PDA

View Full Version : US arms Iraqi insurgents to fight Al-Queda



elipson
8th June 07, 07:23 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/07/penhaul.iraq/index.html

Holy fucking hell. I'm speechless. For the second time in two days. First Bush does something right bringing Putin into the missile defense plan, and now this. This is incredible. If this kind of thinking had prevailed during the early years of the Occupation, maybe things wouldn't be as fucked up as they are now.

I really thought Bush would go down fighting and refuse to accept an alternative solution to just killing them all.

ironlurker
8th June 07, 08:20 PM
I agree, too bad it took so long for them to realize it

WarPhalange
9th June 07, 12:16 AM
This seems vaguely familiar.

Something to do with giving Bin Laden weapons to fight the Russians... and now he wants us dead?

AAAhmed46
9th June 07, 12:31 AM
So...how will they keep this from blowing up in thier faces?

Sun Wukong
9th June 07, 12:50 AM
Oh, it's gonna blow up in our faces, probably just not for at least 2 or so years. Just long enough for it to be someone elses problem.

Shawarma
9th June 07, 03:53 AM
I think that's the general idea. Meanwhile, this is pretty shrewd maneuvering, having the people who hate you but hate each other MORE massacre each other. Props.

elipson
9th June 07, 05:00 AM
One group at a time. Divide and conquer. Use them to fight Al Queda, distracting them from Allied troops, and hopefully the National Iraqi Army will become strong enough to defend itself while its enemies are fighting each other.

Its dangerous, but its better than fighting everyone at once anyways.

Zendetta
9th June 07, 03:38 PM
You know, when I was a kid, there was a time in the southeast before the Fire Ants took over.

Red and black ants were everywhere. I used to like to take a red ant and a couple of black ants and put them in a cup or jar - a palm sized stand-in for the Grand Arena.

Naturally, they'd scrap. And of course the red ants always won. They could take on three black ants and still prevail.

THe red ant might have lost a leg or antennae, but might emerge from the fray with the severed heads of vanquished rivals still gripping the victor's body, like the decapitated trophies taken from fallen foes that adorned a celtic hero's belt.



I'm sorry, what were we talking about?

Sun Wukong
9th June 07, 04:44 PM
I think that's the general idea. Meanwhile, this is pretty shrewd maneuvering, having the people who hate you but hate each other MORE massacre each other. Props.

This is hardly a big departure from american military strategy, it's just a departure from bush's "War On Terror" strategy. He's arming the same guys that were killing american soldiers with IED's last year. Remember, we were fighting a war against sectarian violence and alot of these guys were trying to kill us because we deposed Saddam hussein.

Now all they are doing is going back to fighting the Al Qaeda douche bags because they see them as a 3rd party who is intent on keeping territory and exploiting their divided attention. All the US has done here is armed up one militant side that hates us, to fight off another militant group who is hated just as much or more.

Once the Al Qaeda guys are gone, they're going to hate us and try to kill us again except this time they'll be using our own weapons against us.

The strategy is a good one for the short term however because it allows us to focus our intelligence on just one party instead of two.

This is no departure from the previous generation of military doctrine as practiced by the CIA for the last 40 years. It's just more like something Bush Sr. would do rather than Bush Jr. who stubbornly aimed at fighting everyone all at once.

It is exactly this kind of strategy that created Saddam Hussein. It worked then, but don't be fucking retarded, it's a risky short term only strategy.

elipson
9th June 07, 04:53 PM
Ketchens speaks the truth.

The Bush jr. admin seems only ever interested in the long term situation, without doing what was required to secure the short term. One has to follow the other.

Shawarma
9th June 07, 04:59 PM
Honestly, when exactly is any elected official interested in the long term?

Robot Jesus
10th June 07, 06:56 PM
It is exactly this kind of strategy that created Saddam Hussein.

and this is a problem?

Sun Wukong
10th June 07, 08:18 PM
Oh no, absolutely not. We need more ruthless despots funded by the american tax payer. I think it's super keen.

frumpleswift
10th June 07, 10:00 PM
This seems vaguely familiar.

Something to do with giving Bin Laden weapons to fight the Russians... and now he wants us dead?

Or our arming of Iraq to fight Iran?

Shawarma
11th June 07, 08:01 AM
Oh no, absolutely not. We need more ruthless despots funded by the american tax payer. I think it's super keen.
You do, actually. For as long as they serve American interests and do so consistently without stepping out of line like Hussein did.

elipson
11th June 07, 07:31 PM
Oh no, absolutely not. We need more ruthless despots funded by the american tax payer. I think it's super keen.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how many of these propped up dictators turn against the US, versus how many of them turn out to be really good allies?

Bad guys make the news, good guys dont.

And its no different than what they did in Afhanistan. Northern Alliance weren't saints themselves.