Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSSRE27GQ0


:patriot:

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.

Whip Slagcheek posted:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter!"
:goonsay:

About ten years ago when Fallujah really kicked off, there were chunks of the internet so determined to pooh-pooh the war that they were saying the same thing. I wasn't reading SA forums much that far back, but it was pretty standard DailyKos filler. More or less the same when Mosul got really hot a little while later. Everything old is new again.

I was trying to find a different old article but came across these tales of freedom fighting instead:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm

quote:

Since my reporting of the massacre at the al Hamari village, many readers at home have asked how anyone can know that al Qaeda actually performed the massacre. The question is a very good one, and one that I posed from the first hour to Iraqis and Americans while trying to ascertain facts about the killings.

No one can claim with certainty that it was al Qaeda, but the Iraqis here seem convinced of it. At a meeting today in Baqubah one Iraqi official I spoke with framed the al Qaeda infiltration and influence in the province. Although he spoke freely before a group of Iraqi and American commanders, including Staff Major General Abdul Kareem al Robai who commands Iraqi forces in Diyala, and LTC Fred Johnson, the deputy commander of 3-2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the Iraqi official asked that I withhold his identity from publication. His opinion, shared by others present, is that al Qaeda came to Baqubah and united many of the otherwise independent criminal gangs.

Speaking through an American interpreter, Lieutenant David Wallach who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people.

At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

Some guys here don't like Yon's writing because the guy is an rear end in person, so here's another, read the whole thing:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/03/the-liberation.php

quote:

“I had a good conversation with Iraqi Police Lieutenant Colonel Sattar about this last night,” Lieutenant Macak said. “I said Why are your family members the ones kidnapping you, beating you up, and killing your people?”

“It was his family members?” I said.

“Lieutenant Colonel Sattar was captured and held by Al Qaeda for over a year,” he said. “He was beaten and thrashed before they eventually let him go. And the guy who captured him was his cousin. The culture here – they lie, they deceive, they steal, they don't trust each other. In order to survive. That's what Saddam Hussein's era bred in them. If they wanted to survive and do well, they had to go behind everyone's back. After 20 or 30 years of Saddam, they can't break away over night.”

Best Friends
Nov 4, 2011

Snowdens Secret posted:

Did you even look at what you linked? The 'terrorist incidents' listed are suicide bombings, which are pale shadows of the open sectarian war pre-Surge, and which essentially bottom out in '09. Weak groups sending out suicide bombers aren't seizing police stations or whole towns; by Mideast standards of chaos that's about as peaceful as it gets. US media was having fun pointing out how more Americans were dying in a normal weekend of Chicago violence than in months in Iraq. Guys in this very forum were griping about how boring deployments were getting, how they didn't have any chance to 'get some' etc.


The ethnic lines had largely been redrawn by 2008 and we were paying favorable sheiks who had been bombing us to instead chill out, but the ongoing wave of ethnic suicide bombing and terrorism makes clear that the "sources of Sunni violence" had hardly "been eliminated." Their focus just shifted from attacking Americans do terrorizing their generally no-longer neighbor Shiites. And in Diyala, the neighbor on neighbor violence continued.

Conflating a drop in attacks on U.S. forces with peaceful coexistence in Iraq is one of the many reasons we were so terrible at doing anything positive in that country.

As for Maliki really wanting us to stay, I have never heard that but I am willing to bet it is coming from the same people who thought Chalabi was on the level and that we would be welcomed as liberators, given its freshness, political convenience, and rewriting of history. Articles and first person interviews contemporary to our actual departure talk about how Maliki definitely wanted us out, both from his mouth and from his aides and his government.

2008:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/as-soon-as-possible-iraq-leader-maliki-supports-obama-s-withdrawal-plans-a-566841.html

quote:

Maliki has long shown impatience with the open-ended presence of US troops in Iraq. In his conversation with SPIEGEL, he was once again candid about his frustration over the Bush administration's hesitancy about agreeing to a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. But he did say he was optimistic that such a schedule would be drawn up before Bush leaves the White House next January -- a confidence that appeared justified following Friday's joint announcement in Baghdad and Washington that Bush has now, for the first time, spoken of "a general time horizon" for moving US troops out of Iraq.

"So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat," Maliki told SPIEGEL. "But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."

2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8020815.stm

quote:

Mr Maliki said the upsurge in violence had had no effect on the timetable for the withdrawal of US forces.

"No, no, it hasn't changed it at all," he said.

"As we agreed at the beginning when we signed the withdrawal agreement, these deadlines are final and absolute and not open to postponement.

"And there's no need for delay, because the kind of attacks we're seeing now, using mentally ill women, loading them up with explosives and having them blow themselves up - that will go on.

"So the presence of armed forces, with tanks and armoured vehicles inside the towns, is useless in this context.

2010

http://www.usip.org/conversation-iraq-s-prime-minister-nuri-al-maliki/read-the-transcripted-remarks

quote:

Thank you. Spencer Ackerman with the Washington Independent. I was wondering, Mr. Prime Minister, what you think the U.S.-Iraqi security relationship ought to be after 2011. Should there be any form of residual U.S. military presence in Iraq? What size, and for what purpose, if so? And do you foresee a situation where the status report to the agreement might need to be renegotiated?

PRIME MIN. AL-MALIKI: Today the security relation between the U.S. and Iraqi -- the Americans and the Iraqis, and after the withdrawal of the Americans from the cities, is a relationship based on cooperation and all the foundations and rules that were put forth in the agreement.

Pursuant to the agreement, in 2011 the presence -- the military presence of the Americans will take end in Iraq. Nevertheless, if the Iraqi forces required further training and further support, we shall examine this then at that time based on the needs of Iraq. And I am sure that the prospects and the will -- desire -- the prospects and the desire of such cooperation is found among both parties. Nevertheless, the nature of that relationship as well as the functions and the amount of forces will be then discussed and re-examined again based on the needs.

2011

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/04/132632709/in-surprise-iraq-may-enforce-withdrawal-deadline

quote:


But in an interview Maliki granted last week, he said the existing agreement is "sealed" — and subject to neither extension nor alteration. Still, he did seem to leave open the possibility of a new agreement.

Mohammad al-Askari is Maliki's defense spokesman. Explaining the Iraqi government's public position, Askari said through an interpreter, "I don't believe there is any need for them to stay after 2011. Because we are ready right now, we are fully qualified, competent. And we don't have any will or wish for them to stay here, and there won't be any American forces after 2011."

Askari recently appeared on state TV with a U.S. military spokesman. He led viewers through a lengthy presentation of how Iraq has systematically built up its armed forces since the 2003 invasion.

genderstomper58
Jan 10, 2005

by XyloJW

Mike-o posted:

we got into a firefight with some dudes, the IP wouldn't come pick his dead rear end up because they were loving worthless. we wrapped his bloody dead body in a white bedsheet and tied him to the hood. buddy was blasting rock you like a hurricane through the loudspeaker as we rolled through the gate to our FOB.

lmao god drat I wish I did cool stuff like this instead of jacking off about pressure gages or w/e on a gay rear end lil submarine

Are Iraqi Special Forces dudes at least capable?

genderstomper58 fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jun 14, 2014

NIGGER DEATH TURBO
Jul 4, 2013

by Lowtax

genderstomper58 posted:

Are Iraqi Special Forces dudes at least capable?

yeah, they're the only dudes that legitimately wanted to learn, paid attention, and actually applied the poo poo they learned, they were p cool

Mad Dragon
Feb 29, 2004

genderstomper58 posted:

lmao god drat I wish I did cool stuff like this instead of jacking off about pressure gages or w/e on a gay rear end lil submarine
We almost had the chance to blow up parts of Iraq, but some other boat stole our glory. :argh:

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/17/981217-usn-airstrike.htm

Richard Bong
Dec 11, 2008

genderstomper58 posted:

Are Iraqi Special Forces dudes at least capable?

They range from pretty ok to really good. The guys we worked with had a shitton of hands on time with our SF guys.

I didn't trust them anymore than any other local national but you could count on them to actually shoot back and probably hit the target. Also they generally did not gently caress up spectacularly when doing raids and etc. I can't really think of anything bad to say about them other than a general feeling that some of them were untrustworthy as gently caress. This was back in 2005-06 though so who knows nowadays.

Mike-o
Dec 25, 2004

Now I'm in your room
And I'm in your bed


Grimey Drawer
The only Iraqis I ever trusted were our Kurdish gate guards. Those dudes were pro, would loving shoot at anyone for almost any reason. When we would run low on smokes they would give us whole packs for free, never asked for anything in return.

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.

Best Friends posted:

The ethnic lines had largely been redrawn by 2008 and we were paying favorable sheiks who had been bombing us to instead chill out, but the ongoing wave of ethnic suicide bombing and terrorism makes clear that the "sources of Sunni violence" had hardly "been eliminated." Their focus just shifted from attacking Americans do terrorizing their generally no-longer neighbor Shiites. And in Diyala, the neighbor on neighbor violence continued.

Conflating a drop in attacks on U.S. forces with peaceful coexistence in Iraq is one of the many reasons we were so terrible at doing anything positive in that country.

As for Maliki really wanting us to stay, I have never heard that but I am willing to bet it is coming from the same people who thought Chalabi was on the level and that we would be welcomed as liberators, given its freshness, political convenience, and rewriting of history. Articles and first person interviews contemporary to our actual departure talk about how Maliki definitely wanted us out, both from his mouth and from his aides and his government.
<snip>

Look bro I'm gonna lay this out to you, even though it frustrates me to have to type it out

- What career diplomats say to press conferences and major newspapers is not truth, it is signaling and kabuki dance. Never, ever take it at face value. That's true even of our diplomats (and politicians) and we're far and above the most straightforward on the planet
- That goes double, triple for guys that are survivors of poo poo regimes who have been bullshitting to stay alive for years/decades
- That goes loving 10x for an Iraqi Arab like Maliki who probably rips rear end in bed at night and tells his wife it was invisible Zionists

Otherwise you're making the exact same mistake you're accusing the Chalabi-fans etc of doing.

What I was talking about is neither new or fresh, it's all from around the surge / end of surge which predates almost all of your links. The Iraqis wanted a long-term (essentially permanent) American force of at least roughly pre-surge level. They wanted a long-term SOFA (like 15+ years at least) that would've left us in charge of big chunks of the security picture that whole time. This was all communicated through (mostly mil to mil) back channels, which is where this business really gets conducted, but it was not at all secret and was all over the usual mil / GWOT sites and I'd Google links but I've already put way more effort into this post than it deserves. The long term commitment, high troop levels and continuing American security responsibilities were obvious non-starters with the American political atmosphere of the time (remember what Congress was like), and were obvious non-starters the oncoming administration, who had loudly proclaimed during the campaign (again, signaling) that they were leaving come hell or high water.

About the only thing Maliki could have done to make his survival chances worse would have been to publicly announce that he really loved the Americans and wanted a shitload of them to stay because his government and his police forces were still doodoo, but they told him to piss off and left anyway. That should be painfully obvious (and again it frustrates me to have to type this out) and it's one of many reasons why you don't go "Gee, I wonder what the Iraqi government is really thinking, lemme see what their press guy is telling Der Spiegel."

gently caress it here's a few quick links:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/08/iraqis_standing_up.php
That's our plan for withdrawal, in mid-08, presented by the warmongering bloodthirster Petraeus, showing a withdawal plan that shockingly matches up almost exactly to what we were 'forced into' later. It also mentions several progress checkpoints that if the Iraqis don't meet, we don't leave - this was ignored, by us, years later. Note this:

quote:

The Iraqi Minister of Defense has stated it will be 2018 before Iraq can fully defend itself. Iraqi Ground forces will be capable of controlling and defending their country in 2011, but the Iraqi Air Force will still be seven years from providing adequate air defense. The Iraqi Air Force plans to have only 376 aircraft by 2020. US air cover will be needed. The ISF will probably assume fully independent national defense in 2018-2020. While the tactics and operations have continually adjusted, US strategic policy for Iraq has not changed: "As the Iraqis stand up..."

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/06/iraqi_politicians_ta.php Again from mid-08 but contains diplospeak:

quote:

Maliki understands the need for an arrangement that guarantees US support for his government. As the leader of a political party that does not possess a significant armed wing, he appears to realize that maintaining long-term US military presence in Iraq is essential for protecting a peaceful political process in which he and his party can compete with others. Despite his open support, Maliki announced on June 13 that the negotiations had reached an impasse, but stressed that talks will continue until an agreement that satisfies both sides is reached: "The first drafts presented left us at a dead end and deadlock. So, we abandoned these first drafts. The negotiations will continue with new ideas until the sides reach a formula that preserves Iraq's sovereignty."

Maliki is also under pressure to maintain an image of a statesman, and not of a pushover. Perhaps this concern is behind his sudden change of tone. "We can't extend the US forces permission to arrest Iraqis or to undertake terror fighting in an independent way, or to keep Iraqi skies and waters open for themselves whenever they want," Maliki said. "One of the important issues that the US is asking for is immunity for its soldiers and those contracting with it. We reject this totally."

Also just for fun (the Kurds had been talking like this basically since day 1):

quote:

Kurdish Parties, the KDP of Masoud Barazani and PUK of President Talabani: Iraqi Kurds consider themselves natural allies of the US and have often said proudly that they are America's best friends in the Middle East. Whenever the issue of permanent US bases in Iraq surfaced, Kurdish leaders would step forward and issue statement of support such as, "if Iraq's Arabs don't want permanent American bases then Kurdistan would gladly host these bases." The same offer was recently reiterated by parliament member Mahmoud Othman, who said that the government of Kurdistan would not mind hosting permanent American bases in the region.

Prior to Maliki's announcement that negotiations were deadlocked, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, the member of the Kurdish political scene closest to the negotiations, "stressed the need to complete the long-term agreement with the United States before the end of July so that Iraq does not become a divisive issue in the American elections and in order to preserve what has been achieved." Zebari added that the Americans have been flexible in resolving the dispute over immunity for private contractors, and the main issue being debated is that of arresting Iraqis suspected of perpetrating acts of terror. As to the possible number and location of permanent US bases in the country, Zebari proposed that the bases be established in Basrah, Nineveh, Karbala, and Anbar provinces.
(emphasis mine)

Also this, which is mostly interesting because it comes from State channels, and State's been in Lala-land with Iraq since before the invasion. This is 2011 and the Iraqis' ambitions are much, much smaller:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/11/iraqi_politicians_backed_into.php

quote:

Jeffrey didn't necessarily support the larger troop footprint envisioned by military leaders at the time, which reportedly ranged from 8,000 to 16,000 to 24,000 troops, depending on the military official. But he said he firmly believed that troops in Iraq past 2011 were needed and wanted by the Iraqi government.
...
Jeffrey was a key player on both the Washington and Baghdad sides of the 2011 negotiations that were meant to agree on a follow on force to extend the Bush administration's Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) after it was set to expire last December. Those negotiations ultimately failed. The White House has said the Iraqis refused to grant immunity for U.S. troops in Iraq after 2011 and submit a new SOFA through their own parliament, two things the United States needed to extend the troops' mission.
Jeffrey said that he and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki personally discussed the idea of extending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq via an executive agreement, which would not have to go through the Iraqi parliament.

"Maliki said at one point, 'Why don't we just do this as an executive agreement?'" Jeffrey said. "I didn't think he was serious, and I didn't think he had thought it through."

But ultimately, the Iraqis did insist that a new SOFA had to go through their parliament and they would not budge on the immunities issue, which made an extension of U.S. forces there impossible, Jeffrey said. He said the insistence on immunity was uniform inside the Obama administration.
From the OP:

quote:

But recent reporting by The New York Times' Michael Gordon paints a more complicated picture of U.S. incompetence and disengagement. Most notably, the Obama administration's insistence that any Status of Forces Agreement be ratified by Iraq's parliament set the stage for the inevitable failure of any agreement.

Simply put, while a number of Iraqi political leaders may have privately wished for continued American involvement to serve as a buffer and broker between both domestic rivals and neighboring regimes, far fewer were willing to support this position in a public, contentious debate. No one wants to be regarded as an American stooge in the prideful arena of Iraqi politics. Backing parliamentarians into a corner by demanding public ratification doomed a new SOFA to failure.


As for violence levels, Americans (at least the press) pre-'08 gave zero shits about violence between Iraqis, they only noted the grim statistics of American casualties. (You literally had a running ticker every night on CNN news totalling American casualties over the course of the war, and priority #1 for the administration was making that ticker go away - not necessarily do squat about the numbers, but if they did, bonus.) No one gives two fucks to research what kind of civilian casualty levels were present pre-war (you know, when Hussein's persistence in ethnic cleansing and general shitbaggery was uninterrupted by the no-fly zones etc, to the point where Clinton was already talking up ways of going back in.) No one tries to figure out what sort of baseline level of general violence should be expected in a failed state shithole before you add whatever sectarian war we were supposed to be fighting there. No one tries to figure out what's a 'terrorist attack' and what's an honor killing or mob hit or other tomfoolery that runs rampant over there, certainly not just in Iraq. As I said before you were looking at violence levels that on their low end were comparable to civilian casualty rates in American urban areas, and no one really likes to talk root causes and solutions there, either.

Here are some numbers that are (due to the source) probably hokum, but hokum on the upside if they are:
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/



('Any perpetrators' includes US and Iraqi security forces, so the red line includes people we shot/blew up. Lord only knows how they determined what suicide bombers' motivations were, maybe they checked their Facebook feeds.)

That level post-surge is drat decent for the neighborhood (I'm assuming you're not trying to argue the surge didn't work, which would be absurd.) Hell, like I've said it'd be drat decent for some of our own shitholier cities. A real completionist would recognize Iraq is only a part of a larger regional conflict, and overlay at least Syrian Civil War deaths on there if not Egypt, Yemen etc violence, but for some people that ruins the narrative.

E: Guys talking about secfor they trained, keep in mind Americans were mostly in Sunni areas and were training mostly Sunni dudes and that those guys were essentially all fired in the last three years or so. If you're lucky they opened up shops and poo poo and didn't follow the money to Syria.

Snowdens Secret fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Jun 15, 2014

Best Friends
Nov 4, 2011

Snowdens Secret posted:

Look bro I'm gonna lay this out to you, even though it frustrates me to have to type it out

- What career diplomats say to press conferences and major newspapers is not truth, it is signaling and kabuki dance. Never, ever take it at face value. That's true even of our diplomats (and politicians) and we're far and above the most straightforward on the planet

No kidding, which is why I am wondering where your special insight into the heart of Maliki comes from. It isn't reflected in any of your links below, which all seem to say that Maliki would not budge on the status of forces agreement. Also, in our society every agenda leaks to someone about everything, so I am very curious why there is such a lack of documentation or off the record talks about what you are saying.

As for if violence reduced after the surge, yes, it did. Like I said and like the numbers bear out, it reduced from full on warfare to merely terrorism many levels beyond what America experienced on 9/11 monthly. This can be traced pretty clearly to our policy of delivering large quantities of cash to selected former enemy sheiks, increased U.S. troop presence, and most critically the bulk of the ethnic cleansing had already happened.

If you are going to tell me that even post surge Iraq was more safe than U.S. cities for Iraqis you are huffing pure Weekly Standard farts. I was in Ramadi during the surge and gunfire and random explosions in the city was still a regular thing. It just wasn't happening to us which is why, like you point out, everyone was thrilled back in America and absurd articles about how Baghdad was safer than Detroit started circling in the right wing media. "Almost no Americans are being killed and open warfare stopped" does not equal "root causes fixed, Iraq is fine now." The root causes absolutely remained and that is why we are seeing what we are seeing right now.

Any amount of reduced violence does not mean the "root cause" of the violence had been eliminated. Nothing had been eliminated, we were just paying people off and the killing had cooled. Those same guys are still alive and are currently cutting off heads right now with their old friends in ISIS.

Nostalgia4ColdWar
May 7, 2007

Good people deserve good things.

Till someone lets the winter in and the dying begins, because Old Dark Places attract Old Dark Things.
LOL at that AF General talking about how Russian bombers have never flown that close.

Christ, what a dipshit.

iyaayas01
Feb 19, 2010

Perry'd

GENDERWEIRD GREEDO posted:

Well duh, I just want to see someone say that they're ok with people killing each other like animals while the rest of the world does literally nothing without also talking about specific mistakes the administration made as if it could have been handled properly by a 17 year old goon with a few counter culture history novels under his belt.

Basically "all intervention is wrong besides my intervention".

Ah, gotcha.

Related, I'm just going to restate my favorite part from Gates's memoirs..."so-called 'experts' like Samantha Power." Left unstated was "...and all the other loving idiots who thought up R2P."


hahahahahahahahahaha

funniest thing I've read all day

of course the really sad thing is that Brzezinski is indeed a wise man compared to 95% of the morons handling foreign policy in the last two administrations.

Whip Slagcheek
Sep 21, 2008

Finally
The Gasoline And Dynamite
Will Light The Sky
For The Night


That's really first place in the special Olympics territory tbqh

Nostalgia4ColdWar
May 7, 2007

Good people deserve good things.

Till someone lets the winter in and the dying begins, because Old Dark Places attract Old Dark Things.
I think my favorite part of listening to armchair politicians and their little beliefs is the idea that everyone is a rational actor and all you have to do is approach them correctly and they'll act rationally and in everyone's best interest. It surprises the poo poo out of me that so many people seem to think that 'oh, it's the 21st century, k, they'll just set aside their old rivalries and hatred and everything else and do what is best for their nation [as I see fit]!" without realizing that some motherfuckers just aren't rational and aren't going to let poo poo go.

A lot of the people in the political science and ethics courses I took just couldn't seem to understand just how big a part of a person's life religion can be, along with upbringing. A lot of seems like culture problems, like they couldn't understand why someone would lay down their life for a belief, because they wouldn't do the same. They kept claiming you just have to make them understand that acting rationally is in their best interest and everyone's best interest. They really seemed to have a problem with viewpoints that weren't beep boop beep insert logic.

Anyway, enough bullshit.

Hell, if the Iranians can lay their hands on the avionics and parts for the F-16's out of the whole deal, they might just consider that they came out ahead of the game. Wonder if that was part of the decision making process, or what.

I keep hearing that the Iranians are actually working with the US this time, as well as with Iraq, and (if it is true) I wonder what led to that.

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?
We should've sold Iraq F-16s from the boneyard, not new-builds. What loving dolt came up with this idea?

Whip Slagcheek posted:

That's really first place in the special Olympics territory tbqh

Or the World Cup.

FIDEL CASHFLOW
Oct 13, 2009

Godholio posted:

We should've sold Iraq F-16s from the boneyard, not new-builds. What loving dolt came up with this idea?

Lockheed.

iyaayas01
Feb 19, 2010

Perry'd

Godholio posted:

We should've sold Iraq F-16s from the boneyard, not new-builds. What loving dolt came up with this idea?

They're new-builds but they're waaaaay export downgraded...no 1760-bus JDAM capability, no AMRAAM capability (we're selling them Sparrows instead :laffo:), I can only imagine how much of a joke the radar is, I'm not even sure if we're selling them Sniper pods. Most advanced munitions they're going to be able to carry are LGBs and Mavericks.

Duffelblog continues to hit it out of the park.

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?
Interesting. I wonder what the radar is though...I can't imagine they'd be able to scrape together any APG-66s, but I also wouldn't have expected Sparrow-level BVR.

V That would be the 66.

Godholio fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jun 15, 2014

Mike-o
Dec 25, 2004

Now I'm in your room
And I'm in your bed


Grimey Drawer
They cooked up some giant eggo waffles, threw it in the radome, and told the Iraqis it's the newest bestest radar we have.

iyaayas01
Feb 19, 2010

Perry'd

Godholio posted:

Interesting. I wonder what the radar is though...I can't imagine they'd be able to scrape together any APG-66s, but I also wouldn't have expected Sparrow-level BVR.

This collection of articles says they're getting APG-68(V)9s, but I would imagine they're pretty export downgraded compared to the stuff we sell to folks like Singapore or Poland. It also states that it looks like we're selling them Sniper pods.

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?
Hm. Even though the newer designs can be gimped by the software (which is what I assume is happening?) I still wouldn't want hardware that new going over there. Same for SNIPER. Oh well, I'm sure the current crop of military and civilian leadership know what they're doing.

Genocide Tendency
Dec 24, 2009

I get mental health care from the medical equivalent of Skillcraft.


D&D has the ability to gaslight its self:

Vermain posted:

It's actually probably better if the conflict is left to sort itself out while other countries attempt to serve as mediators and negotiators, yes. I have no idea where your optimism with regards to a direct military response is coming from, considering that the most recent example of direct military intervention (Libya) led to a dessicated nation torn apart by warlords.

Nostalgia4ColdWar
May 7, 2007

Good people deserve good things.

Till someone lets the winter in and the dying begins, because Old Dark Places attract Old Dark Things.

Godholio posted:

Hm. Even though the newer designs can be gimped by the software (which is what I assume is happening?) I still wouldn't want hardware that new going over there. Same for SNIPER. Oh well, I'm sure the current crop of military and civilian leadership defense contractors know what they're doing.

This looks more likely.

Of course, I'm a little jaded nowadays.

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.

Best Friends posted:

No kidding, which is why I am wondering where your special insight into the heart of Maliki comes from. It isn't reflected in any of your links below, which all seem to say that Maliki would not budge on the status of forces agreement. Also, in our society every agenda leaks to someone about everything, so I am very curious why there is such a lack of documentation or off the record talks about what you are saying.

Because you're talking 6-7 years ago and if you're not the NYT your archives probably don't last that long. Here's a direct quote from an Aswat al-Iraq article from '07 that's no longer online:

http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/2007/09/breaking-iraq-to-formally-seek-long.html

quote:

Baghdad, Aug 30,- Iraqi Foreign Minster Hoshyar Zibari said on Thursday an expanded conference for Iraq’s neighboring countries is to convene in Baghdad in early September, unveiling that Iraq is seeking a long-term security agreement with the U.S. next year once the U.N. mandate given to the Multi-National Forces’ presence in the country was over. Iraq wants to establish a long-term U.S. military presence many years into the future, likely to include permanent bases.

Hopefully that's clear enough but there's certainly still plenty of articles in the 07-08 timeframe talking about how shitless scared the American Left was that Bushitler was going to get this deal closed and lock us in Iraq forever before a real president could be elected to fix everything:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-dreyfuss/maliki-bush-trample-iraqs_b_77903.html

quote:

The next battle will be the U.S.-Iraq treaty that will govern the long-term presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including possible permanent bases. The United States and Iraq are supposed to conclude that accord by July, 2008. That accord will be subject to parliamentary approval, says Maliki--but who knows? He might try to impose that one, too.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18368586

quote:

But the White House has already made it clear that in the Iraq agreement, it won't go to Congress to ask for permission. So critics of this agreement, like Congressman Delahunt, believe that White House and Pentagon lawyers will carefully construct the language of the agreement to make it appear as if it's not a treaty.

Rep. DELAHUNT: And that language is, to me, profoundly disturbing.

RAZ: And it's disturbing, he says, because it will commit the U.S. to Iraq for a long, long time to come.

Rep. DELAHUNT: To embrace an agreement that could be invoked in the event of an Iraqi civil war, I think is an extremely dangerous course to take.

RAZ: Now, for their part, Iraqi officials don't mince words, they actually call this a treaty. Listen to Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, just a few days ago.

Minister HOSHYAR ZEBARI (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Iraq): (Through translator) Our leaders have agreed to set a group of principles for the long-term treaty, and…

RAZ: Now, nearly half of Iraq's parliament have signed a letter demanding a full U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq within the next two years. But it's the Cabinet officials, the people who essentially depend on U.S. military protection, they're the people who are negotiating the deal on Iraq's behalf. And they've implied that they will require large numbers of U.S. troops in the country for at least another decade. And it poses a problem because Congress has passed three laws that prohibit any U.S. funding for permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

And I spoke to Kurt Campbell, who's a top Pentagon official during the 1990s, and he said there are actually ways around that as well.

Dr. KURT CAMPBELL (Chief Executive Officer, Center for a New American Security): While no one will say anything about permanent bases, there are lots of ways to create a potential for bases to be in Iraq for decades to come.

RAZ: So White House and Pentagon lawyers might simply opt to use adjectives like enduring or continuing instead of permanent when they write up this agreement.

Dr. CAMPBELL: This is an attempt in the last days of the Bush administration to hand a new administration a done deal.

Note they also mention the idea/plan of Maliki 'end-running' around his Parliament so politicians wouldn't have to be put on the spot and could tut-tut the SOFA with appropriate cover.

E: Hell, Zebari even lobbied for us to stay in a Wapo editorial:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050301548.html

quote:

Today, at an international summit on the future of Iraq in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, my government will ask the international community to maintain its engagement in our country to help us achieve our goals of security and stability. We recognize that our request conflicts with a plethora of voices decrying the situation in Iraq and those in the British and American publics who seek an expeditious withdrawal from a war they claim is all but lost.

So why should the world remain engaged in Iraq?
...
Those calling for withdrawal may think it is the least painful option, but its benefits would be short-lived. The fate of the region and the world is linked with ours. Leaving a broken Iraq in the Middle East would offer international terrorism a haven and ensure a legacy of chaos for future generations. Furthermore, the sacrifices of all the young men and women who stood up here would have been in vain.

Iraqis, for all our determination and courage, cannot succeed alone. We need a healthy and supportive regional environment. We will not allow our country to be a battleground for settling scores in regional and international conflicts that adversely affect stability inside our borders. Only with continued international commitment and deeper engagement from our neighbors can we establish a stable democratic, federal and united Iraq. The world should not abandon us.

Man almost sounds like he was right

Snowdens Secret fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jun 15, 2014

OMFG PTSD LOL PBUH
Sep 9, 2001

quote:

(I'm assuming you're not trying to argue the surge didn't work, which would be absurd.)

I'd happily debate this assertion until the oil in the burns out, Hebrew.

Accretionist
Nov 7, 2012
I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Obama Africanus posted:

I'd happily debate this assertion until the oil in the burns out, Hebrew.

Didn't the Surge just happen to coincide with the results of ethnic cleansing, something like that?

Job Creator
Apr 3, 2009

In response to ISIS slaughtering IA soldiers:

illrepute posted:

This is amusing to me because America did the same thing in one instance when insurgents attempted to surrender to an apache crew.

D&D is so cool :allears:

Triggs
Nov 23, 2005

Tango Down!
Apache crews have extremely tight legal limitations so that's pretty amusing.

e: Although that's not to say that some crews have made terrible decisions.

Tiny Timbs
Sep 6, 2008

I'm still not sure how Libya is the perfect example of failed intervention DnD wants people to think it is.

Job Creator posted:

In response to ISIS slaughtering IA soldiers:


D&D is so cool :allears:

Haha I think shortly afterward someone tried to make the point that the US has simply become more bloodthirsty in the past few years which is why we never took prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan (apparently).

Somewhere a carpet bombed Vietnamese kid is rolling in his little grave.

Dapper_Swindler
Feb 14, 2012

Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

Job Creator posted:

In response to ISIS slaughtering IA soldiers:


D&D is so cool :allears:

yeah, D&D loves being moral relativists with the worst kind of situations sadly, it didn't help that the next 2 following pages were giant arguments over that post. also, i think alot of the people ISIS killed arnt even soldiers, just shia men they picked up.

Nostalgia4ColdWar
May 7, 2007

Good people deserve good things.

Till someone lets the winter in and the dying begins, because Old Dark Places attract Old Dark Things.
Dresden, Europe, and the Pacific, all circa 1944 would probably like to have a word with them.

I mean, Christ, could you imagine if America started fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan the way they did in the 1940's? Insurgent shoots from the house or you don't like the way it looks? FLAMETHROWER, BABY! The insurgents in that section? gently caress it, carpet bomb or napalm that poo poo to the ground! Could you imagine the screaming if we left Iraq or Afghanistan looking like we did Europe or the Pacific? poo poo, they already pass around pictures of pre-Soviet invasion Afghanistan and act like it was like that when we got there and we're the ones who loving blew it up.

poo poo, anyone remember, back in the early days of the Iraq War, there was two videos going around. One showed insurgents pulling weapons off the truck and moving them somewhere else when the Apache shows up and kills them, while another video had been altered to make it look like the one carrying the weapons was a kid skipping along? Those who were trying to paint the US as bloodthirsty monsters were going so far as to edit video and falsify data. (Like the Marine kicking the guy who pulled out the pistol in the face, how it was broadcast as some Marine brutalizing a prisoner by editing out the pistol and making it look like the guy was trying to stop himself from getting kicked in the face) That the anti-war advocates were so dying for war-crimes they could wave around that they were willing to falsify war-crimes just to justify their attitudes.

It's always made me wonder if all these people who scream about how 'blood thirsty' US troops are are actually pissed off because we didn't go full on like they thought troops would, so they latch onto the simplest poo poo and act like the whole military is like that, rather than one situation/circumstance or one rear end in a top hat. That they feel somehow robbed that American troops didn't just line up civilians and machinegun them or sell kids to other nation's officers or artillery whole towns into rubble and kill anyone trying to escape.

Of course, you have the other side of those guys, who seem to think that combat is like a loving video game, and everyone's head is always clear, focused, and they have all the available data. That can't understand how mistakes are made because beep boop all data recieved is the way they think poo poo goes down. The idea of anyone making a lovely decision is always "Oh, they lust for the blood of civilians!" rather than "What a lovely loving decision."

And that leads to the whole 'zero tolerance' poo poo. I mean, poo poo, wasn't it Nimitz who ran a loving destroyer aground?

Or am I overthinking poo poo again?

Genocide Tendency
Dec 24, 2009

I get mental health care from the medical equivalent of Skillcraft.


pengun101 posted:

yeah, D&D loves being moral relativists with the worst kind of situations sadly, it didn't help that the next 2 following pages were giant arguments over that post. also, i think alot of the people ISIS killed arnt even soldiers, just shia men they picked up.

D&D has a hard on for crying about how evil the US is.

Literally the US could give foreign disaster victims MREs and they will bitch about the nutritional value. And if its handed out by troops, INVADING MILITARY FORCE.




50 Foot Ant posted:

Dresden, Europe, and the Pacific, all circa 1944 would probably like to have a word with them.

I mean, Christ, could you imagine if America started fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan the way they did in the 1940's?

:flashfap:

Tiny Timbs
Sep 6, 2008

Paul MaudDib posted:

There's ample history of helicopters accepting surrenders, by the way. The Viet Cong were just as capable of disappearing back into the jungle, aircraft would just radio their location and soldiers would come and take them into custody.

You're not raising some issue that no one has considered before, the difference is we're just a lot bloodthirstier than we were even 30 years ago.

Like holy gently caress.

iyaayas01
Feb 19, 2010

Perry'd

GENDERWEIRD GREEDO posted:

Like holy gently caress.

lol

even the Brits, king shits of huggy feely let's not kill anyone unnecessarily COIN (which btw worked out swimmingly in Basra) would routinely kill CTs in Malaya in THAT EXACT SITUATION of dudes being located but not able to be immediately captured because jungle.

Zeroisanumber
Oct 23, 2010

Nap Ghost

Genocide Tendency posted:

D&D has a hard on for crying about how evil the US is.

Literally the US could give foreign disaster victims MREs and they will bitch about the nutritional value. And if its handed out by troops, INVADING MILITARY FORCE.

People literally did this when we invaded Afghanistan back in 2001. Bush wanted to buck-up the narrative that we were after AQ, not Afghanis or whatever, so he dumped a bunch of MREs over the hinterlands of Afghanistan so that people would at least have something when winter hit. People over here bitched about the nutritional content, whether or not the food was halal, and that the packaging would make them look like cluster bombs.

Nostalgia4ColdWar
May 7, 2007

Good people deserve good things.

Till someone lets the winter in and the dying begins, because Old Dark Places attract Old Dark Things.
Holy poo poo. They really don't loving get it, do they? They think that poo poo just follows the AI programming of their favorite video game, don't they?

'just a lot bloodthirstier'? loving really?

These guys have seen movies/read books about the Vietnam War, right? They've studied history, right? They're familiar with World War I and World War II, right?

poo poo, they're familiar with the Iran/Iraq War and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, right?

Or are they so goddamn naive they think that Patton or Grant or Sherman wouldn't have left the Middle East a smoking goddamn crater?

EDIT:

quote:

People literally did this when we invaded Afghanistan back in 2001. People bitched about the nutritional content, whether or not the food was halal, and that the packaging would make them look like cluster bombs.

People were bitching the exact same loving thing when we were feeding EPOW's MRE's after they surrendered to anyone they could find. That the air-drop rations we gave the Kurds killed some of the dumb motherfuckers because they stood underneath them trying to catch a pallet of loving MRE's and bottled water. Hell, when I came home on convalescent leave after the Gulf War, people were talking about how the Highway to Hell was a war-crime, because the Iraqi's were just trying to run away and not pulling a fighting retreat. That America was loving terrible because any Iraqi troops were given MRE's without thinking about how it might violate their religious rights.

Nice to loving know that people are still that goddamn stupid.

Nostalgia4ColdWar fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Jun 15, 2014

Genocide Tendency
Dec 24, 2009

I get mental health care from the medical equivalent of Skillcraft.


Soooo..

Someone just said that Sherman's Atlanta antics weren't that bloodthirsty.

I don't want to go back in there anymore.

Or maybe I got caught by Poe's law.

Mad Dragon
Feb 29, 2004

50 Foot Ant posted:

I mean, Christ, could you imagine if America started fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan the way they did in the 1940's?

Maybe we should end it the way we did in the 40s. :v:

Nostalgia4ColdWar
May 7, 2007

Good people deserve good things.

Till someone lets the winter in and the dying begins, because Old Dark Places attract Old Dark Things.


Do it old school style.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

iyaayas01
Feb 19, 2010

Perry'd

Genocide Tendency posted:

Soooo..

Someone just said that Sherman's Atlanta antics weren't that bloodthirsty.

I don't want to go back in there anymore.

I'm assuming you're talking about the March to the Sea, because Sherman's campaign in capturing Atlanta was just a normal military campaign, nothing crazy or super violent/destructive about it. If we're talking about the March to the Sea, that's actually a pretty true statement. The idea that Sherman's Army literally raped and pillaged their way to the sea like the second coming of Genghis Khan or something is a popular myth, but it's just that, a myth. Here's an excerpt from his Special Field Orders (I've bolded a few parts):

quote:

IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, potatoes, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.
V. To army corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.
VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or bridges. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.

So yeah, Sherman's March really wasn't bloodthirsty at all. It had the intended effect (break the back of the South and completely destroy their ability to wage war) and was absolutely a scorched earth campaign from the sense of destroying warmaking and industrial implements, but the idea that it was a Eastern Front style scorched earth campaign filled with raping and murdering just isn't the case. The direct human costs were pretty low.

  • Locked thread