In wake of Iraq war, allies prefer China to U.S.

[Arch Enemy]

wow.. people don't like us? Is it because we turned our backs on them and went ahead and invaded Iraq with a dumb reason? Or is it because we get snappy if they have an opinion about our dealings!


I love it how people would rather, KILL people ... including innocents, then TRADE.

America has no tolerance. Our policy, if you're not with us, then you're from France. I frown on the United States Government.

 

[Pacridge]

It burns me up when politicians sit up in Washington and say "that we are losing" or "the insurgency is getting stronger" when it is not. It certainly is not what we see on the ground and is not being properly submitted to the public. All you hear is one tradgey after another, because politicians are just looking after their own interests and their own jobs. I'll tell you one thing-sitting in a chow hall in Al-Asad, after slicing through a hundred insurgents trying to cross the Syrian border, and hearing someone say this crap on the TVs, is completely perplexing and disheartening, because we do not know what they are talking about or what war they are referring to.

Ok, I could understand how politicians in DC saying that would be upsetting. But how do you feel when Commanders in Iraq say things like that? Like back in May when Lt. Col. Frederick P. Wellman, who works with the task force overseeing the training of Iraqi security troops, said the insurgency doesn't seem to be running out of new recruits, a dynamic fueled by tribal members seeking revenge for relatives killed in fighting. "We can't kill them all," Wellman said. "When I kill one I create three."

Or when Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, expressed similar sentiments, calling the military's efforts "the Pillsbury Doughboy idea" - pressing the insurgency in one area only causes it to rise elsewhere.

 

[MSgt]

Opinions. Opinions. Opinions.

There are plenty of Commanders in Iraq. Why is it that the media always seems to find the ones whose opinions go against the majority and are always in the Army? Perhaps the media should interview the commanders of the Marines up near the Syrian border that are actually doing the killing. Of course, that would go against what the media wants to portray - and oh yes, members of the media has opinions too and they come through in their reporting. If Iraq is a failure, it will be because of the American civillian that doesn't know any better.

They're not popping up. They are running. They were in Fallujah and we were pulled out before we could finish the job. This just made us have to go back later and do it all over again. They moved to Najaaf, we dug them out of there. They are now in two Syrian border towns, where Marines are killing them there too. In the mean time, the Iraqi Army is still building and training. The enemy is running out of places to go. All we need is time.

 

[Pacridge]

Opinions. Opinions. Opinions.

There are plenty of Commanders in Iraq. Why is it that the media always seems to find the ones whose opinions go against the majority? Perhaps the media should interview the commanders of the Marines up near the Syrian border that are actually doing the killing. Of course, that would go against what the media wants to portray - and oh yes, members of the media has opinions too and they come through in their reporting. If Iraq is a failure, it will be because of the American civillian that doesn't know any better.

Casey is the top US commander in Iraq. Are you saying that his opinion of the situation isn't accurate? Or that the media is only focused on him because he speaks in neg. terms? Seems to me they might focus on what he's saying because he's the head guy.

 

[MSgt]

He is U.S. Army and far removed from the action. What he receives is reports and figures. He is not up there to see it first hand. His view of the war is what he reads in spread sheets. He is also subjected to his own opinions.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

He is U.S. Army and far removed from the action. What he receives is reports and figures. He is not up there to see it first hand. His view of the war is what he reads in spread sheets. He is also subjected to his own opinions.

Perhaps your experiences are more anecdotal than representative. How are we to know? How do you know?
I've been hearing for about two years now how the resistance in Iraq is just about to crumble, how major combat operations are over, etc. I've heard it from politicos and people who said they'd been there. IIRC, there were supposed to be statues of George Bush going up in Baghdad by this last September.

 

[Pacridge]

He is U.S. Army and far removed from the action. What he receives is reports and figures. He is not up there to see it first hand. His view of the war is what he reads in spread sheets. He is also subjected to his own opinions.

So you're telling me the head commander for the US forces in Iraq doesn't actually know whats going on? Well gosh now I fell better.

 

[26 X World Champs]

The sad truth is that Europe would rather do nothing and just hope that it goes away. They have that luxury, they aren't the constant target. Our people are.

Wow...maybe you should remind the people in Spain about that fact in case they're still clinging to that thing that happened on 3-11?

Some of these arguments remind me of the Middle Ages when some people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Some of you apparently believe that the USA is now the center of the Earth....for me the USA is one part of this planet, and we have no more right to Earth than anyone else.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Nothing would have changed except, with Iraq, we have a near 500 thousand Muslim army fighting against other Muslims with us.

Nice number, too bad it's inaccurate. Including Police there are approximately 160,000 Iraqis in service, of which less than 10,000 are combat ready enough to fight without US support. 500,000 is not truth.

 

[MSgt]

Yeah, it was just a point maker. None of the numbers are accurate. 500,000 is the goal. There are thousands of Iraqi soldiers that are not in training yet. Training them is one of the problems that we actually are having.

Make no mistake. This insurgency is not a resistance. The majority of them are not even Iraqi and they are definately not crumbling. I don't know why some of the crap that comes out of politicians mouths come out. The fact is, we kill 500, by the end of the week another 500 show up to replace them. They are not military, rather than guys that think they can make a difference for "Allah" and rush to their deaths.

 

[26 X World Champs]

What you heard is, AGAIN, isolated and probably just speculations. Their IEDs have become slapped together rather than manufactured as they used to be. Their "efficient" killings are largely fellow Muslim civillians. They can't afford to fight us anymore. Their numbers are dispersed. On the SIPRNET, there has been no mention of laser triggered explosives. What they have always used are what we call "CLACKERS". It is just a simple garage door opener, cell phone and pager, or receiver/transmitter trigger. These are less seen now.

I believe that the insurgents are not trying to WIN a war, they're terrorists who will terrorize Iraq no matter what we do. They will disrupt infrastructure repair, disrupt the flow of oil, continue to kill and we can't stop them.

The thinking that we can defeat them militarily is the same misguided thinking that we used in Vietnam. We couldn't win there, and we can't win here either. The only way it will end is through diplomacy, not until all sides agree to accept each other. When will that happen? Probably never....

 

[Pacridge]

Yeah, it was just a point maker. None of the numbers are accurate. 500,000 is the goal. There are thousands of Iraqi soldiers that are not in training yet. Training them is one of the problems that we actually are having.

Make no mistake. This insurgency is not a resistance. The majority of them are not even Iraqi and they are definately not crumbling. I don't know why some of the crap that comes out of politicians mouths come out. The fact is, we kill 500, by the end of the week another 500 show up to replace them. They are not military, rather than guys that think they can make a difference for "Allah" and rush to their deaths.

Is there anyway you could use the quote button when you post replies to specific posts. Sometimes I have trouble figuring out which post you're replying to.

 

[MSgt]

This is hardly Vietnam, but I can see some comparisons. All we have to do is keep slaughtering them until Iraq can do it for themselves and we can leave. If we really wanted to shake some things up, we would attack into Syria and take the insurgency to there home base. (Cambodia) They want to disrupt Iraqs new government- fine, let them defend Syria's.

 

[faminedynasty]

All we need is time.

How many more years of our soldiers being killed would that be? And will anything be accomplished besides satisfying some superficial desire to pin the word "victory" on a disaster?

 

[stsburns]

Well think about this logically:
Why are there terrorists?
Because they hate us.
What does a lot of the **** Team Bush does do?
Make people hate us.
Which would imply...
Come on, just think about it really hard, it'll come to you.

Wow someone who's not logic, wants get get logistic, this is going to be fun, or maybe even humilating, I wonder if he's going to take it well.

Why are there terrorists?

Because they fear the big white man, is teaching there childern how to think different things that offend their traditions, and ways of life. Thus they act out in bombings is to chase americans away from their children, much like a snobby naborhood signing a petition to force the moving of the only "Afro-American" family out, much like here in america.

Because they hate us?

Once again, I'll say it again. They think white man is teaching their childern paigen beliefs.

What does a lot of the **** Team Bush does do?

Well lets compare him to our last president Clinton. Clinton supported aid to foriegn countries, but failed to see the battlefield raging on his own front lawn. Such as the "Cole", "WTC attack 1", "WTC attack 2", and world wide of American embasys where getting blown up, and yet HE DID NOTHING< NADA.

Make people hate us.

Did you miss the part where the media has cost us lives, he is not the entire reason they hate us. It's all about how this war is being exploited by your own, and Aljezera, that will in the long run help recruit terrorists who want to kill us. SO CONGRATULATIONS, ON GIVING PEOPLE MORE OF A REASON TO JOIN TERRORISTS GROUPS. I'm sure we can think you in some way!

Which would imply...
Come on, just think about it really hard, it'll come to you.[

Your logic: when in doubt, always assume.

Im, thinking....................Thinking,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,So you blame Bush cause you think he helps create terrorists organizations, (yet these organzations have been around long before he took office), You didnt state a reason WHY they hate us, you just stated "They hate us", um...........................................Thinking....................You HATE team bush, yet you dont want to get up off your chair to put your money where your mouth is..............................thinking................for full of :spin: . This concludes galenrox logic class, Homework: please read up on war history and president Clinton before our next lesson, class is dismissed. :mrgreen:

 

[MSgt]

Since it was brought up....

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp

Richard Miniter is a Brussels-based investigative journalist. His new book, Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror has just been released by Regnery. He spoke to NRO early today about the run-up to the war on terror.



Osama Bin Laden's attacks kept escalating throughout the Clinton administration; all told bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of 59 Americans on Clinton's watch.

The Clinton administration was in the dark about the full extent of the bin Laden menace because the president's decision to treat the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a crime. Once the FBI began a criminal investigation, it could not lawfully share its information with the CIA — without also having to share the same data with the accused terrorists.

Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:

1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.

2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.

6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.

8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.

9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.

11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.

16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

 

[Pacridge]

Since it was brought up....

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp

Richard Miniter is a Brussels-based investigative journalist. His new book, Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror has just been released by Regnery. He spoke to NRO early today about the run-up to the war on terror.



Osama Bin Laden's attacks kept escalating throughout the Clinton administration; all told bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of 59 Americans on Clinton's watch.

The Clinton administration was in the dark about the full extent of the bin Laden menace because the president's decision to treat the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a crime. Once the FBI began a criminal investigation, it could not lawfully share its information with the CIA — without also having to share the same data with the accused terrorists.

Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:

1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.

2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.

6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.

8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.

9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.

11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.

16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

And when Bush took over he didn't do anything in regards to OBL. He did absolutely nothing until after 9-11. He didn't even hold strategy meetings on how to deal with the problem. Clinton may have balked but he did take action, granted not enough and not timely. Bush didn't even do that. Rice went before the 9-11 commission and told them Richard Clarke never mentioned OBL or AQ. Clarke most certainly did and there's a memo with Rice's initials on it that say she's full of crap.

 

[MSgt]

How many more years of our soldiers being killed would that be? And will anything be accomplished besides satisfying some superficial desire to pin the word "victory" on a disaster?

Disaster? You're listening to the wrong politicians.

 

[MSgt]

How long was the Bush Administration in office before 9/11?

 

[faminedynasty]

Disaster? You're listening to the wrong politicians.

No sir, I'm not listening to politicians, I'm listening to the journalists in Iraq, to the friends and family of soldiers, to soldiers, to the workers, to the people. I'm listening to you too, but it is hard to buy into what you are saying after reading name after name after name of our soldiers killed in Iraq for the lies of a corrupt administration.

 

[Pacridge]

How long was the Bush Administration in office before 9/11?

Nine months. Not one meeting, plan...NOTHING. And they were told this was a huge problem. http://hermes.gwu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0502&L=nsarchive&P=R52

 

[MSgt]

All administarations are corrupt...it only depends on what political party you're looking at it from.

So eight years of Clinton looking the other way with regards to terrorism and Bin Laden, but Bush is to blame because of his nine months? There is plenty of blame to be pushed around. Bin Laden has been attacking American civillians and American military since the early 90's, but it only mattered for nine months under the Bush administration. I guess Bin Laden was planning this for only nine months. If we were allowed to do our jobs in the 90's 9/11 would not have happened. Bin Laden would have been dead.

"Soldiers" always tend to moan when they have to deploy anywhere. Talk to some Marines that always deploy. No one in Iraq is dying for lies. They are dying because Saddam was raping and murdering his people by the tens of thousands and President Bush decided to do something about it. They are dying because clerics throughout the Middle East preach hate towards America and create martyrs that would slaughter your family and find celebration in it. They are dying because an entire region is a breeding ground for terrorism and the only thing that will fix it is a nuclear strike or sparking democracy and hope it takes. You're not doing the dead any favors by declaring their sweat and blood being offered up because of "lies". None of us on the ground before the attack were under any illusion that this was just about WMD. We knew there was more to it than that. I'm only speaking for the Marines, not the soldiers. Don't know what impression they were under.

 

[ludahai]

To bring this back to the original topic of the thread, the numbers posted reflect more the ignorance the rest of the world has about China, their totalitarianism and their overall goals of regional domination and the desire to impose totalitarianism on their neighbors that they already impose on their own people and the Tibetans than anything else. Not to mention that few in the West know the political games China is playing with the security of the Haitian people, the spy network recently exposed in Australia (that isn't getting nearly the coverage it should be - except here in the Taiwanese press of course) or their arms buildup and claims over territory held by at least EIGHT neighboring countries!

Inform the Europeans the truth about China and either the numbers would change or it would show that these people don't truly value freedom like the majority of AMericans (and Taiwanese) do. BTW, do that poll here in Taiwan, and the numbers would be HEAVILY skewed in favor of the United States. Same if it were done in Japan, the Philippines, Viet Nam and any number of other East and Southeast Asian countries in the shadow of CHina. THAT ought to tell you something!

 

[MSgt]

Exactly the point I was trying to make about polls a long time ago. They don't prove a thing and are many times misleading. Many Americans aren't interested in truths. They would rather get bogged down and focus on mistakes made by current leadership and Military and remain blind to the threats of the world. The truth is that America has been divided about everything worldy since Vietnam.

Europeans live with their backs to history and pretend that everything is OK until the enemy marches by the doors. Only then do they care to do anything about it.

 

[teacher]

class is dismissed.

MY line. Now go stand in the corner and think about what you have done.