• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Face it, Zarqawi won. Bush lost.

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lardbutt

Banned
Isn't it about time to admit that even hundreds of thousands of troops and tanks and planes is no match for a few, determined, suicidal bombers with lots of explosives? It was just proven today. Zarqawi just proved that no matter how many terrorist "hideouts" the US blows up, suicide bombers can still strike anytime, anywhere of their choosing.

How many more innocents have to be blown up? I just don't see any progress being made in Iraq. After 2 years and at best it's still a stalemate between Zarqawi and the US. Maybe it's time to realize that people as determined as Zarqawi can't be beaten? At least not by conventional armies and military strategy. This has dragged on long enough. As distasteful it may sound, maybe it's time to sit down at the negotiating table with Zarqawi and listen to his demands. Maybe more lives can be spared this way.
 
Lardbutt said:
Isn't it about time to admit that even hundreds of thousands of troops and tanks and planes is no match for a few, determined, suicidal bombers with lots of explosives? It was just proven today. Zarqawi just proved that no matter how many terrorist "hideouts" the US blows up, suicide bombers can still strike anytime, anywhere of their choosing.

How many more innocents have to be blown up? I just don't see any progress being made in Iraq. After 2 years and at best it's still a stalemate between Zarqawi and the US. Maybe it's time to realize that people as determined as Zarqawi can't be beaten? At least not by conventional armies and military strategy. This has dragged on long enough. As distasteful it may sound, maybe it's time to sit down at the negotiating table with Zarqawi and listen to his demands. Maybe more lives can be spared this way.
Click to expand...

This is true in a way, but even if and when the US leaves, Zarqawi won't stop until the shias are brought down and the baath party takes control of Iraq again.
 
I agree that all hell has broken loose, its really sad.. but I think eventually some Shiite or Peshmerga death squad will drag his ass out onto the street and behead him... and then Amnesty International will write a strongly-worded letter to the Iraqi government.
 
1) Finding someone is not as easy as "Hollywood." Took us what 6 years to find Eric Rudolph and he's in our freaking backyard. Finding Zarqawi, Bin Laden, and etc. will be thousand times harder.

2) Situation in Iraq sux. "War on whatever" will never be stop. There's always going to be someone hating something. Human nature at it's best. But, negotiating with your enemies isn't a very smart idea. Could lead different complications. Do I have any answer. Nope. Does anyone. Nope. Only thing I can think of is humanity joining to fight an Alien invasion, but then, would be much worse.
 
Lardbutt said:
Isn't it about time to admit that even hundreds of thousands of troops and tanks and planes is no match for a few, determined, suicidal bombers with lots of explosives? It was just proven today. Zarqawi just proved that no matter how many terrorist "hideouts" the US blows up, suicide bombers can still strike anytime, anywhere of their choosing.

How many more innocents have to be blown up? I just don't see any progress being made in Iraq. After 2 years and at best it's still a stalemate between Zarqawi and the US. Maybe it's time to realize that people as determined as Zarqawi can't be beaten? At least not by conventional armies and military strategy. This has dragged on long enough. As distasteful it may sound, maybe it's time to sit down at the negotiating table with Zarqawi and listen to his demands. Maybe more lives can be spared this way.
Click to expand...

Considering your post history, is this a joke?
 
you made some sense until you said "negotiate". LOL.

we need to pull out of there and mind our own business and tend to our homeland.
 
It's not even JUST Zarqawi either, there's a few independent groups who want different things, but we just happen to be the common enemy.
 
chinch said:
you made some sense until you said "negotiate". LOL.

we need to pull out of there and mind our own business and tend to our homeland.
Click to expand...
You break it you fix it.

Seriously I hate this mentality especially when Labour attempts to strike the populist vote:
'Oh we're doing the right thing for democracy and human rights.'
*Few months later*
'Shit let's Bail Out'.
 
Iraq is heading straight for a civil war, and the US/UK troops cant do a thing about it.

Dividing Iraq into three countries then get out quick, that would be my plan.
 
The only way this is going to end is badly, it's just a matter of how badly-and how disgraced we will look-when it does end.

Optimal Scenario:Hang the Sunni's out to dry on some of their pet issues-one of those "tough luck" things. Constitution goes up for ratification, is ratified. Sunni areas move for secession, they break away, Kurds break away, Iraq is splintered into three parts with the neighboring countries helping to stabilize the newly formed states thanks to the aligned regimes. Kurdish automony is simple, they are prepared for it more or less, we tell Turkey to STFU and like it or we trainwreck their attempt to get into the EU.

In this scenario, civil war is averted because we let the parties that hate each other go their own ways. Each country has some semblance of an Islamic republic, and if we pump wnough aid to their governments discreetly (MUCH cheaper than occupation), we should be able to do the Saudi Arabia thing and dope/police the citizenry enough that they don't start massacring their minorites Milosevich-style. US forces proceed in various states of Get The Fuck Out during all of this mess.

Likely Scenario: Constitution and documented foundation for "democracy" rushed into place without the basic essentials of a working judiciary, a reasonable economy, or standing security forces. Insurgency continues without end as differences between Sunnis and Shiites boil over, resulting in lots of dead people. US forces stay for years more to "ensure the peace", but just irritate the locals. US government refuses to help establish real, local sustainable economies (THEY MIGHT BE STATE RUN OR HAVE UNIONS, OH NOES!) and just trucks in more contractors from overseas to do everything. Insurgency goes on without end for months, eventually a really bad crackdown happens, and open civil war erupts.

The whole thing is FUBAR.
 
Fragamemnon said:
The only way this is going to end is badly, it's just a matter of how badly-and how disgraced we will look-when it does end.

Optimal Scenario:Hang the Sunni's out to dry on some of their pet issues-one of those "tough luck" things. Constitution goes up for ratification, is ratified. Sunni areas move for secession, they break away, Kurds break away, Iraq is splintered into three parts with the neighboring countries helping to stabilize the newly formed states thanks to the aligned regimes. Kurdish automony is simple, they are prepared for it more or less, we tell Turkey to STFU and like it or we trainwreck their attempt to get into the EU.

In this scenario, civil war is averted because we let the parties that hate each other go their own ways. Each country has some semblance of an Islamic republic, and if we pump wnough aid to their governments discreetly (MUCH cheaper than occupation), we should be able to do the Saudi Arabia thing and dope/police the citizenry enough that they don't start massacring their minorites Milosevich-style. US forces proceed in various states of Get The Fuck Out during all of this mess.

Likely Scenario: Constitution and documented foundation for "democracy" rushed into place without the basic essentials of a working judiciary, a reasonable economy, or standing security forces. Insurgency continues without end as differences between Sunnis and Shiites boil over, resulting in lots of dead people. US forces stay for years more to "ensure the peace", but just irritate the locals. US government refuses to help establish real, local sustainable economies (THEY MIGHT BE STATE RUN OR HAVE UNIONS, OH NOES!) and just trucks in more contractors from overseas to do everything. Insurgency goes on without end for months, eventually a really bad crackdown happens, and open civil war erupts.

The whole thing is FUBAR.
Click to expand...

Um, I would hardly call what you suggested above the "optimal scenario". The plan with the least amount of US interference will likely be the best solution, imo. Though of course that's a pipe dream. We're not gonna leave there until we get what we want over there taken care of. Bush and co. have invested far too much $ in this thing to just get out now, unfortunately.
 
kablooey said:
Um, I would hardly call what you suggested above the "optimal scenario". The plan with the least amount of US interference will likely be the best solution, imo.
Click to expand...

What do you see as the best case scenario, then? I'm just an armchair quarterback here speaking mostly out of my ass, I'm curious to know what other people are thinking would be the best way to handle this colossal fuckup.
 
Fragamemnon said:
What do you see as the best case scenario, then? I'm just an armchair quarterback here speaking mostly out of my ass, I'm curious to know what other people are thinking would be the best way to handle this colossal fuckup.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm the same really. I just think that anything we impose anything on the people in that region (whether it be new maplines, governments, etc) is going to cause resentment and continual instability. It's the classic imperial mistake. I think the best plan is to get out now, and let the Iraqis handle whatever problems they have themselves, whether civil war breaks out or not. At least that way they'll feel like they have autonomy over things, rather than having their fate decided for them by the US.
 
OK guys think; think... we need Iraq to be stabilized,
Soooo they will need a new government, one that can make tough decisions, maybe decisions that some IraqÂ’s wont like, anything to push forward a strong long lasting stability, am I right?

So with a strong government needed to keep almost certain civil war from happening, a leader for the strong government will need to be in power so he can rule over all the people and govern by heÂ’s rules, maybe he will have to cross over some civil-liberties and enforce a tough love approach to the people for the greater good of the country of course. To do this right a large strong military is certainly needed.

Ok so now to recap:

A government forced into power,
Supported by a large military force,
Keeping tight control over the people to enforce the will of the leader,
A leader who forces heÂ’s will on the people sometimes to there dislike.

So, what or who could this be?

:)
 
Bush lost? LMAO no! He made his cronies ALOT of money, he will make alot of money when he gets out of office, Dick will make alot of money - you thought this was about freedom, democracy or even oil?
 
Groder Mullet said:
Wow. I'm glad most of you weren't alive during WW2. We would have been tossing Hitler and Hirohito's salad by '42.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing... the only difference is that it's hard to fight a war with restrictions than a total war. We want something in WW2, we roll through and hit it with everything we've got, hoping the civvies get out in time.
 
Groder Mullet said:
Wow. I'm glad most of you weren't alive during WW2. We would have been tossing Hitler and Hirohito's salad by '42.
Click to expand...

Rolleyes. WW2 could've been prevented well before '42 if Hitler and co. hadn't been continually appeased by Churchill. But that's another thread.
 
kablooey said:
Rolleyes. WW2 could've been prevented well before '42 if Hitler and co. hadn't been continually appeased by Churchill. But that's another thread.
Click to expand...
...uh, try before 1938. BUT THATS ANOTHER THREAD LOLZ
 
Well that's always been true. No matter how sophisticated your security, no matter how much you search, no matter how many rights you give up - you really have little defense against a guy who is so willing to make a point that he/she is willing to sacrifice their life via a bomb or sniper scope.
 
US needs to shit or get off the pot. This pussyfooting post Saddam's capture is why the Coalition is failing. The reason why asswipes like Zarqawi exist instead of torn to bits in a smoldering crater is because the Coalition tiptoes around. We need to hit places and hard where they live. Seal up the borders so tightly and anyone who isn't from a friendly nation gets hot lead in them.

Also the Iraqi people themselves need to step up. If they want the US to leave, maybe roll up your sleeves and get cracking, like those people who killed the insurgents on election day. If the people would just rise up instead of act like timid bunnies, there can be serious progress made.
 
The Experiment said:
US needs to shit or get off the pot. This pussyfooting post Saddam's capture is why the Coalition is failing. The reason why asswipes like Zarqawi exist instead of torn to bits in a smoldering crater is because the Coalition tiptoes around. We need to hit places and hard where they live. Seal up the borders so tightly and anyone who isn't from a friendly nation gets hot lead in them.
Click to expand...

Dude we can't seal off the border to fucking Mexico, how are we supposed to seal off the borders to an entire country?
 
Phoenix said:
Dude we can't seal off the border to fucking Mexico, how are we supposed to seal off the borders to an entire country?
Click to expand...

Nobody wants to secure the borders because they're afraid of being called racists.
 
1. It's commonly known that appeasement did allow the war to happen, at least as we know it today (aka World War II).
2. Kablooey knows nothing. Churchill was a key critic of the appeasement of Hitler, and did not become Prime Minister until 1940, by which time the machinations of the Third Reich had already begun.
3. We were doomed the second we decided to overthrow Hussein. There is a reason that Jon Steward calls the area Mess-o-potamia.
4. Splitting the area up into three countries = bad idea. Check out the creation of Pakistan from India based on religous differences after British withdrawal. Kashmir (sp) is an example of what could happen in the Middle East.
5. Unfortunately, I think withdrawing is the only sensible thing to do. We've fucked up the whole situation, and really its become Vietnam Redux, except without the public awareness to stop it. Probably because there is no draft, and people apparently don't give a shit if they won't be affected. And like Vietnam, there will be innocents simply slaughtered after our withdrawal. But I see no other way out.
 
whytemyke said:
Haha, right. Try to cop out. You're still saying that appeasement made the war happened. What, are you in high school still?
Click to expand...

I was wrong about the Churchill thing like tyguy said (been a while since I've read about it), but yeah, I'll stand by what I said.
 
So he has declared war on all Shi'ites, good, maybe the Shi'ite terrorists can do the same to the Sunnis

Then they can just take each other out along with the militant leaders
 
Groder Mullet said:
Wow. I'm glad most of you weren't alive during WW2. We would have been tossing Hitler and Hirohito's salad by '42.
Click to expand...

:lol I always love when people compare a massive war involving mutiple countries that was already well underway to a flat out invasion based on bullshit reasons...







whytemyke said:
...uh, try before 1938. BUT THATS ANOTHER THREAD LOLZ
Click to expand...

I guess he preferred to mention the year the US decided to give a shit about Hitler.
 
The Experiment said:
Also the Iraqi people themselves need to step up. If they want the US to leave, maybe roll up your sleeves and get cracking, like those people who killed the insurgents on election day. If the people would just rise up instead of act like timid bunnies, there can be serious progress made.
Click to expand...

The grand ayatullah Sistani has told the Shia's to not retaliate against the wahabi and salafi terrorists first of all to prevent a civil war and second to show the terrorists that the shia's won't crack just because of their barbaric actions, that is the main reason why the majority of the people in Iraq, who are shias and follow the leadership of ayatullah Sitani (who is what the majority of shias in the world follow) won't do much about the attacks against them.

BigJonsson said:
So he has declared war on all Shi'ites, good, maybe the Shi'ite terrorists can do the same to the Sunnis

Then they can just take each other out along with the militant leaders
Click to expand...

The thing with this is that the sunni extremists far outnumber the shia extremists.
 
I'm not really sure how the Iraq war anywhere near meets the same criteria as WWII. Figuring that the facts show that the course followed by Bush I and Clinton pretty much made Iraq a non-issue.

That being said there is regardless how the US leaves Iraq chaos will follow. This place needs 30 to 40 years of international presence to make anything happen. Look at the fall of Baghdad and hours after Katrina. Same thing happened the leaders were so busy slapping themselves on the back about how good of a job they were doing they totally disregared the chaos that ensued.

The failure of the US to move in quickly secure ammo dumps and bust heads is what has allowed a culture of chaos to continue here. The miltiary is in the sad postions of being the tail chasing the dog. Ass Backward leaders moved to slowly to contain the chaos and now we have a well armed, supplied, and connected insurgency. That has one goal to discredit the US so that means an organized Iraqi government is a pipe dream.
 
Fragamemnon said:
The only way this is going to end is badly, it's just a matter of how badly-and how disgraced we will look-when it does end.

Optimal Scenario:Hang the Sunni's out to dry on some of their pet issues-one of those "tough luck" things. Constitution goes up for ratification, is ratified. Sunni areas move for secession, they break away, Kurds break away, Iraq is splintered into three parts with the neighboring countries helping to stabilize the newly formed states thanks to the aligned regimes. Kurdish automony is simple, they are prepared for it more or less, we tell Turkey to STFU and like it or we trainwreck their attempt to get into the EU.

In this scenario, civil war is averted because we let the parties that hate each other go their own ways. Each country has some semblance of an Islamic republic, and if we pump wnough aid to their governments discreetly (MUCH cheaper than occupation), we should be able to do the Saudi Arabia thing and dope/police the citizenry enough that they don't start massacring their minorites Milosevich-style. US forces proceed in various states of Get The Fuck Out during all of this mess.

Likely Scenario: Constitution and documented foundation for "democracy" rushed into place without the basic essentials of a working judiciary, a reasonable economy, or standing security forces. Insurgency continues without end as differences between Sunnis and Shiites boil over, resulting in lots of dead people. US forces stay for years more to "ensure the peace", but just irritate the locals. US government refuses to help establish real, local sustainable economies (THEY MIGHT BE STATE RUN OR HAVE UNIONS, OH NOES!) and just trucks in more contractors from overseas to do everything. Insurgency goes on without end for months, eventually a really bad crackdown happens, and open civil war erupts.

The whole thing is FUBAR.
Click to expand...




No if that were to happen, Turkey would either immediatly invade the new country of Kurdistan or eventually invade it after the Kurds from Turkey start using it as a staging ground for attacks on Turkey, because the Turkey Kurds want to leave Turkey and take some Turkish land with them, and join up with Kurdistan. The Shiits lands would simply be annex unofficially by Iran and the Sunnies will be ploting and planning to retake the other two countries and reform the country of Iraq just like it was in the glory days of Saddam.
 
The only real solution to that region(not just Iraq) is to kill every single person, burn everything to the ground and salt the fucking earth. You can't make people like each other.

Not that I would advocate such a course of action, just sayin' is all.
 
Raoul Duke said:
The only real solution to that region(not just Iraq) is to kill every single person, burn everything to the ground and salt the fucking earth. You can't make people like each other.

Not that I would advocate such a course of action, just sayin' is all.
Click to expand...



...or just kill yourself and leave the entire world behind...
 
If Bush and his cronies had any guts and a real passion for freedom and democracy, they'd be fighting Turkey and Iran over their extremely questionable occupations of Kurdish territories. An independent, democratic Kurdestan -- composed of the Kurdish corners of those states and the Kurdish north of Iraq -- is more valuable to the world than the Islamofascist tyrannic "democracy" we're in the middle of establishing.

I'm actually generally pro-Turkish, but they need to be brought to heel with regard to the Kurds.
 
jgkspsx said:
If Bush and his cronies had any guts and a real passion for freedom and democracy, they'd be fighting Turkey and Iran over their extremely questionable occupations of Kurdish territories. An independent, democratic Kurdestan -- composed of the Kurdish corners of those states and the Kurdish north of Iraq -- is more valuable to the world than the Islamofascist tyrannic "democracy" we're in the middle of establishing.

I'm actually generally pro-Turkish, but they need to be brought to heel with regard to the Kurds.
Click to expand...

I am not condoning the oppression of the Kurds, but the US has Turkey's limited support and the one from the Kurds in Northern Iraq. This is probably a better deal than messing up the middle East even more for an hypothetical ally (Kurdistan).
 
If Bush and his cronies had any guts and a real passion for freedom and democracy, they'd be fighting Turkey
Click to expand...


Go to hell. I'm half Turkish. My grandfather knew people in the Turkish mob, and I think i'll give him a call about you.
 
whytemyke said:
I was thinking the same thing... the only difference is that it's hard to fight a war with restrictions than a total war. We want something in WW2, we roll through and hit it with everything we've got, hoping the civvies get out in time.
Click to expand...

Not to mention Hitler/Tojo/Mussolini were about conquering, winning, and governing of land and peoples; Zarqawi is only self-justified sociopathic suffering made flesh, no matter the losses to followers, fellow muslims, or manifesto contradictions. Hide in a mosque? SURE! Blow up a truck outside a hospital? SURE! By the very act of doing it, it is JUSTIFIED.

You can crack a country's main infrastructure, smash vast divisions of their military, but when you've got a few hundred psychos squirreled away all over paralyzing the well-being of tens of millions by holding them hostage in the suffering already unleashed, it's a very different fight; an age of vigilanteeism, as it were.

Edit: It's more a crime family than an actual armed resistance, (although they are allied with pockets of Sunni resistance groups). Perhaps that's a better way of going about squashing these sick fucks.
 
Raoul Duke said:
The only real solution to that region(not just Iraq) is to kill every single person, burn everything to the ground and salt the fucking earth. You can't make people like each other.

Not that I would advocate such a course of action, just sayin' is all.
Click to expand...


The sad thing is you are probably more right than you care to admit. Ceaser and Kahn had plans of areas like these.
 
Tommie Hu$tle said:
The sad thing is you are probably more right than you care to admit. Ceaser and Kahn had plans of areas like these.
Click to expand...
Look what Rome did to Carthage. They didn't want to bother with any more wars with those fuckers so they just destroyed them.

I'm not saying it's what I would do or even a good idea... just that I could see it happening.
 
Raoul Duke said:
Look what Rome did to Carthage. They didn't want to bother with any more wars with those fuckers so they just destroyed them.

I'm not saying it's what I would do or even a good idea... just that I could see it happening.
Click to expand...


I'm with you. Truth be told this war is very PC as far as the military being sensitive to ethnic and religious sensiblity here as well as attempting to avoid collateral damage. If we pulled a Carthage on them this would be done in a day.
 
Tommie Hu$tle said:
I'm with you. Truth be told this war is very PC as far as the military being sensitive to ethnic and religious sensiblity here as well as attempting to avoid collateral damage. If we pulled a Carthage on them this would be done in a day.
Click to expand...

You don't fight guerillas by pulling a Carthage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Lost Generation - Jacob Savage
4
540
Cyberpunkd replied
How Kevin Costner Lost Hollywood
2
57
1K
Insane Metal replied
  • Locked
Maria Corina Machado won Nobel Peace Prize
27
476
Little Mac replied
Discord will require a face scan or ID for full access next month (Worldwide)
News  2
75
819
ForAcademicPurposes replied
ROSE OF NEVADA | Official Trailer | A Lost Ship Returns to a Fading Fishing Village
3
99
AJUMP23 replied
Top Bottom