85 workers abducted in Iraq

[Sooner in Tampa]

These cats will pretty much stop at nothing. They will kill anybody...anytime. :mad:
NOW...how 85 people tget snatched ??? NOBODY is gonna stand up to these @$$holes...you know your fate if they get you. This had to take some time to pull off.


The witness said that about 85 workers were taken near the plant's parking lot, while police Lt. Thaer Mahmoud said they filled up a bus and a minivan. They were taken at the al-Nasr General Complex in Taji, 20 kilometers (12 miles) north of Baghdad. Taji is predominantly Sunni Arab area that has seen much insurgent activity.

[TUSooner]

"Taji is predominantly Sunni Arab area that has seen much insurgent activity" and should be razed immediately by US forces.

[GhostOfJAS]

Why don't y'all report all the good news going on in Iraq? Are y'all part of the librul media conspiracy? Why do you hate America?

Ugh...considering this, and the murders of at least 16 civilians yesterday in Mosul alone, and the ongoing car bombings (2 killed in Baghdad today), and of course the cowardly murders of our two servicemen, it appears the situation in Iraq continues to be out of our control. I've noticed even the Pentagon and White House over the past few months have stopped bothering to try to put lipstick on this pig. Of course they told us the deaths of the Saddam's sons was a turning point. And then the capture of Saddam. And then the death of Zarqawi was a turning point. I get the sense the events in this war are driving us, and not the other way around. Perhaps if the Bush administration and their cronies at DoD had been better prepared to deal with the post-major-combat situation in Iraq we wouldn't be in this mess.

[OklahomaTuba]

What a dismal picture you paint Jas.

Perhaps it would be good to remember that even though there is still tons of violence, that those turning points you mentioned were infact just that, and now in just three years time Iraq has a government thats actually been elected by its people instead of a terrorist supporting dictator mass murdering its people.

[OklahomaTuba]

And, never mind that we are fighting and killing lots of al-qaida there as well.


BAGHDAD, Iraq (June 21, 2006) – Coalition and Iraqi forces operations this week dealt devastating blows to the al-Qaida network as more than a dozen terrorists, including a top al-Qaida leader, were either captured or killed.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Daily/Jun/060621.htm

Yup. sounds like a great time to Cut and Run.

[49r]

You see, there are three types of people. Dicks, pussies and *******s. Pussies think everyone can get along. And Dicks just wanna **** all the time without thinkin it through. Then you got your *******s, chuck. All the *******s want is to **** all over everything! So sometimes pussies get mad at dicks once and a while, because pussies get ****ed by dicks. But dicks also **** *******s, chuck, and if they didn't, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your ***** all covered in ****!

I'm kinda surprised at how much of that made it through the naughty filter.

[GDC]

My friends and relatives in the military say the whole point is we are forcing them to fight us on their turf, thereby keeping Americans safe at home. I want to believe this, but it also seems alot of people are making a lot of money off this whole mess.

[BeetDigger]

I'm kinda surprised at how much of that made it through the naughty filter.


It's a work in progress.

[Okla-homey]

I get the sense the events in this war are driving us, and not the other way around. Perhaps if the Bush administration and their cronies at DoD had been better prepared to deal with the post-major-combat situation in Iraq we wouldn't be in this mess.

I realize you're a civilian so I'll be nice.

Newsflash: War is the very definition of an "event driven" exercise. 'Twer it not, we could model the carp out of military operations and never suffer a setback.

In reality, you adapt and overcome. They don't publish the weekly totals of jihaadists sent to Allah each week but suffice to say, we're giving hella more than we're getting

Hindsight is always 20/20 my friend.

Just saying.

[GhostOfJAS]

Newsflash: War is the very definition of an "event driven" exercise. 'Twer it not, we could model the carp out of military operations and never suffer a setback.

Of course it is...all of our existence is event-driven. But this is more than complex computer modeling...it's about common sense. Anybody with common sense would have known that a vacuum would develop after a strong dictator was deposed - particularly with the unstable combination of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds all living in the same geographic space...and that jihadists would try to move in and establish themselves in the vacuum as the invasion smoke cleared. It was clear massive manpower was going to be needed to establish security in this situation. Clear to everyone but Bush, Cheney and Rummy, I guess, because anyone who suggested a better plan and more troops were needed for post-invasion was banished or belittled by the administration. Now we are left with a constant and neverending series of reactions to new disasters years later...at a point when we should already be fading into the background.


In reality, you adapt and overcome. They don't publish the weekly totals of jihaadists sent to Allah each week but suffice to say, we're giving hella more than we're getting

I'm afraid it's more than just "scoreboard"...it only takes a few jihadists to execute a huge terrorist attack (witness this mass abduction). So unless you're willing to stay until every jihadist is routed (which will never happen -- since we know young men are picking up arms at a faster pace than we can rout them out), I think some different strategies may be in order. Such as better intelligence.

[Vaevictis]

I think some different strategies may be in order. Such as better intelligence.

To be fair, I don't think anyone in the White House is going:

Advisor 1: "Maybe we should have better intelligence!"
President: "What a horrible idea. You're fired!"

I'm pretty sure that "better intelligence" is something they're trying to achieve. Execution may be somewhat lacking though (although I would not be suprised if it had as much or more to do with the difficulty of getting said intelligence than any incompetence or lack of effort on the military/administration's part).

[GhostOfJAS]

To be fair, I don't think anyone in the White House is going:

Advisor 1: "Maybe we should have better intelligence!"
President: "What a horrible idea. You're fired!"

If you hadn't noticed, being a sycophant is a prerequisite to be in this administration...so no one thinks outside of the box. And that box is: we gather all the intelligence we can (accuracy is unimportant), use what is needed to advance our agenda, and throw the rest away. You know the whole WMD thing, which the administration blamed on bad intelligence. See how they punished Tenet:

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/GeorgeTenetMedal.jpg

[Vaevictis]

I know exactly what you're talking about, but I seriously doubt that the White House doesn't want better intelligence at this point. In spite of the fact that I think there's some serious idiocy in the White House, I don't think they're quite stupid enough to miss that something is seriously not going right for them right now.

... and even if that were the case, I'm sure that at the local level (in Iraq) the White House influences intelligence activities very little. My guess is it just has to do with the fact that gathering intelligence on insurgents and/or terrorists is really bloody hard, especially if the local populace isn't wholly on your side. This is why there are certain areas (ie, like the "Triangle of Death") where the terrorists are stronger than in others; it's a pretty safe guess to assume that those are the areas where we have the least support from the locals.

[GhostOfJAS]

I know exactly what you're talking about, but I seriously doubt that the White House doesn't want better intelligence at this point. In spite of the fact that I think there's some serious idiocy in the White House, I don't think they're quite stupid enough to miss that something is seriously not going right for them right now.

I would hope! But some days I wonder whether they're still drinking the far-right-wing Kool Aid that "everything is great in Iraq it's just the ocassional isolated incident and it will all go away when we kill Zarq-- whoops, capture Sadda-- whoops, their own legislature convenes --and anyone who says otherwise is just part of the librul media that hates america and blah blah blah". The White House could make a strong signal they intend to fix things by firing the utter failure that is Don Rumsfeld. I'm not holding my breath...I'm much more likely to see him receiving the medal of freedom before they ever admit he's a **** up.


... and even if that were the case, I'm sure that at the local level (in Iraq) the White House influences intelligence activities very little. My guess is it just has to do with the fact that gathering intelligence on insurgents and/or terrorists is really bloody hard, especially if the local populace isn't wholly on your side. This is why there are certain areas (ie, like the "Triangle of Death") where the terrorists are stronger than in others; it's a pretty safe guess to assume that those are the areas where we have the least support from the locals.

The fact the yahoos in DC have limited influence in the field is the only thing that helps me sleep at night - that gives me hope we still have a chance of getting through this okay. I'd much rather have a guy on the ground there in Baghdad familiar with the situation making intelligence judgments than some ****-up Bush sycophant in DC who screwed the pooch on WMD and has the pay raise to prove it.

You're right that it's got to be incredibly difficult to get an intelligence foothold in a place like the Sunni Triangle. But we don't have to infiltrate the terror groups or depend on locals. We have better technology now. We've got quiet drones. We can tag every vehicle in the triangle with a GPS and study the results. We can plant tiny listening bugs anywhere and hire more arab linguists. We can give away computers to the locals as a sign of good will and monitor the hell out of them. I'm sure there's covert spy stuff we've never dreamed of in a lab ready for the investment and deployment. That's where we should be going for long term victory.

[Vaevictis]

Yeah, we have some awesome technology. But no matter how good the technology is, nothing is better than a good ol' fasioned snitch. And it's our lack thereof that's the real problem.

[GhostOfJAS]

Yeah, we have some awesome technology. But no matter how good the technology is, nothing is better than a good ol' fasioned snitch. And it's our lack thereof that's the real problem.

Good discussion. I agree...I think BOTH of these things are needed.

[Okla-homey]

It was clear massive manpower was going to be needed to establish security in this situation. Clear to everyone but Bush, Cheney and Rummy, I guess, because anyone who suggested a better plan and more troops were needed for post-invasion was banished or belittled by the administration. Now we are left with a constant and neverending series of reactions to new disasters years later...at a point when we should already be fading into the background.


Okay Clausewitz, do you really think having a couple extra divisions on the ground would make any difference now or even three years ago? When faced with zealots who don't mind dying in their attempts to make you bleed, you basically are left with two options.

1) Kill them whenever they come up for air. Frankly, I believe we're quite capable of doing that with the forces we have there now. In fact, I expect the current forces are lots better at it than the guys who took down Iraq initially.

2) Leave and naively hope they won't bring the war to us here in America.

I think #1 is best choice. Did three years ago. Still do. The alternative is too ugly to contemplate.

[GhostOfJAS]

Okay Clausewitz, do you really think having a couple extra divisions on the ground would make any difference now or even three years ago? When faced with zealots who don't mind dying in their attempts to make you bleed, you basically are left with two options.

1) Kill them whenever they come up for air. Frankly, I believe we're quite capable of doing that with the forces we have there now. In fact, I expect the current forces are lots better at it than the guys who took down Iraq initially.

2) Leave and naively hope they won't bring the war to us here in America.

I think #1 is best choice. Did three years ago. Still do. The alternative is too ugly to contemplate.

We are seeing that method #1 is not working...because the number of jihadists is increasing at a rate at least as fast as we are desposing of them (I suspect, it's actually growing at a faster rate). I think you present a false dichotomy...we can modify method #1 without resorting to method #2...I've already commented on one way -- increased emphasis on intelligence.

For another thing, Paul Bremer and Gen. Eric Shinseki disagree with your presumption that more troops wouldn't have helped: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7053-2004Oct4.html

Not just more troops, but a better plan. The fact is the administration thought we would be welcomed with flowers and there would only be a small "clean up" job of Sadaam loyalists after the invasion. So they were caught in reaction mode when the insurgency arose...long enough for it to gain a footing that has lasted 3 years and running with no signs of abating. Remarkably incompetent when many experts within the administration (Bremer, Shinseki, et al.) were putting up red flags before the invasion.

[Vaevictis]

I think it's naive to think they won't bring it to us here in America either way. It may be that we're tying up some resources, but I think it's a delaying tactic at best.

Prior to Sept 11, when was the last time they struck on American soil? I'm not certain, but I want to say 1993, which would make an 8 year differential between attacks. I'd say the jury is out as to whether or not Iraq is having the effect of stopping them from attacking us here... and I'd personally be inclined to guess it's not, given that they've hit in Europe on multiple occasions.

(If anything we did "over there" is having that effect, I'd be more inclined to place it on our initial actions in Afghanistan, but that's just my gut. In Iraq, yeah, we're fighting them, but in Afghanistan, we actually knocked out their power base. It just makes more sense to me.)

[Vaevictis]

And actually, he's a question to which I don't really know the answer to -- it just occurred to me, and left me wondering:

Is it possible that the terrorists see Iraq (in addition to other things) as an opportunity to gain operational experience and we are unwittingly giving it to them?

(obviously, I don't see a way around it, I don't think there is anything to be done about it. Just wondering though.)

[Sooner in Tampa]

And actually, he's a question to which I don't really know the answer to -- it just occurred to me, and left me wondering:

Is it possible that the terrorists see Iraq (in addition to other things) as an opportunity to gain operational experience and we are unwittingly giving it to them?

(obviously, I don't see a way around it, I don't think there is anything to be done about it. Just wondering though.)I doubt it. There are allot of them dying just to get "operational ecperience".

These scumbags are just looking at targets of opportunity...Oh...and to make some extra dough. They are nothing more than mercs.

[Vaevictis]

I doubt it. There are allot of them dying just to get "operational ecperience".

Maybe. They think life is pretty cheap tho; operational experience is pretty valuable no matter which way you look at it.


These scumbags are just looking at targets of opportunity...Oh...and to make some extra dough. They are nothing more than mercs.

Maybe. There are lots of targets of opportunity over here too, though.