-
Successful Counter-Insurgency
I know it's unlikely that we can have a reasonable discussion with the mid-term elections so close, but I've been thinking about what victory in Iraq might look like. I feel as though the two parties in my country are (almost) equally facile when dealing with the subject. What will winning look like? What will it cost? How long might it take? What do we need to do?
None of this is addressed in any depth. From the administration we hear "Stay the course," which is more of a slogan than a plan. From the minority party we hear a confused mish-mash of "Send more troops" and "Set a date for withdrawal," and every variaton in between.
Anyway, let's leave the two parties to wallow in their filth, and instead let's talk about winning. All I really know how to do is look back at historical examples, and try to see if there are lessons to be learned.
What are the successful counter-insurgency examples from the last couple of centuries? I'm going to list the ones I'm aware of, in full knowledge that whatever I lay out will be incomplete. Please feel free to expand, denounce, clarify and comment. Please save your party slogans and talking points for another thread. Let's just focus on a simple question -- what will a win look like in Iraq? And what historical parallels can we draw on to get that picture?
Successful Counter-Insurgencies
Malaysia in the 1950s. The Briggs Plan won the day, and it only took twelve years. (Apparently Mr. Briggs gave us the "hearts and minds" phrase, as well as one of the premier examples of successful counter-insurgency.)
El Salvador in the 1980s. Another twelve-year conflict. (Does this mean we've got eight more years to settle things down in Iraq?) Hmm, maybe this one's too recent and too politicized. I'm having a hard time finding any sort of non-partisan analysis of the counter-insurgency. Every article I'm finding is either defending or attacking the U.S.A.'s involvement, or going on about the death squads. If someone can find a good military analysis of the conflict, I would be much obliged.
The Philipines at the turn of the 20th century. Hey, a short one, just three years, from 1899 to 1902.
I'm stuck; there must be more examples, but it's late enough on a work night that I can't think of them.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
The big thing is we hafto win the hearts and minds of the people. That is what I like to call the "key" if you will. Show them the terrosits are worse than us. However we also hafto rule pretty strictly but if anyone can do it the good ol USA can!
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Northern Ireland: I've posted enough on the subject that I don't want to repeat myself.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
The thing about Malaysia is that the most of the rebels were ethnic Chinese, a small section of the populace that could be easily isolated from the majority Malay population (who by the way, were pro-British).
The Philipines? A joke. Bolo wielding tribesmen vs. rifle armed U.S soldiers.
You want a successful counterinsurgency? Try the early stages of the Afghan war, before we diverted resources away from the place. Try the Australians or Navy SEALs in Vietnam, try the Colombian government's operations again FARC, try the Boer War.
The thing is, counterinsurgency requires that you be ruthless, that you manipulate, torture and kill. Unfortunately, we don't have the balls for that... but we do have the balls to arrest our own citizens and hold them without charge on the basis of their beliefs or ethnic origins.
Here's a nice read about what we did right, and what we're now doing wrong. Iraq's CI (and America's CI) is being utterly mishandled IMO.
(http://www.exile.ru/2006-September-22/war_nerd.html)
This is what happens when we have people like Dick Cheney (soulless money grubber), or Donald Rumsfeld (borderline retard) in charge of our nation.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
For a successful counter-insurgency example you could time travel into the future and look back at the next 5 years of the Iraq war, or for an example of how not to do it you could look back at the last 5 years. Doesn’t it feel good to be a history lesson for the children of our children?
Gather round children while greatgrandpa Yesdachi tells you all about how we use to walk uphill both ways to the org to discuss the Iraq war. ~D
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
For a successful counter-insurgency example you could time travel into the future and look back at the next 5 years of the Iraq war, or for an example of how not to do it you could look back at the last 5 years. Doesn’t it feel good to be a history lesson for the children of our children?
Gather round children while greatgrandpa Yesdachi tells you all about how we use to walk uphill both ways to the org to discuss the Iraq war. ~D
So what do you think will change in the next 5 years to make this a success? Lessons learnt? The rhetoric over Iran shows that the most fundamental lesson still hasn't been learnt, and won't be learnt in the foreseeable future.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
I somewhat agree with Pannonian in his assessment. Yesdachi, it would be very helpful if you could give us some examples of what is changing in out counter-insurgency strategy that leads you to think that the next phase of the Iraq ware will be substantially different.
I find it hard to see how we can have a major revamp of the war while Donald Rumsfeld is SecDef.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I somewhat agree with Pannonian in his assessment. Yesdachi, it would be very helpful if you could give us some examples of what is changing in out counter-insurgency strategy that leads you to think that the next phase of the Iraq ware will be substantially different.
I find it hard to see how we can have a major revamp of the war while Donald Rumsfeld is SecDef.
Well children (Pannonian and Lemur) gather round, greatgrandpa Yesdachi has just gotten back from his trip to the future and although I cannot tell you all the great things that will happen I can tell you this...
(I’ll wrap it in spoiler tags incase there is someone that doesn’t want to know of their future)
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
The Boer War? Of course that was almost as messy as Iraq is turning out...
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
And I wouldn’t condemn our actions with/to Iran before they are even made. I can’t imagine life with such a negative attitude.
I read this sentence and wondered, "Who has mentioned Iran in this thread?" Then I went back and saw that Pannonian was referring to Iran, not Iraq. My eye glassed right past that one. We really need to be in conflict with countries that have more distinctive names.
When I said I agreed with Pannonian, I was in my alternate world in which he was talking about Iraq. Ugh. Too little sleep for the daddy lemur ...
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I read this sentence and wondered, "Who has mentioned Iran in this thread?" Then I went back and saw that Pannonian was referring to Iran, not Iraq. My eye glassed right past that one. We really need to be in conflict with countries that have more distinctive names.
When I said I agreed with Pannonian, I was in my alternate world in which he was talking about Iraq. Ugh. Too little sleep for the daddy lemur ...
See all the threats being made over Iran, and the uncompromising stance adopted by many Americans. Yesdachi remarked in another thread that there was no reason for the US to meet Iran anywhere in the middle, which is illustrative of the America the Great that is so absolutely certain of its moral high ground. If you're going to continue taking that attitude, you will lose all your remaining friends who have been willing to stick by you despite all that has happened, and all the cooperation you will get in the future will come purely from threats and bribes.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
See all the threats being made over Iran, and the uncompromising stance adopted by many Americans. Yesdachi remarked in another thread that there was no reason for the US to meet Iran anywhere in the middle, which is illustrative of the America the Great that is so absolutely certain of its moral high ground. If you're going to continue taking that attitude, you will lose all your remaining friends who have been willing to stick by you despite all that has happened, and all the cooperation you will get in the future will come purely from threats and bribes.
There is no middle compromise with Iran IMO. No nuclear weapons program, continue to try and develop one and we are at odds. No US ally should have and issue with that.
Our attitude with Iran or even an attack or war with Iran won’t cost us any friends (that you make it seam like we are already out of). The US is the economic driving force of the world, our “friends” can be as vocal about their opposition to our actions as they want but will continue to scratch our back because we are scratching theirs. And the thought that cooperation would only come from threats and bribes is just silly, cooperation will continue coming from payoffs and coercion just like it always has. ~D
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
I am slightly confused here Lemur , in each of those cases you cite were not the insurgents aims eventually realised ?
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
I don't believe that's the case. In the Phillipines, the U.S.A. crushed the insurgency in a record-setting 3 years. Eventually there was an independent Phillipines, of course, but it was on the U.S.'s terms, not the insurgents'.
The guerillas in El Salvador were looking to create a Worker's Paradise (but isn't everyone?). Didn't happen.
Malaysia is the one I know the least about, but it's often cited as an example of successful counter-insurgency, so it doesn't sound as though the insurgents got what they were looking for.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Nah sorry Lemur , if the US crushed the insurgency in a record 3 years , then who the hell were they fighting for decades afterwards ?
Unless of course you mean that they crushed large scale set piece battles and the structure to put a formal army in the field .
As for record breaking ....hmmmmm would you like to think about that a little~;) go on you are intelligent , think about it , the monastery might help :book: :2thumbsup:
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
I read a book about Malayasia a while ago, and from what I remember the insurgents got absolutely nothing that they wanted. They wished to create a Chinese run communist Malaysia, and instead the UK did what it wanted to do and created an independent Malaysia run by the Malays (?) after the insurgency had been squashed like a bug. It took a long time for the British to do, but with overwhelming public support, and manpower and technology advantages they eventually realized their goals.
I'd love it if someone with more knowledge on the insurgency could remind me about some of the other details here, but it's not critical either, and could hijack the thread from it's intended topic.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
At the moment the West (mainly America) is bieng very proactive. Going here, isolating countries, genrally throwing their weight around. These other countries have a wonderful get out that everything that is wrong with their country and the world is due to the USA.
Afghanistan would work, if not for the West. Iraq woulcd be a peaceful place, if not for the West.
The West should basically do nothing except feed free information into these black holes of religious blinkeredness (such as iran, Pakistan and the Midwest). No, we don't go in guns blazing to help them when they get locked up for wearing hotpants. We show them that here it doesn't happen.
Get the people themselves to want change. Isolate the extremists. Stop letting them say everything is the fault of the west, and making Muslims feel that they are letting their religion down by siding with us.
Most of the situations would collapse into infighting without the Satanic Americans around. So we should be trying to help this to happen.
Basically, one aspect of how the Cold War was won. Not with guns, but by making the people themselves sick of their leaders. Currently we are doing the opposite.
~:smoking:
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
The big thing is we hafto win the hearts and minds of the people. That is what I like to call the "key" if you will. Show them the terrosits are worse than us. However we also hafto rule pretty strictly but if anyone can do it the good ol USA can!
It seems in Iraq that we have most of the hearts and minds, but there's this minority of people who want to blow those hearts and minds into a million little pieces. The only way a strategy for calming the terrorism down in Iraq is by staying there. No strategy will work if we leave, it will turn into another Africa, maybe worse. We went there, USA UK Australia, took out their government. We didn't create the problem, but a problem arose and we now owe it to them to at least solve it.
This weekend though the government in Iraq started a security crack down, one the US or the allies werent aware of. So the government is becoming self efficient at least, and the military is now strong enough to actually have a 3 day curfew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Basically, one aspect of how the Cold War was won. Not with guns, but by making the people themselves sick of their leaders. Currently we are doing the opposite.
I think your forgeting the proxy wars, those were fought between the USSR and the USA, the other side was just a clandestine assistant. The USSR failed becuase it went broke, due to Afghanistan and embargo's, the people getting sick of their leaders would have been quieted had they still had the money.
_________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.
Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
*drops bait*
About no compromise with Iran...
Why can the US have nuclear weapons, while Iran can't?
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orb
*drops bait*
About no compromise with Iran...
Why can the US have nuclear weapons, while Iran can't?
exactly, what grounds does the US have to critisize when it's no better itself? :2thumbsup:
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
lol yes lets give an ustable therocarcy necular warheads what a good idea! If this happens you can say goodbye to Isreal and Iran
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Iran wouldnt be so stupid as to use nukes, they know the consequences as much as us, nukes would be a detterant, a showpiece etc. Israel is allowd them so why isnt Iran?
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
You might think that but all you need is a suicide bomber for president. Then Iran's nukes would become nothing more than a fancy explosive vest.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
Iran wouldnt be so stupid as to use nukes, they know the consequences as much as us, nukes would be a detterant, a showpiece etc. Israel is allowd them so why isnt Iran?
However, Iran could dsitribute nuclear materials to terrorists so that they can make dirty bombs. Not a nice prospect.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Why did the Soviets go bankrupt? Making far more nukes than they needed.
But the peoples in most of Eastern Europe had wanted freedom for years, and this was mainly because they were aware that life was better in the West. In times of troubles the people did not pull together, they fragmented and hence the Soviet Union collapsed. That the West used propaganda to show what they were missing helped sow the seeds of discord. And when leaders are having to kill their own people to keep order the country will go into upheval as soon as the leaders power wanes.
America is causing many countries in the Middle East to be more united (Hesbollah and Hamas are not natural allies, but both hate Israel / America for example).
If terrorists want to make a dirty bomb Russia has so much fuel that the only logistical problem is getting some and not dying yourself from the massive radiation.
~:smoking:
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orb
*drops bait*
About no compromise with Iran...
Why can the US have nuclear weapons, while Iran can't?
Maybe a topic for a new thread but until then I’ll play.
Due to Ahmadinejad’s comments about destroying others (not a desire to use nukes defensively) and not caring about how many of his own citizens were to die as a result (mutual assured destruction doesn’t apply) are just 2 of many reasons Iran shouldn’t be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Their uncooperative attitude with the UN nuclear inspectors is another. We do background checks on people who want to buy guns in the US, shouldn’t we, as the UN, check on countries who want to have nuclear weapons?
There are 3 ways to go nuclear today, 1) through the proper channels (India). 2) Sneaky (Pakistan). 3) Being bombed. They tried to be sneaky and got caught; now they have 2 other ways to try it. If they truly wanted a nuclear program for energy they could have it, everyone wants to help them with that $$$, and they may, but they also want a weapons program and that is not going to fly with the powers that be.
Why allow a potential enemy to have a weapon when you have the ability to stop them from acquiring that weapon? You wouldn’t give a gun to a mentally unstable drunk, who just said he wants to kill you, would you?
It’s not a matter of being better; it’s a matter of protecting your best interests. It’s not in anyone’s best interests to let Iran have nuclear weapons.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Maybe a topic for a new thread but until then I’ll play.
Due to Ahmadinejad’s comments about destroying others (not a desire to use nukes defensively) and not caring about how many of his own citizens were to die as a result (mutual assured destruction doesn’t apply) are just 2 of many reasons Iran shouldn’t be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Their uncooperative attitude with the UN nuclear inspectors is another. We do background checks on people who want to buy guns in the US, shouldn’t we, as the UN, check on countries who want to have nuclear weapons?
There are 3 ways to go nuclear today, 1) through the proper channels (India). 2) Sneaky (Pakistan). 3) Being bombed. They tried to be sneaky and got caught; now they have 2 other ways to try it. If they truly wanted a nuclear program for energy they could have it, everyone wants to help them with that $$$, and they may, but they also want a weapons program and that is not going to fly with the powers that be.
Why allow a potential enemy to have a weapon when you have the ability to stop them from acquiring that weapon? You wouldn’t give a gun to a mentally unstable drunk, who just said he wants to kill you, would you?
It’s not a matter of being better; it’s a matter of protecting your best interests. It’s not in anyone’s best interests to let Iran have nuclear weapons.
Once again, if Iran is such a big threat if it gets hold of nuclear weapons, why not accede to the one demand it says is necessary for it to agree to go legit? A guarantee that the US will not attack Iran without provocation. We've offered them all manner of incentives, but they've not come close to what they've wanted, because the one condition they will not drop is security against US attack. You've made arguments about how Iran is in the wrong by pursuing nuclear weapons, but you've also rejected any suggestion of giving them this one concession which all nations should enjoy anyway - protection from foreign aggression. From the examples of North Korea and Iraq, obtaining a nuclear deterrent is the only way to prevent the US from attacking you once it's got its eyes set, as even some Israeli analysts have recognised (Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, but they're fools if they don't try to get some).
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Once again, if Iran is such a big threat if it gets hold of nuclear weapons, why not accede to the one demand it says is necessary for it to agree to go legit? A guarantee that the US will not attack Iran without provocation. We've offered them all manner of incentives, but they've not come close to what they've wanted, because the one condition they will not drop is security against US attack. You've made arguments about how Iran is in the wrong by pursuing nuclear weapons, but you've also rejected any suggestion of giving them this one concession which all nations should enjoy anyway - protection from foreign aggression. From the examples of North Korea and Iraq, obtaining a nuclear deterrent is the only way to prevent the US from attacking you once it's got its eyes set, as even some Israeli analysts have recognised (Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, but they're fools if they don't try to get some).
No, they are fools if they don’t stop being antagonistic to the US and our allies. They have every right to protect themselves but have been the aggressors with their words (Ahmadinejad Says the Solution to Middle East Crisis Is to Destroy Israel) and actions (active support of terrorists). I would be in favor of a deal where the US agreed to not ever attack them as long as they agreed to never support a terrorist or speak of destroying someone. If they really wanted security against a US attack they could have it by limiting their actions to peaceful ones. How about if we flip the situation, If Iran would just agree to be peaceful they would never have to worry about an attack from the US? Ahmadinejad wants to be aggressive and hostel, or maybe he wants to appear that way for political of some other motive but whatever the reason, if he keeps acting like a mentally unstable drunk who wants to kill us then I don’t think we should let him have our gun.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
No, they are fools if they don’t stop being antagonistic to the US and our allies. They have every right to protect themselves but have been the aggressors with their words (Ahmadinejad Says the Solution to Middle East Crisis Is to Destroy Israel) and actions (active support of terrorists). I would be in favor of a deal where the US agreed to not ever attack them as long as they agreed to never support a terrorist or speak of destroying someone. If they really wanted security against a US attack they could have it by limiting their actions to peaceful ones. How about if we flip the situation, If Iran would just agree to be peaceful they would never have to worry about an attack from the US?
That's fine by me. How about engaging in talks so you can sort things out between you two? Make your concerns known by, you know, talking to each other, instead of relying on telepathy.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
No, they are fools if they don’t stop being antagonistic to the US and our allies. They have every right to protect themselves but have been the aggressors with their words (Ahmadinejad Says the Solution to Middle East Crisis Is to Destroy Israel) and actions (active support of terrorists). I would be in favor of a deal where the US agreed to not ever attack them as long as they agreed to never support a terrorist or speak of destroying someone. If they really wanted security against a US attack they could have it by limiting their actions to peaceful ones. How about if we flip the situation, If Iran would just agree to be peaceful they would never have to worry about an attack from the US? Ahmadinejad wants to be aggressive and hostel, or maybe he wants to appear that way for political of some other motive but whatever the reason, if he keeps acting like a mentally unstable drunk who wants to kill us then I don’t think we should let him have our gun.
Iran is no more aggressive than the US towards it, Ahmadinejad would fear that to appear weak would encourage the US to continue to try to force him to give in to their demands without his demands being met (which it would). Of course he actively supports terrorists, the terrorists are anti-US, and to him the US appears to be hostile to him, if Iran felt safe, rather than being the next on the list of American targets, they might not support the terrorists so much. He doesnt act like an unstable drunk - he just acts like a powerful politician leading a very difficult country, and he wont want to kill you if you garuntee his safety...:2thumbsup:
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
That's fine by me. How about engaging in talks so you can sort things out between you two? Make your concerns known by, you know, talking to each other, instead of relying on telepathy.
Don’t underestimate the power of telepathy (when backed with the threat of an attack). ~D I think we will soon see talks between the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
Iran is no more aggressive than the US towards it
Explain that to me? Could Bush go to a city in Iran and bad mouth Ahmadinejad like Ahmadinejad did at the UN (located in the USA) to Bush?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
Of course he actively supports terrorists, the terrorists are anti-US, and to him the US appears to be hostile to him, if Iran felt safe, rather than being the next on the list of American targets, they might not support the terrorists so much.
Iran supported terrorists before they were on our “list” and has only increased with Ahmadinejad’s leadership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
and he wont want to kill you if you garuntee his safety...:2thumbsup:
And we wont guarantee his safety until he stops supporting terrorists and wanting to kill our friends. If he wants safety, all he has to do is act peacefully. Seriously, if Ahmadinejad condemned terrorism (words and actions) and promoted peace with its neighbors, I don’t see a problem, he could guarantee his own safety. Other countries do it all the time.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Explain that to me? Could Bush go to a city in Iran and bad mouth Ahmadinejad like Ahmadinejad did at the UN (located in the USA) to Bush?
If the UN was located in Iran then he could
Quote:
Iran supported terrorists before they were on our “list” and has only increased with Ahmadinejad’s leadership.
Iran supported terrorists because they are a muslim state, and the terrorist tendancies have increased the more hostile the west has become towards them (you could say the west became more hostile as the terror increased - but i think its a conbination of both), however if they are able to ally with the US, then these terrorist activities would decrease (although i doubt stop altogether - Ahmadinejad only has limited authority over the terrorist groups in his coutnry)
Quote:
And we wont guarantee his safety until he stops supporting terrorists and wanting to kill our friends. If he wants safety, all he has to do is act peacefully. Seriously, if Ahmadinejad condemned terrorism (words and actions) and promoted peace with its neighbors, I don’t see a problem, he could guarantee his own safety. Other countries do it all the time.
He has nothing to gain by stopping supporting terrorists until America gives him peace, you could argue that by helping terrorists he does garuntee his own safety (both from militants within his own state and the surrounding countries) --> from his point of view he wants america to act first, not him, by condeming terrorists before he has official public US backing he puts himself in danger. :2thumbsup:
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
If the UN was located in Iran then he could
Why isn’t the UN in Iran?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
He has nothing to gain by stopping supporting terrorists until America gives him peace, you could argue that by helping terrorists he does garuntee his own safety (both from militants within his own state and the surrounding countries) --> from his point of view he wants america to act first, not him, by condeming terrorists before he has official public US backing he puts himself in danger. :2thumbsup:
Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Terrorists, can’t live with um, can’t live without um.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
[QUOTE=yesdachi]Why isn’t the UN in Iran?QUOTE]
Horsetrading when it was set up, America likes the prestiege, it was America's pet project at one time.
~:smoking:
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Iran supported terrorists before they were on our “list” and has only increased with Ahmadinejad’s leadership.
Iran has been on your "countries to do" list since the revolution , so how can Iran have been supporting terrorists before they were on your list , before they were on your list they were your puppets .
Besides which you government has been supporting terrorists for a hell of a lot longer than the Iranian one has .
Quote:
Explain that to me? Could Bush go to a city in Iran and bad mouth Ahmadinejad like Ahmadinejad did at the UN (located in the USA) to Bush?
Yep , if they had diplomatic relations with Iran he could . But it is kinda hard to go somewhere and slag someone off if you refuse to go there .
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Iran has been on your "countries to do" list since the revolution , so how can Iran have been supporting terrorists before they were on your list , before they were on your list they were your puppets .
I am referring to the more recent “list” that included N Korea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Besides which you government has been supporting terrorists for a hell of a lot longer than the Iranian one has .
We only support freedom fighters. :laugh4:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Yep , if they had diplomatic relations with Iran he could . But it is kinda hard to go somewhere and slag someone off if you refuse to go there .
I think if Bush were to visit Iran a lot of liberals would cream themselves (then cry when they realized who was defaulted to president).
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
I am referring to the more recent “list” that included N Korea.
Errrrrr...... N.Korea has been on the to do list for over 50 years .
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Errrrrr...... N.Korea has been on the to do list for over 50 years .
No, no the more recent “list” where W called them part of the axis of evil. ~D
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
...but what about the Axis of Just As Evil...? Do they get no love...? :balloon2:
Anyway, aren't you guys overrating Ahmadinejad a bit ? The powers of the Iranian president aren't even remotely the same as those of the US one; the former is rather more a representative and symbolic position with very little real power, by what I understand of it. Why the actual decision-making and executive side then lets him run his mouth is another thing...
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
:laugh4:
I always thought the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric was very...forward of him anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Anyway, aren't you guys overrating Ahmadinejad a bit ? The powers of the Iranian president aren't even remotely the same as those of the US one; the former is rather more a representative and symbolic position with very little real power, by what I understand of it. Why the actual decision-making and executive side then lets him run his mouth is another thing...
It only goes to show the manipulative skills of the Iranian Mullahs (who's the Supreme Leader now? Ayatollah Imanarsehole II?) in that their existence seems forgotten in the public and international furor created by the selection of the demagogue. Now everyone's--yes, I'm looking at you, you people who wants America to storm Iran for whatever reason--focusing on him instead of the true powers.
-
Re: Successful Counter-Insurgency
I was always in the opinion "Bigmouth" Ahmadinejad got the job mainly to act as a noisy distraction... I'm kind of waiting for him to start hitting the table with his shoe one of these days really.
