Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Insurgency is an IRaqi problem says Rumsfeld

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Insurgency is an IRaqi problem says Rumsfeld
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Insurgency is an IRaqi problem says Rumsfeld
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
No ...

In reply to: Insurgency is an IRaqi problem says Rumsfeld

... it sounds like we are going to support the new Iraqi government stand on their own two feet for the majority of Iraqis in solving *their* problem of insurgency. Had Saddam fallen to sudden illness or assassination instead of capture by Americans, there would have been more internal turmoil than is seen now.

Collapse -
Rummy is correct

In reply to: Insurgency is an IRaqi problem says Rumsfeld

Also, there is a big difference between ?killing each other like before? and a sovereign nation ridding itself of criminal elements

Collapse -
big difference between

In reply to: Rummy is correct

?killing each other like before? and a sovereign nation ridding itself of criminal elements

and here's another ''twist in the road''

either way, Lots more violence

Experts: Iraq verges on civil war

''It's just political rhetoric to say we are not in a civil war. We've been in a civil war for a long time,'' said Pat Lang, the former top Middle East intelligence official at the Pentagon.

Other experts said Iraq is on the verge of a full-scale civil war with civilians on both sides being slaughtered. Incidents in the past two weeks south of Baghdad, with apparently retaliatory killings of Sunni and Shia civilians, point in that direction, they say.

Collapse -
Experts schmexperts

In reply to: big difference between

Those same experts predicted thousands of body bags in Gulf War I and continued to be wrong at almost every turn on up through "there will be no elections" and forward. NOBODY can predict what will happen. Which is why the Bush bashing critics of our military actions -- highlighting every misstep, real, perceived, miscontstrued or just plain made up out of thin air -- should get real and recognize that their crystal ball gazers have been wrong more consistently. Thank God these armchair experts weren't around or paid any heed during WWII.

Collapse -
NOBODY can predict what will happen.

In reply to: Experts schmexperts

Envoy: Iraqi Militants Aim for Civil War

BAGHDAD, Iraq Jun 21, 2005 ? America's new ambassador to Iraq expressed horror Tuesday at the violence wracking the country and said Islamic extremists and Saddam Hussein loyalists are trying to start a civil war.

Prediction or opinion?

Which is why the Bush bashing critics

Do you think this guy would be a Bush basher?

Anybody can make a prediction, whether it happens on not, is another question.

Just as Rumsfeld didn't know if he predicted about the insurgents.
Collapse -
thats why there armchair warriors

In reply to: Experts schmexperts

they dont no squat, wont do squat, except tell all how much they know, and when its shown there wrong deny it.

much like some countries who turned there backs on iraq.

and some nay sayers we all have seen here.

Collapse -
Rummy sure has no

In reply to: Experts schmexperts

clue about what's going to happen. He's pretty well demonstrated that until all but those with thier heads deep in the sand agree.


Collapse -
I daresay Rumsfeld knows a lot more

In reply to: Rummy sure has no

about what's going on and what will happen than you ever will.

Collapse -
In that case he should

In reply to: I daresay Rumsfeld knows a lot more

avail himself of that knowledge. It sure doesn't look like he's exercising the prescience you ascribe to him.


Collapse -
I guess

In reply to: Rummy sure has no

only the stupidest, unqualified people are the ones who get the big bucks while the arm-chair, vastly more knowledgeable quarterbacks don't even get listened to, let alone get paid for their expertise and foresight/hindsight.


Collapse -
Now wait a minute

In reply to: I guess

Joe Biden agrees with Dan. Now there's an intellectual giant.

Collapse -
A huge part of the problem is foreign fighters

In reply to: big difference between

Coming in through Syria from other nations. Shut that down and the insurgency will be shut down to a great extent. It's less a civil war than an invasion.

I think we need to get much tougher with Damascus.

Collapse -

In reply to: A huge part of the problem is foreign fighters

President Bush invite the "terrorists" to "bring it on"

He invited them and said

"It's better to fight them on foreign soil than American soil"

Donald Rumsfeld also recently made the same statement.

If the terrorists aren't fought in Iraq, on which countries foreign soil, are they going to be fought?

Collapse -
The goal has ALWAYS been clear ...

In reply to: P.S.

... to support the Iraqis and train THEM to deal with whatever the aftermath. Experts were predicting a civil war every step of the way. They lamented that Sunnis weren't part of the process, etc. That a Shiite theocracy would emerge. None of which has happened. Yes, some of the "insurgents" are not insurgents at all, they are from abroad because the terrorists know that if Iraq "falls" in their world and succeeds as a Democracy, they have lost. That they are able to recruit a small number of Saddam loyalists or other radical Muslims to join their cause really should come as no surprise -- even to a non-expert.

What's your point? More doom and gloom is all I can see. Must really be miserable to live under such a cloud of pessimism every day.

Collapse -
What's your point?

In reply to: The goal has ALWAYS been clear ...

Why did President Bush invite the terrorists that were involved in 9/11, to Iraq, to fight Americas war against terrorism?

After Iraq is ''standing on it's own''

Will the 9/11 terrorists be defeated?

Is the US plan to prevent terrorists from entering the US, protect US interests abroad, and not confront the terrorists on foreign soil?

If a ''small number'' are not insurgents at all, they are from abroad .

That would mean a ''large number'' are insurgents from Iraq.

Must really be miserable to live under such a cloud of pessimism every day.

Last few days have been too hot, nice change today, foggy and cooler.

Collapse -
It is pointless ...

In reply to: What's your point?

... to reply to misrepresentations such as this:

Why did President Bush invite the terrorists that were involved in 9/11, to Iraq, to fight Americas war against terrorism?

Show me where he did any such thing.

So long as some narrow minded people think the only terrorists in the world wear AQ's on their turbins to identify themselves as Al Quaeda, and any that don't should be left alone because they weren't linked directly to 9/11, this war will never end.

Bush is fighting the terrorists on several fronts because that is where they are fighting us. Imagine if the ''one battle at a time'' folks had been in charge in WWII.

Collapse -

In reply to: It is pointless ...

President Discusses War on Terror

Our immediate strategy is to eliminate terrorist threats abroad, so we do not have to face them here at home. The theory here is straightforward: terrorists are less likely to endanger our security if they are worried about their own security.

Members of our military are undertaking difficult missions, in some of the most dangerous and desolate parts of the world. These volunteers know the risks they face, and they know the cause they serve. As one Marine sergeant put it, "I never want my children to experience what we saw in New York, at the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania." He said, "If we can eliminate whatever threat we can on foreign soil, I would rather do it there than have it come [home] to us." In this vital cause, some of our men and women in uniform have fallen, some have returned home with terrible injuries, and all who sacrifice will have the permanent gratitude of the United States of America. (Applause.)

The President repeated the Marine Sgts words, so I'll take that to mean The President has the same feelings.

Bush warns militants who attack U.S. troops in Iraq

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Challenging militants who attack U.S. forces in Iraq, President Bush said Wednesday they would be dealt with harshly, and declared, "Bring 'em on."

For the second day in a row, Bush vowed that attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq will not shake his administration's resolve to stay in that country until a strong and stable democratic government takes root.

"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice," Bush said. "There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on."

"Bring 'em on" qualifies as an invitation

I suppose we can quibble about "militant","terrorist" and "insurgent" and which is which.
Collapse -
That doesn't support your statement ...

In reply to: Response

... that he invited 9-11 terrorists into Iraq.

No doubt we would rather take the fight to them than experience more terror attacks here at home. Since they are bred there, I have no problem with that. If the "innocent" peoples and governments are not complicit, they can root them out from their midst. Which is what is happening in Iraq, and will hopefully continue so long as the cut-and-run gang doesn't get back into power and do just that before they are fully ready to protect themselves.

Collapse -
"It's better to fight them on foreign soil

In reply to: Didn't

than American soil"

You disagree with that?
Collapse -
That would depend

In reply to: "It's better to fight them on foreign soil

if it's on MY soil.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Yours maybe.

In reply to: Didn't

Collapse -
Then why didn't we close

In reply to: A huge part of the problem is foreign fighters

the borders on day one? Why haven't we done it since?


Collapse -
Because we didn't have enough

In reply to: Then why didn't we close

people like you willing to stand arm in arm around the whole country and use as a peaceful blockade/barrier to keep the Iraqi ones in and the foreigners out.

What part of 'let them come to us' so we aren't chasing them down in all corners of the globe don't you comprehend? If we had shut down all the borders to prevent the new ones from getting in, a peaceful Iraq would have happened long ago, we would have pulled out, and the 'new' bad boys on the block would have shown up immediately to take over again.


Collapse -
That's the most

In reply to: Because we didn't have enough

ridiculous argument I've heard in a long time. You make it sound like you think there is a small number of terrorists in the world and as soon as we kill them all that will be the end. Sorry. That's not how it works. As long as there are issues that can be used to fire the extremists, there will be some willing to be terrorists.

If there were many fewer foreign troops and a stable government that was perceived as legitimate there would only be a small fraction of the insurgency in Iraq today.


Collapse -
A stable government is

In reply to: That's the most

being elected upon in December.....and eventually there will be fewer foreign troops as the Iraqi military and police are put into the position of being able to maintain and protect themselves. This has always been the goal, and is what has been happening.

Did you believe that all of this would be accomplished on the same day that Baghdad fell from Saddam's hold nearly three years ago? How long do you think it took our own country to become stable and organized when we first started out....and we didn't have FIVE different religious factions to bring to the table and tell them all to get along and agree on everything? This is an entirely new experience for Iraq, and nobody has ever indicated that it would be an overnight and we're outta there operation. For you to even consider it to be otherwise is what's unrealistic...


Collapse -
I knew it was going to be

In reply to: A stable government is

a damn sight more difficult and take much longer and cost much more than anyone in the administration gave any hints to.

All this takes time and we've wasted too much already.


Collapse -
Point me to a link

In reply to: I knew it was going to be

from three years ago that indicated that ANYBODY in this Administration 'hinted' that this would not take years to accomplish, please.

Are you saying that you are the ONLY one who was able to see that this wasn't going to a 'run in, save everybody in Iraq immediately, and get out' operation? Do you really believe that the rest of the populace in the world didn't know that?

Where exactly have we wasted our time, please?

How would you have done any of this differently and gotten better results in the time allotted so far? Please give us your experienced military expertise and strategy moves that would have accomplished more of what faster?


Collapse -

In reply to: Point me to a link

These are in no particular order.

1 Seal the borders.
2 Do not ignore rioting, looting, and lawlessness.
3 Do not disband the Iraqi armed forces and put thousands of armed and disaffected men onto the streets.
4 Do not ignore the State Department's plan for Iraq.
5 Use local resources for infrastructure repair much more than has been done.
6 Bring enough troops to do the job right.
7 Don't use trumped up and questionable intel to justify the conquest. It hurts our credibility.

You're welcome.


Collapse -

In reply to: OK

1. There are nearly 300 miles of border with Iran alone. Feasible only in a dreamworld.

2. Despite overblown media reports, wasn't ignored or tolerated for a very long time. What do you propose? Firing on civilians toppling Saddam statues or having off with air conditioners?

3. How do you distinguish which ones with the guns are loyal to Saddam or not?

4. Which was?

5. What local resources?

6. Done.

7. Didn't use it.

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Best Black Friday Deals

CNET editors are busy culling the list and highlighting what we think are the best deals out there this holiday season.