Defects from the Libyan military are training them.
So Wiki claims that Ronald Reagan assisted in the genocide of the Kurds?
What do you think his motive might have been? In fact what do you feel the motive of any Americans was in committing genocide in Iraq?
But whatever their reason you must have been pleased when George Bush out an end to all of it and finally freed the Iraqi people from the evil that was Saddam Hussein, and compensated in some small way for the sins of his predecessors.
You did notice that article was done on 6 March? How are the rebs doing, two weeks later? They're getting their asses handed to them. It takes months to train a soldier is basic soldier skills and years to turn him into an elite war fighter. The rebs have neither the time, nor the resources to bring these guys up to where they need to be, now.
Are they training them, too? Without the training, the weapons are almost useless.
Yeah, yeah, yeah and Bush orchestrated 9/11...whatever.
Very few times, except through extra-ordinary luck, with all other things being equal, does a smaller force beat a larger one on the battlefield.
Again - you lose the political objectives - you lose the war
They were Saudi's, all but one.
Thus, foreign air power comes in to help out (at least somewhat) and SF.
They were Saudi's, all but one.
Giving up on your, "but the Russians did it too defense?"
Agreed
If you have the tech, the numbers, the choice of where and when you fight, sufficient logistical support, good execution and a good handle of contingencies, no amount of dedication will help your foe. They WILL lose; lose hopelessly, and in detail.
I'ma just gonna say one thing here.
This is a brick wall but here goes anyway.
Tomahawk missiles and air strikes < Full fledged invasion and regime change. 5000 American deaths. 32 500 American wounded.
Just saying.
Success on the battlefield comes from soldiers, leadership, firepower, maneuver and an ability to communicate. The Confederate Army with inferior weapons and inferior numbers beat the **** out of the Federals for two years, with superior soldiers and superior leadership.
And, you're going to tell us how they were working for Bush. Yes? I bet you even believe that Obama was born in Kenya.
The Spartans were massacred at Thermopylae. They achieved nothing other than dying in place - albeit in a very spectacular manner.
One does not preclude the other. It is best to have both.
That said - Our society has forgotten that combat means casualties and that war is a dirty business. We have come to believe that no war will last longer than a week and we should never take more than 100 casualties.
I have never said 9/11 was an inside job, but it is an nice attempt to change the subject when you were stiil trying your best with the Russians did it too defense.
Are you giving up on that one?
And? You can't win a war with air assets and combat multipliers, alone.
I never said that.
Still sticking with the Russia did it too defense I see.
"On May 25, 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[30]
The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
United States support for Iraq during the Iran
"On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."
United States support for Iraq during the Iran
"The National Security Archive at George Washington University has published a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980’s. The collection of documents, published on the Web, include briefing materials, diplomatic reports of two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use during the Reagan administration and presidential directives that ensure U.S. access to the region's oil and military expansion."
"the documents we recently posted on the Internet demonstrate that the administration had U.S. intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was using chemical weapons, both against Iran and against Iraqi Kurdish insurgents, in the early 1980s, at the same time that it decided to support Iraq in the war. So U.S. awareness of Iraq's chemical warfare did not deter it from initiating the policy of providing intelligence and military assistance to Iraq. There were shipments of chemical weapons precursors from several U.S. companies to Iraq during the 1980s, but the U.S. government would deny that it was aware that these exports were intended to be used in the production of chemical weapons."
"I believe that when the U.S. became aware of Iraq's chemical weapons use it should have used what influence it had to stop it. Doing so was actually incumbent upon the U.S. under international law. I believe the U.S. should have used its international influence, which is enormous, to do everything it could to end this war. It was an atrocity, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties."
"The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].
Washingtonpost.com: Live Online
The Spartans couldn't maneuver.
They were Saudi's, all but one.
ROTFLOL... I guess these folks just fail to understand the technicalities
Sorry, you're about two decades off, that picture was taken Dec 20, 1983 during President Reagan term.Can you substantiate this claim? I thought he was sent to establish a dialogue with Saddam Hussein in order to help foster stability in Syria and Iran.
THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ - DIPLOMACY - Rumsfeld, in Baghdad, Presses the Iraqis On Insurgency and Writing Constitution - NYTimes.com
This thing is just getting started. I expect we will see boots on the ground and regime change. More American blood and treasure in Obamas war for oil. Obama the warmonger.
No, it's an attack. Not war. With that logic, Israel was at war with the US when it attacked the USS Liberty during the Six Day War. You are either being disingenuous or purposefully obtuse to play a moronic semantic game that proves absolutely nothing. Good work! :roll:Dude, what you are saying is just plain wrong. War is nothing more than armed hostilities between two distinct groups. The Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor was war. Had both sides left it at that the war would have been over. People do not like to use a term as strong as war in such cases, but the term is still correct.
LMAO. Anyone who think America was at war with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War cannot be taken seriously. Anything they say is purely devoid of reality.Yes.
The UN started this one, not Obama. Wasn't he being criticised for not starting it in the first place anyway?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?