Analysis: Iraqi Insurgency Growing Larger, More Effective [Archive]

View Full Version : Analysis: Iraqi Insurgency Growing Larger, More Effective

DLR'sCock

01-23-2005, 03:53 PM

Analysis: Iraqi Insurgency Growing Larger, More Effective
By Tom Lasseter and Jonathan S. Landay
Knight Ridder Newspapers

Sunday 23 January 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The United States is steadily losing ground to the Iraqi insurgency, according to every key military yardstick.

A Knight Ridder analysis of U.S. government statistics shows that through all the major turning points that raised hopes of peace in Iraq, including the arrest of Saddam Hussein and the handover of sovereignty at the end of June, the insurgency, led mainly by Sunni Muslims, has become deadlier and more effective.

The analysis suggests that unless something dramatic changes - such as a newfound will by Iraqis to reject the insurgency or a large escalation of U.S. troop strength - the United States won't win the war. It's axiomatic among military thinkers that insurgencies are especially hard to defeat because the insurgents' goal isn't to win in a conventional sense but merely to survive until the will of the occupying power is sapped. Recent polls already suggest an erosion of support among Americans for the war.

The unfavorable trends of the war are clear:

- U.S. military fatalities from hostile acts have risen from an average of about 17 per month just after President Bush declared an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003, to an average of 82 per month.

- The average number of U.S. soldiers wounded by hostile acts per month has spiraled from 142 to 808 during the same period. Iraqi civilians have suffered even more deaths and injuries, although reliable statistics aren't available.

- Attacks on the U.S.-led coalition since November 2003, when statistics were first available, have risen from 735 a month to 2,400 in October. Air Force Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, the multinational forces' deputy operations director, told Knight Ridder on Friday that attacks were currently running at 75 a day, about 2,300 a month, well below a spike in November during the assault on Fallujah, but nearly as high as October's total.

- The average number of mass-casualty bombings has grown from zero in the first four months of the American occupation to an average of 13 per month.

- Electricity production has been below pre-war levels since October, largely because of sabotage by insurgents, with just 6.7 hours of power daily in Baghdad in early January, according to the State Department.

- Iraq is pumping about 500,000 barrels a day fewer than its pre-war peak of 2.5 million barrels per day as a result of attacks, according to the State Department.

"All the trend lines we can identify are all in the wrong direction," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, a Washington policy research organization. "We are not winning, and the security trend lines could almost lead you to believe that we are losing."

The combat numbers are based mainly on Defense Department releases compiled by O'Hanlon in an Iraq Index. Since the numbers can fluctuate significantly from month to month, Knight Ridder examined the statistics for fatalities, wounded and mass-casualty bombings using a technique mathematicians call a moving average - averaging the number of attacks in one month with the number of attacks in the two months immediately preceding it in order to better reveal the underlying trend.

Lessel said that since the U.S. assault on the former rebel stronghold of Fallujah in November, "we have been making a lot of progress" against the insurgency.

He said the number of attacks, bombings and kidnappings is down from November, experienced insurgent leaders are being arrested or killed, U.S. and Iraqi forces remain on the offensive and more Iraqis have been providing intelligence on insurgents.

Other indications that "things are turning around" include surveys that show 80 percent of Iraqis wanting to vote in the Jan. 30 elections and more than 90 percent opposing violence as a solution to the crisis. In addition, the recruitment and training of Iraqi security forces are being stepped up, Lessel said.

"I don't want to paint too rosy a picture. We still have an insurgency that has a lot of capabilities," he said. "When you ask is the insurgency growing, you have to ask is it growing in terms of popular support, and I don't see that happening."

There are some additional bright spots.

In the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad and the southern town of Najaf, the scene of intense fighting last year with Shiite Muslim rebels, millions of dollars are pouring into reconstruction efforts.

Both places are now relatively peaceful and are counted as victories, with the danger of a spreading insurgency backed by Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority largely thwarted.

Some 14 million Iraqis, mostly Shiite, are registered to vote in the Jan. 30 elections for an interim 275-seat National Assembly. They'll choose among 111 slates comprising 7,785 candidates.

Roughly 1,500 U.S.-funded reconstruction projects are employing more than 100,000 Iraqis, and the insurgents' campaign of attacks and threats has failed to deter sign-ups for Iraq's new security forces.

These developments, however, have had little impact on the broader trends that have moved against the United States through all the spikes and lulls in violence.

Most worrisome, the insurgency is getting larger.

At the close of 2003, U.S. commanders put the number of insurgents at 5,000. Earlier this month, Gen. Mohammed Abdullah Shahwani, the director of the Iraqi intelligence service, said there are 200,000 insurgents, including at least 40,000 hard-core fighters. The rest, he said, are part-time fighters and supporters who provide food, shelter, funds and intelligence.

"Many Iraqis respect these gunmen because they are fighting the invaders," said Nabil Mohammed, a Baghdad University political science professor.

The insurgents "are getting smarter all the time. We've seen a lot of changes in their tactics that say, one, they're getting help from outside, and two, they're learning," said Sgt. 1st Class Glenn Aldrich, 35, of Houston, a 16-year Army veteran, after spending an hour recently greeting Iraqis on a foot patrol through a Baghdad neighborhood.

The resistance has grown despite suffering huge casualties to overwhelming U.S. firepower. Exact statistics aren't available.

Insurgent attacks have shifted from small groups of men shooting at tanks with AK-47s to powerful car bombs and roadside explosives, and well-planned assaults, kidnappings and assassinations.

American soldiers have subdued Sunni hotbeds such as Fallujah and Samarra. Yet these military victories have failed to achieve the broader goal of weakening the resistance.

Guerrilla fighters leave behind a rear guard force to fight while moving the bulk of their fighters and leadership elsewhere. During and after the Fallujah battle in November, for example, Mosul and several Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad became more violent.

Some Iraqis say these aggressive U.S. military moves are counterproductive because mass destruction and the killing of Iraqis create more recruits for the insurgency.

"The insurgency will grow larger," said Ghazi Bada al Faisal, an employee of the Iraqi Ministry of Industry and a Fallujah resident. "The child whose brother and father were killed in the fighting will now seek revenge."

Some defense analysts are calling for a new strategy and more troops.

"We can only control the ground we stand on. We leave, and it falls apart," said Jeffrey White, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst at the Washington Center for Near East Policy.

White proposes sending 20,000 more troops.

But the Bush administration hopes to replace U.S. troops with well-trained Iraqis.

In late 2003, Iraqi recruits, many of them young and looking for a paycheck, were pushed through a week or so of training, given guns and uniforms and then declared graduated.

During the first major fight in Fallujah in April, many of them fled. In the second Fallujah confrontation, in November, they fought behind the main lines of battle and were infamous for spraying gunfire erratically and without warning, but fewer left their posts.

Even so, an entire national guard battalion in Mosul went absent without leave in November. Much of the Mosul police force simply collapsed under fire.

Bush administration officials say the program to train and equip new Iraqi security forces of more than 272,000 members is making progress.

Yet several independent experts said it would take at least two years before there are any meaningful numbers of Iraqi forces with counterinsurgency skills and as many as five years before the U.S. goal is attained.

"I think you can achieve success, but it will take a while and, unfortunately, there will be a lot more blood," said Peter Khalil, who was a senior security adviser to the U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq.

Of course, success isn't assured and the United States will be forced to deal with an elected Iraqi government that may set limits on what U.S. troops can do - and could even ask them to leave.

U.S. military officials had repeatedly, and accurately, predicted more violence in the approach to the elections, which is likely to bring to power a Shiite-dominated government after nearly a century of Sunni rule in Iraq.

Yet hopes that the election might lead to less violence have recently given way to more dire warnings, with expectations that Sunni insurgents who feel disenfranchised in the new Iraq will turn their guns on the elected government.

"I think that we will enter a different but still dangerous period in the post-election time frame," Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, said on Jan. 15.

Bush has vowed to stay the course.

The Pentagon dispatched retired U.S. Army Gen. Gary Luck this month to examine the training of Iraqi forces and to put a fresh eye on the anti-insurgent campaign.

Nickdfresh

01-23-2005, 04:11 PM

Things are going to hell in a hand basket. Looks like Osama got his American Afghanistan he always wanted.

kentuckyklira

01-23-2005, 04:57 PM

Read my sig!

I´m really glad Bush inc.´s plan to loot Iraq´s resources hasn´t quite worked out!

Knucklebones

01-23-2005, 05:40 PM

Vietnam, cha cha cha

Sgt Schultz

01-23-2005, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
Read my sig!

I´m really glad Bush inc.´s plan to loot Iraq´s resources hasn´t quite worked out!

Hey German fuckhead - it's too bad we missed your grandparents the last time, maybe next time. Fucking loser assholes like you who are for the Iraqi insurgents can go fuck off and die. Hopefully the latter. Fucking pathetic moron who doesn't even realize that the only reason he's able to fucking type his shit is because we liberated his fuckign country - FUCK YOU!

Nickdfresh

01-23-2005, 07:53 PM

Knucklebones

01-23-2005, 09:56 PM

Knucklebones

01-24-2005, 03:26 AM

still no reply, owned I see

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Knucklebones
still no reply, owned I see

Yes, I have been "owned" by a 19 year old who peruses conspiracy hack websites for information. Paint me as bitch slapped. What exactly is your point here? That American businessmen and politicians dealt with the German government in the 1930s? And..............?

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Was he supposed to support the Soviets in Afghanistan since they also helped "liberate" Germany? They did sacrifice far more than we did after all.

How interesting. The U.S and Britain liberated Germany, the Soviets occupied it and took it over. Ever hear of the Berlin Wall? The German Army invaded the Soviet Union, and that is where the bulk of fighting was done in Europe in WWII - therefore of course they "sacrificed" much more than the Americans did.

And then to make this leap into the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and comparing it to the U.S. in Iraq- it's so ludicrous I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Try again.

Nickdfresh

01-24-2005, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
How interesting. The U.S and Britain liberated Germany, the Soviets occupied it and took it over. Ever hear of the Berlin Wall? The German Army invaded the Soviet Union, and that is where the bulk of fighting was done in Europe in WWII - therefore of course they "sacrificed" much more than the Americans did.

What is interesting is your semantics. We never would have been able to have defeated the Nazi's and 'liberated' Europe without them! You ignore that in your typical American hubris and ignorance regarding WWII. There would have been no D-Day without Stalingrad! So therefore, by your logic, he owes the Russians at least as much as he owes us.

And then to make this leap into the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan...

NO! YOU made the leap when you rip a German national, acting as if he "owes us" something for his 'liberation' without putting anything in a proper, realistic historical context! I was merely pointing out and deconstructing your bullshit. I don't necessarily agree with Kentucky, but he has the right to provide an alternate perspective which is entirely valid. Germans are not semi-Americans that owe us allegiance as you seem to think.

...and comparing it to the U.S. in Iraq- it's so ludicrous I wouldn't even know where to begin.

You don't know where to begin because you don't understand the analogy! I was merely pointing out, as have many others, that Osama wanted to tie down and possibly defeat a superpower in a guerilla war like he experienced during the Afghan War. That's why 9/11 happened, to prompt us to run off to Afghanistan. It is happening, only not the way he thought it would, in Iraq.

Try again.

Try again what? You try again!

BigBadBrian

01-24-2005, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
. That's why 9/11 happened, to prompt us to run off to Afghanistan. It is happening, only not the way he thought it would, in Iraq.

Try again what? You try again!

Conventional Wisdom says that is what is happening, but it is not. That is where I have to give RumDum credit as much as I have distaste for the man.

Large quantities of US forces are not bogged down in Iraq. Yes, we have some 150,000 people there, but those people could be extracted and put into action elsewhere (Iran, Syria ???) if the need suddenly arose.

Remember, the bulk of US armor and artillery is still available for use elsewhere.

Furtherthermore, I believe the US does indeed have an exit strategy to be implemented over time after the Iraqi elections. The pot will take time to simmer back down, but eventually we can start to pull our people out.

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 10:40 AM

“What is interesting is your semantics. We never would have been able to have defeated the Nazi's and 'liberated' Europe without them! You ignore that in your typical American hubris and ignorance regarding WWII. There would have been no D-Day without Stalingrad! So therefore, by your logic, he owes the Russians at least as much as he owes us. “

I’ll take you or anyone else on, any day, regarding WWII history. Bring it on. I know full well the Soviet Union defeated Germany and that the Western front was secondary. Your argument fails utterly in what was done AFTER the defeat of the Nazis in the different occupied zones. Care to compare what East Germany was in every aspect to what West Germany was up to the fall of the Wall?

“YOU made the leap when you rip a German national, acting as if he "owes us" something for his 'liberation' without putting anything in a proper, realistic historical context! I was merely pointing out and deconstructing your bullshit. I don't necessarily agree with Kentucky, but he has the right to provide an alternate perspective which is entirely valid. Germans are not semi-Americans that owe us allegiance as you seem to think. “

Wrong again, I don’t think that, but you are showing that YOU are a reactionary who has a knee-jerk reaction when certain buzz-words or phrases are used. Yes, of course every German, and continental European for that matter, must credit the United States and Britain for their current status of wealth and luxury of not having any responsibilities to protect themselves or others in the world. I never said Germans were semi- Americans, but Americans have every right to be annoyed with the Germans for a de-facto breaking of their allegiance with the U.S. when things got too uncomfortable for them while the U.S. spent billions and billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives to liberate, rebuild and then priotect them for 40+ years.

“You don't know where to begin because you don't understand the analogy! I was merely pointing out, as have many others, that Osama wanted to tie down and possibly defeat a superpower in a guerilla war like he experienced during the Afghan War. That's why 9/11 happened, to prompt us to run off to Afghanistan. It is happening, only not the way he thought it would, in Iraq. “

I certainly do understand what your analogy, but the analogy is flawed utterly. You and others have this notion of Osama as some brilliant tactician and reconstruct history after the fact to fit your twisted view of current realities. Osama’s strategy was to “lure” us into Afghanistan so we would be defeated like the Soviets were? Wrong. The majority of trouble in Iraq is coming from Sunni Ba’athists who have been ruling Iraq for a long time and don’t want to give up their power.

It comes down to this – you are either in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq – or not. If you are not in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq you are in favor of reestablishing Saddam Hussein as the legitimate President of Iraq. Period. You decide which side you’re on.

BigBadBrian

01-24-2005, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz

It comes down to this – you are either in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq – or not. If you are not in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq you are in favor of reestablishing Saddam Hussein as the legitimate President of Iraq. Period. You decide which side you’re on.

Indeed. Nick is a Neo-Liberal Socialist in favor of the US losing to the Iraqi resistance. He favors us negotiating with them. ;)

Nickdfresh

01-24-2005, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz

I’ll take you or anyone else on, any day, regarding WWII history. Bring it on. I know full well the Soviet Union defeated Germany and that the Western front was secondary. Your argument fails utterly in what was done AFTER the defeat of the Nazis in the different occupied zones. Care to compare what East Germany was in every aspect to what West Germany was up to the fall of the Wall?

Then why do you make this cavalier 'we freed your ass' statements when in fact it was an alliance of convenience that defeated the Hun barbarians. This isn't about East or West Germany, my point was about your statement that the Germans solely owe us anything when in fact we have always looked out for our interests and our interests solely.

Wrong again, I don’t think that, but you are showing that YOU are a reactionary who has a knee-jerk reaction when certain buzz-words or phrases are used.

I have no idea what you mean specifically. But I am hardly a reactionary.

Yes, of course every German, and continental European for that matter, must credit the United States and Britain for their current status of wealth and luxury of not having any responsibilities to protect themselves or others in the world.[b]

What do you mean, the German Bundeswehr is one of the largest, best trained and funded forces in Central Europe. As part of the NATO alliance, they have assisted greatly in providing security of the Western World. The Germans worked very hard for their economic miracle and it benefited us as much as it has them.

Does the fact that we had troops there for 50 years mean now that they must follow our policy edicts when it is made by insane, unrealistic, and frankly stupid Neo Cons that believe they can remake the world in our image with enough tanks.

[b]I never said Germans were semi- Americans, but Americans have every right to be annoyed with the Germans for a de-facto breaking of their allegiance with the U.S. when things got too uncomfortable for them while the U.S. spent billions and billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives to liberate, rebuild and then priotect them for 40+ years.

We 'protected' them because it was in our best interests. The Germans have been trading parters and have paid us back by helping to open new markets for our goods and building cars for us. They don't owe us anything more than that, not if you mean they must send their kids to die in Iraq. I'm sorry, but I do not subscribe to the Neo Con bullshit anti-European smear campaign that has been orchestrated by our Freedom Fry lovin' assholes in the RNC high command.

I certainly do understand what your analogy, but the analogy is flawed utterly. You and others have this notion of Osama as some brilliant tactician and reconstruct history after the fact to fit your twisted view of current realities. Osama’s strategy was to “lure” us into Afghanistan so we would be defeated like the Soviets were? Wrong.

Really? Then why did 9/11 work? Why did we ultimately invade Afghanistan, only not the way Osama wanted? That's exactly what he wanted, to commit America to the global jihad. Some in the CIA do see Osama as a brilliant tactician. After all, he was once on their payroll.

The majority of trouble in Iraq is coming from Sunni Ba’athists who have been ruling Iraq for a long time and don’t want to give up their power.

Really? You sure? Of course it is! I said Osama did not plan for things to happen this way, it's Dubya's and the Neo Con's incompetence, not Osama's brilliance, that has resulted in this 'quagmire.'

It comes down to this – you are either in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq – or not. If you are not in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq you are in favor of reestablishing Saddam Hussein as the legitimate President of Iraq. Period. You decide which side you’re on.

Yeah right! Nice black and white over-simplification! I'm in favor of Saddam now, eh? BULLSHIT!

Just ignore all of the WMD bullshit and the fact that Osama had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

This hasn't been about Saddam for two years now! We are not going to 'win' in Iraq, not without a massive increase in troop strength. We are not going to defeat this insurgency because despite all of our efforts, things go bad to worse. The only thing now is to hope the Shiites and Sunnis can sort it out amongst themselves with a power sharing arrangement, probably after a substantial portion of U.S. troops are withdrawn. The plan was flawed from the beginning, and as the Romans used to say, "bad beginnings beget bad endings."

Nickdfresh

01-24-2005, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Indeed. Nick is a Neo-Liberal Socialist in favor of the US losing to the Iraqi resistance. He favors us negotiating with them. ;)

Hey BigBlunder? How's that Rummy planned war goin'?

BigBadBrian

01-24-2005, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Hey BigBlunder? How's that Rummy planned war goin'?

It's not a matter of people now is it? Or is it? It that what it all boils down to you?

I've stated over and over again I've never been a fan of Rumsfeld, but to quote Sgt Schultz earlier in this thread:

It comes down to this – you are either in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq – or not. If you are not in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq you are in favor of reestablishing Saddam Hussein as the legitimate President of Iraq. Period. You decide which side you’re on.

Will you go on record right here and state now which side you favor as to winning? The Bush/Rumsfeld/US/Coalition side, or the Iraqi insurgent side? Hmm?

That goes for everyone else. Kentucky excluded. We all know he's the enemy. :gun:

Nickdfresh

01-24-2005, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
It's not a matter of people now is it? Or is it? It that what it all boils down to you?

I've stated over and over again I've never been a fan of Rumsfeld, but to quote Sgt Schultz earlier in this thread:

It comes down to this – you are either in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq – or not. If you are not in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq you are in favor of reestablishing Saddam Hussein as the legitimate President of Iraq. Period. You decide which side you’re on.

Will you go on record right here and state now which side you favor as to winning? The Bush/Rumsfeld/US/Coalition side, or the Iraqi insurgent side? Hmm?

That goes for everyone else. Kentucky excluded. We all know he's the enemy. :gun:

You are a complete moron if you believe that B.S.! This isn't WWII Big! Actually it's a lot like Vietnam.

The insurgents have already won to some extent by surviving. How are we going to win BigBag? Only the Iraqis can "win" it themselves if this debacle grows into a wider civil war.

How many kids are going to get killed so you can crow about a complete victory, I do respect your status as a veteran, but Sgt. Schultz can quit his band and pick up a rifle and head right over to Iraq (to paraphrase Knuckleboner) if he is so gung ho to win. Oh yeah, I forgot you can sit here on forum boards and tell everyone what a military hawk you are and still be a good Republican. After all it's not your limbs being blasted off or your parents getting the triangular wrapped flag.

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 03:03 PM

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You are a complete moron if you believe that B.S.! This isn't WWII Big! Actually it's a lot like Vietnam.

The insurgents have already won to some extent by surviving. How are we going to win BigBag? Only the Iraqis can "win" it themselves if this debacle grows into a wider civil war.

How many kids are going to get killed so you can crow about a complete victory, I do respect your status as a veteran, but Sgt. Schultz can quit his band and pick up a rifle and head right over to Iraq (to paraphrase Knuckleboner) if he is so gung ho to win. Oh yeah, I forgot you can sit here on forum boards and tell everyone what a military hawk you are and still be a good Republican. After all it's not your limbs being blasted off or your parents getting the triangular wrapped flag.

So since you won’t answer the question (don’t feel too bad, most lefties won’t answer) whether you want the U.S. to win the war or not I’ll guess that you DON’T want the U.S. to win the war. Bringing up the lame “chickenhawk” argument AGAIN I see? Fine.

Since you are in favor of the U.S. LOSING in Iraq and I’m sure you were not in favor of the war to begin with, and since there were no wmd then you are in favor of a return of Saddam Hussein, and since you and other leftists believe that free speech (in favor of winning the war) has certain caveats then I say that YOUR free speech means that YOU should show us all how YOU want to go live in Iraq after Saddam has been put back in power.

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
The old "yer either with us, or aginst us" crap.

I say FUCK your whole premise. Funny how those 2 options are it in the Rummy handbook.

We either better shut up and support this clusterfuck, or else reinstall Sadaam???????????

what a crock:rolleyes:

That is exactly the point – – are you in favor of the U.S. now winning the war or not? The lefties here don’t seem to want to answer that question. Because if you are saying that since we have not found any WMD (in Iraq) that the war should not have been waged. If you believe that you then must logically accept that you are in favor of a return of Saddam Hussein.

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 04:05 PM

Define "win"

Hold the "elections" and leave.

BTW, what kind of "elections" dont even have the NAMES of the candidates on the friggin BALLOTS?????

We've already "lost" this thing as far as Im concerned. The Art of War says....most battles are either won or lost BEFORE they're ever fought.

Please define "win" and I'll give you an honest answer. As far as Team Bush is concerned Oil flowing to us freely will be a "win"

THIS WAS NEVER ABOUT FREEDOM OR DEMOCRACY

Knucklebones

01-24-2005, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Yes, I have been "owned" by a 19 year old who peruses conspiracy hack websites for information. Paint me as bitch slapped. What exactly is your point here? That American businessmen and politicians dealt with the German government in the 1930s? And..............?

The "hack" who the website is about

Learn more about John Loftus

It is possible that John Loftus may know more intelligence secrets than anyone alive. As a former Justice Department prosecutor, Loftus once held some of the highest security clearances in the world, with special access to NATO Cosmic, CIA codeword, and Top Secret Nuclear files. As a private attorney, he works without charge to help hundreds of intelligence agents obtain lawful permission to declassify and publish the hidden secrets of our times. He is the author of four history books, three of which have been made into films, two were international best sellers, and one was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. In 2002, the SHOWTIME channel will begin filming “SECRET WARS,” the pilot of a television series based on Loftus’ life story, starring Jon Voight and Aidan Quinn.

As a young U.S. Army officer, John Loftus helped train Israelis on a covert operation that turned the tide of battle in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. During the Carter and Reagan Administrations, he investigated CIA cases and Nazi War Criminals for the Attorney General of the United States. In 1982, his “60 Minutes” expose of Nazis on the US government payroll won the Emmy Award for outstanding investigative journalism.

Born in Boston, Loftus now lives in St. Petersburg where he volunteers as the first Irish Catholic President of the Florida Holocaust Museum, the fifth largest in the world. Their goal is to end racism in our children’s lifetime. After recovering from colon cancer, he is now completing his fifth book, a look at the Middle East through the life of Jonathan Pollard. Before his illness, he had been rated among the funniest and most inspiring speakers on the international and college lecture circuits. Now he’s back with a totally different lecture that could not be more timely.

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Define "win"

Hold the "elections" and leave.

BTW, what kind of "elections" dont even have the NAMES of the candidates on the friggin BALLOTS?????

We've already "lost" this thing as far as Im concerned. The Art of War says....most battles are either won or lost BEFORE they're ever fought.

Please define "win" and I'll give you an honest answer. As far as Team Bush is concerned Oil flowing to us freely will be a "win"

THIS WAS NEVER ABOUT FREEDOM OR DEMOCRACY

You pacifists are hopeless. You already think we lost. Notice that he still won't answer the question - anyone suprised?

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Knucklebones
The "hack" who the website is about

Learn more about John Loftus

It is possible that John Loftus may know more intelligence secrets than anyone alive. As a former Justice Department prosecutor, Loftus once held some of the highest security clearances in the world, with special access to NATO Cosmic, CIA codeword, and Top Secret Nuclear files. As a private attorney, he works without charge to help hundreds of intelligence agents obtain lawful permission to declassify and publish the hidden secrets of our times. He is the author of four history books, three of which have been made into films, two were international best sellers, and one was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. In 2002, the SHOWTIME channel will begin filming “SECRET WARS,” the pilot of a television series based on Loftus’ life story, starring Jon Voight and Aidan Quinn.

As a young U.S. Army officer, John Loftus helped train Israelis on a covert operation that turned the tide of battle in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. During the Carter and Reagan Administrations, he investigated CIA cases and Nazi War Criminals for the Attorney General of the United States. In 1982, his “60 Minutes” expose of Nazis on the US government payroll won the Emmy Award for outstanding investigative journalism.

Born in Boston, Loftus now lives in St. Petersburg where he volunteers as the first Irish Catholic President of the Florida Holocaust Museum, the fifth largest in the world. Their goal is to end racism in our children’s lifetime. After recovering from colon cancer, he is now completing his fifth book, a look at the Middle East through the life of Jonathan Pollard. Before his illness, he had been rated among the funniest and most inspiring speakers on the international and college lecture circuits. Now he’s back with a totally different lecture that could not be more timely.

Again, what is your point? That Americans did business with the German government in the 1930s? Is that your point? Then I take it back, Loftus is a genius.

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 04:25 PM

define the word WIN in your view of this "war", and I'll answer the question.

jesus h christ

ODShowtime

01-24-2005, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
It comes down to this – you are either in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq – or not. If you are not in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq you are in favor of reestablishing Saddam Hussein as the legitimate President of Iraq. Period. You decide which side you’re on.

BBB, you couldn't even tell us what winning the war in Iraq means. The whole thing was designed to be open ended. Perpetual. How fuckin' hard is that to understand?

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by ODShowtime
BBB, you couldn't even tell us what winning the war in Iraq means. The whole thing was designed to be open ended. Perpetual. How fuckin' hard is that to understand?

EXACTLY

There was NEVER a clear objective, as it changed with the wind. No exit strategy either.

NOW THEY CAN'T EVEN DEFINE WHAT A WIN WOULD LOOK LIKE

ELVIS

01-24-2005, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
As far as Team Bush is concerned Oil flowing to us freely will be a "win"

Even if this idiotic statement were true, what would your opposing argument be ??

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by ELVIS
Even if this idiotic statement were true, what would your opposing argument be ??

That we shouldnt KILL tens of thousands of innocent citizens for OIL

But of course YOUR idiotic statements will refute this, right Mr. Christian?:rolleyes:

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
define the word WIN in your view of this "war", and I'll answer the question.

jesus h christ

You stated "As far as Team Bush is concerned Oil flowing to us freely will be a "win" ". No matter what terms I state, you'll say it hasn't happened or it isn't possible. The leftists have it set up so no matter what, we'll have "lost" in Iraq. You know damn well what "winning"in Iraq is. My question remains - do you WANT the U.S. to win the war in Iraq" Yes or no?

I'll make the question easier for you. 100 years from now historians are writing books about the war in Iraq and they conclude that the U.S. "won" the war because their objectives
1. Find and destroy wmd and the capability to make them
2. Oust Saddam Hussein adn the Ba'athists from power
3. Set up an interim government
4. Hold elections

my question to you is - are you in favor of the objectives that the U.S. have already won and are you in favor of the U.S. winning future objectives as I have outlined? Can I make it any more clear?

Knucklebones

01-24-2005, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Again, what is your point? That Americans did business with the German government in the 1930s? Is that your point? Then I take it back, Loftus is a genius.

Ah, he has reading comprehension problems. Sorry bout you being a dumbass.

The point is that the BUSH family did business with the NAZIS DURING WWII, even after Pearl Harbor. Which was how the Nazi war machine was funded, and how the Bush family became extremely rich.:rolleyes:

ELVIS

01-24-2005, 04:40 PM

How is it their oil, anyway ??

kentuckyklira

01-24-2005, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Hey German fuckhead - it's too bad we missed your grandparents the last time, maybe next time. Fucking loser assholes like you who are for the Iraqi insurgents can go fuck off and die. Hopefully the latter. Fucking pathetic moron who doesn't even realize that the only reason he's able to fucking type his shit is because we liberated his fuckign country - FUCK YOU! You sound like you appreciate a major owning, be my guest!

You "liberated" my country! Bullshit. Your ancestors gave us our, more or less, "freedom" because we were needed as a propaganda role model. Ask the people of Chile and/or Nicaragua what it´s like to be "liberated" with US help when leaving a good impression is of no profit to the USA.

BTW, history lesson, West Germany only got its full sovereignity (at least on paper) in 1953 after our government agreed to put up and pay for a new German army to become part of NATO so the USA could save some dough fighting their cold war. Before that most of our government´s decisions had to be OK´d by the allied command.

Plus, as another piece of evidence to our "liberty", Stalin offered West Germany the reunification with East Germany and full sovereignity if it didn´t join NATO. Our government, that even had German unification as one of the #1 goals in its constitution declined. Figure out why!

Knucklebones

01-24-2005, 04:42 PM

1. Find and destroy wmd and the capability to make them
2. Oust Saddam Hussein adn the Ba'athists from power
3. Set up an interim government
4. Hold elections

1. Is not possible if we don't find them
2. To be replaced by?
3. So hows that going
4. Research a bit more about Shi'ite and Sunni culture will ya

ELVIS

01-24-2005, 04:44 PM

Schults, you should make your posts look like this...

I enjoy your intelligent posts, but it's hard to read with multiple quotes...

You stated:

As far as Team Bush is concerned Oil flowing to us freely will be a "win" .

No matter what terms I state, you'll say it hasn't happened or it isn't possible. The leftists have it set up so no matter what, we'll have "lost" in Iraq. You know damn well what "winning"in Iraq is. My question remains - do you WANT the U.S. to win the war in Iraq" Yes or no?

I'll make the question easier for you. 100 years from now historians are writing books about the war in Iraq and they conclude that the U.S. "won" the war because their objectives
1. Find and destroy wmd and the capability to make them
2. Oust Saddam Hussein adn the Ba'athists from power
3. Set up an interim government
4. Hold elections

my question to you is - are you in favor of the objectives that the U.S. have already won and are you in favor of the U.S. winning future objectives as I have outlined? Can I make it any more clear?

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz

I'll make the question easier for you. 100 years from now historians are writing books about the war in Iraq and they conclude that the U.S. "won" the war because their objectives

1. Find and destroy wmd and the capability to make them

HISTORY WILL SHOW THEY WERE NEVER THERE, JUST AS THE AMINISTRATION WAS TOLD, EXCEPT BY TENET AND CHALABI

2. Oust Saddam Hussein adn the Ba'athists from power

WHICH SINCE RETURNED TO POWER BY ELECTIONS

3. Set up an interim government

WHICH COULDNT EVEN KEEP A POLICE FORCE ALIVE

4. Hold elections

WHICH CARRIED ONLY SYMBOLS OF THE PARTIES, AND NOT THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES, AND WERE ONLY VIABLE IN 58% OF THE COUNTRY

? Can I make it any more clear?

No, your revisionist history made your agenda perfectly clear.

I like those rose colored glasses you have.:cool:

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by ELVIS
How is it their oil, anyway ??

You're an Idiot:rolleyes:

Knucklebones

01-24-2005, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
You sound like you appreciate a major owning, be my guest!

You "liberated" my country! Bullshit. Your ancestors gave us our, more or less, "freedom" because we were needed as a propaganda role model. Ask the people of Chile and/or Nicaragua what it´s like to be "liberated" with US help when leaving a good impression is of no profit to the USA.

BTW, history lesson, West Germany only got its full sovereignity (at least on paper) in 1953 after our government agreed to put up and pay for a new German army to become part of NATO so the USA could save some dough fighting their cold war. Before that most of our government´s decisions had to be OK´d by the allied command.

Plus, as another piece of evidence to our "liberty", Stalin offered West Germany the reunification with East Germany and full sovereignity if it didn´t join NATO. Our government, that even had German unification as one of the #1 goals in its constitution declined. Figure out why!

I actually HAD a classmate from South America once. When the history teacher said something about the U.S, having a history of being saviors, he broke down and started yelling about the time U.S. forces came into his town and started gunning "the enemy" down. The nemy being random civilians, his friends, neighbors, family.

Then he said how the U.S. said it was necessary to out some drug lord or something. His father was some sorta military figure knowledgable about these kind if things and told him no, it was not necessary.

About half way through his outburst he started saying FUCK the US! They aren't fucking saviors! etc etc.

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
You sound like you appreciate a major owning, be my guest!

You "liberated" my country! Bullshit. Your ancestors gave us our, more or less, "freedom" because we were needed as a propaganda role model. Ask the people of Chile and/or Nicaragua what it´s like to be "liberated" with US help when leaving a good impression is of no profit to the USA.

BTW, history lesson, West Germany only got its full sovereignity (at least on paper) in 1953 after our government agreed to put up and pay for a new German army to become part of NATO so the USA could save some dough fighting their cold war. Before that most of our government´s decisions had to be OK´d by the allied command.

Plus, as another piece of evidence to our "liberty", Stalin offered West Germany the reunification with East Germany and full sovereignity if it didn´t join NATO. Our government, that even had German unification as one of the #1 goals in its constitution declined. Figure out why!

You are a prime example of a post-moderinist, leftist Euroweenie who refuses to accept reality. You have lived in you safe little cocoon courtesy of the United States and have had the luxury of pacifist thought and self-denial. That's fine, because nothing will make you see differently - until you are forced to face your enemies ALONE. And when that happens you will come crawling to the U.S.

I have some questions for you moron - did Stalin consider Eastern bloc countries "sovereign"? Have you ever heard of the Marshall plan?

whodat

01-24-2005, 04:50 PM

can you guys imagine with our troops in iraq, what syria and iran could do to us in addition to the threat from south korea. he us at our weakest regarding our troops. Who is protecting our borders other than the gringos and the police department. yea we have national gaurd but the majority of our forces are abroad. what say you guys?

kentuckyklira

01-24-2005, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
How interesting. The U.S and Britain liberated Germany, the Soviets occupied it and took it over. History lesson, part 2.

In the first 2 years after WWII people were starving and freezing in the western occupation zones, while the USSR fed and kept the East Germans from freezing. Only after the cold war was imminent and the USSR started using the better shape East Germans were in for propaganda did the US, UK and the French start providing enough food and heating fuel to West Germans.
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Ever hear of the Berlin Wall? Of course. And who watched it being built?? After all, an expert like you ought to know that West Berlin was under allied command till 1990! It only became an official and sovereign part of Germany after German reunification.
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
And then to make this leap into the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and comparing it to the U.S. in Iraq- it's so ludicrous I wouldn't even know where to begin.
What?? The USSR invaded Afghanistan to install a puppet government and reap the profits of Afghanistan´s strategic location.

The USA invaded Iraq for no different reason, especially if you consider controlling the world´s second largest oil reserves as a strategic advantage!

:fucku:

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
No, your revisionist history made your agenda perfectly clear.

I like those rose colored glasses you have.:cool:

Care to answer yet?

Nickdfresh

01-24-2005, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
So since you won’t answer the question (don’t feel too bad, most lefties won’t answer) whether you want the U.S. to win the war or not I’ll guess that you DON’T want the U.S. to win the war. Bringing up the lame “chickenhawk” argument AGAIN I see? Fine.

Since you are in favor of the U.S. LOSING in Iraq and I’m sure you were not in favor of the war to begin with, and since there were no wmd then you are in favor of a return of Saddam Hussein, and since you and other leftists believe that free speech (in favor of winning the war) has certain caveats then I say that YOUR free speech means that YOU should show us all how YOU want to go live in Iraq after Saddam has been put back in power.

Actually I am in favor of a negotiated settlement that guarantees that the Sunni's aren't slaughtered by the Shiites and the Shiites aren't bombed out of existence if we draw down our forces and stop exposing our troops to roadside bombs and ambushes. There, now that's a creative solution. But it is really difficult to debate with someone that doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about when it comes to military matters and gives me black-and-white edicts. Saddam, back in power? He'll be killed by Shiite factions before he can utter allah akbar.

Then you dodge questions regarding your own commitment to the war effort so enthusiastically supported. Your chickenhawk stuff is weak dude, the argument notwithstanding, one must admit the members of congress are more enthusiastic to drop bombs and ship out Marines when their children are in some fucking law school somewhere instead of serving. So, like it or not not, the chickenhawk argument (that you named 'preemptively') is a valid one when you seem so full-throttle to fight to the last American in Iraq, victory or death, and spout your schoolboy speeches.

I can tell you really must have a political science degree, or perhaps you have extensively written about the geopolitical aspects of the Vietnam war? Or the Middle East for that matter?

Again, in another thread you spout your little preemptive chickenhawk statement, but don't come at me with your "I'm a super-patriot but I don't have to serve to be one" bullshit when you speak out of two sides of your mouth!

You sit here and give me your retarded absolutist "You're either with us or against us crap" but then tell everyone that you can be for the war but never serve! Yeah right, instead of "hit drum" or "'strum guitar," why don't you 'enlist Army' and 'pull trigger?' tough guy! Then you can be all tough and macho, with your worthless black-and-white, simple-minded solutions! You can really go get those Saddam lovin' Sunni Baathists!

Just try the National Guard, it's only one weekend a month, two weeks a year! Then you can come back and tell us all the answers supa'-patriot!;) :rolleyes:

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Care to answer yet?

Read it again

I answered your hypothetical "history" with my own

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
History lesson, part 2.

In the first 2 years after WWII people were starving and freezing in the western occupation zones, while the USSR fed and kept the East Germans from freezing. Only after the cold war was imminent and the USSR started using the better shape East Germans were in for propaganda did the US, UK and the French start providing enough food and heating fuel to West Germans. Of course. And who watched it being built?? After all, an expert like you ought to know that West Berlin was under allied command till 1990! It only became an official and sovereign part of Germany after German reunification. What?? The USSR invaded Afghanistan to install a puppet government and reap the profits of Afghanistan´s strategic location.

The USA invaded Iraq for no different reason, especially if you consider controlling the world´s second largest oil reserves as a strategic advantage!

:fucku:

Wow, you ARE an idiot. So are you oficially a Socialist or do you still hide that? I haven't seen this kind of Commie / Socialist propoganda since the 80s. Good luck with your worker's paradise.

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by ELVIS
How is it their oil, anyway ??

No, It's God's Oil, and He told Junior to go and get it for him:rolleyes:

moron

Nickdfresh

01-24-2005, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
You pacifists are hopeless. You already think we lost. Notice that he still won't answer the question - anyone suprised?

BTW SGT Schultz, SHUT THE FUCK UP! I SERVED IN THE ARMY FOR NEARLY EIGHT YEARS! I am not a pacifist! "Righty supa'-patriot sunshine!

SHUT THE FUCK UP UNTIL YOU SERVE CHICKENHAWK!pussy!

Jesterstar

01-24-2005, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Wow, you ARE an idiot. So are you oficially a Socialist or do you still hide that? I haven't seen this kind of Commie / Socialist propoganda since the 80s. Good luck with your worker's paradise.

The cold war was a manufactured war to get the american people behind a arms race you fucking retard.

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Read it again

I answered your hypothetical "history" with my own

I'm sorry to say but you are just a typical crybaby left winger who has no desire, or ability to see past your own personal hatred of Bush. You are a lost cause. Just continue to make things up so that it fits your own reality if that makes you comfy. No matter what Bush lied, it's about oil, if elections are not 100% safe and perfect they aren't legit blah blah blah.

Why dont YOU define a win? I did.

kentuckyklira

01-24-2005, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Care to compare what East Germany was in every aspect to what West Germany was up to the fall of the Wall? Care to explain where I, or anybody else, claimed that socialism works better than a free market economy in the long run!!??

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Yes, of course every German, and continental European for that matter, must credit the United States and Britain for their current status of wealth and luxury of not having any responsibilities to protect themselves or others in the world.Bullshit again. We were even paying the US part of their expenses of stationing troops in Germany even though it wasn´t our cold war. We got rich because we were that efficient, and don´t give me that "Marshall Plan" BS because we got the least of it and actually paid most of it back. Plus, the USA needed strong economies in western Europe to,

a) help with the cold war

b) help the transition from a war to a peacetime economy in the USA without recession. Strong demand from abroad was substantial for that!

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
I never said Germans were semi- Americans, but Americans have every right to be annoyed with the Germans for a de-facto breaking of their allegiance with the U.S. when things got too uncomfortable for them while the U.S. spent billions and billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives to liberate, rebuild and then priotect them for 40+ years.Bullshit again. What kind of a fucking allegiance is that, where you have to follow the leader no matter how wrong you think the madness is the leader´s currently starting??!! Plus again, YOU DIDN`T FUCKING PAY FOR REBUILDING GERMANY!

Nickdfresh

01-24-2005, 05:05 PM

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
BTW SGT Schultz, SHUT THE FUCK UP! I SERVED IN THE ARMY FOR NEARLY EIGHT YEARS! I am not a pacifist! "Righty supa'-patriot sunshine!

SHUT THE FUCK UP UNTIL YOU SERVE CHICKENHAWK!pussy!

Thanks for serving so you can tell me to shut the fuck up! I'm glad to see your service was not in vain and you protected my right to free speech. Thanks also for pointing out that I have no right to free speech unless I was in the armed forces like you were! I'm glad I paid taxes to pay you r salary and feed and clothe you so that you could then tell me to shut the fuck up becasue I didn't join and receive free health care, food, pay and clothing like you. Thanks for enlightening me.

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz

. Just continue to make things up so that it fits your own reality if that makes you comfy. .

Now THIS is fucking CLASSIC:D :D :D

Funny how THAT'S exactly what this administration has been doing.

You are the one that refuses to see the REALITY of the situation you and your administration put us in.

typical:rolleyes:

kentuckyklira

01-24-2005, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by ELVIS
How is it their oil, anyway ?? Because it´s their country!

What kind of a dumbass question is that??:fucku2: :mad2:

Nickdfresh

01-24-2005, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
I'm sorry to say but you are just a typical crybaby left winger who has no desire, or ability to see past your own personal hatred of Bush. You are a lost cause. Just continue to make things up so that it fits your own reality if that makes you comfy. No matter what Bush lied, it's about oil, if elections are not 100% safe and perfect they aren't legit blah blah blah.

Why dont YOU define a win? I did.

I think you are a PUSSY, big-talking right-wing bag of puss that has never lifted a fucking finger for his country! Is that all you can do is parrot the rational arguments against Bush in an effort to discount them Sunshine? You are weak and full of shit! With guys like you self anointed as the true believers, no wonder why we are losing in Iraq!

By the way, when are you going to make a rational argument for the war that is not based on some retarded sixth-grade "win or lose" premise! Tell us sunshine, why should we stay in Iraq?

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz

Why dont YOU define a win? I did.
You NEVER "defined" a win.

You talked about a history book full of lies.

Forget the fucking analogies and just post a WIN in your opinion

or dont

fuck if I care.

History will NOT be kind to this administration;s actions:rolleyes:

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 05:14 PM

kentuckyklira

01-24-2005, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Have you ever heard of the Marshall plan? Shall I own you again or would you do me the favour of reading up on the Marshall Plan yourself!!?????
:lol:

ELVIS

01-24-2005, 05:16 PM

The oil is underground, and it is technically under this and every country...

In fact, they wouldn't know it was there if the western scientists hadn't pointed it out to them...

How much oil does a camel require ??

Just kidding...:D

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You NEVER "defined" a win.

You talked about a history book full of lies.

Forget the fucking analogies and just post a WIN in your opinion

or dont

fuck if I care.

History will NOT be kind to this administration;s actions:rolleyes:

I knew it - you won't answer the question and then never even attempted to define it yourself.

ELVIS

01-24-2005, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

History will NOT be kind to this administrations actions:rolleyes:

100% not true!

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
Because it´s their country!

What kind of a dumbass question is that??:fucku2: :mad2:

From ELVIS ?

that one was only mildly retarded. He's done better, the little mensa:rolleyes:

kentuckyklira

01-24-2005, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Funny how the Neo Cons on the forum always know more about German history than Germans isn't it!? Sadly, that´s more or less the case on almost all US based forums I frequent!:hula:

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by ELVIS
100% not true!

100% idiotic post.

well done :rolleyes:

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
Shall I own you again or would you do me the favour of reading up on the Marshall Plan yourself!!?????
:lol:

Fuck off with your Internet message board language. My original post was a reaction to you stating that you are rooting for the insurgents to win in Iraq and that as German you should know better. WHich part of the Marshall Plan did the U.S. not pay for then?

Knucklebones

01-24-2005, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Thanks for serving so you can tell me to shut the fuck up! I'm glad to see your service was not in vain and you protected my right to free speech. Thanks also for pointing out that I have no right to free speech unless I was in the armed forces like you were! I'm glad I paid taxes to pay you r salary and feed and clothe you so that you could then tell me to shut the fuck up becasue I didn't join and receive free health care, food, pay and clothing like you. Thanks for enlightening me.

Oh yeah WOW! Free health care, food, pay and clothing for doing a job that risks his life, when you can get even more sitting on your ass in some cubicle. Wow! You sure are great! You pay fucking taxes! OMG like that's so fucking charitable of you!

Hell, you must have been fucking OVERPAYING him! Free health care, food, pay, and clothing sounds like a REAL great pay for military service.

You know, where you have to live away from home, in things like barracks or aircraft carriers and what not?

Nickdfresh

01-24-2005, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Thanks for serving so you can tell me to shut the fuck up! I'm glad to see your service was not in vain and you protected my right to free speech. Thanks also for pointing out that I have no right to free speech unless I was in the armed forces like you were! I'm glad I paid taxes to pay you r salary and feed and clothe you so that you could then tell me to shut the fuck up becasue I didn't join and receive free health care, food, pay and clothing like you. Thanks for enlightening me.

You are welcome.
Wow-e-wow! you pay taxes huh? Why that reminds me of the Chris Rock stand up routine where he talks about African-Americans that congratulate themselves for doing what they are SUPPOSED to be doing! LOL And thanks for hit drum and strum guitar, lol!
Actually, thanks for nothing!

I'm sure all the limbless soldiers in Walter Reed are personally thanking you for paying for their "free meals" and healthcare douchebag! Typical heartless reactionary cunt! Likening the Armed Forces to welfare, eh sunshine? Never having served you wouldn't know any better.

"Hey, you lazy bastards, get up! Sgt. Schultz is paying for your food and free healthcare and good pay!"

ODShowtime

01-24-2005, 05:22 PM

I'll take this further. We CAN'T win this war. Even if our military and diplomatic objectives are obtained, those dirty fucks (whoever the hell they are) will be nipping at our heels all the way out of Iraq. Just like Saigon in '75. No matter what, those pukes will spin it as a victory.

Sgt. Shultz tried to define what a victory would be. But what will it actually take for us to see victory? For gw to declare it (ooops he already did)? for us to deploy the fuck out of there? For the historians to grant us victory?
Who the fuck knows? gw won't tell us. We're not sitting here waiting for VME day! But American businessmen that are friends with gw&friends will still be getting their annual bonuses for the great profits brought on by the consumption of equipment and resources the war provides.

kentuckyklira

01-24-2005, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Fuck off with your Internet message board language. My original post was a reaction to you stating that you are rooting for the insurgents to win in Iraq and that as German you should know better. WHich part of the Marshall Plan did the U.S. not pay for then? West Germany was the most devastated country in western Europe. It was one of the countries that got the least Marshall Plan money. It was one of the few that paid a major amount of that money back. What we still haven´t paid back we loan to third world country developement projects with little or no interest!

I can´t be bothered to provide the links but you´re free to prove me wrong if you can!

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I think you are a PUSSY, big-talking right-wing bag of puss that has never lifted a fucking finger for his country! Is that all you can do is parrot the rational arguments against Bush in an effort to discount them Sunshine? You are weak and full of shit! With guys like you self anointed as the true believers, no wonder why we are losing in Iraq!

By the way, when are you going to make a rational argument for the war that is not based on some retarded sixth-grade "win or lose" premise! Tell us sunshine, why should we stay in Iraq?

WHich part is "big talking" - please define that for me would you? THe part about wanting the U.S. to prevail in Iraq? OK - I'm guilty of big talking you got me there. But again I congratulate you on being in the U.S. military and ensuring your right to tell me to shut the fuck up if I want the U.S. military to win a war.

Remember not to express an opinion about a subject that you have not personally been involved in, it's not allowed.

Nickdfresh

01-24-2005, 05:26 PM

There is only on way to win a protracted guerilla war, a combination of good intelligence and a lot of light infantry and special ops forces! We cannot win this war unless we flood the country with light infantry and prevent the Iraqi security forces from being butchered on a daily basis. We don't have enough troops, unless of course we bring back the draft!

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I'll take this further. We CAN'T win this war. Even if our military and diplomatic objectives are obtained, those dirty fucks (whoever the hell they are) will be nipping at our heels all the way out of Iraq. Just like Saigon in '75. No matter what, those pukes will spin it as a victory.

Sgt. Shultz tried to define what a victory would be. But what will it actually take for us to see victory? For gw to declare it (ooops he already did)? for us to deploy the fuck out of there? For the historians to grant us victory?
Who the fuck knows? gw won't tell us. We're not sitting here waiting for VME day! But American businessmen that are friends with gw&friends will still be getting their annual bonuses for the great profits brought on by the consumption of equipment and resources the war provides.

AMEN OD:D

Of course the Neo-Lemmings will never agree.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED:rolleyes:

ELVIS

01-24-2005, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
AMEN OD:D

Of course the Neo-Lemmings will never agree.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED:rolleyes:

You are truly retarted!

Believing that going to war is based on profits and lining your buddies pockets is insane...

ODShowtime

01-24-2005, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
AMEN OD:D

Of course the Neo-Lemmings will never agree.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED:rolleyes:

Yeah, what's all this nonsense about? We already won the war. Mission Accomplished

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by ELVIS
You are truly retarted!

Believing that going to war is based on profits and lining your buddies pockets is insane...

The irony in the fact you can't even spell retarded correctly is amusing:D

You've proven yourself to be nothing more than a mindless sheep. Being called "retarted" by YOU is a compliment.

Read some history idiot. :rolleyes:

You probably think Viet Nam was over communism:rolleyes:

But then you're the moron who makes judgements from Bootlegs:cool:

ODShowtime

01-24-2005, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by ELVIS
You are truly retarted!

Believing that going to war is based on profits and lining your buddies pockets is insane...

No, actually doing it is insane. You don't know a damn thing about real human nature. People rape, steal, cheat, and don't give a fuck about one another. They'll fuck you over just to watch you cry afterwards. That's reality.

Nickdfresh

01-24-2005, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
WHich part is "big talking" - please define that for me would you? THe part about wanting the U.S. to prevail in Iraq? OK - I'm guilty of big talking you got me there. But again I congratulate you on being in the U.S. military and ensuring your right to tell me to shut the fuck up if I want the U.S. military to win a war.

Remember not to express an opinion about a subject that you have not personally been involved in, it's not allowed.

No! You want to prolong the war in Iraq and spout the Neo Con company line that fails to hold anyone accountable for this tragic, and stupid foreign policy failure while at the same time you indict the left as traitors when it is your Neo Con fools you so love that are responsible for this mess!

It's the typical, "yeah, I know Bush fucked up, but it's too late now and we might as well stay the course...blah blah blah..."

How do you expect me to react with you simple-minded win or lose, for us or against us bullshit. WE CAN'T TOTALLY DEFEAT THE INSURGENTS, SO WE MUST LEAVE IT TO THE IRAQI's to decide how they want their country and get the fuck out at the earliest possible date. A failure to realize this only leads to more death of Americans and Iraqis. The military should end the patrols, where the majority of troops are killed, in Iraq and focus on the bare minimum security. Only the Iraqis, once the elections are over and the 'government' is strong enough, can end their civil war because then we will remove the nationalist component to the Iraqi resistance. The Iraqis must determine their future, not a bunch of Washington pseudo-idealists!

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by ODShowtime
No, actually doing it is insane. You don't know a damn thing about real human nature. People rape, steal, cheat, and don't give a fuck about one another. They'll fuck you over just to watch you cry afterwards. That's reality.

No, that's Christianity;)

ODShowtime

01-24-2005, 05:45 PM

I just want to go to the fantasy world e lives in. Jesus Christ. "It's insane to believe people go to war for profit." Like no one EVER did that before.

jerk-off

ELVIS

01-24-2005, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
The irony in the fact you can't even spell retarded correctly is amusing:D

Oops...:D

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I just want to go to the fantasy world e lives in. Jesus Christ. "It's insane to believe people go to war for profit." Like no one EVER did that before.

jerk-off

Next he'll tell us no wars were ever started over religion either:rolleyes:

ELVIS

01-24-2005, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Next he'll tell us no wars were ever started over religion either:rolleyes:

No, nearly all of them have been, and this one definately has its religious connotations...

Sgt Schultz

01-24-2005, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No! You want to prolong the war in Iraq and spout the Neo Con company line that fails to hold anyone accountable for this tragic, and stupid foreign policy failure while at the same time you indict the left as traitors when it is your Neo Con fools you so love that are responsible for this mess!

It's the typical, "yeah, I know Bush fucked up, but it's too late now and we might as well stay the course...blah blah blah..."

How do you expect me to react with you simple-minded win or lose, for us or against us bullshit. WE CAN'T TOTALLY DEFEAT THE INSURGENTS, SO WE MUST LEAVE IT TO THE IRAQI's to decide how they want their country and get the fuck out at the earliest possible date. A failure to realize this only leads to more death of Americans and Iraqis. The military should end the patrols, where the majority of troops are killed, in Iraq and focus on the bare minimum security. Only the Iraqis, once the elections are over and the 'government' is strong enough, can end their civil war because then we will remove the nationalist component to the Iraqi resistance. The Iraqis must determine their future, not a bunch of Washington pseudo-idealists!

That's a rather rational and thoughtful post. So now can we stop calling each other pussies and Chickenhawks and assholes and buttfuckers?

Seriously I dont have time now to respond other than to say that at least I see that you are FOR the Iraqis determining their own future - something impossible when Saddam was in power.

LoungeMachine

01-24-2005, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
That's a rather rational and thoughtful post. So now can we stop calling each other pussies and Chickenhawks and assholes and buttfuckers?

.

I hereby reserve the right to call ELVIS a buttfucker at a future date and time:D

BigBadBrian

01-24-2005, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I hereby reserve the right to call ELVIS a buttfucker at a future date and time:D

At least I see LM has a sense of humor today.

Nickdfresh

01-24-2005, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
That's a rather rational and thoughtful post. So now can we stop calling each other pussies and Chickenhawks and assholes and buttfuckers?

Seriously I dont have time now to respond other than to say that at least I see that you are FOR the Iraqis determining their own future - something impossible when Saddam was in power.

Yes, unfortunately, some people had other plans:

Nickdfresh

04-07-2007, 02:13 PM

Bump!

BTW, who's been proven correct?

ODShowtime

04-07-2007, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Bump!

BTW, who's been proven correct?

Unfortunately it appears that we have.

studly hungwell

04-07-2007, 08:50 PM

It has become painfully clear to me that a geurilla effort agianst this country will always be successful. Since the '60's there has been a very vocal segment of this society that will cry bullshit on principle....in a kneejerk way, to anything coming from the seats of power. This element was created by any one of many things....the governments betrayal concerning the Kennedy assassination....Nixon's disgrace....Iran Contra....pick one, it can be viewed as justification. Foriegn policy is a very fragile thing these days.....A house divided cannot conduct an effective foreign policy. The rest of the world does not undergo a revolution every 4 years. We as country have demonstrated that we will not sign on to anything that requires sacrifice....and not sacrifice as we define it, as the world defines it. At best our collective resolve could last for 8 years. The world sees this as a joke....and so does our enemies. In the current situation, how long did our resolve exist? 4 years? 5 years? Any family knows that you air your dirty laundry in house. WE...and I do mean WE are committed to the mission in Iraq. The world is watching....so are our enemies.

FORD

04-07-2007, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by studly hungwell
Since the '60's there has been a very vocal segment of this society that will cry bullshit on principle....in a kneejerk way, to anything coming from the seats of power. This element was created by any one of many things....the governments betrayal concerning the Kennedy assassination....Nixon's disgrace....Iran Contra....pick one, it can be viewed as justification.

No need to pick one. The same people are responsible for all three. Among many other things. Most recently, the destruction of Iraq, for no valid reason.

And what's wrong with "calling bullshit on principle". At least in doing so, it shows that you HAVE principles.

Which the Bush Criminal Empire does not.

studly hungwell

04-07-2007, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by FORD
No need to pick one. The same people are responsible for all three. Among many other things. Most recently, the destruction of Iraq, for no valid reason.

And what's wrong with "calling bullshit on principle". At least in doing so, it shows that you HAVE principles.

Which the Bush Criminal Empire does not.

Why did you focus on that one part of my post? The post as a whole was a pretty sound thought. I justified the positions of people like yourself while at the same time stressing the importance of presenting a unified house to the world. Actually.....that was kinda bullshit to pull that one part out and not address the post as a whole. Disappointing.