It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Seekerof
I am not sure that any of this will ever be entirely known or discovered, if revealed.
Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
Most of the weapons probably came from the US in the first place so you could say we are helping them and even some of our tax dollars will find their way into the hands of the insurgents.
Originally posted by djohnsto77
Money is probably coming mainly from Syria and Iran as well as Islamic "charities" that funnel money into terror, but I'm sure Saddam had a bunch of money squirreled away in various places that the Ba'ath party loyalists have access to.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
Most of the weapons probably came from the US in the first place so you could say we are helping them and even some of our tax dollars will find their way into the hands of the insurgents.
Most of the weapons came from the U.S.? Can you tell us what those weapons are? Maybe the rpgs and aks mostly come from the U.S. along with MIGs and T-72 tanks as well for the conventional forces of Iraq, right? Not to mention man portable SAMs.
Originally posted by AlphaOfTheOmega
One thing the US most certainly did give them was training. The reason the insurgents are meeting with such success is that having been trained by US soldiers, and seen US soldiers in other countries, they know what makes them tick and can use both military and political attrition to wear the troops down. Wear down the army, and wear down support for the coalition. A neat little strategy, no?
Originally posted by deltaboy
Originally posted by AlphaOfTheOmega
One thing the US most certainly did give them was training. The reason the insurgents are meeting with such success is that having been trained by US soldiers, and seen US soldiers in other countries, they know what makes them tick and can use both military and political attrition to wear the troops down. Wear down the army, and wear down support for the coalition. A neat little strategy, no?
Well it seems to me that the insurgents are pretty much killing thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police who have those American training so its not a neat little strategy when you may have killed your own brothers who are on the insurgent side, true? Its called fratricide. Not to mention I have yet to see any stingers being used. So far its Russian made and since Saddam bought alot of them, no point in hunting down Stingers. Success don't always account for everything as well, since the insurgents are targeting civilians intentionally, makes you wonder why. Can't kill American forces enough and afraid of getting yourself killed so go attack civilians and Iraqi Army and police more.
Originally posted by AlphaOfTheOmega
As for the attacking civillians and the Iraqi troops - well, Iraqi troops are easy targets, and it wears down morale. Attacking civillians? People will blame the coalition's presence for it, decreasing political support.
Originally posted by AlphaOfTheOmega
Originally posted by deltaboy
Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
Most of the weapons probably came from the US in the first place so you could say we are helping them and even some of our tax dollars will find their way into the hands of the insurgents.
Most of the weapons came from the U.S.? Can you tell us what those weapons are? Maybe the rpgs and aks mostly come from the U.S. along with MIGs and T-72 tanks as well for the conventional forces of Iraq, right? Not to mention man portable SAMs.
You're taking it out of context I think there. Not everything the insurgents use is American-made, obviously, but I think the prime example would be the Stinger missiles. It is feasible that they still retain some of the supply they were given.
One thing the US most certainly did give them was training. The reason the insurgents are meeting with such success is that having been trained by US soldiers, and seen US soldiers in other countries, they know what makes them tick and can use both military and political attrition to wear the troops down. Wear down the army, and wear down support for the coalition. A neat little strategy, no?
Originally posted by deltaboy
Originally posted by AlphaOfTheOmega
As for the attacking civillians and the Iraqi troops - well, Iraqi troops are easy targets, and it wears down morale. Attacking civillians? People will blame the coalition's presence for it, decreasing political support.
Maybe so, but since it looks like insurgents and terrorists are not having enough support and are still wearing masks to cover their faces to prevent the populace from seeing who they are and reporting them. It looks like the insurgent and terrorists arent going to win this war against the new Iraqi govt if this keeps up on targeting civilians intentionally. Civilians would prefer to side with people who dont target them intentionally, even if they hate the new govt or the foreign occupation, true?
Originally posted by AlphaOfTheOmega
I'm not going to argue with that, although I guess there is the chance some may want to give in and make a peace bargain with them. Maybe if they terrorise enough people and enough people want to give in to the insurgents they think they can win by popular demand? ie - more people in favour of it than the government can handle.I guess we won't ever know, and if we ever do, it'll be more than a wee while before we do.