General Ordierno - Insurgency will last 10-15 years longer

[Farnan]

ARLINGTON, Va. — The insurgency in Iraq will last for years after U.S. troops leave, the top U.S. general in Iraq said Friday.

"It’s not going to end, OK. There will always be some sort of a low-level insurgency in Iraq for the next five, 10, 15 years," said Gen. Raymond Odierno. "The issue is, what is the level of that insurgency and can the Iraqis handle it with their own forces and with their government."

While there is still an insurgency, it can be hard to tell the difference between insurgents and criminals, Odierno said during a news conference.

"It’s getting harder and harder to lump them into groups, because what you have is you have people who just conduct things for money," he said.

Combat operations in Iraq are slated to end in 2010, after which a force of between 35,000 and 50,000 U.S. troops will remain, Odierno said. All U.S. troops are slated to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 under a security agreement between the two countries.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?s...&article=62587

Basically the Iraq War is going to be violent for a while, the issue is getting the violence to a manageable level, which is hopeful by 2011...

[Chaigidel]

I mean is it really an antigovernment force when it simply sees iraq as a low regulation criminal opportunity?

It all falls purely into criminal activity rather than purely political insurgency.

[BlackPirate]

yes BUT after 20 years of bloodshet with hundreds of thousands dead, US will say that it worth the sacrifice because in the end inevitably peace will come.Of course more iraqi civilians died because of US intervention than Saddam but never mind.We build a democratic state didnt we?

[Phier]

yes BUT after 20 years of bloodshet with hundreds of thousands dead, US will say that it worth the sacrifice because in the end inevitably peace will come.Of course more iraqi civilians died because of US intervention than Saddam but never mind.We build a democratic state didnt we?

Yea feel free to think that.....

The Iran–Iraq War was extremely costly in lives and material, one of the deadliest wars since World War II. Both countries were devastated by the war's effect. It cost Iran an estimated 1 million casualties, killed or wounded, and Iranians continue to suffer and die as a consequence of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. Iraqi casualties are estimated at 250,000-500,000 killed or wounded. Thousands of civilians died on both sides from air raids and missiles.

Gunna take a lot of IED's to get close to that, don't ya think?

[husker9.2]

yes BUT after 20 years of bloodshet with hundreds of thousands dead, US will say that it worth the sacrifice because in the end inevitably peace will come.Of course more iraqi civilians died because of US intervention than Saddam but never mind.We build a democratic state didnt we?

The biggest question we have to ask our selves is what would Iraq have been like if we had not intervened?

Ok say we didn't invade, we let Saddam live out the rest of his life. Saddam had two sons, and i would have been suprised that upon his death the two boys didn't quarl and drag their country into a war over who was in charge. the other possible alternative is that the Kurds, and the other oppressed muslims revolt leading to a massive bloody civil war.

Those are the two alternatives is see. both far bloodier than our intervention.

[Chaigidel]

still suits our needs no matter what is stated; thanks to bush yes it is a huge problem and it will rectify itself-- but overall it permits the USA more leeway not less in the region overall, since we have basically positioned most of our military over the worlds largest reserve of its most precious energy source.

[BlackPirate]

Its funny if you think that Saddams biggest crimes were commited when he was a US ally

[Phier]

Its funny if you think that Saddams biggest crimes were commited when he was a US ally

Ally? I think you might want to look up that word.

Plus, you still were wrong in your first post, very wrong, completely wrong. You might not like the US but don't be revising history.

[BlackPirate]

Ally? I think you might want to look up that word.

Plus, you still were wrong in your first post, very wrong, completely wrong. You might not like the US but don't be revising history.

1)Who supported iraq in the war aigainst iran?I remember a nice video were Mr Rumsfeld went to Iraq to shake hands with Saddam and give Saddams Iraq support in his war.
2)Very modest calculations suggest Civilian Deaths in Iraq war are about 100.000.This list doesnt count soldiers and insurgents killed during this conflict.Other surveys suggest the death toll to be as high as 1.000.000.And this only in six years.Let us wait to see how big the total death toll is going to be.All these deaths are directly linked with the US envasion and the spreading chaos this envasion caused

[Principe Alessandro]

1)Who supported iraq in the war aigainst iran?I remember a nice video were Mr Rumsfeld went to Iraq to shake hands with Saddam and give Saddams Iraq support in his war.

Who is the biggest furnisher of arms to Iran after Israel? Contras do you remember? Secretly US is a big supporter of Iran.

2)Very modest calculations suggest Civilian Deaths in Iraq war are about 100.000.This list doesnt count soldiers and insurgents killed during this conflict.Other surveys suggest the death toll to be as high as 1.000.000.And this only in six years.Let us wait to see how big the total death toll is going to be.All these deaths are directly linked with the US envasion and the spreading chaos this envasion caused

This hasn't any sense, the majority of civilian casualties comes from inter sectarian clashes and terrorists manufactured bombs.

[Bovril]

This hasn't any sense, the majority of civilian casualties comes from inter sectarian clashes and terrorists manufactured bombs.

But like he said, these events are "directly linked" to the invasion. They weren't going on before then. From the point of view of internal security, Iraq was pretty stable under Saddam in the few years before the invasion. Even Kurdistan saw little actual conflict.

[Каие]

Ally? I think you might want to look up that word.

Plus, you still were wrong in your first post, very wrong, completely wrong. You might not like the US but don't be revising history.

Talking about revising History, are you now in desperate futility trying to deny and burn all links between the US and their best mate Saddam Hussein as he rampaged through evil Iran?

[Phier]

Talking about revising History, are you now in desperate futility trying to deny and burn all links between the US and their best mate Saddam Hussein as he rampaged through evil Iran?

Actually it was to prevent Iran from winning. You do recall that we had some minor ...disagreement with Iran over some embassy or some such, anyways, the thought at the time from the Arab world, and Europe as well as America was that Saddam was someone who could be reasoned with unlike those in Iran and that Iran winning would be bad for the world as a whole.

So we gave him some support, but calling him an Ally is a bit of a stretch. And being how the war progressed, it could hardly be called a rampage, it was a stalemate. Then Saddam got all chemical weapony and things went down hill from him and for him from there.

Do we call France an ally for building the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear plant and weapons sales?

Do we call Germany an ally for their numerous industrial ventures with Saddam's Iraq, even after the whole 'chemical' thing?

Or even British support early in the Iran Iraq war and then with convoluted business ties later?

By the definition implied all of the West were allies with Iraq, and while I will dispute the language I won't dispute the motives, which were part politics, especially from the US, and part greed, especially from France and Germany.

[Каие]

Actually it was to prevent Iran from winning. You do recall that we had some minor ...disagreement with Iran over some embassy or some such, anyways, the thought at the time from the Arab world, and Europe as well as America was that Saddam was someone who could be reasoned with unlike those in Iran and that Iran winning would be bad for the world as a whole.

Yes, it's strange how you define Saddam starting the war and invading them and advancing unopposed for the beginning deep into Iranian territory as ''winning'.

Do we call France an ally for building the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear plant and weapons sales?

Yes.

Do we call Germany an ally for their numerous industrial ventures with Saddam's Iraq, even after the whole 'chemical' thing?

Yes.

They opposed the Iraq war remember?

Or even British support early in the Iran Iraq war and then with convoluted business ties later?

Yes.

[Principe Alessandro]

Actually it was to prevent Iran from winning. You do recall that we had some minor ...disagreement with Iran over some embassy or some such, anyways, the thought at the time from the Arab world, and Europe as well as America was that Saddam was someone who could be reasoned with unlike those in Iran and that Iran winning would be bad for the world as a whole.

This war should be viewed in the background of that time.
There is another war more important for the West (the Iran-Iraq War is called the forgotten war, I think there is a reason for this), Afghanistan, the West was suppling the Afghan rebels against the Afghan Communists and USSR, recently I hear in a interview with a Russian general that Afghanistan is a part of a grand strategy that consist in the conquest of the whole middle east.

I think that Saddam (supplied by USSR) is a part of this strategy, mainly to pin down Iran, preventing to interfere in the ongoing war in A-stan, remember also that Iran was a Theocracy and also had a strong Marxist minority.

So we gave him some support, but calling him an Ally is a bit of a stretch. And being how the war progressed, it could hardly be called a rampage, it was a stalemate. Then Saddam got all chemical weapony and things went down hill from him and for him from there.

Do we call France an ally for building the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear plant and weapons sales?

Do we call Germany an ally for their numerous industrial ventures with Saddam's Iraq, even after the whole 'chemical' thing?

Or even British support early in the Iran Iraq war and then with convoluted business ties later?

By the definition implied all of the West were allies with Iraq, and while I will dispute the language I won't dispute the motives, which were part politics, especially from the US, and part greed, especially from France and Germany.

I think that US and the Europeans allies had different views and positions about the ongoing war in Iran.

Also Israel sold a lot of weapons to Iran for example and don't forget the Iran-Contras affair.

[Bovril]

Plus, you still were wrong in your first post, very wrong, completely wrong.

Your post says "thousands" of civilians died in the Iran-Iraq war. Now if we say Saddam is responsible for these deaths (not usual form in war, but I would actually agree), then you still have to try a lot harder to get to the figure of civilians killed since the invasion, assuming, by "thousands", you don't mean tens or hundreds of thousands.

[Principe Alessandro]

Its funny if you think that Saddams biggest crimes were commited when he was a US ally

Contras?

[Kiljan Arslan]

which was rather idiotic of us i must say.

[Martin N]

Only reason US supported iraq in their war with iran was because of the oil, we deposed the shah in the 50s because he wanted to nationilse "Our" oil, then there was an iranian revolution, that hated the US, so we supported saddam in stopping the revolution, we and israel sold him the chemical weapons used against iranians, we gave him logistics and info from our satelites, we provided him with small arms and the like so he was capable to launch the invasion, practically he was our man...that is until he stopped the oil flowing in iraq, that is when he became our enemy, that is when he started his whole "WMD" program, that is when he started supposedly killing all them babies, and that is when we invaded, bit of a coincidence hes our enemy when the oil stops huh ?

[Phier]

Only reason US supported iraq in their war with iran was because of the oil, we deposed the shah in the 50s because he wanted to nationilse "Our" oil, then there was an iranian revolution, that hated the US, so we supported saddam in stopping the revolution, we and israel sold him the chemical weapons used against iranians, we gave him logistics and info from our satelites, we provided him with small arms and the like so he was capable to launch the invasion, practically he was our man...that is until he stopped the oil flowing in iraq, that is when he became our enemy, that is when he started his whole "WMD" program, that is when he started supposedly killing all them babies, and that is when we invaded, bit of a coincidence hes our enemy when the oil stops huh ?

And you got that all figured out before you hit 20. Thats great having your own version of history