[Krusty]

According to Iraqi intelligence chief , the insurgency stands at approximately 40k "core" fighters and around 200k including part-timers. This contrasts estimates of 5-20k last year. The only question is ... is the insurgency growing rapidly ... or was it drastically underestimated in the first place ?

A senior US military officer declined to endorse or dismiss the spy chief's numbers._

"As for the size of the insurgency, we don't have good resolution on the size," the officer said on condition of anonymity._

Past US military assessments on the insurgency's size have been revised upwards from 5,000 to 20,000 full and part-time members, in the last half year, most recently in October._

Defense experts said it was impossible to divine the insurgency's total number, but called Shahwani's estimate a valid guess, with as much credence, if not more, than any US numbers._

"I believe General Shahwani's estimation, given that he is referring predominantly to active sympathizers and supporters and to part-time as well as full-time active insurgents, may not be completely out of the ballpark," said defense analyst Bruce Hoffman who served as an advisor to the US occupation in Iraq and now works for US-based think-tank RAND Corporation._

Compared to the coalition's figure, he said: "General Shahwani's -- however possibly high it may be, might well give a more accurate picture of the situation."
.....
Asked if the insurgents were winning, Shahwani answered: "I would say they aren't losing."

[Shaddim]

"So, what are you doing these days, Amal?"

"Well Hassan, right now I'm working part-time as an insurgent, but I'm hoping Allah will be hiring for full time positions soon. It's tough raising a family on that type of wage, and I barely get to slaughter enough infidels to make it worthwhile."

"I've heard you don't get much in the way of benefits as a part-timer."

"Yeah, true dat. As a half-mullah I only get 36 virgins and 20 camels when I get to heaven... it's almost not worth it."

"How do they expect a man to blow himself up for such a pittance?"

"I know man. Almost makes me want to switch sides, embrace the Great Satan, and open a laundromat."

"There's a lot to be said for free dry cleaning."

"No doubt."

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
"So, what are you doing these days, Amal?"

"Well Hassan, right now I'm working part-time as an insurgent, but I'm hoping Allah will be hiring for full time positions soon. It's tough raising a family on that type of wage, and I barely get to slaughter enough infidels to make it worthwhile."

"I've heard you don't get much in the way of benefits as a part-timer."

"Yeah, true dat. As a half-mullah I only get 36 virgins and 20 camels when I get to heaven... it's almost not worth it."

"How do they expect a man to blow himself up for such a pittance?"

"I know man. Almost makes me want to switch sides, embrace the Great Satan, and open a laundromat."

"There's a lot to be said for free dry cleaning."

"No doubt."

ha ha!

[rambo47]

MacNStein, I laughed my arse off! And it's a pretty good sized arse, too.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Krusty:
According to Iraqi intelligence chief , the insurgency stands at approximately 40k "core" fighters and around 200k including part-timers. This contrasts estimates of 5-20k last year. The only question is ... is the insurgency growing rapidly ... or was it drastically underestimated in the first place ?

That increase must come from Canada.

[Curios Meerkat]

Yes. Despite the Occupying forces having "broken the back" of the insurgency a few times already, they seem to grow stronger every day. Notable is also that only ~4% are foreign fighters (coming mostly from Saudi Arabia, not Syria or Iran as often claimed).

It should be obvious to everybody that something went terribly wrong, and while the british press (not only Guardian and Independent, the Telegraph and Economist aren't as optimistic as they used to be) seems to slowly realize this, the US media is still parroting the Pentagon line for the most part; very few in the US are aware of the gravity of the situation.

The attempt at trivializing this thread by a poster is tale-telling as well: It must be really hard to admit all that you've been rooting for in the last years has been a miserable failure. Unfortunately much of the American public and its media are showing a similar attitude.

[Zimphire]

Indeed.

http://junk.buffalogrille.com/tank.mpg

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Indeed.

http://junk.buffalogrille.com/tank.mpg

What is that? Did a gas line blow or did the guy blow himself up? I can't tell from the video.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliff:
What is that? Did a gas line blow or did the guy blow himself up? I can't tell from the video.

He took a gun to a battle against a US tank.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He took a gun to a battle against a US tank.

Ouch.

[rambo47]

Sure looks like natural selection at work to me! If you're stupid enough to take a rifle to fight with a tank, you get weeded out of the gene pool.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He took a gun to a battle against a US tank.

LOL. Poor dumbass.

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by rambo47:
Sure looks like natural selection at work to me! If you're stupid enough to take a rifle to fight with a tank, you get weeded out of the gene pool.

What about taking a hummer with ghetto armor down IED lane, you get weeded out of the gene pool.

[nath]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
Yes. Despite the Occupying forces having "broken the back" of the insurgency a few times already, they seem to grow stronger every day. Notable is also that only ~4% are foreign fighters (coming mostly from Saudi Arabia, not Syria or Iran as often claimed).

It should be obvious to everybody that something went terribly wrong, and while the british press (not only Guardian and Independent, the Telegraph and Economist aren't as optimistic as they used to be) seems to slowly realize this, the US media is still parroting the Pentagon line for the most part; very few in the US are aware of the gravity of the situation.

The attempt at trivializing this thread by a poster is tale-telling as well: It must be really hard to admit all that you've been rooting for in the last years has been a miserable failure. Unfortunately much of the American public and its media are showing a similar attitude.

++

[Zimphire]

Anyone that uses "miserable failure" with what is going on isn't paying attention. and are defeatists. On purpose or not.

If you think they are beating us. Well, I guess there is really no hope for ya.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He took a gun to a battle against a US tank.

It's called 'courage'.

This guy confronted 4 tanks armed with a shopping bag:

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eklipse:
It's called 'courage'.

This guy confronted 4 tanks armed with a shopping bag:

Not sure if it was courageous or just all out deluded idiocy. He was shooting at a tank with his gun. Now I am not a gun person. Nor have I ever been part of any armed services. But I myself know that shooting at a tank with said gun wont do diddly, and will just get me killed.

That isn't courageous. That is idiocy. IMHO of course.

[Curios Meerkat]

History has shown that there are no invincible armies. (JWS)

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
History has shown that there are no invincible armies. (JWS)

No one said there was.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No one said there was.

No one guy on a street with a rifle is going defeat a tank, never mind a whole army.

[rambo47]

There are idiots, and lucky idiots. The guy in Tieneman Square was lucky. The dope in the video was just a dope. Remember the picture of the Palestinian kid winding up with his sling and a rock, ready to let fly at Isreali soldiers? "Ballsy" and "Stupid" are not mutually exclusive.

[Krusty]

That video doesn't really support the idiocy theory. Who can tell what he was shooting at ? Perhaps he was shooting at individual soldiers in the general direction of the tank rather than the tank itself ?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Anyone that uses "miserable failure" with what is going on isn't paying attention. and are defeatists. On purpose or not.

Maybe defeatist. But I'm not sure what you mean when you say "aren't paying attention". Paying attention is what makes the situation seem pretty bleak:
We are now 20 months past "Mission Accomplished" and the mission is, clearly, not.
We are 6-7 weeks past "winning" Fallujah, yet troop deaths continue unabated in "Al-Anbar province", aerial bombings are still required, repatriation of the citizenry is basically not happening, and there is still a ban on media in the city.

Originally posted by Zimphire:

If you think they are beating us. Well, I guess there is really no hope for ya.

The Viet Cong didn't technically beat us in Vietnam either .. but we're gone and they're still there, running the country today. I don't think anyone is asserting that the Iraqi insurgents are going to conquer the US armed forces in a military sense ... but they certainly seem to be doing a good job keeping US from success in our objectives.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Krusty:
That video doesn't really support the idiocy theory. Who can tell what he was shooting at ? Perhaps he was shooting at individual soldiers in the general direction of the tank rather than the tank itself ?

There was a story to the clip, Can't find it at the moment. He was shooting at the tank. Like a moron.

Maybe defeatist. But I'm not sure what you mean when you say "aren't paying attention". Paying attention is what makes the situation seem pretty bleak:
We are now 20 months past "Mission Accomplished" and the mission is, clearly, not.

When Bush said that, he meant the mission to get the old Iraq gone. Saddam ran, Iraq was no longer run by him. Mission accomplished. He never said it was FINISHED.

We are 6-7 weeks past "winning" Fallujah, yet troop deaths continue unabated in "Al-Anbar province", aerial bombings are still required, repatriation of the citizenry is basically not happening, and there is still a ban on media in the city.

Did you forget to read the part where EVERYONE has said this would take a while?

The Viet Cong didn't technically beat us in Vietnam either .. but we're gone and they're still there, running the country today. I don't think anyone is asserting that the Iraqi insurgents are going to conquer the US armed forces in a military sense ... but they certainly seem to be doing a good job keeping US from success in our objectives.

Most of our objectives get met. There are those that like to exaggerate the situation to make it look worse than it is. Because that is what they want to believe.

[jbartone]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
"So, what are you doing these days, Amal?"

"Well Hassan, right now I'm working part-time as an insurgent, but I'm hoping Allah will be hiring for full time positions soon. It's tough raising a family on that type of wage, and I barely get to slaughter enough infidels to make it worthwhile."

"I've heard you don't get much in the way of benefits as a part-timer."

"Yeah, true dat. As a half-mullah I only get 36 virgins and 20 camels when I get to heaven... it's almost not worth it."

"How do they expect a man to blow himself up for such a pittance?"

"I know man. Almost makes me want to switch sides, embrace the Great Satan, and open a laundromat."

"There's a lot to be said for free dry cleaning."

"No doubt."

LMAO . Exactly what I was thinking about. "Part-time terrorists?"

[MacGorilla]

In every battle we faced with the viet cong, we won, but the war was far more complex than that, hence we lost. I think its still too soon to determine with we are losing the war in Iraq or mot. It may take years to finally sort things out.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
In every battle we faced with the viet cong, we won, but the war was far more complex than that, hence we lost. I think its still too soon to determine with we are losing the war in Iraq or mot. It may take years to finally sort things out.

WE lost because at home., there was people doing what they are doing now with this war. Heck back then soldiers were even spit on.

You never saw that during WWII. And people argue that we shouldn't have been involved with that one either.

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
WE lost because at home., there was people doing what they are doing now with this war. Heck back then soldiers were even spit on.

You never saw that during WWII.

I think that's probably because you weren't the aggressor in WWII. Japan attacked you without provocation; Germany declared war on you.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Anyone that uses "miserable failure" with what is going on isn't paying attention. and are defeatists. On purpose or not.

If you think they are beating us. Well, I guess there is really no hope for ya.

Just keep on saying that... say it until there's a helicopter carrying our staff out of the embassy as the enemy swarms it, just like they did in Saigon.

And there was a reason that people protested against Vietnam -- it was a meat grinder with no end in sight, into which we were feeding hundreds of thousands of young men. We persisted in Vietnam for (depending on when you mark the start point) at least 10 years, and I doubt even 10 more would have done any good. At least in WWII, we had a well-defined enemy, a state, which could surrender (and, of course, we were willing to engage in "total war" in a way that we no longer really deem acceptable.)

Look, we could win, but we could lose, too. We need to not ignore the bad news. If that makes me a "defeatist," well, I guess I am one.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
WE lost because at home., there was people doing what they are doing now with this war. Heck back then soldiers were even spit on.

You never saw that during WWII. And people argue that we shouldn't have been involved with that one either.

Wel, thats one reason we lost--but it was more than that.

People shouldn't blame the solidiers on the ground for the wars they fight--never. Blame the generals and the civillian leaders.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nath:
I think that's probably because you weren't the aggressor in WWII. Japan attacked you without provocation; Germany declared war on you.

No, that is not why. If The SAME things happened TODAY, there would be the same amount of Whiners there is now.

OMG look at all the soldiers murdered! YOU BABY RAPER!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Wel, thats one reason we lost--but it was more than that.

People shouldn't blame the solidiers on the ground for the wars they fight--never. Blame the generals and the civillian leaders.

Hard to fight a war when your own people are spitting at you.

The people who did that should have gotten the taste slapped out of their mouths. Bunch of punks.

And that same punk boy attitude is still a live today.

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, that is not why. If The SAME things happened TODAY, there would be the same amount of Whiners there is now.

Rubbish. The campaign against the Taleban/Bin Laden in Afghanistan was not heavily protested (in comparison to Iraq) precisely for that reason. You were attacked by a group based in that particular country and you responded.

If Germany declared war on the US today, or Japan attacked you militarily without provocation, everyone would expect a military response, even if many would urge restraint against all hope.

However, if you were to come to the UN and say, 'uh, Germany and Japan might have some really nasty weapons, they might use them against us or, uh, make friends with some other people that would, and uh, we know all this because the exiled opposition told us so'....

you'd be laughed out of the building, just like you were when you tried the same crap with Iraq.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
OMG look at all the soldiers murdered! YOU BABY RAPER!

Seek help.

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Hard to fight a war when your own people are spitting at you.

Exactly. Or, to put it another way, hard to fight a war the majority of your population don't want or believe in.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The people who did that should have gotten the taste slapped out of their mouths. Bunch of punks.

Yeah, it was that kind of thinking that led to itchy triggers at Kent State wasn't it? Why bother slapping people when you can just kill them?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And that same punk boy attitude is still a live today.

Good. God bless America and long live freedom.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nath:
Exactly. Or, to put it another way, hard to fight a war the majority of your population don't want or believe in.

Um, it wasn't a majority of the population. The ones that were against it just hissed and honked loudest. And even they had no clue.

Ask Jane Fonda why she apologized later.

Yeah, it was that kind of thinking that led to itchy triggers at Kent State wasn't it? Why bother slapping people when you can just kill them?

Whhaaa? You just took what I said, and turned it into a bizarro extreme.

Good. God bless America and long live freedom.

There was a lesson here to be learned. Just because you have the freedom to make a jack-ass out of yourself, doesn't mean you should.

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Um, it wasn't a majority of the population.

I think you'll find that most opinion polls of the time show US public opinion against the war in Vietnam by 1969. I'm sure you can find some exceptions, but whatever.

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Whhaaa? You just took what I said, and turned it into a bizarro extreme.

Sorry, I thought you were advocating violence as a deserved response to protest. My mistake.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There was a lesson here to be learned. Just because you have the freedom to make a jack-ass out of yourself, doesn't mean you should.

Of course not. But it doesn't mean that you can't, either. Zimphire, I'd like you to meet Freedom!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nath:
I think you'll find that most opinion polls of the time show US public opinion against the war in Vietnam by 1969. I'm sure you can find some exceptions, but whatever.

No, no most of them don't. There was however enough people that were upset that caused the Gov to be concerned. But it wasn't the MAJORITY.

Sorry, I thought you were advocating violence as a deserved response to protest. My mistake.

One is slapping someone, the other is murdering them. You made a bizarro comparison.

Of course not. But it doesn't mean that you can't, either. Zimphire, I'd like you to meet Freedom!

100% silly. I've known Freedom all my life.

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, no most of them don't. There was however enough people that were upset that caused the Gov to be concerned. But it wasn't the MAJORITY.

Source is Major Brian P. Mullady. I'm sure you have contending stats from equally reliable sources, but it seems pretty cut and dried.

Originally posted by Zimphire:

One is slapping someone, the other is murdering them. You made a bizarro comparison.

Both are infringements of the victim's rights as granted by the constitution. YMMV.

Originally posted by Zimphire:

100% silly. I've known Freedom all my life.

Yet you appear not to fully understand it. Strange.

[Zimphire]

Yes I fully understand. And yes I can show graphs that say the opposite.

I never said I would actually SLAP them. I said they NEEDED it.

You need to put that knee back where it belongs.

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes I fully understand. And yes I can show graphs that say the opposite.

But you don't want to because...

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I never said I would actually SLAP them. I said they NEEDED it.

He. I love it when people say that. 'You need a slap' They're nearly always the kind to look for someone else to do it.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You need to put that knee back where it belongs.

You need to be a bit more careful when writing posts. You get yourself all worked up and then blurt out the most preposterous and unsupportable nonsense. But it has brightened up a very gloomy Sunday, so thanks for now!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nath:
But you don't want to because...

Do you always argue dishonestly? Not that I am surprised.

He. I love it when people say that. 'You need a slap' They're nearly always the kind to look for someone else to do it.

You are projecting again. I don't think anyone else should do it. Saying someone NEEDS a slap. Doesn't mean you want someone to do it. Again. Get a grip.

You need to be a bit more careful when writing posts.
You get yourself all worked up and then blurt out the most preposterous and unsupportable nonsense.

Why should I be more careful? I am not the one knee-jerking and projecting ideals into people's post that don't belong. You are.

I suggest you take your own advice trollboy.

Your snide pretentiousness may work in other forums, but in this one, you'll get called out and made fun of for it like you are now.

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Do you always argue dishonestly?

You made a false claim which I debunked with evidence from a reliable source. Who's being dishonest here?

Originally posted by Zimphire:

You are projecting again.

lol, back to the Zimphire classic put-downs bin I see. Get a new act, this one's tired.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Your snide pretentiousness may work in other forums, but in this one, you'll get called out and made fun of for it like you are now.

Oh dear. If you're going to fall back on insults at least try to stick to those that don't betray your inferiority complex.

Or, just to be radical, you could try standing up your original statement, which, in case you've forgotten, was that the majority of US public opinion supported the Vietnam war.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nath:
You made a false claim which I debunked with evidence from a reliable source. Who's being dishonest here?

And as I said, and you ADMITTED, I could find equally reliable sources that say the opposite. My comment about your dishonesty was your "But you don't want to because.."

Understand?

lol, back to the Zimphire classic put-downs bin I see. Get a new act, this one's tired.

Put down lines? That isn't a put down line. You projected things into my post that weren't there. And you got busted for it.

Oh dear. If you're going to fall back on insults at least try to stick to those that don't betray your inferiority complex.

You mean like..

Originally posted by nath:
You get yourself all worked up and then blurt out the most preposterous and unsupportable nonsense.

Take your own advice hypocrite.

Or, just to be radical, you could try standing up your original statement, which, in case you've forgotten, was that the majority of US public opinion supported the Vietnam war.

That wasn't my original argument, that was your strawman. And you yourself admitted I could.

Make up your mind trollboy.

BTW I suggest you read this. http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/va...estorswant.htm

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

BTW I suggest you read this. http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/va...estorswant.htm

That's your source??



At least now I know you're not serious about the Vietnam claim.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nath:
That's your source??

You are doing it again. Stop assuming. I just wanted you to READ that.

It really doesn't say anything about percentages of American support.

This is what I am talking about when I say you are projecting things in my posts that just aren't there.

Please stop. It's annoying, and only makes you look silly.