(06-18-2014 04:36 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl must have missed the whole shock and awe stage.........
Seriously Owl. You can't just go around killing people indiscriminately. You can't tell friend from foe over there.

I would say that shock and awe was tremendously underwhelming to me. A huge, huge disappointment. Not 1/10 what I was expecting based on the buildup, or what was needed. When you fight a war against a tyrant, and you are counting on the people to rise up and assist you, the first things you need to take down are any monuments to that tyrant and the secret police headquarters. Saddam's palaces should have come down immediately. The statue of Saddam that made the news when it was pulled down several days later? Should have come down immediately. I don't know if we got the secret police headquarters or not, but I know we did not get the monuments to the tyrant.

Remember Mach, I've been there, I know what it's like.

And I'm not saying kill people indiscriminately. I'm saying lean toward killing on the judgement calls. We're over there under rules of engagement that say you have to be about 99% certain before pulling the trigger. I'd drop that to 55-60%. And that's nowhere near indiscriminate.

And let it be known that's what you're going to do. If you look like you need killing, we're going to kill you, so don't look like you need killing. That's the way they deal with each other. They will understand that.

(06-18-2014 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think we ever had the will to do Iraq the way it needed to be done--overwhelming force, guns blazing, kill everybody that needs killing and blow up everything that they might use, then leave.
I'm not even sure that we ever had the will to do Afghanistan that way, not even after 9/11.
So the decision was made to try to give us this antiseptic war where nobody got hurt. Only war doesn't work like that. It's not all sitting in your living room watching the display from a guided weapon and figuring out which window you want it to go through.
Never fight a war you don't intend to win. In to win, or don't go in. Bush/Chaney/Rummy (take your pick, or all of the above) violated that principle in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama and his regime continued to violate it.

I think the problem is that the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq was not wearing uniforms. Unless they're shooting at you or walking around with weapons, you don't know who the bad guys are. Intelligence can help some but you probably need at least some help from the populace. Which you will not get if you just killed their relatives. There's always going to be collateral damage, but I think there's a tipping point.

That is a problem. That's why international law says that we would have been within our rights to kill everybody who is at Gitmo.

And no, it's not true that "unless they're shooting at you or walking around with weapons, you don't know who the bad guys are." You're not 100% sure until they start shooting at you, but you have a pretty good idea. And those pretty good ideas turn out right way more than wrong.

What you can't do is fight an enemy like that with unilaterally self-imposed standards that are appropriate for armies wearing uniforms in the fields of Europe. One of our real problems is that we don't have good tactics for dealing with asymmetric warfare. We try to do it the same way you win in Europe, occupying territory, and that doesn't work.

(06-18-2014 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  ... you don't know who the bad guys are. Intelligence can help some but you probably need at least some help from the populace. Which you will not get if you just killed their relatives. There's always going to be collateral damage, but I think there's a tipping point.

Those societies - in general - don't function with people giving information on their peers to foreigners. They operate out of fear of what their government or opponents will do if they don't get that information. They don't give up al Qaeda because they're afraid of what al Qaeda will do to them if they betray al Qaeda. They don't withhold information because someone's big fat al Qaeda wedding got ruined. That doesn't help, but fear is a bigger motivator.

(06-18-2014 07:47 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  ... you don't know who the bad guys are. Intelligence can help some but you probably need at least some help from the populace. Which you will not get if you just killed their relatives. There's always going to be collateral damage, but I think there's a tipping point.

Those societies - in general - don't function with people giving information on their peers to foreigners. They operate out of fear of what their government or opponents will do if they don't get that information. They don't give up al Qaeda because they're afraid of what al Qaeda will do to them if they betray al Qaeda. They don't withhold information because someone's big fat al Qaeda wedding got ruined. That doesn't help, but fear is a bigger motivator.

They know that al-Qaeda will kill them if they tell, but we won't kill them if they don't tell. Guess what, they don't tell. Duh.

(06-18-2014 02:34 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Eagle your thoughts and reality can not go exist. I'm sorry. The "surge" that you are trumpeting was just the early seeds of ISIS. Please come to grips with reality.

you consistently confuse "subsequent to" with "inconsequence of". these terms are not the same. I know liberals struggle with the whole concept of "responsibility"; your whole politics revolves about the orbit of denying that responsibility even exists.

but . . . ISIS didn't exist until Obama dicked the dog in Syria and Iraq simultaneously. ISIS would have never existed if Obama had not dicked the dog in Syria and Iraq.

this blood is on your hands. you people should grow up for once, and accept responsibility for the consequence of your actions.

(06-18-2014 02:18 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No way we stay there without a SOFA agreement. That would be an impossible situation.

Right. So the only valid criticism of Obama with regards to keeping troops there is whether he tried hard enough our could have gotten the Iraqis to pass the SOFA, and it's likely that there's no way that he nor Maliki could've pushed it through no matter how hard they tried. From there, it's Maliki's misuse of power that paved the way for ISIS.

No, he could have said, "We're going to win this war instead of playing for a tie," or he could have said, "This war is not worth winning, so we are bringing everybody home immediately." Either approach would have been better than basically continuing to play for a tie. Because wars don't end in ties. They end one of two ways--you win or you surrender. And leaving without winning is surrendering. So if you're going to surrender anyway, might as well go ahead and do it and get it over with.

(06-18-2014 08:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 02:18 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No way we stay there without a SOFA agreement. That would be an impossible situation.

Right. So the only valid criticism of Obama with regards to keeping troops there is whether he tried hard enough our could have gotten the Iraqis to pass the SOFA, and it's likely that there's no way that he nor Maliki could've pushed it through no matter how hard they tried. From there, it's Maliki's misuse of power that paved the way for ISIS.

No, he could have said, "We're going to win this war instead of playing for a tie," or he could have said, "This war is not worth winning, so we are bringing everybody home immediately." Either approach would have been better than basically continuing to play for a tie. Because wars don't end in ties. They end one of two ways--you win or you surrender. And leaving without winning is surrendering. So if you're going to surrender anyway, might as well go ahead and do it and get it over with.

Obama did play to win -- an election. All other considerations, including the lives of thousands of American men and women, were secondary.

(06-18-2014 08:50 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 08:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 02:18 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No way we stay there without a SOFA agreement. That would be an impossible situation.

Right. So the only valid criticism of Obama with regards to keeping troops there is whether he tried hard enough our could have gotten the Iraqis to pass the SOFA, and it's likely that there's no way that he nor Maliki could've pushed it through no matter how hard they tried. From there, it's Maliki's misuse of power that paved the way for ISIS.

No, he could have said, "We're going to win this war instead of playing for a tie," or he could have said, "This war is not worth winning, so we are bringing everybody home immediately." Either approach would have been better than basically continuing to play for a tie. Because wars don't end in ties. They end one of two ways--you win or you surrender. And leaving without winning is surrendering. So if you're going to surrender anyway, might as well go ahead and do it and get it over with.

Obama did play to win -- an election. All other considerations, including the lives of thousands of American men and women, were secondary.

True that. As long as winning elections is more important than anything else, we are truly hosed.

(06-16-2014 08:56 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  How bad can the Iraqi army be to run away from a few hundred fighters.
Sounds ridiculous.

As someone on the radio pointed out, the two groups that ran away were in Mosul and Tikrit, where they got nearly NO military training/support during the Iraq war, so its' believed their discipline was a lot less than what these ISIS murderers are now running into at the refinery and around Baghdad.

Give me a definition of winning. Give me your ideal scenario for an end game over there. I don't think the boundaries that Britain set up at the end of WWII would allow the ideal.

(06-18-2014 09:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Give me a definition of winning. Give me your ideal scenario for an end game over there. I don't think the boundaries that Britain set up at the end of WWII would allow the ideal.

Setting up boundaries has never in Human history allowed for an ideal. People will fight to acquire what someone else has within their boarders.
What I define as winning started with the Anbar Awakening in 2006 and the aftermath into 2009. THAT was winning

(06-18-2014 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 07:47 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  ... you don't know who the bad guys are. Intelligence can help some but you probably need at least some help from the populace. Which you will not get if you just killed their relatives. There's always going to be collateral damage, but I think there's a tipping point.

Those societies - in general - don't function with people giving information on their peers to foreigners. They operate out of fear of what their government or opponents will do if they don't get that information. They don't give up al Qaeda because they're afraid of what al Qaeda will do to them if they betray al Qaeda. They don't withhold information because someone's big fat al Qaeda wedding got ruined. That doesn't help, but fear is a bigger motivator.

They know that al-Qaeda will kill them if they tell, but we won't kill them if they don't tell. Guess what, they don't tell. Duh.

They will tell - if Al Qaeda starts killing their relatives and the US didn't kill their relatives. Once some of the tribes realized how bad Al Qaeda was they started informing on them.

(06-18-2014 06:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think we ever had the will to do Iraq the way it needed to be done--overwhelming force, guns blazing, kill everybody that needs killing and blow up everything that they might use, then leave.
I'm not even sure that we ever had the will to do Afghanistan that way, not even after 9/11.
So the decision was made to try to give us this antiseptic war where nobody got hurt. Only war doesn't work like that. It's not all sitting in your living room watching the display from a guided weapon and figuring out which window you want it to go through.
Never fight a war you don't intend to win. In to win, or don't go in. Bush/Chaney/Rummy (take your pick, or all of the above) violated that principle in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama and his regime continued to violate it.

I think the problem is that the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq was not wearing uniforms. Unless they're shooting at you or walking around with weapons, you don't know who the bad guys are. Intelligence can help some but you probably need at least some help from the populace. Which you will not get if you just killed their relatives. There's always going to be collateral damage, but I think there's a tipping point.

That is a problem. That's why international law says that we would have been within our rights to kill everybody who is at Gitmo.

And no, it's not true that "unless they're shooting at you or walking around with weapons, you don't know who the bad guys are." You're not 100% sure until they start shooting at you, but you have a pretty good idea. And those pretty good ideas turn out right way more than wrong.

What you can't do is fight an enemy like that with unilaterally self-imposed standards that are appropriate for armies wearing uniforms in the fields of Europe. One of our real problems is that we don't have good tactics for dealing with asymmetric warfare. We try to do it the same way you win in Europe, occupying territory, and that doesn't work.

It's true you can't fight them the same way, but we don't have a good answer to any other way to fight. Nor does any other country anywhere on the globe - when they're fighting overseas. Bombing areas essentially indiscriminately will cause more uproar and reaction in the country you're fighting in which will cancel out any gain you got from taking out a couple buildings with 10 insurgents and 50 civilians. Sure you can point out a couple guys dressed like civilians that you are pretty sure are the enemy but it doesn't help much to kill a couple of them - that's what they're doing now. To kill all of them, it's like taking out a yard's worth of ants - you'd have to nuke the entire area.

I don't think Owl's scenario is realistic either. Much easier said then done. I've said it before and I'll say it again. We have no easy solutions over there.

(06-18-2014 09:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don't think Owl's scenario is realistic either. Much easier said then done. I've said it before and I'll say it again. We have no easy solutions over there.

Was someone saying there was or is?

(06-18-2014 09:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's true you can't fight them the same way, but we don't have a good answer to any other way to fight. Nor does any other country anywhere on the globe - when they're fighting overseas. Bombing areas essentially indiscriminately will cause more uproar and reaction in the country you're fighting in which will cancel out any gain you got from taking out a couple buildings with 10 insurgents and 50 civilians. Sure you can point out a couple guys dressed like civilians that you are pretty sure are the enemy but it doesn't help much to kill a couple of them - that's what they're doing now. To kill all of them, it's like taking out a yard's worth of ants - you'd have to nuke the entire area.

Why all the talk about "indiscriminately"? Who said anything about "indiscriminately"? There's a huge wide gulf between "indiscriminately" and "you can't shoot until after they shoot first." Somewhere in between those two extremes is where I'm talking about.

If you think the alternative to what we have been doing over there is indiscriminate bombing, then I'm sorry but you don't understand what we've been doing.

(06-18-2014 09:40 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 09:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don't think Owl's scenario is realistic either. Much easier said then done. I've said it before and I'll say it again. We have no easy solutions over there.

Was someone saying there was or is?

It sounds like it, from some of the posters on here.

(06-18-2014 09:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don't think Owl's scenario is realistic either. Much easier said then done. I've said it before and I'll say it again. We have no easy solutions over there.

Part of the reason why you don't think it's realistic is that you have consistently misstated what it is. Indiscriminate bombing is not what I'm saying. Fighting to win is what I'm saying. If fighting to win is not realistic, then no fighting at all is realistic.

(06-18-2014 09:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Give me a definition of winning. Give me your ideal scenario for an end game over there. I don't think the boundaries that Britain set up at the end of WWII would allow the ideal.

What's a win? Bad guys all dead. Kill them until they get tired of dying. I don't think the boundaries as they exist now allow the ideal either. But 1) this isn't about ideal, it's about good enough, and 2) winning isn't defined in terms of boundaries. This isn't western Europe.

(06-18-2014 09:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 09:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Give me a definition of winning. Give me your ideal scenario for an end game over there. I don't think the boundaries that Britain set up at the end of WWII would allow the ideal.

What's a win? Bad guys all dead. Kill them until they get tired of dying. I don't think the boundaries as they exist now allow the ideal either. But 1) this isn't about ideal, it's about good enough, and 2) winning isn't defined in terms of boundaries. This isn't western Europe.

Indeed. the only possible hangup is that we're talking about radical Islamists, for whom their promised afterlife (also, like their living society, simultaneously sexist and sexually repressed -- which is a pretty neat trick) is infinitely preferable to their miserable existence in the mortal's world.

Islam, as it turns out, is a religion that only appeals to people that don't have very much to lose in the first place.