Al Queda is Losing

strategypage.com 30 May 2008

The Mystery Metrics Sending The Americans Home
May 30, 2008: The U.S. is beginning its withdrawal from Iraq. U.S. troops strength is expected to decline from 170,000 to 140,000 by the end of the Summer. The reduction is made possible by the growing number of Iraqi army and police units that can do the job. U.S. military advisors have seen this coming for years, as they tracked dozens of different metrics (statistics on various aspects of Iraqi performance). The Iraqi armed forces and police had to be completely rebuilt. That’s because the Saddam era army and police existed mainly to keep Saddam in power. Most of the leadership in that force was Sunni Arab, and the new Shia and Kurd dominated government did not trust these guys to serve a democratic Iraq.

These metrics are kept secret, as the enemy would love to have some insight into the effectiveness of the security forces. But in the last year, many Iraqi army and police units have revealed their capabilities through their performance. The greater number of capable soldiers and cops was a big reason why the Sunni Arabs turned on the Sunni Arab terror groups (especially al Qaeda) they had long supported. A year ago, it finally became obvious to most Sunni Arabs that the Shia majority had finally done the impossible (according to Sunni Arab beliefs) and created a large number of effective soldiers and police. That force, backed by the Americans, could not be defeated.

The attitude towards the U.S. troops had also changed. For five years, the American troops consistently demonstrated their superior combat ability, while also observing strict ROE (Rules of Engagement) that protected civilians far better than Arab terrorists or soldiers ever did. Many Sunni Arabs had come to see the Americans as protectors (from Shia and Kurd death squads, out for revenge).

When the security forces went after the Shia militias earlier this year, the militiamen were dismayed. It was widely known that the Iraqi army and police were defeating al Qaeda, and a few hold-out Sunni Arab militias. Now these forces were moving into Shia Mahdi Army strongholds, and the Mahdi gunmen quickly discovered they could not hold out against these Iraqi troops who dressed like American troops, and fought a lot like them as well. Worse, the Shia militias could not exploit the U.S. ROE (and hide out in mosques or use civilians for cover) when confronted by Iraqi forces. The “new” Iraqi troops were also systematic and relentless like the Americans. Mahdi Army strongholds in Baghdad and Basra are being taken apart, week by week. By the end of the Summer, the Mahdi Army will be reduced to weak remnants.

Iraq still has the corruption and tribal loyalties, but at least the police are now able to go after the many criminal gangs that have made life miserable, for more people, than the terrorism of the last five years. That leaves the corrupt politicians to be taken down. That depends on trained and disciplined voters, which are less numerous than the newly reformed security forces.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
Read a non European Newspaper. You are about two years behind.

I get it. You don’t have the ability to process information you don’t agree with. (see the BB supp thread you got smacked around on)

You definitely don’t get it. There is no “winner” here. If there were. It wouldn’t be us.

Oh look, we managed to blow up and other worthless sandbox with a couple brown-skinned people in it…

V. I. C. T. O. R. Y. Yea, Victory[/quote]

A pretend Marine passing judgement on military effectiveness from his office at school. Too funny there Corporal-Captain Lift.

Stay away from the cheerleaders. They think old guys like you are creepy.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
You are reading too much into this BB. The article didn’t say that muslims are upset that Americans, Europeans, Australians, etc… have been blown to pieces. They are only upset that muslims who they consider to be innocent have been blown up.

The bottom line is this is only a temporary public relations problem. As Soon as AQ scores with another big hit on the west their status as muslim heroes will be restored. [/quote]

Oh, I know - look at how I led the article.

This is specifically dealing with al Queda and other similar groups who are attacking Muslims.

It specifically isn’t dealing with other groups like Hezbollah, which are essentially state-sponsored foreign-policy tools of countries like Syria and Iran, or with jihad against non-Muslims. Though I do recall reading some sources recently that indicate the radicals were running into problems recruiting within the West…

[quote]hedo wrote:
A pretend Marine passing judgement on military effectiveness from his office at school.
[/quote]

Ad hominems aside, that does not excuse your idiocy. Anyone who believes what you do about some perceived strength that does not exist is beyond delusional.

The point is, it doesn’t matter how much you continue to blow up some sandbox or kill brown skinned people…jihad is just getting started.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
A pretend Marine passing judgement on military effectiveness from his office at school.

Ad hominems aside, that does not excuse your idiocy. Anyone who believes what you do about some perceived strength that does not exist is beyond delusional.

The point is, it doesn’t matter how much you continue to blow up some sandbox or kill brown skinned people…jihad is just getting started.[/quote]

Then stay in the basement. Nobody will hurt you there.

As for your ad-hominem sensitivity piss off. Read what you post sometimes. It’s difficult and boring but perhaps you will see the sublime ridiculousness of complaining about what you practice on a regular basis.

I wonder if some of you people, when you get termites in your home, decide the situation is hopeless. Since no matter how many you kill, more will be born in their place. Better to just let them eat your house. Or maybe negotiate with them?

Or maybe feel guilty. After all, that’s their wood you’re using for your home!!! You can’t fault them for destroying it! It’s all your fault!

[quote]Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
gatesoftanhauser wrote:
orion wrote:
I mean, we would have 3000000 troops or so, but having read European newspapers, I know that they will never ever be sent to Afghanistan.

Nor any other war ever because your military and your whole entire society’s existence is due to our grandparents “saving” you from your born and bred Fuhrer.

You and Austria’s piece-of-shit military can thank us now or anytime you feel like taking off your socks and sandals.

Enjoy that Turkish Sharia Law, by the way.

Thank you for making a war that was over, last two years longer.

Thank you for the revolutions in Europe that made possible, including the Russian revolution and the hundred of thousands that died in vain in the trenches.

Thank you for one of the worst “peace” treaties in the history of mankind.

Thank you for ending a 1000 year old empire.

Thank you for starting a world wide economic crisis, that, along with all the other things you did for us, helped Hitler to cease power.

Thank you for setting our house on fire and then bragging for 50 years that you put that fire out after around 50 million had died.

Thank you.

Now I have seen everything. Now you are going to blame French vindictiveness at Versailles on the US and now you Nazi’s are tyring to say that Hitler wasn’t your fault, it was the US. That is total bullshit. We should have dropped more bombs on you fuckers.[/quote]

I am saying that Americas intervention “to make the world save for democracy” had some serious unintended consequences, like it always has.

In this case 3 revolutions, two of the most brutal regimes in mankind’s history and a second WW.

[quote]hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
What is this? Kindergarten?

Al-Qaeda is the greatest winner of the Bush Doctrine and arguable the main beneficiary of the war on Iraq (some say it’s Iran).

In case nobody is paying attention, allow me to tell you what these terrorists are after. They’re out to instill fear in people and eventually lose their life. On the first task, they have undeniably succeeded. People are still hysterical at the mentioning of 9/11, and we all saw what irrationalities that fear facilitated. A country was bombed and invaded and support behind those actions was firm in the USA. Air travel has become a chance one takes. Between the insane number of people on no-fly lists, and the regulations whereby you’re forbidden to take toothpaste onto the plane, the fear is very palpable. Another evidence is the existence of Gitmo, where people are held indeterminately without charges, and which earned the US a place with the most infamous regimes in the world.

Then we have the fact that terrorists are out to die. And just how do you “win” over a terrorist organization that has been recruiting hand over fist ever since the first bomb hit Baghdad. It is beyond naive to think that, with the current policy the US has, their supplies will dry out. Radicalism has rarely been healthier.

P.S: I am not sure about the extent to which the war on Iraq has pulled the dollar down, but you can be quite certain that Al-Qaeda is claiming credit for it. But don’t look for that story in The New Yorker…

If it was kindergarten the other kids would buy your analysis.

You know less about this issue then you do about weight training.

You guys lost. Get over it. Nobody is afraid except the holdouts waiting for a JDAM to drop in on them.

You do not get it, do you?

They cannot lose. No one expects them to “win” against the US.

As long as they exist and keep on fighting, they defy the Great Satan.

And they will continue to do that for a long time, both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US on the other side must win in order not to lose face in the ME and does not have the military or the will to do so.

Read a non European Newspaper. You are about two years behind.

I get it. You don’t have the ability to process information you don’t agree with. (see the BB supp thread you got smacked around on)

I thought it was the US military claiming that they needed 400000 soldiers to take care of Afghanistan?

Do you have those?

Are you willing to draft as many as it takes and send them over there?

I think my point still stands.

I mean, we would have 3000000 troops or so, but having read European newspapers, I know that they will never ever be sent to Afghanistan.

Do the German even carry guns in Afganistan. Aren’t they in charge of tea and sweets or some other vital military function.

Where does the 400,000 number come from? Please cite a source.
[/quote]

McNeill: Each army has a formula as to how to determine what you need in the way of security forces for a counter insurgency. If you use the US doctrine, which is based on population and land mass, the figure for Afghanistan comes out well over 400,000 troops.

[quote]orion wrote:

I am saying that Americas intervention “to make the world save for democracy” had some serious unintended consequences, like it always has.

In this case 3 revolutions, two of the most brutal regimes in mankind’s history and a second WW.

[/quote]

I always thought appeasement of Hitler’s military build up and failure to even consider taking military action for treaty violations had a lot to do with WWII - so did G.K. Chesterton: http://www.amazon.com/Chesterton-War-Peace-Battling-Movements/dp/1587420619/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I8LMC00IY3V0V&colid=26M9RZYLYW66Q

Although I’d be the last guy to defend Woodrow Wilson…

[quote]orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
gatesoftanhauser wrote:
orion wrote:
I mean, we would have 3000000 troops or so, but having read European newspapers, I know that they will never ever be sent to Afghanistan.

Nor any other war ever because your military and your whole entire society’s existence is due to our grandparents “saving” you from your born and bred Fuhrer.

You and Austria’s piece-of-shit military can thank us now or anytime you feel like taking off your socks and sandals.

Enjoy that Turkish Sharia Law, by the way.

Thank you for making a war that was over, last two years longer.

Thank you for the revolutions in Europe that made possible, including the Russian revolution and the hundred of thousands that died in vain in the trenches.

Thank you for one of the worst “peace” treaties in the history of mankind.

Thank you for ending a 1000 year old empire.

Thank you for starting a world wide economic crisis, that, along with all the other things you did for us, helped Hitler to cease power.

Thank you for setting our house on fire and then bragging for 50 years that you put that fire out after around 50 million had died.

Thank you.

Now I have seen everything. Now you are going to blame French vindictiveness at Versailles on the US and now you Nazi’s are tyring to say that Hitler wasn’t your fault, it was the US. That is total bullshit. We should have dropped more bombs on you fuckers.

I am saying that Americas intervention “to make the world save for democracy” had some serious unintended consequences, like it always has.

In this case 3 revolutions, two of the most brutal regimes in mankind’s history and a second WW.

[/quote]

Meanwhile the rest of the world sits on its collective ass and does nothing. That’s the stupidest statement I’ve ever heard. “has had some serious unintended consequences.” Do we really need to start a discussion about what would have happened if another tack was taken. I’d love to let you stupid bastards hang for a while and let the Germans or the Russians or the Persians fuck you. But eventually you’d call in the Great Satan to bail your ass out, (and gee it wouldn’t turn out perfectly being war and all.) and you’d bitch about it. We can’t win and you don’t really even offer any alternative ideas to what could have been done differently. You should have started stumping for the democratic party nomination much earlier. You’ve got the MO nailed.

[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
What is this? Kindergarten?

Al-Qaeda is the greatest winner of the Bush Doctrine and arguable the main beneficiary of the war on Iraq (some say it’s Iran).

In case nobody is paying attention, allow me to tell you what these terrorists are after. They’re out to instill fear in people and eventually lose their life. On the first task, they have undeniably succeeded. People are still hysterical at the mentioning of 9/11, and we all saw what irrationalities that fear facilitated. A country was bombed and invaded and support behind those actions was firm in the USA. Air travel has become a chance one takes. Between the insane number of people on no-fly lists, and the regulations whereby you’re forbidden to take toothpaste onto the plane, the fear is very palpable. Another evidence is the existence of Gitmo, where people are held indeterminately without charges, and which earned the US a place with the most infamous regimes in the world.

Then we have the fact that terrorists are out to die. And just how do you “win” over a terrorist organization that has been recruiting hand over fist ever since the first bomb hit Baghdad. It is beyond naive to think that, with the current policy the US has, their supplies will dry out. Radicalism has rarely been healthier.

P.S: I am not sure about the extent to which the war on Iraq has pulled the dollar down, but you can be quite certain that Al-Qaeda is claiming credit for it. But don’t look for that story in The New Yorker…

If it was kindergarten the other kids would buy your analysis.

You know less about this issue then you do about weight training.

You guys lost. Get over it. Nobody is afraid except the holdouts waiting for a JDAM to drop in on them.

You do not get it, do you?

They cannot lose. No one expects them to “win” against the US.

As long as they exist and keep on fighting, they defy the Great Satan.

And they will continue to do that for a long time, both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US on the other side must win in order not to lose face in the ME and does not have the military or the will to do so.

Read a non European Newspaper. You are about two years behind.

I get it. You don’t have the ability to process information you don’t agree with. (see the BB supp thread you got smacked around on)

I thought it was the US military claiming that they needed 400000 soldiers to take care of Afghanistan?

Do you have those?

Are you willing to draft as many as it takes and send them over there?

I think my point still stands.

I mean, we would have 3000000 troops or so, but having read European newspapers, I know that they will never ever be sent to Afghanistan.

Do the German even carry guns in Afganistan. Aren’t they in charge of tea and sweets or some other vital military function.

Where does the 400,000 number come from? Please cite a source.

McNeill: Each army has a formula as to how to determine what you need in the way of security forces for a counter insurgency. If you use the US doctrine, which is based on population and land mass, the figure for Afghanistan comes out well over 400,000 troops.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,508021,00.html[/quote]

Did you read that source before you posted it? The General is pointing out that the Euro’s are unable and wnwilling to live up to their committments. He calls for 400K total troops not US troops.

You do realize that the Taliban fell with far less then 400K troops and have not been able to mount an offensive since.

[quote]hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
What is this? Kindergarten?

Al-Qaeda is the greatest winner of the Bush Doctrine and arguable the main beneficiary of the war on Iraq (some say it’s Iran).

In case nobody is paying attention, allow me to tell you what these terrorists are after. They’re out to instill fear in people and eventually lose their life. On the first task, they have undeniably succeeded. People are still hysterical at the mentioning of 9/11, and we all saw what irrationalities that fear facilitated. A country was bombed and invaded and support behind those actions was firm in the USA. Air travel has become a chance one takes. Between the insane number of people on no-fly lists, and the regulations whereby you’re forbidden to take toothpaste onto the plane, the fear is very palpable. Another evidence is the existence of Gitmo, where people are held indeterminately without charges, and which earned the US a place with the most infamous regimes in the world.

Then we have the fact that terrorists are out to die. And just how do you “win” over a terrorist organization that has been recruiting hand over fist ever since the first bomb hit Baghdad. It is beyond naive to think that, with the current policy the US has, their supplies will dry out. Radicalism has rarely been healthier.

P.S: I am not sure about the extent to which the war on Iraq has pulled the dollar down, but you can be quite certain that Al-Qaeda is claiming credit for it. But don’t look for that story in The New Yorker…

If it was kindergarten the other kids would buy your analysis.

You know less about this issue then you do about weight training.

You guys lost. Get over it. Nobody is afraid except the holdouts waiting for a JDAM to drop in on them.

You do not get it, do you?

They cannot lose. No one expects them to “win” against the US.

As long as they exist and keep on fighting, they defy the Great Satan.

And they will continue to do that for a long time, both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US on the other side must win in order not to lose face in the ME and does not have the military or the will to do so.

Read a non European Newspaper. You are about two years behind.

I get it. You don’t have the ability to process information you don’t agree with. (see the BB supp thread you got smacked around on)

I thought it was the US military claiming that they needed 400000 soldiers to take care of Afghanistan?

Do you have those?

Are you willing to draft as many as it takes and send them over there?

I think my point still stands.

I mean, we would have 3000000 troops or so, but having read European newspapers, I know that they will never ever be sent to Afghanistan.

Do the German even carry guns in Afganistan. Aren’t they in charge of tea and sweets or some other vital military function.

Where does the 400,000 number come from? Please cite a source.

McNeill: Each army has a formula as to how to determine what you need in the way of security forces for a counter insurgency. If you use the US doctrine, which is based on population and land mass, the figure for Afghanistan comes out well over 400,000 troops.

Did you read that source before you posted it? The General is pointing out that the Euro’s are unable and wnwilling to live up to their committments. He calls for 400K total troops not US troops.

You do realize that the Taliban fell with far less then 400K troops and have not been able to mount an offensive since.

[/quote]

So he needs 400000 and he will not get them.

I also posted that Europe will not send them.

Do you really think we would send 350000 half around the world?

Whoever thought that in the first place was delusional- maybe reading European newspapers does have its advantages.

[quote]orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
gatesoftanhauser wrote:
orion wrote:
I mean, we would have 3000000 troops or so, but having read European newspapers, I know that they will never ever be sent to Afghanistan.

Nor any other war ever because your military and your whole entire society’s existence is due to our grandparents “saving” you from your born and bred Fuhrer.

You and Austria’s piece-of-shit military can thank us now or anytime you feel like taking off your socks and sandals.

Enjoy that Turkish Sharia Law, by the way.

Thank you for making a war that was over, last two years longer.

Thank you for the revolutions in Europe that made possible, including the Russian revolution and the hundred of thousands that died in vain in the trenches.

Thank you for one of the worst “peace” treaties in the history of mankind.

Thank you for ending a 1000 year old empire.

Thank you for starting a world wide economic crisis, that, along with all the other things you did for us, helped Hitler to cease power.

Thank you for setting our house on fire and then bragging for 50 years that you put that fire out after around 50 million had died.

Thank you.

Now I have seen everything. Now you are going to blame French vindictiveness at Versailles on the US and now you Nazi’s are tyring to say that Hitler wasn’t your fault, it was the US. That is total bullshit. We should have dropped more bombs on you fuckers.

I am saying that Americas intervention “to make the world save for democracy” had some serious unintended consequences, like it always has.

In this case 3 revolutions, two of the most brutal regimes in mankind’s history and a second WW.

[/quote]

Bullshit. If America did not get involved in WW1 Germany would likely have been in a stronger position post war and possibly launched WW2 earlier. It was only the brutal destruction and long post war occupation that knocked some sense into the war like German people.

[quote]btm62 wrote:
orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
gatesoftanhauser wrote:
orion wrote:
I mean, we would have 3000000 troops or so, but having read European newspapers, I know that they will never ever be sent to Afghanistan.

Nor any other war ever because your military and your whole entire society’s existence is due to our grandparents “saving” you from your born and bred Fuhrer.

You and Austria’s piece-of-shit military can thank us now or anytime you feel like taking off your socks and sandals.

Enjoy that Turkish Sharia Law, by the way.

Thank you for making a war that was over, last two years longer.

Thank you for the revolutions in Europe that made possible, including the Russian revolution and the hundred of thousands that died in vain in the trenches.

Thank you for one of the worst “peace” treaties in the history of mankind.

Thank you for ending a 1000 year old empire.

Thank you for starting a world wide economic crisis, that, along with all the other things you did for us, helped Hitler to cease power.

Thank you for setting our house on fire and then bragging for 50 years that you put that fire out after around 50 million had died.

Thank you.

Now I have seen everything. Now you are going to blame French vindictiveness at Versailles on the US and now you Nazi’s are tyring to say that Hitler wasn’t your fault, it was the US. That is total bullshit. We should have dropped more bombs on you fuckers.

I am saying that Americas intervention “to make the world save for democracy” had some serious unintended consequences, like it always has.

In this case 3 revolutions, two of the most brutal regimes in mankind’s history and a second WW.

Meanwhile the rest of the world sits on its collective ass and does nothing. That’s the stupidest statement I’ve ever heard. “has had some serious unintended consequences.” Do we really need to start a discussion about what would have happened if another tack was taken. I’d love to let you stupid bastards hang for a while and let the Germans or the Russians or the Persians fuck you. But eventually you’d call in the Great Satan to bail your ass out, (and gee it wouldn’t turn out perfectly being war and all.) and you’d bitch about it. We can’t win and you don’t really even offer any alternative ideas to what could have been done differently. You should have started stumping for the democratic party nomination much earlier. You’ve got the MO nailed. [/quote]

No one is going to attack Europe, the US included.

That is enough for us.

[quote]No one is going to attack Europe, the US included.

That is enough for us.
[/quote]

HOw about your Muslim immigrants - the ones we see on the news attempting terrorist attacks?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Bullshit. If America did not get involved in WW1 Germany would likely have been in a stronger position post war and possibly launched WW2 earlier. It was only the brutal destruction and long post war occupation that knocked some sense into the war like German people. [/quote]

I don’t know on this one Zap. Usually I think your historical context points are pretty good but I have read many compelling arguments for the results and subsequent conditions post WW1 setting the stage more so for WW2 and its pretty hard to inject “probably would haves” into a real debate.

One can, and it has been argued that if Germany was in a stronger position they may not have had the conditions necessary to fulfill the Nazi agenda. It’s kind of like today with the “Patriot” act and the move towards a more surveilled, police-state that we are slowly (almost indetectably) creeping towards. Without the post-911 sentiment many of the legislations would not have been able to make it through the voting process.

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Bullshit. If America did not get involved in WW1 Germany would likely have been in a stronger position post war and possibly launched WW2 earlier. It was only the brutal destruction and long post war occupation that knocked some sense into the war like German people.

I don’t know on this one Zap. Usually I think your historical context points are pretty good but I have read many compelling arguments for the results and subsequent conditions post WW1 setting the stage more so for WW2 and its pretty hard to inject “probably would haves” into a real debate.

One can, and it has been argued that if Germany was in a stronger position they may not have had the conditions necessary to fulfill the Nazi agenda. It’s kind of like today with the “Patriot” act and the move towards a more surveilled, police-state that we are slowly (almost indetectably) creeping towards. Without the post-911 sentiment many of the legislations would not have been able to make it through the voting process.[/quote]

It may not have been the Nazis running the show but Germanys martial spirit was not broken after WW1. They were not done fighting.

[quote]orion wrote:
btm62 wrote:
orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
gatesoftanhauser wrote:
orion wrote:
I mean, we would have 3000000 troops or so, but having read European newspapers, I know that they will never ever be sent to Afghanistan.

Nor any other war ever because your military and your whole entire society’s existence is due to our grandparents “saving” you from your born and bred Fuhrer.

You and Austria’s piece-of-shit military can thank us now or anytime you feel like taking off your socks and sandals.

Enjoy that Turkish Sharia Law, by the way.

Thank you for making a war that was over, last two years longer.

Thank you for the revolutions in Europe that made possible, including the Russian revolution and the hundred of thousands that died in vain in the trenches.

Thank you for one of the worst “peace” treaties in the history of mankind.

Thank you for ending a 1000 year old empire.

Thank you for starting a world wide economic crisis, that, along with all the other things you did for us, helped Hitler to cease power.

Thank you for setting our house on fire and then bragging for 50 years that you put that fire out after around 50 million had died.

Thank you.

Now I have seen everything. Now you are going to blame French vindictiveness at Versailles on the US and now you Nazi’s are tyring to say that Hitler wasn’t your fault, it was the US. That is total bullshit. We should have dropped more bombs on you fuckers.

I am saying that Americas intervention “to make the world save for democracy” had some serious unintended consequences, like it always has.

In this case 3 revolutions, two of the most brutal regimes in mankind’s history and a second WW.

Meanwhile the rest of the world sits on its collective ass and does nothing. That’s the stupidest statement I’ve ever heard. “has had some serious unintended consequences.” Do we really need to start a discussion about what would have happened if another tack was taken. I’d love to let you stupid bastards hang for a while and let the Germans or the Russians or the Persians fuck you. But eventually you’d call in the Great Satan to bail your ass out, (and gee it wouldn’t turn out perfectly being war and all.) and you’d bitch about it. We can’t win and you don’t really even offer any alternative ideas to what could have been done differently. You should have started stumping for the democratic party nomination much earlier. You’ve got the MO nailed.

No one is going to attack Europe, the US included.

That is enough for us.

[/quote]

Yea cause like its not happened over and over and over again throughout history or anything. As we all know history never repeats itself. I can’t argue against a tried and true point like that. C’mon Orion, you can do better.

[quote]orion wrote:
btm62 wrote:
orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
gatesoftanhauser wrote:
orion wrote:
I mean, we would have 3000000 troops or so, but having read European newspapers, I know that they will never ever be sent to Afghanistan.

Nor any other war ever because your military and your whole entire society’s existence is due to our grandparents “saving” you from your born and bred Fuhrer.

You and Austria’s piece-of-shit military can thank us now or anytime you feel like taking off your socks and sandals.

Enjoy that Turkish Sharia Law, by the way.

Thank you for making a war that was over, last two years longer.

Thank you for the revolutions in Europe that made possible, including the Russian revolution and the hundred of thousands that died in vain in the trenches.

Thank you for one of the worst “peace” treaties in the history of mankind.

Thank you for ending a 1000 year old empire.

Thank you for starting a world wide economic crisis, that, along with all the other things you did for us, helped Hitler to cease power.

Thank you for setting our house on fire and then bragging for 50 years that you put that fire out after around 50 million had died.

Thank you.

Now I have seen everything. Now you are going to blame French vindictiveness at Versailles on the US and now you Nazi’s are tyring to say that Hitler wasn’t your fault, it was the US. That is total bullshit. We should have dropped more bombs on you fuckers.

I am saying that Americas intervention “to make the world save for democracy” had some serious unintended consequences, like it always has.

In this case 3 revolutions, two of the most brutal regimes in mankind’s history and a second WW.

Meanwhile the rest of the world sits on its collective ass and does nothing. That’s the stupidest statement I’ve ever heard. “has had some serious unintended consequences.” Do we really need to start a discussion about what would have happened if another tack was taken. I’d love to let you stupid bastards hang for a while and let the Germans or the Russians or the Persians fuck you. But eventually you’d call in the Great Satan to bail your ass out, (and gee it wouldn’t turn out perfectly being war and all.) and you’d bitch about it. We can’t win and you don’t really even offer any alternative ideas to what could have been done differently. You should have started stumping for the democratic party nomination much earlier. You’ve got the MO nailed.

No one is going to attack Europe, the US included.

That is enough for us.

[/quote]

The jihadists aren’t going to attack Germany or Austria because thanks to Hitler your reputation in the muslim world is golden.

The good will in the muslim world that the Germans gain from the legacy of Hitler is the true reason why Germany doesn’t pull it’s weight in Afghanistan. If Germany were to act like a real friend and allie they would lose the benefit of their ill gotten gains from Hitler and the holocaust.

Personally I think it is outrageous that sixty three years after the holocaust you Nazi’s are still able to use six million dead jews for your own personal gain.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
storey420 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Bullshit. If America did not get involved in WW1 Germany would likely have been in a stronger position post war and possibly launched WW2 earlier. It was only the brutal destruction and long post war occupation that knocked some sense into the war like German people.

I don’t know on this one Zap. Usually I think your historical context points are pretty good but I have read many compelling arguments for the results and subsequent conditions post WW1 setting the stage more so for WW2 and its pretty hard to inject “probably would haves” into a real debate.

One can, and it has been argued that if Germany was in a stronger position they may not have had the conditions necessary to fulfill the Nazi agenda. It’s kind of like today with the “Patriot” act and the move towards a more surveilled, police-state that we are slowly (almost indetectably) creeping towards. Without the post-911 sentiment many of the legislations would not have been able to make it through the voting process.

It may not have been the Nazis running the show but Germanys martial spirit was not broken after WW1. They were not done fighting. [/quote]

If you study the history of post world war one Germany you will find that ultra nationalist groups like the national socialists were being formed as early as 1919. The Beer Hall Putsch where Hitler tried to seize control of the state of Bavaria was in November 1923. This was long before the depression of 1928.

Zap brings up a very important point about the German will to fight not being broken at the end of WW1. The Kaiser’s army was still a force to be reckoned with at the end of WW1 and they knew it. It was the Kiel mutiny where the Kaiser’s navy refused to fight the British again that ended it. That is why a lot of disgrunteled former army men came back from the front and started forming groups like the Nazi’s. It is also why they demanded unconditional surrender from the Germans and Japanese in ww2, they had to admit that they were beaten and there was nothing they could do about it.