Saddam repays the Left for their support for him...

[Divinus Arma]

Tribesman, what do you mean where am I getting my information? All of this is publicly available.


Well you write this......
Yes, there are still a few trouble spots such as parts of Baghdad sometimes and al Ramadi but generally speaking, there just is no action.

This seems to be the consenus. Things are slowing down, winding down, wrapping up, whatever you want to call it.

Yet as attacks are increasing then how can it be slowing down , you mention Baghdad which still has the same amount of attacks as before , you say (in several threads) that fallujah is quiet , yet it has more attacks now than before the assault , you completely ignore that previously quiet areas , especially in the north , have had a big upsurge in attacks .
So how can an increase in attacks be described as "slowing down" or "winding down" .

Fair enough. I can address this. I thought you were asking about the information regarding the elections, constitution, and others in my list. But regarding this; My information comes from boots on the ground- My fellow Marines who regularly cycle through my day-to-day contacts. I work on the largest Marine Corps Base in the country where 1/3 of the entire force is stationed. Being in Law Enforcement on that base, I have almost daily contact with various Marines who "just got back". Some of these are close friends, others are total strangers. You can listen to the media all you want, but I'm telling you info direct from the guys on the ground. I'm sure we can at least agree that the various media outlets each have a political agenda- wouldn't you say that is fair? So in this instance you are getting info that is direct from the guys and not filtered through a dozen different executives who all have a different reason to show specific content. Big news sells papers, encourages advertisers, and makes the evening edition. I hope you can take this for it's worth. I would plainly state here if I were told that it is getting worse. I may be politically inclined, but I'm no liar. That would just be self-defeating.

edit to add ...Quit putting your head in the sand and look at the big picture.
The big picture looks even worse.

Well if you refer to the general climate of religious extremism and Islamic intolerance of the west then you are correct. But nothing we can do short of obediance to Islam will suffice. For example, that cartoon was published by a private entity with no requirement to adhere to Islam. To refuse to publish it, or encourage government regulation, would be counter to western ideals of free speech and religious freedom (which of course also means freedom from religion, as so many American atheists will scream). The big picture I refer to is exactly what Seamus explained:

Div is suggesting that signs of a nascent democracy in Iraq point toward success in establishing a functioning democratic state (other than Israel) in the region. Should that occur, most of the experts I've read suggest that this could engender change that would profoundly influence the region and begin to diminish the root causes and conditions that promote fundamentalist islamic terror groups

We would amplify terrorism to the extreme.
You are doing that already .

And what would you recommend?

We must maintain our course and see it through.
It does help if you are on the right course in the first place .

I understand sunk cost decision making and the resultant propensity to continue in an unprofitable direction because of resources expended. In this instance the benefits have so far been profitable and despite the continued costs appear to be maintaining a sustained profitability in liberty and democratization.

I know that is hard for you folks with the "instant gratification" cultural mindset
Errrrr.... the instant gratification mindset were the idiots that did "invasion lite" and "nation unbuilding" without thinking and planning .

I agree with you that the administration failed to plan well for regime collapse and the subsequent power vacuum. I also agree that this oversight is virtual incompetence. We should always demand accountability in government. Unfortunately, the alternative to continuing the Global War against Terrorism is less appetizing. Withdrawal from Iraq would cause a collapse in the infant Iraqi Democracy and further embolden the Islamic extremist movement.

EDIT: And make no mistake, that is exactly what would happen if we handed decision making over to the American Democratic Party. With some excpetions, the Democrats are not shy in this respect.

If you would like to make a comparison with Vietnam, then consder the political similarities. Seamus articulated this perfectly:

I wish we hadn't stepped into somebody else's colonial rebellion, but we did. Having done so, we then hamstrung our military by not letting them fight all out -- and they still won tactically (though public opinion and war weariness undercut that).

We should all be able to find unity in this statement. Regardless of our differences in the reasoning behind going into Iraq, we must not allow war weariness, public opinion, and military micro-management to undercut operational success. The end result would be strategic failure- the big picture that we all care so much about. We should be unified towards this end and this end alone.

because this is what "Last Throes" looks like, right?

Report: Iraqi insurgency more confident, coordinated
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...cnn_topstories

We will have to agree to disagree on this. I do not find CNN to be an unbiased politically neutral source, just as I am sure you would not find KOGO radio or Fox News to be politically neutral.

This is my reply: (Article dated Jan 31, 2006)http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006..._341_31_06.txt

meanwhile, let's look at how the American forces are doing:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...y/13889046.htm

I'm having difficuly accessing your link fromt his computer. However, if you seek to imply that coalition forces are somehow losing, then I reply with this: (Article Dated Feb 14, 2006)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-us-role_x.htm

and how the Iraqi people are doing since "Mission Accomplished"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

I agree: It is a tragic and unnecessary waste of life- but this would end if the Domestic Insurgents (Sunnis) would lay down their arms, join in the politcial process, and subvert the activities of foreign terrorists. In the meantime, is life better for the Iraqis now or during the rule of Saddam Hussein?

Must I provide a link, or is Saddam's oppression of his own people well known enough? Surely, you can't believe him to be a benevolent dictator?

Wow - you know if I didn't know better...

Well now you do. The information is generally public knowledge. The problem is the frame in which we view it. Do you feed your mind with self-reassuring viewpoints or do you attempt to gain truth by reading multiple viewpoints?

The opposing sides many never agree on the justification for going into Iraq for the GWOT. I understand and accept this. But let's look forward and see what we can do, what we must do. I do not think it naive to believe we can find common ground against Islamic extremism- an ideal that would seek to enslave the world in totalitarian theocracy.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

another friend just got back from Iraq (army),

his stories chime better with DA's version than Soly's, Tribesman's etc.

[Tachikaze]

In the meantime, is life better for the Iraqis now or during the rule of Saddam Hussein?

Must I provide a link, or is Saddam's oppression of his own people well known enough? Surely, you can't believe him to be a benevolent dictator?

The question is not whether living under a malevolent dictator is good, but that living in a war is better. Judging by what I've seen of Hussein's Iraq and of post-invasion Iraq, I'll take the malevolent dictator.

[Divinus Arma]

The question is not whether living under a malevolent dictator is good, but that living in a war is better. Judging by what I've seen of Hussein's Iraq and of post-invasion Iraq, I'll take the malevolent dictator.

And it looks like you would be the same guy that would give a bully his lunch money. Or in broader terms- the same guy who would sit back while brave patriots fight for their freedom. People like Kim Jung Il, Stalin, Hitler, and Saddam just love people like you.

A perfect statement as to why the Democratic Party are our of favor and out of touch. I don't know what country you are in and it really doesn't matter. American heros have historically fought for liberty, and that is why cowardice is so disgusting to the American majority. It is counter to the very soul of our young nation. We were forged in a fight for liberty and wish only the same for others.

Enjoy the protected freedom that others provide for you. But try not to undermine us in the process, eh?

[Devastatin Dave]

Enjoy the protected freedom that others provide for you.

According to Tachi, his beating on his drums and posting messages on a gaming forum has the same effect on keeping freedom as a military member putting his/her life on the line for the country.

Tachi, not getting personal but you said that living under the dictator is better than what the Iraqis have now. Would you feel the same if one of Saddmas sons had his way with your wife while you watched or another family member of yours was thrown into a giant paper shredder? maybe, maybe not. Its a rather blanket statement to say the Iraqis were better off under Saddam and in my opinion foolish. But to each his own i guess.

[rory_20_uk]

That liberty was pure to start, but it's got somewhat distorted over the years.

Where to start?

The Indians. Broken treaties, slaughters and well, more slaughter.
Annexing the Hawaiian Islands
Annexing Cuba and areas of Mexico.
Annexing the Philippines.

More recently:

Supporting many right wing dictators who would have people killed for using the word "liberty"

And liberty is a fine thing... But isolation was the fad before WW1 and WW2. Is that why American heroes fight for these ideals, as the masses won't?

I admit to being rosy eyed, but OMG you've got it bad in turning a country driven mainly by profit and greed, and linking it to the worldwide pursuit of liberty!!

[Kaiser of Arabia]

looks like rush and the rest of the conservatives need to make jokes to help cover up the fact that america is losing the war in iraq and american dead are piling up. keep laughing, guys.

We'll laugh right until another evil, totalitarian dictator is executed or imprisoned for the rest of his life. Then maybe you guys cna have tea.

[Tachikaze]

According to Tachi, his beating on his drums and posting messages on a gaming forum has the same effect on keeping freedom as a military member putting his/her life on the line for the country.

Tachi, not getting personal but you said that living under the dictator is better than what the Iraqis have now. Would you feel the same if one of Saddmas sons had his way with your wife while you watched or another family member of yours was thrown into a giant paper shredder? maybe, maybe not. Its a rather blanket statement to say the Iraqis were better off under Saddam and in my opinion foolish. But to each his own i guess.

Saddam's sons must have been pretty busy if they were "having their way" with millions of Iraqi husbands. When did they have time to hide WMDs?

I'd say more children of concerned parents have been blown up by bombs (from both the US attacks and post-invasion backlash) than husbands had their wives raped by Husseins. How would you feel if you son were killed by a car bomb or air raid?

[Devastatin Dave]

Saddam's sons must have been pretty busy if they were "having their way" with millions of Iraqi husbands. When did they have time to hide WMDs?

I'd say more children of concerned parents have been blown up by bombs (from both the US attacks and post-invasion backlash) than husbands had their wives raped by Husseins. How would you feel if you son were killed by a car bomb or air raid?

Answering my question with another question, typical...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That liberty was pure to start, but it's got somewhat distorted over the years.

Hardly. John Hancock was Boston's biggest smuggler and had an economic axe to grind with the Brits for economic reasons. Sam Adams failed everything he attempted -- except for fomenting revolution. A good 15%+ of the Founder owned slaves. Despite its flaws it was still the greatest dawning of Liberty yet seen by humankind.

Where to start?

The Indians. Broken treaties, slaughters and well, more slaughter.
Annexing the Hawaiian Islands
Annexing Cuba and areas of Mexico.
Annexing the Philippines.

True, though hardly unique in history. The technologically disadvantaged have almost always been displaced.

Annexed, but then given full statehood.

Cuba was never annexed, though some yanks did treat it as a client state for many years. The territory taken from Mexico at the conclusion of the Mexican War was, technically, purchased. A sizeable party suggested annexing all of Mexico, but was over-ruled.

The Phillipines were granted independence after a comparatively short occupation (though dominated by the USA for many years politically and economically thereafter).

More recently:

Supporting many right wing dictators who would have people killed for using the word "liberty"

And liberty is a fine thing... But isolation was the fad before WW1 and WW2. Is that why American heroes fight for these ideals, as the masses won't?

I admit to being rosy eyed, but OMG you've got it bad in turning a country driven mainly by profit and greed, and linking it to the worldwide pursuit of liberty!!

Our history is not without blemish, granted, but I would still argue that the USA has done more to promote freedom and development than any other nation. Remember, we want lots of healthy trading partners, not client states that can't step forward on their own.

[rory_20_uk]

You could argue that the US did the most to free the world, but then again you did come in very late in the game compared to the European powers. It has been said that only a British colony would revolt in the way America did - as it required the British demands for democratic process that was rare at the time.

Annexing states IMO does not further the argument that the USA did so much for freedom. It appears whenever the USA got the chance it took whatever it could. Technically buying the territory? And what would have happened if Spain refused to sell? An offer they couldn't refuse... Unfortunately most of the decent territory had been stolen off the weaker powers, so the pickings were light. America's vocal stand on freedom of trade to colonies was in large part due to the fact that America didn't have that many.

Phillapines was given independence at approximately the same time as other countries were obtaining theirs. Yes, the USA had owned for a short time, but what about areas such as Hawaii? "Not a state in '98" was the cry by some.

Many of the trading partners do still rely on the infrastructure placed there years before by others - mainly European powers and yet origionally for profit for the colonial power (as opposed to the local lord in the older, for some reason "better" times). Countries such as Britain come to mind, after all we owned 1/4 of the globe, and yes we still do trade with most of the countries.

America has the same brand of self interest when trade is mentioned as any other. They subsidise some crops and flood the market whilst loudly screaming that other countries have barriers, or even trade too much (like China for example).

America has previously been a beacon to other coutries, but as is often the case the model looses its lusture as one faces the reality and not the idealistic image.

[Soulforged]

Saddam....I'm waiting for my share...What?!!! It was only love? Damn you Saddam, if I wanted you to love someone, it wasn't ME and certainly it wasn't NOW!!

[Tachikaze]

Answering my question with another question, typical...

OK, I'll answer your question. I'd feel hatred towards whomever did those acts you posted. Maybe I would try to kill them, who knows.

But it doesn't matter. Whatever happens to my wife or family member should not be the catalyst for a military invasion of a nation that has led to tens of thousands of deaths.

Now, answer mine.

[Divinus Arma]

OK, I'll answer your question. I'd feel hatred towards whomever did those acts you posted. Maybe I would try to kill them, who knows.

But it doesn't matter. Whatever happens to my wife or family member should not be the catalyst for a military invasion of a nation that has led to tens of thousands of deaths.

Now, answer mine.

And it looks like you would be the same guy that would give a bully his lunch money. Or in broader terms- the same guy who would sit back while brave patriots fight for their freedom. People like Kim Jung Il, Stalin, Hitler, and Saddam just love people like you.

Enjoy the protected freedom that others provide for you. But try not to undermine us in the process, eh?

[Devastatin Dave]

How would you feel if you son were killed by a car bomb or air raid?

I would be infuriated as well, possibly more infuriated after the majority of my family had starved to death because of UN oil for food scams and if they had survived the previous dictatorship had not had my family placed in mass grave with the hundreds of thousands (100's of times more Iraqi's died before the invasion by Saddam's hands, your favorite malevolent dictator) of other victims of the dictator during the past 30 years. You can't possibly tell me that you think that there would be less death if Saddam was in power? Then again, according to the usual leftist's propoganda you ingest and often puke out on these forums, you still believe that Saddam was a great guy because he offered universal health care!!!

[Tribesman]

Sorry for the delay Divinus .

My information comes from boots on the ground- My fellow Marines who regularly cycle through my day-to-day contacts.
Would you hae read any of the German Austo/hungarian reports to people back at home , or some from the 3rd Riech or the Imperial Japanese ?
How about some from either side in the South African war ?
They mean bugger all in reality .

You can listen to the media all you want
Ah , I see you think I listen to the media too much.....sorry but everthing I wrote about in this thread comes from the Pentagon , the White House or the Iraqi "government" .

I understand sunk cost decision making and the resultant propensity to continue in an unprofitable direction because of resources expended.
Yeah it took a lot of effort to dig the hole , lets keep digging .

In this instance the benefits have so far been profitable and despite the continued costs appear to be maintaining a sustained profitability in liberty and democratization.

Bollox , the result is about as viable as the Weimar republic , it will not stand .
Only this week you have both the opposition parties and the US reporting on the activities of Interior ministry death squads killing the opposition , how the hell is that democratic or spreading liberty
....death squads ..liberty ...how does that equate ?

You have the local government telling the UK that they will not work with them anymore and the Iranians telling the UK that they must leave .
How can this be ? because the central figures in the "axis of evil" are now calling the shots , thanks to western intervention , that is why the only international representatives who are able to operate freely in that zone are the Lebaneses Hizb'allah , no doubt soon to be followed by Islamic Jihad or Hamas .
How the hell is that profitable ?

Great idea , lets give all the crazy buggers somewhwere to go so we can kill them all while we install a friendly regime .
Unfortunately what you have is lets make loads more crazy buggers , and install a crazy regime . An absolute balls up

[AntiochusIII]

A thread that starts with a direct insult to one side of an American-designated political spectrum never starts well, nor will it ends well...

The sheer amount of hypocrisy, ad hominem, red herrings, and (yes, ban me) strawman arguments in this thread is overwhelming.

I have my opinions but I don't think adding them here will do any good to the already screwed discussion.

[RIGHT: SADDAM AND YOU ARE THE SAME, YOU SUCK!]

[LEFT: IRAQ IS FALLING, YOU SUCK!]

[RIGHT: IT'S WINNING! WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM? YOU SUCK!]

[LEFT: IT'S NOT! YOU PROPAGANDIST! YOU SUCK!]

...

[Brenus]

“I wish we hadn't stepped into somebody else's colonial rebellion, but we did”. Nop, you entirely created this one. The French Colonial Power was defeated in Dien Bien Phu (1954), the Geneva Agreement was signed, and two Vietnams created with promised elections.
That could be also a similarity with Iraq.

“American heros have historically fought for liberty”: How, even the non-American heroes fought for liberty. If not, they aren’t heroes, and they are bad guys. By the way, Lindberg, American hero was pro-Nazi. Ok, he didn’t fight…

“I would still argue that the USA has done more to promote freedom and development than any other nation” A UK historian, Neil Ferguson, would disagreed with this statement.

HELLOOOO!!!! The best supporters of Saddam are not from the left, at least in France. Chirac is a conservative, a truly one like G. W. Bush. The only difference is that HE fought in a war in a Muslim country (Algeria) and has good memory about methods and counter measures needed to fight against this kind of rebellion…
An example of the Anti-Saddam movement in France was leaded by President Mitterrand’s wife (Socialist) and her organisation France Liberté…
The BUSINESSMEN (oil, weapons, new technology like nuclear one, etc) were for Saddam, and the leftist NGO like Amnesty International were against….
And now, you are Amnesia International… Sorry, couldn’t resist, I won’t do it again…

[Goofball]

Fair enough. I can address this. I thought you were asking about the information regarding the elections, constitution, and others in my list. But regarding this; My information comes from boots on the ground- My fellow Marines who regularly cycle through my day-to-day contacts. I work on the largest Marine Corps Base in the country where 1/3 of the entire force is stationed. Being in Law Enforcement on that base, I have almost daily contact with various Marines who "just got back". Some of these are close friends, others are total strangers. You can listen to the media all you want, but I'm telling you info direct from the guys on the ground.

Actually, as far as getting a more accurate view of the big picture goes, I would put more stock in reading a broad crossection of media sources on a daily basis than I would on speaking directly with squadies. Quite frankly, while the accounts of grunts on the ground might offer insight into microcosms of the overall situation, they provide for a very poor "macro" view. Or put another way, while grunts' reports are valuable tactically, they are almost useless strategically, for a couple of reasons:

1) Line soldiers in a volunteer army tend to be pretty gung-ho individuals, who deeply believe in their country/cause and tend to let this belief color their judgement of the situation. They will usually put the best face on things because they believe in what they are doing, and more importantly, because having a defeatist attitude (no matter how badly you are getting your ass handed to you) will not help you to accomplish the mission.

2) Line troopies are very rarely told the whole story by their officers and political leaders. They know only what they need to know to accomplish the mission at hand, usually on a day-to-day (or even hour-to-hour) basis.

And it looks like you would be the same guy that would give a bully his lunch money. Or in broader terms- the same guy who would sit back while brave patriots fight for their freedom. People like Kim Jung Il, Stalin, Hitler, and Saddam just love people like you.

On the other hand, since you have made it clear in the past that you believe that soldiers should trust in their leaders (who are much better equiped than them to do so) to make the "big picture" decisions, then carry out the instructions of those leaders without question, we could also say that "people like Kim Jung Il, Stalin, Hitler, and Saddam just love people like you" too. The Nuremberg trials were full of defendants who claimed they had done just that: placed their trust in their political leaders.

But that, of course, would be playing the man rather than the ball. So we'll stay away from it.



Edit: Mixed up my cliche. Damn. That'll teach me to count my chickens before the cow come home.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

A thread that starts with a direct insult to one side of an American-designated political spectrum never starts well, nor will it ends well...

The sheer amount of hypocrisy, ad hominem, red herrings, and (yes, ban me) strawman arguments in this thread is overwhelming.

I have my opinions but I don't think adding them here will do any good to the already screwed discussion.

[RIGHT: SADDAM AND YOU ARE THE SAME, YOU SUCK!]

[LEFT: IRAQ IS FALLING, YOU SUCK!]

[RIGHT: IT'S WINNING! WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM? YOU SUCK!]

[LEFT: IT'S NOT! YOU PROPAGANDIST! YOU SUCK!]

...

Sounds like the debate on my bill in Student Congress last year. But replace right with me and left with about everyone else, and replace Iraq with the Patriot Act.

[Lemur]

Lighten up, all of you. Sadaam is friends with everybody. Why be jealous?

[Divinus Arma]

Would you hae read any of the German Austo/hungarian reports to people back at home , or some from the 3rd Riech or the Imperial Japanese ?
How about some from either side in the South African war ?
They mean bugger all in reality .

While I think your statement is really just plain ridiculous and insulting because of the inaccurate comparison, I will still try to address it from your perspective. I understand that you are saying that reports on the ground from troops are basically unreliable. Then you must also agree that reports from Iraqis are just as unreliable. Fair?

Now, the ONLY point I am trynig to make is based on the experience of my fellow Marines. If it was hot, they would say so, just as Goofball pointed out, the volunteer guys are going t0o be pretty gung ho. And indeed they are. So if they were in a hot spot, they would gladly say so. The fact that they admit they were in an area devoid of action is important. It is a point of honor to face the enemy in combat and survive. In not facing the enemy, my Marines have little opportunity to boast their individual courage.

So, this addresses both your point, Tribesman and Goofball. I am not going to disagree with either of you, because frankly, your perspective is rightly skeptical. But these are the accounts of the guys on the ground who want to brag about the actions they were involved in and can't because their is no action! It has nothing to do with the cause they are fighting for. It has to do with a 21 yr old Corporal's desire to boast of his heroics.

Would you say that is a fair assessment?

How, even the non-American heroes fought for liberty. If not, they aren’t heroes, and they are bad guys.

Common, that's just unfair conjecture man. The discussion was on American troops and had nothing to do with other countreis. I have great respect for the military history of other freedom-loving nations as well. The French and English are, to me, and despite political differences, the closest allies to America we could hope for. Our histories are so closely intertwined, we are like sibling nations, even if America is the younger brother.

On the other hand, since you have made it clear in the past that you believe that soldiers should trust in their leaders (who are much better equiped than them to do so) to make the "big picture" decisions, then carry out the instructions of those leaders without question, we could also say that "people like Kim Jung Il, Stalin, Hitler, and Saddam just love people like you" too. The Nuremberg trials were full of defendants who claimed they had done just that: placed their trust in their political leaders.

You may also know that I have made it clear in the past that the citizens have an obligation to question the government. Troops must follow lawful orders. I myself have been given unlawful orders. Those who gave them to me were court-martialed. But it is hard sometimes for a troop to know the consequences of an order and whether that order is lawful or not. I think the line is too gray and leadership asks too much of the men in this case. Enlisted troops should be exempt from prosecution when following the direct orders of an officer except in the most unusual of circumstances. On the one hand troops are expected to have "instant willing obediance", but on the other hand they are expected to determine which orders are lawful. This sets up the troops for failure and covers the arse of higher ups. It's BS and I have personal experience with it.

Back to topic, I agree that soldiers have a right and duty to exercise their rights to disagree in accordance with the law. We do have systems in place for this, though they are uneffective in "the heat of the moment". For the big picture, a troops has signed on to follow the orders given. An army that constantly questions orders will soon become a mob. It is the responsibility of the citizens to ensure that just and sound policies are being implemented. The debate on wiretapping is perfectly legitmate. The debate about Iraq is perfectly legitimate.

In the instance that something illegal or contrary to American values occurs, then the people have a right and duty to change the government in accordance with the constitution.




Look, I understand that the Iraq situation is a challenge to the world. I agree. It is painful and disheartening to watch. But I disagree that we are losing. It is clear that I cannot validate this point to any of you here. Only time will tell, and in the fullness of time we shall see what endures. In the present, we should do everything within our power to facilitate success in Iraq. When it becomes evident that success is no longer possible, then I agree that we should withdraw. That time has not yet come, and we disagree as to the degree of success that has occurred thus far. In my opinion, we are making excellent progress, and despite some obstacles, we are winning the campaign in Iraq on many levels. Many of you disagree, and that is your right. It seems we cannot agree to terms on this.

[Reverend Joe]

Lighten up, all of you. Sadaam is friends with everybody. Why be jealous?

[Brenus]

“Common, that's just unfair conjecture man”: Sorry, over reaction from me. It just I am allergic the notion of systematic hero… The men and women I interviewed about resistance and wars were normal peasants and workers who did what they had to do to free their country.

[Tribesman]

Now, the ONLY point I am trynig to make is based on the experience of my fellow Marines. If it was hot, they would say so, just as Goofball pointed out, the volunteer guys are going t0o be pretty gung ho. And indeed they are. So if they were in a hot spot, they would gladly say so. The fact that they admit they were in an area devoid of action is important. It is a point of honor to face the enemy in combat and survive. In not facing the enemy, my Marines have little opportunity to boast their individual courage.

So, this addresses both your point, Tribesman and Goofball. I am not going to disagree with either of you, because frankly, your perspective is rightly skeptical. But these are the accounts of the guys on the ground who want to brag about the actions they were involved in and can't because their is no action! It has nothing to do with the cause they are fighting for. It has to do with a 21 yr old Corporal's desire to boast of his heroics.

Would you say that is a fair assessment?

A fair assesment , but entirely irrelevant .
Of course there is no action , it is basically a policing operation . Endless checkpoint duty , endless patrols , endless house searches . Apart from the six operations in the Western border region there has been bugger all else lately .
You don't get much action when a roadside bomb goes off 'cos the bloke who planted it is probably sitting drinking tea elsewhere .
You can see why they are comlaining about the lack of action , they are not getting it , just a steady monotonous flow of incidents and casualties . It must be frustrating too have all that training and all that hardware and not be able to use it .

As for some of your earlier points , you know , the constitution and the election .
Any news on them actually forming a government yet ? ....No it is still stuck at an impasse , but then again they still have nearly 3 months to go before the times up on forming one .
I wonder if this mornings events will help matters .
And the constitution , well....not only have they not made any efforts at resolving all the serious aspects of the constitution (or even any of them for that matter )that they couldn't agree on , some of the major parties are now calling for the whole thing to be scrapped .

Oh and you mentioned Iraqi forces taking control of security . well we will ignore the current losses of around 25% , we will ignore the rival death squads being run by the two opposing security ministries , we can even ignore that the much vaunted battalion that is able to operate by itself only managed to get that status by ejecting 270 "unreliable" members from its
ranks .
Forget all that .... who is out on the streets tonight providing "protection" and security ? The same religeous militias that the Marines got a bit of action trying to destroy two years ago .

[Divinus Arma]

It is indeed a long hard slog.


And what would be your alternative and what do you think the consequences of your alternative would be?