask your government , suicide bombings make up only a minute proportion of attacks in Iraq .

---

Well the media is sure missing something them becaue all I ever here is so mnay (fill in the #) people were killed by a suicide attack today. I never here of many battles between us and the insurgents. Maybe you could provide some stats to back up your position.

But what % of suicide bombings in Iraq are sponsored by Al-Zarqawi? I thought it was known that he, a Jordanian, heads up mainly foreigners? And isn't he a Bin Laden type Sunni, so any Iranian Shiites would not be fighting under him. My understanding was that Al-Zarqawi leads the most extreme and headline grabbing of the insurgent groups, but I'd be surprised if his people account for the majority of the attacks.

Wow - I wonder how long it took them to figure out that the suicide bombers who work for AQ are terrorists :idea:

Maybe you could provide some stats to back up your position.
Are you serious Gawain ??????

Here chew on this , Sept 2004 ;
Terrorist attacks in Iraq that month 2,429
Suicide attacks 8
Which is a big increase in the monthly figure , as there were only 9 suicide attacks during the first 3 months of that year .
So it is getting more common , but still not as common as the everyday slaughter that is going on .

Well the media is sure missing something them becaue all I ever here is so mnay (fill in the #) people were killed by a suicide attack today.
Well everyday killings and abductions are just such old news Gawain , move on to the next headline grabber .

I never here of many battles between us and the insurgents.
Thats because they are insurgents , they plant their bombs , launch their rockets , and then go back to being everyday civilians .
Well you did have several big battles , but they didn't really achieve much did they . They pretty much flattened Fallujah , and US troops are still getting blown up there .

Why care who they are, they present themselve in nice ordered lines to be shot to pieces. As long as they are willing to do that fine with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Why care who they are, they present themselve in nice ordered lines to be shot to pieces. As long as they are willing to do that fine with me.

---

You wish. I don't think the insurgents line up in nice ordered lines. In fact, I am sad to say some of the most terrible casualties in post-invasion Iraq seem to have been when ordinary Iraqis lined up in nice ordered lines whether it was to get jobs as policemen and soldiers, or to pray in Shiite mosques. I share your sentiment towards the butchers in the insurgency, but right now can't be so upbeat about the fight against them.

I should also say, I wish Gawain was right. If the insurgents were overwhelmingly foreign, they would easily be defeated (in fact, would have been already?). I take the view that the Iraqis will have to ultimately have to sort out the mess in their own country. The reason the mess is so hard to sort out is because they are fighting each other.

Quote:

---

Here chew on this , Sept 2004 ;
Terrorist attacks in Iraq that month 2,429
Suicide attacks 8
Which is a big increase in the monthly figure , as there were only 9 suicide attacks during the first 3 months of that year .
So it is getting more common , but still not as common as the everyday slaughter that is going on .

---

Kinda old isnt it and it doesnt include the casulties caused by these attacks. Tell me how many people have died as a result of being shot by real insurgents.

Quote:

---

Well everyday killings and abductions are just such old news Gawain , move on to the next headline grabber .

---

Are they? I dont even here of US troops killed in missions almost all are a result of suicide bombings. Again dig up some casualty figures.

Quote:

---

I should also say, I wish Gawain was right. If the insurgents were overwhelmingly foreign, they would easily be defeated (in fact, would have been already?). I take the view that the Iraqis will have to ultimately have to sort out the mess in their own country. The reason the mess is so hard to sort out is because they are fighting each other.

---

Whats the upper estimate on the number of insurgents 10000? That hardly any kind of sup[port from the Iraqi peole. Its only a small frction of the population. The reason the whole mess is so hard to sort out is they keep importing more foriegners and theres still some bathists running around. Again tell me what do these people fight for and hope to acomplish. They target mostly Iraqis?

Well I imagine a good amount of the not suicide attackers are Iraqi...

Quote:

---

Whats the upper estimate on the number of insurgents 10000? That hardly any kind of sup[port from the Iraqi peole. Its only a small frction of the population. The reason the whole mess is so hard to sort out is they keep importing more foriegners and theres still some bathists running around. Again tell me what do these people fight for and hope to acomplish. They target mostly Iraqis?

---

My hunch is that the insurgency is driven by discontent among the Sunni Iraqis, not foreigners. Whether AQ type religious fanatics, ex-Baathists or merely "patriots", they are against the occupation and the Iraqi regime that it has set up. The foreign fighters might provide a hard edge to the insurgency, but I suspect they are a minority. What kind of support does the insurgency have among Iraqis? Very little among Shiites and Kurds, but it seems able to operate among the Sunnis. The best indicator might be the turnout by region in the elections. Take a look at the map at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4262557.stm

It's pretty striking how high turnout (60%+) was in the Shiite south and the Kurdish north, but very (2-30%) in the Sunni triangle. Whether the Sunnis did not vote because they did not want to or because of intimidation is almost besides the point - either way, it shows anti-government forces seem to have pervasive control over them. I seem to recall the new regime has been having trouble co-opting individual Sunnis into the the government as ministers because the Sunnis are so alienated.

What do the Sunni insurgents want? The US out; ideally the Sunnis back in control. From the point of view of their leaders, they may calculate that the more trouble they cause, the stronger bargaining position they will be in to broker some kind of division of the spoils when the Coaltion finally withdraws.

That's my interpretation from what I see and read in the British media. It might be wrong, but I've not heard much to contradict it.

EDIT: It seems the US military estimate Iraqis make up 80-90% of the insurgents:
http://www.forward.com/articles/3335
But, as I said before, the apparent increase in the role of foreigners sounds like a good thing for the Coalition. My reading is that this increase is as much (more?) about Iraqis reducing their involvement in the insurgency as it is about more foreigners coming in.

Quote:

---

The best indicator might be the turnout by region in the elections. Take a look at the map at:

---

Well ther goes your theory. Maybe the fact that it they were told that any of them who went to vote would be killed and thats where most of the terroists live so it was far more dangerous there. Plus the fact that they knew they were now a minority party. Also ani Sunni who now tries to join the government is liable 4 assisination. They even kill their own if they dont tow the radical line. Do any of you believe the Iraqi people would rather have these people in charge than who they have now? Would you see them be the legal government of Iraq. Are you all so blind and hateful of US policy to see the truth in front of your faces? Were still the good guys in this no matter hat your opinion is. Are we perfect ? No, but at least were trying to give people freedom even if it was only a secondary reason we shouldnt abandon them The US cannot afford to back out now. This is total war aganst these guys. I dont care how many they recruit. We can fight them now or wait for them to grow stronger and be in even worse shape. Thats what happened under Carter and Clinton. Next time it wil be worse. Far far worse Im afraid.

I've done a little digging on opinion poll evidence from Iraq. From what I can make out, about half the Sunnis polled were sad to see Saddam go, wanted Coalition troops to leave immediately and supported insurgent attacks on Coalition troops. These results are from various polls by a variety of reputable organisations (Gallup, Zogby, internal Coalition polling etc) at a variety of times.

I don't think it's a matter of being "blind" and "hateful of US policy", Gawain, so far, I'm just a matter of trying to establish the facts on the ground.

What the facts imply for policy is a matter for debate. If you think 90% of the insurgents are foreigners, then I can perhaps understand your call for "total war". I'm more inclined to believe the US military estimate that 80-90% of the insurgents are Iraqis and that's one reason I support their apparent recent moves to negotiate with Sunni leaders, including the insurgent leaders.

Makes me think of a song I heard during the first Gulf War.....

Bomb, bomb, bomb Iraq..........

I think we can with large certainty say that all hawks, terrorists, mercenaries and predators are gathering in Iraq at the moment. I run out of opinions on Iraq. Even though I really feel for the poor civilians that can't leave the place.......

I believe Gawain is saying that the bulk of the fighters are foreigners, and that the Iraqis themselves are a negligible part of the insurgency. Not sure if the numbers back that up.

Problem #1 with G's theory: T. E. Lawrence concluded that insurgents needed only 2 percent active support from the population, and 98 percent passive support. Of course, he had the luxury of working from the other end of the equation, playing offense rather than defense. If his numbers were in the right ballpark (and he's as good an authority on running a violent rebellion in the mideast as anyone) then it's unsafe to conclude that the majority Sunnis are innocent bystanders; turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to activities counts as practical support for the insurgency.

Problem #2: Gawain's theory relies on the idea that the suicide bombers account for a majority of combat deaths in Iraq. I can't find any reputable source to back that up. Here's a breakdown from a relatively non-partisan military news site:

Quote:

---

While roadside bombs and suicide car bombers get most of the media attention in Iraq, they are not the main cause of combat fatalities. Gunfire is still the most deadly cause of death, accounting for 25 percent of them. Next come roadside bombs (IEDs), at 20 percent, and moving IEDs (non suicide car bombs) at five percent. RPGs (Rocket Propelled Grenades) account for four percent. Mortar fire, usually at bases, accounted for four percent of deaths. Helicopter crashes, caused by enemy fire, was three percent of deaths. Vehicle accident deaths, caused by enemy fire, were two percent, as were sniper fire and suicide bombers on foot. A long list of other battlefield dangers accounted for the remaining 31 percent.

---

So Gawain is certainly encouraged to find more evidence to back up his central thesis, i.e., we're mostly facing foreign fighters, and the Iraqis are not central to the insurgency. But the idea can't stand on its own with the evidence given so far.

What the article is proving if correct Gawain - presumably you accept it as you have posted it - is EXACTLY what that 'anti war crowd' stated BEFORE the invasion would happen.

Iraq in chaos, fighting on the streets, terrorists moving into the country where none before, great new opportunities not only to train terrorists but recruit new terrorists and a complete and utter mess.

Well done, very well done.

Quote:

---

an invading army yelling foul play because part of the resistance is not indigenous to the invaded country.....

---

This is the mentality we have to deal with in many circles in Europe. He didnt even read the article, he simply assumed the evil invading army was trying to cover its tracks. They can twist anything into anti-american rhetoric. :no:

Quote:

---

I don't think it's a matter of being "blind" and "hateful of US policy", Gawain, so far, I'm just a matter of trying to establish the facts on the ground.

---

That was not directed at you. I understand where your coming from. You are always a reasonable person. Sorry if I came off that way. It was to those to whom it applies.

Quote:

---

I believe Gawain is saying that the bulk of the fighters are foreigners, and that the Iraqis themselves are a negligible part of the insurgency.

---

Thas not what Im saying at all. I fully realise that the majority are from Iraq but they are trained and sponsored by outside influences and none of them represent the will of the Iraqi people. There the sore losers from Saddams regime hoping to get back in power.

Quote:

---

Gawain's theory relies on the idea that the suicide bombers account for a majority of combat deaths in Iraq. I can't find any reputable source to back that up. Here's a breakdown from a relatively non-partisan military news site:

---

I stand corrected but they still are the ones who grab all the headlines. These other deaths are treated more like traffic accidents it seems. Also thats combat deaths and dosent include the civilian deaths from these bombs does it?

Quote:

---

Iraq in chaos, fighting on the streets, terrorists moving into the country where none before, great new opportunities not only to train terrorists but recruit new terrorists and a complete and utter mess.

---

Ask the Iraqi people if we should leave Jag or if they wish we never came?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Thas not what Im saying at all. I fully realise that the majority are from Iraq but they are trained and sponsored by outside influences and none of them represent the will of the Iraqi people.

---

Well, that seems to be out of sync with the un-linked article you quoted at the top of the thread:

Quote:

---

American soldiers are not fighting an Iraqi insurgency. They're fighting a terrorist insurgency. If not for jihadi nutcases pouring across its borders, Iraq would be well on its way to a stable and peaceful democracy.

---

And while we're at it, this Mark Goldblatt guy seems to have a fairly partisan writing schtick. Works great if you're feeding red meat to the faithful, but it's not much help if you're trying to understand the situation in our war.

I guess I'm not clear on what point you're trying to make, G. You seem to believe that the root of what's going wrong lies outside Iraq, that even if the majority of insurgents are Iraqis, the money and motivation are coming from elsewhere. It would be nice if you could back that up, but it's late here on the East Coast.

Are you suggesting any course of action? Is there a tactic that you think we should be using? Did you start this thread with any particular discussion in mind?

Here, I'll get the ball rolling:

If the suspiciously fashion-savvy Mark Goldblatt is right, and everything bad in Iraq is coming from Syria, Joran and Iran, then it follows that it all comes down to border control. Or invading more countries, but nobody thinks that's realistic right now.

So do you agree with him? Would border control snuff out the insurgency? If so, do you have any links to any reporting/research that backs this theory up?

Please clarify.

Quote:

---

If the suspiciously fashion-savvy Mark Goldblatt is right, and everything bad in Iraq is coming from Syria, Joran and Iran, then it follows that it all comes down to border control. Or invading more countries, but nobody thinks that's realistic right now.

So do you agree with him? Would border control snuff out the insurgency?.

---

Yes I pretty much agree with him but I dont think that alone would rid us completely of the problem as for links heres another article on this.

Quote:

---

Car Bombs Becoming Signature Weapon of Iraq Insurgency
By Alisha Ryu
Baghdad
30 June 2005

Ryu report - Download 459k
Listen to Ryu report

A car burns in the street in Kirkuk, Iraq Tuesday, June 28, 2005 after a suicide car bomber slammed into a convoy carrying Kirkuk traffic police chief Brig. Gen. Salar Ahmed
Car burns in street in Kirkukq after suicide car bomber slammed into a convoy carrying Kirkuk traffic police chief Brig. Gen. Salar Ahmed
In the past three months, Iraq has witnessed some of the worst violence since the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein in April, 2003. Car bombings have killed nearly 600 people and wounded 1,700 more. Some U.S. and Iraqi officials believe Iraqi Sunni extremists may be joining foreign fighters in adopting suicide car bombings as their primary weapon in the insurgency.

According to U.S. military statistics, Iraq suffered through a staggering number of car bombings in the past three months.

A report shown to reporters indicates that at least 232 suicide car bombings, some remotely detonated, occurred between April and June, and that number does not include the nearly 50 car bombs that were discovered and defused.

U.S. officials say they believe the majority of suicide bombings are being carried out by foreign fighters infiltrating Iraq's porous borders. But some intelligence analysts are expressing alarm about finding Iraqi extremists behind some of the recent car bombings.

Last month, media reports quoted senior American military officials who said that Iraq's most wanted terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, met several times with the leaders of various Iraqi insurgent groups in neighboring Syria and western Iraq sometime before April.

The officials said that a flurry of suicide car bombings followed the meetings, suggesting that Iraqi insurgent factions, including al-Qaida-inspired militants, former Saddam loyalists, Sunni Arab radicals, and common criminals, may have agreed to shift strategy and coordinate their efforts to achieve more deadly results.

A spokesman for the multi-national forces in Iraq, Brigadier General Donald Alston, notes that between April and June, other types of attacks, especially against infrastructure such as power stations and pipelines, declined sharply.

"They have gone to more spectacular systems that can inflict more casualties per attack, likely because they cannot sustain high-volume attacks," he said. "So, that shift to the car bomb is certainly a distinctive shift. And he does not have to have success 100 percent of the time. If he fails four out of five times, but the one time is in a market place where a hundred people are killed, he has achieved a great deal of what he is trying to achieve."

General Alston and Iraqi leaders say recent military sweeps in Baghdad and western Anbar province have led to the arrests of numerous insurgents, including at least 20 of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's top lieutenants.

Tips from residents have led to the discovery of sophisticated car bomb factories in the Iraqi capital, where insurgents could rig a car with explosives in less than an hour.

But General Alston acknowledges that suicide car bombings are likely to remain a favorite weapon of insurgents determined to frighten the Iraqi people into submission and undermine progress toward democracy.

"The enemy gets to pick the time and the place in order to achieve the effect that they are trying to achieve," he said. "That is a challenging problem to solve. Our ability to adapt and challenge him with the Iraqi security forces has continued to improve and we are seeing some success. But I think the problem will continue in Iraq for a period of time."

The commanding general of U.S. forces in the Middle East, General John Abizaid, says that he cannot confirm or deny that meetings between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Iraqi insurgent leaders took place in Syria. But he has urged the Syrian government to do more to secure its borders to keep violence from migrating into Iraq.

---

Look at these people

Quote:

---

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, met several times with the leaders of various Iraqi insurgent groups in neighboring Syria and western Iraq sometime before April.

The officials said that a flurry of suicide car bombings followed the meetings, suggesting that Iraqi insurgent factions, including al-Qaida-inspired militants, former Saddam loyalists, Sunni Arab radicals, and common criminals, may have agreed to shift strategy and coordinate their efforts to achieve more deadly results.

---

Im sure if there are terroists willing to come from other countries there are also losers among the Iraqis themselves that would go the same. All it does is make them terrosits also instead of freedom fighters. Again do you think these people have any legitimate claim to ruling Iraq?

Kinda old isnt it and it doesnt include the casulties caused by these attacks. Tell me how many people have died as a result of being shot by real insurgents.
Whats up Gawain ? tired of sticking your head in the sand ?......read on.....Oh dear they is dead

this thread reminds me of this game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

This is the mentality we have to deal with in many circles in Europe. He didnt even read the article, he simply assumed the evil invading army was trying to cover its tracks. They can twist anything into anti-american rhetoric. :no:

---

To the Europeans , one thing - you were probably speaking German or Russian without the Americans , ha ? yes , it is hard to absorb's , but it is the truth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Ask the Iraqi people if we should leave Jag or if they wish we never came?

---

They've been asked related questions in various opinion polls. Here's a synopsis of some:

http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0501br17append.pdf

One of the most widely cited is the Gallup poll from May 2004:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-18-04.html

My reading of the results is that a majority of the Iraqi people want the Coalition to leave immediately or very soon, even though one of the polls which said that also reported a majority of them thinking this would worsen security.

On the issue of whether they wish the Coalition never came, most (ie the non-Sunnis) are glad to see Saddam gone:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article....ticle_id=15179

However, a majority in the Gallup poll a year ago thought the invasion was morally wrong:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ll-cover_x.htm


My overall impression is that the Iraqi people are split on both your questions, Gawain, and I suspect individuals are also conflicted on them. They want Coalition troops out, but fear for their security. They did not like the invasion, but are glad to be rid of Saddam.

And you think these polls reflect reality? Its nothing more than wishful thinking.Is it then your and the Iraqi peoples position that the US should leave so that the country can be plunged into civil war and they can decide for themselves because this is surely what will happen if we do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Kinda old isnt it and it doesnt include the casulties caused by these attacks. Tell me how many people have died as a result of being shot by real insurgents.
Whats up Gawain ? tired of sticking your head in the sand ?......read on.....Oh dear they is dead

---

That one you posted lists only the contractors.

A better one would show the statistics by cause like this one

IED.

http://icasualties.org/oif/IED.aspx

Hostile - non hostile deaths

http://icasualties.org/oif/HNH.aspx

And then there is this one that shows how the deaths occured for just the collation

http://icasualties.org/oif/Stats.aspx

And then there is this one

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

A sure sign that someone has lost their patience in the discussion is the use of language that is against the forum rules. Nice job Tribesman instead of actually proving your point in detail - you had to resort to poor language. However you might find the statistics paint a different picture then either you or Gawianhave shown.

For instance there were more casualties from IED's then anything else. For the last several monthes. I checked each month of 2005. That paints a picture of the unkown because you nor I can determine from the statistics who is setting the Explosive devices

http://icasualties.org/oif/Stats.aspx

Quote:

---

To the Europeans , one thing - you were probably speaking German or Russian without the Americans , ha ? yes , it is hard to absorb's , but it is the truth

---

What does that mean? ~:confused:

Nice job Tribesman instead of actually proving your point in detail - you had to resort to poor language.

Tell me about it ~:)

That one you posted lists only the contractors.
If you explore the site Redleg it has all sorts of lists .

edit , but after clicking your links I see that you know that already .

Look these guys are nothng more than another version of your other favorite terrorists Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The difference is there attacking the verey people they seek to lead. What kind of insurgency does that? How can you say the people support the very people who are indiscriminatly killing them. What is their goal? Well its to take over Iraq is it not? If the rest of the free world had any balls or sense they would rush to help us instead of critizing us as you do. You and those like you are a bunch of Neville Chamberlains and are the only hope these guys have. Im getting tired of repeating myself on this. They cannot defeat us militarily and they know it. Their only hope is to divide us. When the US and Europe work together theres nothing they cant accomplish. If Europe stood up and said we are not going to take this anymore we would win. Until we unite even the US doesnt stand a chance alone. Wake up and smell the coffee. A untited free world would take all the wind out of their sails.

A untited free world would take all the wind out of their sails.
But who wants a world without tits ? ~D

If the rest of the free world had any balls or sense they would rush to help us instead of critizing us
If the coilition had used more sense instead of thinking through its testicles and rushing in without a plan and without support then perhaps they could have dealt with the insurgency easier

They cannot defeat us militarily and they know it.
And you cannot defeat them militarily and your Generals know it . Catch 22.

Quote:

---

If the coilition had used more sense instead of thinking through its testicles and rushing in without a plan and without support then perhaps they could have dealt with the insurgency easier

---

So for prides sake their willing to let everyone else suffer. Nice.

Quote:

---

And you cannot defeat them militarily and your Generals know it . Catch 22.

---

But we can defeat them with a united front.

IED equals? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

But we can defeat them with a united front.

---

That would require quite some "I'm sorry, you were right, going in there as we did creates a mess, but in the name of humanity could you please help us fixing this mess? For the Iraqis?" form Bush's side. And that doesn't seen too likely to happen.

But we can defeat them with a united front.
Possibly , but how are you going to achieve a united front ?
Any measures neccasary would probably further erode domestic support within the US and be pretty much political suicide for the Administration in the mid-term elections .
You have two options , cut and run (not recommended) , send a hell of a lot more troops and a hell of a lot more money .
As neither is going to happen all you have to look forward to is more of the same , day in day out .
Not an attractive prospect is it . :no:

edit ... IED = Improvised Explosive Device

Quote:

---

Possibly , but how are you going to achieve a united front ?
Any measures neccasary would probably further erode domestic support within the US and be pretty much political suicide for the Administration in the mid-term elections .

---

Its not up to us but to you to join us in this fight. We are doing our part. If the rest of the free world would pit aside its petty differneces and act out of whats best for us all we could end this fast. If they know that just like WW2 we will never give in and will fight to the bitter end I doubt they could sustain this for long. Seeing us fight is the main thing that keeps them going.

The main point is though that these so called insurgents dont give a damn in hell about the Iraqi people.

Its not up to us but to you to join us in this fight.
Well since I am from a non-aligned country with neutrality clause in the constitution that will be a little difficult , unless of course you get your President to go and beg the UN for help . ~;)
Hence ....Any measures neccasary would probably further erode domestic support within the US and be pretty much political suicide for the Administration in the mid-term elections .
You see now why it is a little difficult to get international co-operation when you act on your own .

Anyhow , as you are the worlds only superpower , with the greatest military and the most sophisticated weaponry , surely you can manage a few little terrorists by yourself . :hide:

Keep making my point for me . Thanks

I shouldn’t, but I will.
This answer is only for caesar44, one thing: Without the French, the Union Jack should be the flag you salute every morning. Ah! ~:)
I apologise to all the other US citizens :bow:

Why some sentences I read here remind me Vietnam. If after this war, the US still believes that the cheer military power is enough, what a hell are you learning in West Point… Am I anti-American when I say that? You have to be careful nowadays…
The French won the military aspect of the Algerian War for Independence but had to re-embark two or three years after.
I also find very strange the distinction between native and foreign fighters… I don’t want to compare (and insult) the French resistance in making a parallel between the two, but a lot a French freedom fighters were Spanish, Italians, Russians, Armenians and even some Germans…
I think it is self hiding, the continuation of “we were welcome with roses and only hardliners and foreign djihadists are against us”.
The problem for a country is when it starts to believe its own propaganda…

But like most of the people I don’t understand the strategy used in killing Iraqis population… To kill the invaders, well, that is what some of my ancestors did, but to kill the people you are suppose to liberate…

Quote:

---

I shouldn’t, but I will.
This answer is only for caesar44, one thing: Without the French, the Union Jack should be the flag you salute every morning. Ah!
I apologise to all the other US citizens

---

First of hes Israeli not an american. Secondly the France of 1776 has nothing to do with the France of today anymore than the government of Italy has to do with the Roman Empire.

Two notice....

1. I don't think a referendum would give any desired or realistic results.

2. Does it really matter where the insurgents are coming from ? They still kill people....

The names of the 'martyrs' posted on the internet by Zarqawi do not necessarily represent ALL of the suicide bombers that have been at work in Iraq. I've heard a number of discussions on this subject and it seems as if the martyr's list leaves off Iraqis because their families could easily become targets for the US, or the Iraqi government's secret police. Thus, it's difficult to say exactly what percentage of suicide bombers are foreign or Iraqi.

"Their only hope is to divide us. When the US and Europe work together theres nothing they cant accomplish. If Europe stood up and said we are not going to take this anymore we would win. Until we unite even the US doesnt stand a chance alone. Wake up and smell the coffee. A untited free world would take all the wind out of their sails."

Hmmm. Perhaps if we created an organization called the 'United Nations' we could use it to reach consensus on international security issues! ~D

Let's face facts though, there aren't going to be any European reinforcements riding into Baghdad to save the beleaguered garrison of fort "Green Zone". It just isn't going to happen.

The Bushies made it clear from day one that they were all about unilateralism, and that they could do without the support of "Old Europe" in Iraq. They also: used fewer men than the experts suggested, failed to have any coherent plan for the occupation, failed to guard Iraq's weapons depots, prematurely disbanded the Iraqi army, etc., etc. They were first class tards, and the Iraqi people and the US military have had to suffer the consequences of their bad planning for the last couple of years.

Quote:

---

Hmmm. Perhaps if we created an organization called the 'United Nations' we could use it to reach consensus on international security issues!

---

I think thats been tried. It didnt work ~D

Quote:

---

The Bushies made it clear from day one that they were all about unilateralism, and that they could do without the support of "Old Europe" in Iraq.

---

Oh please we bent over backwards trying to get them to go along. Of course Saddam paying off certain people had nothing to do with it. This is what Im talking about. Im afraid many european leaders and citizens would rather see the US ;lose or be made to look bad than help solve an obnious problem that if not fixed will have terrible consequences. Do the right thing and stop this nonsense.You really believe the US is more of a threat than Islamic terrorism?

Quote:

---

They also: used fewer men than the experts suggested

---

Some said it was enough some said it wasnt. That will happen everytime.

Quote:

---

ailed to have any coherent plan for the occupation, failed to guard Iraq's weapons depots, prematurely disbanded the Iraqi army, etc., etc. They were first class tards, and the Iraqi people and the US military have had to suffer the consequences of their bad planning for the last couple of years.

---

Again you only focus on the bad things. In all wars mistakes are made and the best thing you can do is try to fix them. Hindsight is always easier.

Surprisingly enough, the 99th Infantry Regiment in Lyon (near) still had the flag (in the museum) and traditions of the Royal Deux Ponts which fought in American under the command of Rochambeau… It isn’t so long time ago (200 something years…).
I am not sure if the Italian Armies still have the Roman Eagles (more than 2000 years).
I can also state than the US of today has nothing to do with the US of Roosevelt… What is your time limit?
In the UK, last week, we celebrated the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar… sure UK today has nothing to do with Victorian’s UK, but…

And, by the way, it was more a joke than something else… I didn’t see the point of this remark in the debate… And I still don’t.

The UN did work: 1st Gulf War, remember… Even the Syrians participated, because the case was clear, an invasion of another country, that is clear breach of the UN convention, Korea, was also a UN intervention…

That is funny to go back on Saddam paid some of them. Accusations aren’t proved, can’t be proved, and no prosecutor will never go on court with this material. By chance they were French, German and a British anti-war MP. I was waiting for a Russian, but nothing yet. It will come…
The only very big and important person I remember shacking hands with Saddam is actually the US Vice President…

Now, if you can, explain me why the French, the Germans should sent troops to help the US? They are coward, surrendering cheese eater monkeys (the French) remember. So why is it so important to have soldiers who will root each time they will have to engage the enemy? Or, perhaps, it is because the French bashing went too far… That insults resolved nothing? And all the Young Europe sent troops in Iraq… So, why the US are in a so great need of the French involvement?

It is very easy to say now that all the Intelligence Services said that Saddam got WMD and supported terrorism. Perhaps, but actually the French President and the German Chancellor didn’t believed their own services, were not convinced by the “proofs” and evidences…

I agree that now things have to be resolve in the best way. However, the US vice-President forbade the French Air Force to participate in a NATO manoeuvre. Still punishing France and wanting help from her that is a great tactic…!
So, no, the Bush"s Administration still has to made her Mea Culpa, to acknowledge her mistakes, and to tell the truth… all but the truth…
That’s means to put all on the table: chain of command, responsibilities, cntracts, etc. And I am not sure the actual US administration is ready for that…
To sweep all the dust under the carpet in saying “well, mistakes happen, let’s move on” isn’t enough to convince other countries which warned you what will happen to sent their own soldiers to die or to pay your companies for the reconstruction. To qualify every disagreement as Anti-Americanism doesn’t help in the process of Building Confidence at all…
Because here lays the main problem: The Old Europe was insulted, humiliated and disdained because they didn’t follow blindly the lies of Bush (they still think that the Bush Administration lied to the UN), and the US was betrayed by her supposed best ally (Germany) and French (difficult one but still reliable). So her, we speak about feelings and emotions, not about politic and management…
Wounds will need time to cure, in both side of the Atlantic (and the Channel)…

Keep making my point for me . Thanks
You are welcome , shall we recap on making your points in this thread .
Most insurgents ARE local . Most attacks are NOT suicide bombings . Most of the casualies have NOT been caused by suicide bombings . Most of the American casualties have also NOT been caused by suicide bombings . It is very hard to get a united front when you have chosen to act ALONE . People will not trust you when you LIE to them . International consensus and sympathy over 9/11 tend to fall away when you invade a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

So Gawain , what was this point that you were trying to make ~;)
Is it , don't rely on a fashion teacher for your news articles . ~D ~D ~D

Or is it this one...
The main point is though that these so called insurgents dont give a damn in hell about the Iraqi people.
Maybe you could add a word or two to that statement to clarify it a little more .
But consider this . When the administation is telling us that it wants to fight terrorists in Iraq so it doesn't have to fight them elsewhere and the Pesident invites terrorists to "Bring it on" in Iraq . Doesn't that suggest that "they don't give a damn in hell about the Iraqi people" either ?

Let me recap for both of you Gawian and Tribesman most of the deaths have come from IED's.

Which group is more responsible for the increase of IED's, foreign terrorists coming into Iraq - or the local citizens fighting an insurgent war?

It doesn't really matter - what matters is that the United States can not leave the conflict until such a time that the average Iraqi citizen has their country's infrastructure and their own security force that can adequately defend their nation against such threats.

Tribesman most of the deaths have come from IED's
Have I stated otherwise ? Or are you wishing to place suicide bombing in with IEDs , they do fit into that category don't they .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Tribesman most of the deaths have come from IED's
Have I stated otherwise ? Or are you wishing to place suicide bombing in with IEDs , they do fit into that category don't they .

---

Nope - just stating you don't have any better knowledge about who is setting the IED's then anyone else on this forum.

And how do you know that its not foreign terrorists setting the majority of the IED's. Because frankly that statistic is not known now is it?

Could it be that foreign terrorists are actually planting the majority of the IED's?

Could it be that foreign terrorists are actually planting the majority of the IED's?
Possibly , but then if there were that many foriegn terrorists I would expect that to be reflected proportionally with the numbers of suspected insurgents arrested .
The current total of 391 in detention does not reflect that .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Could it be that foreign terrorists are actually planting the majority of the IED's?
Possibly , but then if there were that many foriegn terrorists I would expect that to be reflected proportionally with the numbers of suspected insurgents arrested .
The current total of 391 in detention does not reflect that .

---

Now we are getting into details - good - now show where you got the statistic from.

Since the numbers from the Army websites are not cumlative (SP) its hard to confirm or deny. What I have found is that over 7500 individuals have been arrested and are being held in Iraq for insurgent type crimes and investigations into their activities.

the majority of the terrorists in 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia... the majority of the foreign terrorists in Iraq are Audi Arabians. Kinda makes you think that maybe the US attacked the wrong Country... I mena, Saudi Arabia could use some democracy as well. ~;)

What I have found is that over 7500 individuals have been arrested and are being held in Iraq for insurgent type crimes and investigations into their activities.
No the current number is just over 11,000 , but that doesn't include detainees held at Brigade or Divisional level and those who have not yet been processed .
The total for forieners detained for one reason or another since the start of the occupation is just over 600 . Which means roughly 1/3 have been released .

now show where you got the statistic from
It was a White House/Defense Dept. press release from last week , so I took a little liberty with the use of the word "current" , things can change in a week , but not that much .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

I shouldn’t, but I will.
This answer is only for caesar44, one thing: Without the French, the Union Jack should be the flag you salute every morning. Ah! ~:)
I apologise to all the other US citizens :bow:

---

"the French" .................Whattttttttttttt? ~:eek: ~:eek: ~:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What I have found is that over 7500 individuals have been arrested and are being held in Iraq for insurgent type crimes and investigations into their activities.
No the current number is just over 11,000 , but that doesn't include detainees held at Brigade or Divisional level and those who have not yet been processed .
The total for forieners detained for one reason or another since the start of the occupation is just over 600 . Which means roughly 1/3 have been released .

---

Seems your taking again a little liberity with the data - the news report I found just stated that the number is over 7500 without specifics or details. It did mention the some sites like Brigade's and Divisional sites were not know but made estimates about what they thought the number might be.

Again using estimates to support your data and assumptions in your arguement against Gawian's position is not very honest of you. Your data does not prove or disprove that foreign fighter (terrorists) are not responsible for the majority of causalities caused by the insurgency since Jan of this year.

Quote:

---

now show where you got the statistic from
It was a White House/Defense Dept. press release from last week , so I took a little liberty with the use of the word "current" , things can change in a week , but not that much .

---

Goes to my point above.

Now I am just arguing to argue because of some of your earlier statements in this thread.

Like this one.

Whats up Gawain ? tired of sticking your head in the sand ?......read on.....Oh dear they is dead

Which by the way I am surprised the moderators have not forced either one of us - nor themselve - to edit our posts to remove your violation of the forum rules.

To caesar44

I think that should answer your question about French what

French Army during the American Revolution:
Infantry: Regiment de Saintonge, de Royal Deux Ponts, de Bourbannais, de Soinsonais, d’Auxonne, de Metz, de Gatinais (Royal Auvergne),
Artillery: Regiment d’Agenais, de Tourraine.
Cavalery: Foreign Volunteer de Lauzon (hussar).

In Yorktown, the French Forces were numbered 8 800 men under the command of Rochambeau. The Americans deployed 9 500 under Washington.

French fleet won the battle of Virginia Capes, denying British reinforcement to Cornwallis, obliging him to capitulate.

For more precision, just go on the site xenophongroup.com/mcjoyrt/ep_web.htm

And what did the French King get for helping us? You might say he lost his head? ~;)

And what did the French King get for helping us? You might say he lost his head?
Lets hope that the new Egyptian ambassador to Iraq doesn't suffer the same fate . :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I told you so. ~;)

---

Gawain, your scenario is:
The US troops freed Iraq from Saddam and his criminals. However, instead of Saddam's criminals many people from abroad came and act as terrorists now.

scenario 2: Some Iraqis do not accept the presence of the US troops, because they are think they have to defend their nation, religion or political interests. So they fight the US with terror.

scenario 3: A mixture of both.

I do not know what scenario is worse, all three are very bad.

If scenario 1 then the questions are:
- where do all the people come from, Why do they fight in Iraq? What would they have done, if there were no foreign troops in Iraq?
They are there to take power in Iraq is too simple to me.
- how could they come to the Iraq? Why could the US troops not prevent them from penetration?
- What can be done to destruct them?

After all I cannot see why it satisfies you to prove that scenario 1 is right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Look these guys are nothng more than another version of your other favorite terrorists Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The difference is there attacking the verey people they seek to lead. What kind of insurgency does that? How can you say the people support the very people who are indiscriminatly killing them. What is their goal? Well its to take over Iraq is it not? If the rest of the free world had any balls or sense they would rush to help us instead of critizing us as you do.

---

Gawain, we will be happy to help you. Just tell us what to do. By the way we are currently doing that in Afganistan where we are trying to finish the job the US troop started. :surrender:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

You and those like you are a bunch of Neville Chamberlains and are the only hope these guys have.

---

How this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Im getting tired of repeating myself on this. They cannot defeat us militarily and they know it. Their only hope is to divide us. When the US and Europe work together theres nothing they cant accomplish. If Europe stood up and said we are not going to take this anymore we would win. Until we unite even the US doesnt stand a chance alone. Wake up and smell the coffee. A untited free world would take all the wind out of their sails.

---

Again, what do you want us to do? Europe will do anything to end terror. And we will be happy to end the chaos in Iraq!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

And what did the French King get for helping us? You might say he lost his head? ~;)

---

That is what you get when you help insurgents and terrorists...... ~D

Quote:

---

Gawain, we will be happy to help you. Just tell us what to do. By the way we are currently doing that in Afganistan where we are trying to finish the job the US troop started.

---

You need me to tell you? ~:confused: Even without doing anything stopping all the critisism would help. Again that just encourages the enemy.

Quote:

---

How this?

---

If you dont think that the radiclas see their only hope is having us split on this issue I dont know what to say. In other words your helping them.

Quote:

---

Again, what do you want us to do? Europe will do anything to end terror. And we will be happy to end the chaos in Iraq!

---

Thats cheap talk and doesnt reflect reality. The democrats(leadership) here say the samething and there equally full of it.

Let us talk seriously! You do not expect that the terrorist give up just because we say that the Iraq invasion was a good idea, do you? You are not saying that not agreeing Bush makes us supporters of terrorists - or even terrorists?
What Germany is doing is that they have troops in Afganisthan, East Africa and in the Indian Ocean. Germany is also training Iraqi policemen and gives them equipment.
What else do you want "us" to do?

Quote:

---

Let us talk seriously! You do not expect that the terrorist give up just because we say that the Iraq invasion was a good idea, do you?

---

I never said any such thing . I said if your not going to help at least shut up. Stop standing on the sidlines critsising. Do you really have a problem seperating the good guys from the bad here. Are you so paranoid of US power? What is the best scenario for Iraq? Put your petty politics aside and send help. Show them that the free world is united like never before.

Quote:

---

You are not saying that not agreeing Bush makes us supporters of terrorists - or even terrorists?

---

Nope never said that either. Its the fact that you cant see the trees through the forrest. Is a free and democratic Iraq good for Europe or are you better off the way it was or with whats going on now? Im sure if all your countries said screw you fanatics weve had enough and were gonna help clean up this mess it would be over soon. What do you suggest we pull out? If you dont have a solution your critissim is not well founded just like the democrats here.

Stop standing on the sidlines critsising.
Why ?
Your president decided that he wanted to go it alone and turn Iraq into a terrorist playground , now you complain that its full of terrorists and want everyone to come running and sort out the mess you created .
Ain't life a bugger .

Quote:

---

Why ?
Your president decided that he wanted to go it alone and turn Iraq into a terrorist playground , now you complain that its full of terrorists and want everyone to come running and sort out the mess you created .
Ain't life a bugger .

---

Again he bent over backwards trying to get you to go along. Again your dodging the question. I guess if some old lady was gettingg mugged by two guys and you saw a man step in to stop it you wouldnt help. Its not my bussiness you are the one who got involved you could tell him right? Now you get yourself out of it. Again throw away your petty politics and do whats right.

LoL we dont need Europe anyhow - besides Britain. I cannot imagine any scenario where the help of Europe would change the situation in Iraq for better or worse, except of course if they stopped their leftist citizenry from funding the terrorists.. but thats out of the question.

Again he bent over backwards trying to get you to go along
Bent over backwards ?????
Rubbish Gawain he lied , lied again , told some more lies , and then slagged everyone off for not believing his lies .
The only bending over was by those who were willing to lie as well or those who were willing to be bribed into accepting the lies .

we dont need Europe anyhow
Panzer , tell that to your President . Maybe you could tell Gawain aswell ~D ~D ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I never said any such thing . I said if your not going to help at least shut up. Stop standing on the sidlines critsising. Do you really have a problem seperating the good guys from the bad here. Are you so paranoid of US power? What is the best scenario for Iraq? Put your petty politics aside and send help. Show them that the free world is united like never before .

---

Gawain we wont stop saying our opinion. What happens in Iraq also effects us.
Unfortunatelly the free world is not united like it was before. We (the US and Europe as well as Gawain and Franconicus) should arrange our quarrel and fight side to side again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Nope never said that either. Its the fact that you cant see the trees through the forrest. Is a free and democratic Iraq good for Europe or are you better off the way it was or with whats going on now? Im sure if all your countries said screw you fanatics weve had enough and were gonna help clean up this mess it would be over soon. What do you suggest we pull out? If you dont have a solution your critissim is not well founded just like the democrats here.

---

Bush broke several (European) taboos. That makes it hard for us to support him now that things are going bad. But of cause we know that the US is the good and terror the ugly one. No one in Europe, neither governments nor peoples, are not willing to support the fight against terror. Regardless whether it is against AQ or the terror in Iraq. And of course we do not want the US to withdraw.
You are right! I do not have a solution for the problems in Iraq. Does that mean my criticism is not well founded? Maybe!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

And what did the French King get for helping us? You might say he lost his head? ~;)

---

In fact, yes he did. One of the side effect of the help of the Louis the XVI to the American Revolution was a huge debt. I make it short but because of that he was obliged to convoque the Etats Generaux which led the teh French Revolution. Thank you America!!!! ~:)