Iraq: The Real Lesson for Americans

[Kaj]

There's one important point most everyone has missed regarding Iraq...

Even with 21st century technology, the US military can't subdue a population that refuses to be subdued.

And the lesson?

There's always hope for revolution if we as a people would rise up. Tyranny can only prevail if we accept it. I'm going to Google how to build my own IEDs now... just in case.

[bobman0330]

The notion that insurgents (perhaps you would prefer "freedom fighters") in Iraq are resisting the US military is basically absurd. Fewer than 4000 coalition troops have been killed over more than 4 years. That's fewer than a thousand troops per year, out of an occupying force of more than 100,000. Contrast to Vietnam, where more than 50,000 were killed in a 4-year period.

The real secret to the insurgency's "success" is that they don't mind murdering innocents. In fact, if they kill enough innocent Iraqis, they'll probably win. So the real lesson here is not that a determined populace can defeat an armed aggressor. It's that extremist groups using cell phones and the internet to coordinate and armed with relatively modern weaponry can beat the hell out of unarmed civilians living in clay buildings. So take those IEDs and head down to the local elementary school, should be a real soft target.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
The notion that insurgents (perhaps you would prefer "freedom fighters") in Iraq are resisting the US military is basically absurd. Fewer than 4000 coalition troops have been killed over more than 4 years. That's fewer than a thousand troops per year, out of an occupying force of more than 100,000. Contrast to Vietnam, where more than 50,000 were killed in a 4-year period.

The real secret to the insurgency's "success" is that they don't mind murdering innocents. In fact, if they kill enough innocent Iraqis, they'll probably win. So the real lesson here is not that a determined populace can defeat an armed aggressor. It's that extremist groups using cell phones and the internet to coordinate and armed with relatively modern weaponry can beat the hell out of unarmed civilians living in clay buildings. So take those IEDs and head down to the local elementary school, should be a real soft target.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to defeat the aggressor on the battlefield, just defeat the aggressor's ability to achieve their goals. Which is still a defeat.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The notion that insurgents (perhaps you would prefer "freedom fighters") in Iraq are resisting the US military is basically absurd. Fewer than 4000 coalition troops have been killed over more than 4 years. That's fewer than a thousand troops per year, out of an occupying force of more than 100,000. Contrast to Vietnam, where more than 50,000 were killed in a 4-year period.

The real secret to the insurgency's "success" is that they don't mind murdering innocents. In fact, if they kill enough innocent Iraqis, they'll probably win. So the real lesson here is not that a determined populace can defeat an armed aggressor. It's that extremist groups using cell phones and the internet to coordinate and armed with relatively modern weaponry can beat the hell out of unarmed civilians living in clay buildings. So take those IEDs and head down to the local elementary school, should be a real soft target.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to defeat the aggressor on the battlefield, just defeat the aggressor's ability to achieve their goals. Which is still a defeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too true, too true. Have you chosen a motto for your freeing people to death project? If not, allow me to suggest, "Sic semper tyrannis et civilianis." If you know the Latin for "defenseless women and children," maybe you could work that in somehow too.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The notion that insurgents (perhaps you would prefer "freedom fighters") in Iraq are resisting the US military is basically absurd. Fewer than 4000 coalition troops have been killed over more than 4 years. That's fewer than a thousand troops per year, out of an occupying force of more than 100,000. Contrast to Vietnam, where more than 50,000 were killed in a 4-year period.

The real secret to the insurgency's "success" is that they don't mind murdering innocents. In fact, if they kill enough innocent Iraqis, they'll probably win. So the real lesson here is not that a determined populace can defeat an armed aggressor. It's that extremist groups using cell phones and the internet to coordinate and armed with relatively modern weaponry can beat the hell out of unarmed civilians living in clay buildings. So take those IEDs and head down to the local elementary school, should be a real soft target.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to defeat the aggressor on the battlefield, just defeat the aggressor's ability to achieve their goals. Which is still a defeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too true, too true. Have you chosen a motto for your freeing people to death project? If not, allow me to suggest, "Sic semper tyrannis et civilianis." If you know the Latin for "defenseless women and children," maybe you could work that in somehow too.

[/ QUOTE ]

When American bombers drop 2000 lb bombs into neighborhoods to kill a single man or group of men, they aren't defenseless women and children just collateral damage, right?

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
Too true, too true. Have you chosen a motto for your freeing people to death project? If not, allow me to suggest, "Sic semper tyrannis et civilianis." If you know the Latin for "defenseless women and children," maybe you could work that in somehow too.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post delivers.

[pokerpunchout]

[ QUOTE ]
The notion that insurgents (perhaps you would prefer "freedom fighters") in Iraq are resisting the US military is basically absurd. Fewer than 4000 coalition troops have been killed over more than 4 years. That's fewer than a thousand troops per year, out of an occupying force of more than 100,000. Contrast to Vietnam, where more than 50,000 were killed in a 4-year period.

The real secret to the insurgency's "success" is that they don't mind murdering innocents. In fact, if they kill enough innocent Iraqis, they'll probably win. So the real lesson here is not that a determined populace can defeat an armed aggressor. It's that extremist groups using cell phones and the internet to coordinate and armed with relatively modern weaponry can beat the hell out of unarmed civilians living in clay buildings. So take those IEDs and head down to the local elementary school, should be a real soft target.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the reasons so few troops have died when compared to Vietnam and other conflicts has to do with advances in medical technology. Wounds that were 100% lethal in the Vietnam era are now very survivable.

Another reason has to do with troop levels (and frankly the piss poor planing of the military and the administration). If you compare our small (current 120,000 troops, less than 1 million total for Iraq conflict) to the numbers in Vietnam (+500,000 in 1968 8.7 million total) and the WWII (16.1 million total U.S. troop force from Dec 1941 to Dec 1946), it is easy to see why the number of casualties have not been as high as previous wars. It may also be one of the reasons that we are bogged down and having our a$$es handed to us.

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
The notion that insurgents (perhaps you would prefer "freedom fighters") in Iraq are resisting the US military is basically absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]they are and its no laughing matter......

[ QUOTE ]
The real secret to the insurgency's "success" is that they don't mind murdering innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]as far as dead americans are concerned in the instances when the insurgents are killing americans they do it without killing iraqi civilians. its rare when they do both at the same time.

those ieds are used for the troops almost always......

[ALawPoker]

What's really funny is the Iraq War will never affect most of us in as real of a way as we pretend it will when we argue about it. But it's still fun to claim a moral high ground and argue about it til the cows come home.

I always laugh when people get heated about the Iraq war (or I guess you could say politics in general) as if I just stole your car and refuse to give it back. Just relax....

More intellectual damage is probably done by claiming a side and arguing ferociously for it than could possibly be done with tanks and missiles.

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
What's really funny is the Iraq War will never affect most of us in as real of a way as we pretend it will when we argue about it. But it's still fun to claim a moral high ground and argue about it til the cows come home.

I always laugh when people get heated about the Iraq war (or I guess you could say politics in general) as if I just stole your car and refuse to give it back.

[/ QUOTE ] right....

so in your opinion we can get really involved with things HOW FAR AWAY from home wouldyou say????? a block???? the hood????? city limits?????? stateline???? rio grande cant be right.....

and theres the question of HOW FAR BACK IN TIME we can get excited about!!!! can we agree star wars return of the jedi as a milestone???..... we shant get worked up for much before that

[ QUOTE ]
More intellectual damage is probably done by claiming a side and arguing ferociously for it than could possibly be done with tanks and missiles.

[/ QUOTE ]a bullet in the head ends the INTELLECTUAL work and wins the argument i would think but i dont wanna spoil your happy hour......
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]