Is The US Recruiting For The Insurgency?

[gnjsdad]

The US Army has missed its recruiting goals for the last three months. On Friday, May 20 they stopped recruiting to retrain recruiters who were misleading and threatening potential recruits. At the same time the resistance in Iraq is growing. Is the US military more successful in recruiting for the resistance than it is for the US Army?

The rest of the article…

 

[gilliam]

What a terrible thing to post on Armed Forced Day!

:tsktsk:

 

[gnjsdad]

gilliam:

What a terrible thing to post on Armed Forced Day!

:tsktsk:

What’s terrible is the American military being compelled to implement a policy which is counterproductive to their, and their country’s best interest - Armed Forces Day or no Armed Forces Day.

 

[gilliam]

terrible, just terrible

 

[Richardols]

gnjsdad:

Is the US military more successful in recruiting for the resistance than it is for the US Army?

It seems that way, if the article is in any way accurate.

 

[judicame]

Multiple bombings rock Iraq

Staff and agencies
Monday May 23, 2005

At least three people were killed and more than 70 injured today when a car bomb exploded outside a busy restaurant in northern Baghdad at lunchtime.

The bomb exploded outside the Habayibna restaurant, in a three-storey building in the Talibia district of the Iraqi capital. No other details were immediately available.

Earlier today a number of other suicide bombings and attacks left at least 10 people dead across the country. In one attack, an Iraqi general who was one of the key figures in charge of controlling the insurgency was assassinated…]

guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1490387,00.html

 

[Richardols]

I find it telling that for all the propaganda Army and Marine flacks are putting out about how they’re winning the “hearts and minds,” and doing so much good in Iraq, it’s a fact that the most dangerous place in Iraq is the highway from the airport into Baghdad.

If our forces can’t secure that…

 

[mike182d]

gnjsdad:

The US Army has missed its recruiting goals for the last three months. On Friday, May 20 they stopped recruiting to retrain recruiters who were misleading and threatening potential recruits. At the same time the resistance in Iraq is growing. Is the US military more successful in recruiting for the resistance than it is for the US Army?

The rest of the article…

Was the U.S. more successful in recruiting Nazi insurgency during their occupation of Germany after WWII?

Oh, wait…that was before the mainstream media did everything they could to hurt America’s chances of successfully liberating Iraq.

 

[mike182d]

gnjsdad:

What’s terrible is the American military being compelled to implement a policy which is counterproductive to their, and their country’s best interest - Armed Forces Day or no Armed Forces Day.

Liberating a nation from the hands of a dictator that slaughtered 1 million of his own people, by gassing them, cutting off their hands, throwing them into shredders, is counterproductive to our nation’s best interests?

Well, we should never have gotten involved in WWII then…

 

[Richardols]

mike182d:

Was the U.S. more successful in recruiting Nazi insurgency during their occupation of Germany after WWII?

There was no post-war Nazi insurgency.

that was before the mainstream media did everything they could to hurt America’s chances of successfully liberating Iraq.

What examples have you of any media working for an American military defeat while in combat against Iraq?

 

[INRI]

Before you lefties get off posting more anti-military propaganda, read this link. Yes, the whole thing. I realize it is long, but with several family members in the military, I am sickened whenever I read garbage from your ilk that seems like little more than cheerleading for the U.S. to fail. Guess what? If the U.S. loses and has to retreat from Iraq, YOU lose. It’s that simple.

ejectejecteject.com/

 

[gilliam]

INRI:

Guess what? If the U.S. loses and has to retreat from Iraq, YOU lose. It’s that simple.

It will be catestrophic for the West.

 

[wabrams]

gilliam:

It will be catestrophic for the West.

Besides sky rocketing oil prices, the only disadvantage might be that more terrorists would be encouraged to attack us.

 

[Richardols]

mike182d:

Liberating a nation from the hands of a dictator that slaughtered 1 million of his own people, by gassing them, cutting off their hands, throwing them into shredders, is counterproductive to our nation’s best interests?

Don’t recall Mr. Bush talking about liberation before he made his pre-emptive attack. I think he spoke about a UN resolution and WMDs.

If liberating countries by force is going to be our aim, there’s a lot of places that he’d better invade to be consistent.

 

[Richardols]

INRI:

Before you lefties get off posting more anti-military propaganda

Where’s the anti-military propaganda on this thread?

I am sickened whenever I read garbage from your ilk that seems like little more than cheerleading for the U.S. to fail.

I think that when our fighting forces come home, that’s a success for our country, not a failure.

If the U.S. loses and has to retreat from Iraq, YOU lose.

The United States will not be forced to retreat. What army there could make us? When we leave, and the sooner the better, it’ll be of our volition.

 

[gilliam]

wabrams:

Besides sky rocketing oil prices, the only disadvantage might be that more terrorists would be encouraged to attack us.

The terrorists will have an established base in a oil rich country. They can buy whatever weapons they would like on the black market and use them against the West, until the West capitulates and they setup their Caliphate.

Again, it would be a disaster for the West and for Christianity (since they will persecute people until they convert).

 

[Richardols]

gilliam:

Again, it would be a disaster for the West and for Christianity (since they will persecute people until they convert).

Iraq has a history of Christianity. There’s be no imposition of Sharia and forced conversions there.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The USAF actually has too many recruits and has to cut back. (afa.org/magazine/july2004/0704recruit.html)

 

[gilliam]

Richardols:

Iraq has a history of Christianity. There’s be no imposition of Sharia and forced conversions there.

Saddam was moving the Baathists to Wahabism as we invaded. Since that time, the Baathists have made a number of alliances with the Wahabists running al-Qaeda in Iraq. There is little hope for Christianity in Iraq if we leave too soon and alow those 2 to take over. Fallujah and the cities we just fought in Western Iraq are good examples of what to expect if we loose.

 

[mike182d]

Richardols:

Don’t recall Mr. Bush talking about liberation before he made his pre-emptive attack. I think he spoke about a UN resolution and WMDs.

If liberating countries by force is going to be our aim, there’s a lot of places that he’d better invade to be consistent.

Do you recall FDR talking about the liberation of the Jews? Why did FDR launch an offensive against Germany immediately following Pearl Harbor when clearly Japan was our immediate aggressor?

Furthermore, does FDR’s failure to cite the liberation of the Jews from Germany’s ethnic cleansing negate the fruit of the liberating act?

It would be amazing if we held every war-time President to the same scrutiny.

Secondly, it was not a pre-emptive attack. The Iraqi invasion is not classified as Gulf War II for the simple fact that the first Gulf War never officially ended. After expelling Saddam’s forces from Kuwait, the war didn’t end. Rather, there was a conditional cease-fire agreed upon the U.N. and Iraq. You might remember this because prior to the war the U.N. revised it with 18 different resolutions because Saddam kept breaking his end of the cease-fire agreement. The Iraqi invasion was a continuation of the first Gulf War in direct response to Saddam’s continual breach of the cease-fire agreement.